BBC Gaza charity "controversy"

Depressing but predictable.

The Ross/Brand non-affair started the ball rolling and now people's lives will be jeopardised because the BBC is terrified of offending tabloid editors anybody.

It's just as well Thompson wasn't Director-General in 2001 otherwise coverage/mention of 9/11 would probably have been banned for fear of offending Muslims.

The charity is getting far more coverage than it would had they just aired the thing. Radio 4 presenter yesterday told people to google 'disaster emergency committee' which is the next best thing to giving the phone number. Sky aren't showing it either.

PREVIOUS REFUSALS
East Africa 2006: Famine appeal rejected by BBC because of difficulties of access
Lebanon 2006: BBC refused to air appeal for Israel-Hezbollah conflict victims on grounds of impartiality
Burma 2008: Appeal was only broadcast once BBC was satisfied aid would reach victims

but the Beeb has screened DEC appeals for aid for warzones in the past?

http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Fantastic "u mad doggie" reactions from the "Abolish BBC Zanuliarbore left scum" blogs like this.

It's just as well Thompson wasn't Director-General in 2001 otherwise coverage/mention of 9/11 would probably have been banned for fear of offending Muslims.

man we really need a 'truth bomb' macro.

though the real pros know that MT's wife is jewish, hence, well, you know...

Far be it from me to go by anything Ms Hyde says but I'm afraid she's pretty OTM here.

but the Beeb has screened DEC appeals for aid for warzones in the past?

Have they? Don't think it's good policy to do so, myself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hannah-fisher/bbc----subtle-indoctrinat_b_153754.html

^^^ you can't please anyone any of the time

xpost

Neither do I. Which is why I'm puzzled as to why there is such "universal agreement" that the BBC has erred. I can understand why you'd screen an appeal in the advent of a natural disaster but there's no way of separating the humanitarian from the political when it comes to an issue like this. Have there been appeals for Zimbabwe even?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/26/bbc-gaza-appeal

mentioned this the other day, but the grau seems to be leaning toward the 'sod the rules/anti-regulation' line taken by the tory right, or at least this (ex-editor) fellow is. i'm agnostic on this subject but it's an interesting turn-up for the books.

there is a bit of a difference between saying 'impartiality is impossible to achieve' and 'bollocks to impartiality'.

i hope this argle-bargle has caused Mel Philips to explode

"Criticism over the BBC's decision not to air the appeal has come from archbishops, government ministers, charity leaders and 11,000 viewers."

Still less than complained about the Brand/Ross prank call.

"Friends, the BBC would never be allowed to broadcast any message from Jesus. Because Jesus told us to love our neighbours and if the Archbishop of Canterbury read the Ten Commandments it might upset the Israeli government."

Someone should tell Tony Benn that "Love thy neighbour" is actually from Leviticus, not the 10 Commandments or the New Testament, and that Jesus didn't come up with the 10 Commandments. Other than that, great work.

he came to affirm the word, not replace it

jesus i mean

How about the BBC just show Love Thy Neighbour instead, then we'll all be happy

lawl just got an email saying the law faculty here in beautiful cambridge has been occupied by students who want the university to raise funds for gaza and to give scholarships to palestinian students. i have no idea what the uni has to do with gaza, israel, etc, nor why palestine, as opposed to the numerous other parts of the world that could be called 'war-torn', gets the full-on sit-in treatment, but i am very out of touch with da yoot.

is it all some sort of displaced guilt? have people forgotten that our own armed forces are actually part-occupying two countries currently? i don't remember hearing calls that we should boycott ourselves or the americans, give scholarships to iraqis, etc.; not that the latter would be a *terrible* idea, just that the special treatment is bemusing.

(i think giving money to the people of gaza is a good thing, btw; and further along, some kind of marshall plan for palestine would be a good project.)

they should give scholarships to burt_stanton

shame louis's gone away, that would have been a heck of a fap.

lol nrq: http://cherwell.org/content/8350

He said, "we are here and we are going to stay here, we are going to stay until our demands are met."

Have there been appeals for Zimbabwe even?

i have no idea...why palestine, as opposed to the numerous other parts of the world that could be called 'war-torn', gets the full-on sit-in treatment

This wd be a fascinating can of worms to unpack.

One member of staff in the Admissions Office, who found herself "in the midst of it all" once the protest began stated that the protest was "wonderful and for a good cause...the last occupation we had here was in the 1960's."

erm, no. no no no. there was one in 2000-1. which went overnight. and probably others since.

what the fuck is this all about?

I think the difference here is that there are established routes into Gaza for aid and we could be relatively sure that money raised would be used where it is needed. I'd be for a Zimbabwe appeal if there was any chance the money would actually help and wouldn't be misappropriated.

yeah the government of gaza is a fuckin paragon.

I don't know if it's my imagination but the SWP seems to have tons more fun with anti-Israel protests than any other cause.

hahahahaha

I don't know if it's my imagination but the SWP seems to have tons more fun with anti-Israel protests than any other cause.

― "Two Ears" Laybelle (Noodle Vague), Monday, 26 January 2009 12:59 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Since he moved to Man City, certainly.

"Friends, the BBC would never be allowed to broadcast any message from Jesus. Because Jesus told us to love our neighbours and if the Archbishop of Canterbury read the Ten Commandments it might upset the Israeli government."

Someone should tell Tony Benn that "Love thy neighbour" is actually from Leviticus, not the 10 Commandments or the New Testament, and that Jesus didn't come up with the 10 Commandments. Other than that, great work.

