Poll

Should teh BBC air Gaza appeal ad?

Yes45%45% - 11
No50%50% - 12
you what ?4%4% - 1
Total: 24
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6759|d
Just asking what people thought after the latest criticism from archbishop of Canterbury (See below).Personally I say yes simply because there is a humanitarian crysis(<---i know so go fuk yourself) and no one can deny that, no matter if you think it was caused by the actions of Hamas or isreal. In terms of taking sides, I don't think your taking sides by helping innocent people that have lost so much. Also who thinks the BBC will be forced to air it ?


Archbishop joins criticism of BBC refusal to screen Gaza appeal

The Archbishop of Canterbury today added to criticism of the BBC over its refusal to broadcast a charity appeal for aid to Gaza.

He spoke as it emerged the BBC had received some 11,000 complaints and more than 50 MPs planned to back a parliamentary motion urging the corporation to reverse its decision not to broadcast tomorrow's appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC).

The early day motion to be tabled tomorrow by Labour's Richard Burden has received the support of 51 MPs from across the Commons; ministers and some senior BBC staff have also called for the BBC to change its mind. The corporation today admitted it had received "approximately" 1,000 telephone complaints about the decision and a further 10,000 by email.

Meanwhile, adding his voice to the calls for a U-turn while speaking after a church service in Cambridge, the Right Rev Rowan Williams said: "My feeling is that the BBC should broadcast an appeal."

But despite the increasing pressure, a BBC spokesman today said the situation remained unchanged.

Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, has been left isolated as ITV and Channel 4 agreed to air the plea for aid.

The BBC has decided that broadcasting the appeal might be seen as evidence of bias on a highly sensitive political issue.

The culture secretary, Andy Burnham, said it was right that broadcasters made their own decisions, adding that the BBC faced a difficult choice because of the way it is funded.

The communities secretary, Hazel Blears, said she hoped the BBC would "urgently review its decision", and the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, said the corporation had made the "wrong decision".

Yesterday, the Archbishop of York, the John Sentamu, accused the broadcaster of "taking sides" and said: "This is not a row about impartiality, but rather about humanity.

"This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention," he added.

"They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms, but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief.

"By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality."

Thompson received backing from the BBC Trust's chairman, Sir Michael Lyons. He said he was "concerned" about the tone of some politicians' comments on the issue, which he said came close to "undue interference" in the BBC's editorial independence.

The BBC's unrepentant stance has stirred up rebellion in the ranks of it own reporters and editors. One senior BBC news presenter told the Observer: "I've been talking to colleagues, and everyone here is absolutely seething about this.

"The notion that the decision to ban the appeal will seem impartial to the public at large is quite absurd.

"Most of us feel that the BBC's defence of its position is pathetic, and there's a feeling of real anger, made worse by the fact that, contractually, we are unable to speak out."

Jon Snow, the journalist who presents Channel 4 news, said the BBC should have been prepared to accept the judgment of the aid experts of the DEC.

"It is a ludicrous decision," he said. "That is what public service broadcasting is for. I think it was a decision founded on complete ignorance and I am absolutely amazed they have stuck to it."

Snow said he suspected a BBC bureaucrat had "panicked" and urged Thompson to put the situation right.

Martin Bell, the former BBC foreign correspondent, said the corporation should admit it had made a mistake and claimed "a culture of timidity had crept" in.

"I am completely appalled," he said. "It is a grave humanitarian crisis and the people who are suffering are children. They have been caught out on this question of balance."

But Greg Dyke, Thompson's predecessor as director general, said the issue had put the BBC in a "no win situation".

"Outside of Iraq, the single biggest issue that caused complaints was the coverage of Israel," he added. "I can understand why the BBC has taken this decision, because on a subject as sensitive as the Middle East it is absolutely essential that the audience cannot see any evidence at all of a bias."

The BBC also faces demands for an explanation from within the ­Commons international development select committee.

Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary, said: "We believe that they should allow the broadcast to proceed so that the British public, who have proved themselves so generous during recent emergencies in the Congo and Burma, can make their own judgment on the validity of the appeal."

The satellite broadcaster Sky said it was "considering" broadcasting the appeal.

A BBC spokesman said: "We do accept that people are strongly guided in their view on this by the humanitarian emergency.

"We are highlighting the situation in Gaza in every news bulletin, and that is one of the reasons the issue is so high on the agenda."
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/ja … ity-appeal

Last edited by mafia996630 (2009-01-25 11:06:09)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6551
They don't run any advertisements normally. Why would they make a special exception? Did they do something following the tsunami in SE Asia or Hurricane Katrina?
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6496|so randum
heard this on local radio

No, they shouldn't. like cam said, they don't advertise anything, and they do try and maintain impartiality (obv it doesnt happen all the time), so this would go against that.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6496|so randum
Oh, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is an outspoken wanker.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
PureFodder
Member
+225|6281
The funny thing is that the BBC's refusal to air the ads has meant it's become a lead story and ended up all over the news. The publicity this has created probably outstrips the publicity that running the ads would have generated.
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6759|d

CameronPoe wrote:

They don't run any advertisements normally. Why would they make a special exception? Did they do something following the tsunami in SE Asia or Hurricane Katrina?
From what i have read they did air ads for other appeals, Congo and Burma as stated Former Labour minister Tony. tbh i havent really looked into it, but are you saying they don't normally air ads for any appeal ?

