Sharon wants to boycot BBC.

Well since 100,000 North American Jews want to immigrate to Israel in the next five years*, at least there FOX-news will be the one and only favourite foreign media (besides White House bulletins, of course).

*link to related HAARETZ article

The comparison to Stalinist/Nazi documentaries refers only to the particular movie I mentioned above. But while comparing broadcasts of BBC (when I watched them) with these of CNN and Fox News, I was able to see a strong pro-Arab bias in them.

The BBC is unique because of the way its funded. I costs me £120 per year and you get the benefit. I'm not so naive as to believe everything they say. In some respects the BBC is the finest propaganda medium in the world because it engenders trust and it does this by telling the TRUTH (as the BBC sees it) 99% of the time.

The other 1% may be critical at times but that does not detract from the BBC's primary mission to inform enlighten and entertain.

The BBC, like the Times of London (notably conservative) and the New York Times (notably liberal) has a reputation to maintain, and value that reputation for its own sake. They are worthy of praise for their efforts to maintain that reputation.

Let us attribute the mentioned quasi-documentary to this 1 percent of bull***t, OK. I would like to ask, whether there are any documentaries on the BBC glorifying IRA for its terrorism, or this is just Israel that gets such a preferential treatment?
I want to disappoint you, sir. The first channel of the Israeli TV is funded in the same way, and it cost me about $120 (in Israeli currency) a year, in spite of the fact that I never watch it. The commercial 2nd channel is much better.
Well, in 1918-48 Israel was a part of the British Empire, and some of the regulations installed by the British authorities have never been abolished.

You're right Setanta. The BBC does has a reputation to maintain.

The right wing press here often refers to the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, but not so much recently since the BBC has been in the vanguard to expose the Iraqi WMD (non existance of) sham.

Good question Steissd, I'll have to do a little research and get back to you. Off the top of my head I would say the BBC has got into hot water for not towing the govt line regarding the IRA on several occasions. The particular instance that springs to mind is the documentary "Death on the Rock", about the murder of 3 "IRA terrorists" = 3 young un armed Irish people gunned down by British SAS murder squad in Gibralter in revenge for the Brighton bomb which nearly killed Thatcher. But that might have been an ITV production.

Regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, the BBC has no interest in being anything other than a dispassionate observer or a platform for a named journalist/reporter whose credentials are made known.

I agree, the NYTimes is a predominantly liberal newspaper, but I have never seen there any article glorifying terror or trying to find any justifications to it. Maybe, its concern with reputation is the main reason.

To Steve4100: I have watched broadcasts of the different American news networks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not all of them were complimentary toward Israel, but none of them tried to find any excuses to terror. I cannot say that BBC always does such a thing, but this particular "documentary" was an open eulogy to terrorists. If I was not an Israeli and did not know what really happened, I would make a charitable donation to Hamas after having watched it.
To Mr. Hinteler: Fox News belongs to Mr. Murdoch, and he is neither an American, nor a Jew. He is an Aussie, and his surname prompts me that he is of Celtic origin (Scottish or Irish).

Having spent several years working for BBC TV making progs about many political subjects, Ireland , India , USA, Israel/Palestine, I can assure you all that all material is closely monitored. Anything that is in any way contentious is considered by lawyers. Producers go out of their way way to make sure there is no bias in content. Both points of view are given.
If Israelis are shot or hit by suicide bombers the facts are given. Comment is provided by Israeli Gov. spokesman. Palestinian opinion is given as well. When Israel attacks Palestinian targets the same BBC rules apply, both sides are invited to comment.
Is anyone suggesting that this is wrong, should the BBC be an Israeli mouthpiece and suggesting total subjugation of Palestinians ? Coz it won't happen. The BBC does not have an editorial side where it takes sides. Why should it ?

Having spent a number of weeks in Israel, I do have some knowledge of country and life there.

I am not talking about the regular news issues. The "documentary" I was talking about did not contain the open lies. It just presented half of the truth: Israeli tanks in some Palestinian place (skipping over pictures of the terror attack victims), long monologues of the murderous underground leader without any interview with IDF officers. It was a concentrated Palestinian point of view presented as a "descriptive", "unbiased" and "unaligned" commentary. I know that BBC does not deal with paid commercials, but this film deserves to be paid for by Hamas.
Mr. Sharon's decision to boycott BBC is taken too late. I have stopped watching it since spring of 2002. If I want to learn about the Arab point of view, I can get it on the Albawaba Web site, it is also in English, I do not need BBC for this purpose. Albawaba, at least, does not conceal its Arab identity.

steissd =========== I cannot comment on the prog you mention. for the simple reason that except for the news I don't watch TV these days.

When I see the carnage, death on both sides, it sickens me just the same as similar scenes in Ireland did or in any other other war torn location. Who is wrong or who is wrong is of little consolation to the dead, the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, orphans.

Northern Ireland's problems are hopefully now a thing of the past.
Surely Israel/Palestine can find the key. Someone must have it

oldandknew, this link provides you with some of the information as to why Iranians dislike the BBC.

Anti-British Feelings Reach Fever Pitch Amongst Iranians

By Potkin Azarmehr

Jack Straw's untimely statement, which coincided with the start of the street protests against the Ayatollahs in Iran, has been interpreted as British support for the clerical dictatorship amongst the Iranians. The Iranian people's anger reached fever pitch last night, as callers to the LA based TV station repeatedly let off some of their frustration at the British and European governments and Jack Straw in particular.

Iranians' natural tendency for conspiracy theories and the historical relationship between the British and the Shiite clergy has been identified by most Iranians as the reason for the long overdue stay of the Ayatollahs, who have ruled Iran for the past 24 years. Add to all of this the fanatical support of Ema Nicholson for the Mullahs in Iran and one can start to see why the Iranian people are so suspicious of the British establishment.

The protests in Iran have now continued for the third night running. Last night the fiercest clashes were reported in the Kurdistan Highway, when the women protesters who had taken off their scarves were badly beaten by the vigilantes. However the people's anger at seeing beaten faces of Iranian women then turned against the Baseej thugs who were chased and beaten by the ordinary people. Some of the Baseej motorcycles were set on fire in the highway and the people celebrated around them in the traditional ways of Iran's pre-Islamic fire festival. Between 500-600 arrests were reported last night in various locations at Felestin, Amirabad, Laleh, Geesha and other districts.

The BBC last night briefly mentioned the protests in its 10:00 O'clock news only saying that Iran's supreme leader has threatened to crack down on protesters and that the protests have been instigated by the Americans. Very short film footage of the protests was also shown.

Four years ago in the aftermath of the Iranian student uprising, Tam Dalyel MP, the father of the Commons during a parliamentary debate blamed the riots on the sweltering July heat of Iran, where tempers can be tinder dry. His comments caused great offence amongst Iranians.

Below is how some Iranians remember the BBC world service in Persian reported a street clash in Mashad, twenty-five years ago, during the revolution, which brought on the Ayatollahs:

"An injured woman was carried off on a stretcher, and as she was being carried off her blood was dripping from the stretcher with her young daughter holding her hand crying and shouting mother!… mother!"

Twenty-five years ago, the BBC world service also read out Ayatollah Khomeini's statement in which he told all the military personnel in the barracks that it was their religious duty before God and the Prophet to leave their barracks.

Anti-British Feelings Reach Fever Pitch Amongst Iranians

God bless the BBC.

Sharon's behavior is a contemptible effort to 'punish' those who will not report the news the way he wants it.

I hope his behavior doesn't have a chilling effect on other news outlets that will then decide that they need to further 'pull their punches' with reports on Israel.

As it is, the American press, on those occasions when it actually DOES publish stories about Israel that happen to be unflattering or negative, seems to feel compelled to dilute them and couch them in the most soothing euphemisms they can find.

Bravo BBC! Don't submit to bullying whether by Sharon or Blair or anyone else!

That's exactly my point, jjorge!

looking at our own history in Germany, all this reminds me that 65 years ago the then government made a law, punishing all with death penalty, who listened to the BBC. ("Correct Germans" of course had stopped listening to these "open lies" years before!)

Well, 65 years ago BBC was loyal to government. By the way, it is not prohibited to listen to BBC in Israel. It is possible doing it anywhere, including public places without risk having problems with law. But the government stops cooperating with this biased news service.

To Mamahani: it is not a surprise that BBC is supportive toward the clerical regime in Tehran. If it is replaced by the democratic one, all the financial support to the "freedom fighters" (a politically correct term for terrorists) from Hizballah will disappear.

Mamahani ======

point #1 Any statement made by a minister in the British Government can be taken and interpreted as being anti or pro any given situation.
The BBC is not responsible for that statement. It reports what has been said as a news item.

point #2 The historical relationship between the British Gov. and the Shite clergy is a political matter. The BBC merely reports that relationship as a news story, a series of facts. It does not promote what happens

point #3 The Emma Nicholson/Mullahs relationship may offend certain Iranians. It is not a relationship instigated by the BBC. Nor were the street fights orchestrated by the BBC.

Whatever is going on in Iran is the result of political and religious arguements, both on a local and international front. Not because a News Organisation happens to report it.

point#4 You refer to events of 25 years ago, the revolution, How a woman was carried away on a stretcher. A victim of a street fight. An event worthy of news coverage to hi-light the situation.

point#5 Twenty-five years ago, the BBC world service also read out Ayatollah Khomeini's statement in which he told all the military personnel in the barracks that it was their religious duty before God and the Prophet to leave their barracks. --- Another news item. If the Ayatollah Khomeini's speech was in fact made, it is a news item and thus it was broadcast.

point #6 The exchange between John Simpson and Potkin Azarmehr concerns the reporting of Why the US military is not about to go charging into Iran
I feel quite confident in saying that the BBC, as a corporation, does care whether America invades Iran or not.

point#7 The BBC recently