― DJ Khaledonian Thistle (Dom Passantino), Monday, 26 January 2009 12:38 (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Right, now see the and? That separates the two things being said here. (Possibly, the transcriber missed a comma out there).

So, TBenn did not say Jesus came up with the ten commandments, nor that "Love thy neighbour" was in leviticus. Apart from that....

I got lots of love for Tony Benn but that's the most strained construction you could possibly put on that quote.

the sentence doesn't make sense without the inference dom takes.

yeah the government of gaza is a fuckin paragon

a shag in Hull station? in what way?

i'm glad that we've finally focused on the real enemy here

Have Your Say is almost interesting on this because the top two most recommended comments are pretty much at opposite ends of the argument.

lol, britannia

I don't know if it's my imagination but the SWP seems to have tons more fun with anti-Israel protests than any other cause.

Quality smearing.

don't you see, tony benn and the swp are standing in the way of a real solution in gaza

it would be as arrogant to think that as it is for them to think (as they seem to) that their outspoken support for hamas is improving life for gazans.

don't you see, tony benn and the swp are standing in the way of a real solution in gaza

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 26 January 2009 16:43 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I've already done the "ever since he moved to Man City" gag, but that would have worked better here.

No surprise Sky won't do it considering Murdoch right-wing love-in etc etc

Just to be pedantic, Jesus said “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like unto it: You shall love thy neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39)

So you know, everyone's right - how lovely.

No surprise Sky won't do it considering Murdoch right-wing love-in etc etc

It is a surprise, to some extent, given that's it's in Murdoch's interest to undermine the BBC

Great cartoon in yesterday's Grauniad.

Needs penguins and a drawing of George W Bush saying "I am a monkey".

ahahaha it's funny because they're mocking his rotorism ahahahaha

Rotorism? What the foxhat?

It was big for about two minutes in April 1981. You missed nothing.

sky news/sky/murdoch satellite is all over the middle east though.

lawl one of the cambridge occupiers is fb friends with lewis jagger.

is LJ louis like theroux, or lewis like morse's sidekick?

Oh definitely Theroux

he's louis like theroux, im just avoiding the degooglifier.

Given that the Israeli forces deliberately avoid the casualty of civilians, how could anyone object to a fundraiser for those incidental people who are in need?

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd247/musicsharing4all08/iron_maiden_a_real_live_one_a-wwwmu.jpg

The more vulgar apologists for U.S. and Israeli crimes solemnly explain that, while Arabs purposely kill people, the U.S. and Israel, being democratic societies, do not intend to do so. Their killings are just accidental ones, hence not at the level of moral depravity of their adversaries. That was, for example, the stand of Israel's High Court when it recently authorized severe collective punishment of the people of Gaza by depriving them of electricity (hence water, sewage disposal, and other such basics of civilized life).

The same line of defense is common with regard to some of Washington's past peccadilloes, like the destruction in 1998 of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. The attack apparently led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, but without intent to kill them, hence not a crime on the order of intentional killing – so we are instructed by moralists who consistently suppress the response that had already been given to these vulgar efforts at self-justification.

To repeat once again, we can distinguish three categories of crimes: murder with intent, accidental killing, and murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. Israeli and U.S. atrocities typically fall into the third category. Thus, when Israel destroys Gaza's power supply or sets up barriers to travel in the West Bank, it does not specifically intend to murder the particular people who will die from polluted water or in ambulances that cannot reach hospitals. And when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of the al-Shifa plant, it was obvious that it would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Human Rights Watch immediately informed him of this, providing details; nevertheless, he and his advisers did not intend to kill specific people among those who would inevitably die when half the pharmaceutical supplies were destroyed in a poor African country that could not replenish them.

Rather, they and their apologists regarded Africans much as we do the ants we crush while walking down a street. We are aware that it is likely to happen (if we bother to think about it), but we do not intend to kill them because they are not worthy of such consideration. Needless to say, comparable attacks by Araboushim in areas inhabited by human beings would be regarded rather differently.

lol-m chomsky, morelike

So where did Bob Geldof see the famine-victims documentary that led to Band Aid and Live Aid?

On the news.

like, it wasn't a documentary, just a news report.

B-b-but aid might not get there! If any!

Wondering what people's thoughts are on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224104/30-charity-chiefs-paid-more-than-100000.html

I work in the sector and would be interested to know how stories like this resonate with non-charity people and non-lunatics-who-post-comments-on-the-Telegraph-website

The chap on the Today programme defending these BIG DOG execs who are doing HARD WORK and need LARGE COCKTAILS NOW JOHN resonated in my stomach to the point of nausea.

The PR around this whole thing does seem pretty atrocious, particularly as this story has been brewing for some time.

What would you say is a reasonable way to approach renumeration of charity execs? Total wage budget as a % of turnover? Nobody earning over £Xk? Benchmarking salaries against some other industry?

It'd be nice to see some pushback against the idea that executives in any industry deserve 6 figure salaries. But stats like

Richard Miller, director at ActionAid, saw his pay increase by eight per cent to nearly £89,000 a year, while both revenues and donations fell 11 per cent.

seem particularly galling.

It's tricky territory. I know the U.K. has different attitudes toward the nonprofit sector than the U.S. does, but these really aren't unreasonable salaries for nonprofit executives compared to over here! People want to see their donated dollars go to very ostensible, but organizations need capacity, infrastructure, and endowments to sustain those programs. But 100,000 pounds really isn't a whole lot for nonprofit executive pay, imo.

People want to see their donated dollars go to very ostensible

wtf does that even mean? should have been "specific programs".