Previous television and radio appeals by the DEC have raised millions of pounds to help those caught up in war or affected by natural disasters in countries such as Burma and the Congo.

Former Labour minister Tony Benn also criticised the BBC's stance, and said: "The BBC raised £10m for the Congo and £18m for Burma. This decision is denying the aid agencies money they desperately need. People are dying in Gaza. There's an absolute crisis in Gaza."
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Isolated-BB … 4911033.jp
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6759|d

FatherTed wrote:

heard this on local radio

No, they shouldn't. like cam said, they don't advertise anything, and they do try and maintain impartiality (obv it doesnt happen all the time), so this would go against that.
I don't see what impartiality has to do with it tbh. The DEC, which is a collective group of humanitarian aid agencies has decided that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it has not decided we should give Hamas money nor has it started supporting terrorism. Apparently the  tradition has normally been one of just giving air-time for the appeal, and the broadcaster not being directly involved, except for follow-up news coverage.

I don't think helping people who are CLEARLY in a crisis means you have become impartial.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina
It's hard to say on this one, since the BBC is government funded.  However, if they have aired other appeals to crises, then I will have to say yes.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6544|San Diego, CA, USA
No.  As long as Hamas, a terrorist organization, is in charge there to me its the equivalent of Bush doing telethon for Osama Bin Ladin's liver transplant.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6645

mafia996630 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

They don't run any advertisements normally. Why would they make a special exception? Did they do something following the tsunami in SE Asia or Hurricane Katrina?
From what i have read they did air ads for other appeals, Congo and Burma as stated Former Labour minister Tony. tbh i havent really looked into it, but are you saying they don't normally air ads for any appeal ?

Previous television and radio appeals by the DEC have raised millions of pounds to help those caught up in war or affected by natural disasters in countries such as Burma and the Congo.

Former Labour minister Tony Benn also criticised the BBC's stance, and said: "The BBC raised £10m for the Congo and £18m for Burma. This decision is denying the aid agencies money they desperately need. People are dying in Gaza. There's an absolute crisis in Gaza."
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Isolated-BB … 4911033.jp
If that's the case, then they should definitely run it. I thought the reason they weren't was because they didn't do ads at all.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6219|Escea

Depends what this appeal entail's. Imo, no they shouldn't. Any money/supplies shipped to Gaza as a result of this appeal should it go forward should also be heavily monitored, otherwise it will become part of the same old story that follows all aid in warzones.
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6759|d

Harmor wrote:

No.  As long as Hamas, a terrorist organization, is in charge there to me its the equivalent of Bush doing telethon for Osama Bin Ladin's liver transplant.
Do you think its ok to let how-ever-many people suffer because Hamas are in charge ? Are you saying you rather let them die as an alternative to letting them being used by Hamas (assuming Hamas does intend to use the aid as some kind of weapon).
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6645

M.O.A.B wrote:

Depends what this appeal entail's. Imo, no they shouldn't. Any money/supplies shipped to Gaza as a result of this appeal should it go forward should also be heavily monitored, otherwise it will become part of the same old story that follows all aid in warzones.
I doubt they're going to just wire a few million to Hamas, more likely it'll be used to pay for supplies distributed by a Red Cross type organisation.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6219|Escea

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Depends what this appeal entail's. Imo, no they shouldn't. Any money/supplies shipped to Gaza as a result of this appeal should it go forward should also be heavily monitored, otherwise it will become part of the same old story that follows all aid in warzones.
I doubt they're going to just wire a few million to Hamas, more likely it'll be used to pay for supplies distributed by a Red Cross type organisation.
They did stuff like that in Somalia and the militia's raided the (UN's) supplies by force, you don't need to give it to them firsthand for them to get it.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6645

M.O.A.B wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Depends what this appeal entail's. Imo, no they shouldn't. Any money/supplies shipped to Gaza as a result of this appeal should it go forward should also be heavily monitored, otherwise it will become part of the same old story that follows all aid in warzones.
I doubt they're going to just wire a few million to Hamas, more likely it'll be used to pay for supplies distributed by a Red Cross type organisation.
They did stuff like that in Somalia and the militia's raided the (UN's) supplies by force, you don't need to give it to them firsthand for them to get it.
Frankly, if Hamas has some food I really couldn't care. I care if they get given money. Which clearly they're not going to. In any case, I'm sure they've learned their lesson from Somalia.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6286|Éire
No. I have always maintained that the BBC is more balanced than the likes of FOX et al. when it comes to Middle Eastern politics and their stance on this issue appears to prove this once again. If a station had an axe to grind on a particular issue then they would jump at a cheap shot like this but the BBC have decided to maintain an objective position and face public disapproval as a result.

You can say what you like about the BBC but if they were truly biased against Israel they would be running this ad no questions asked... but they're not.
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6194
Yes.

And they should air both side of the story.. like this ad showing the Israeli "suffering"



That way, people will be able to see which side deserve the most support.
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6489|N. Ireland
I like the BBC because of its impartiality. Whilst the ad makes sense, I think it is something the BBC should not air.
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|5746|شمال
No one gives a fuck...sorry.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6759|d

Beduin wrote:

No one gives a fuck...sorry.
I give a fuk...sorry ?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard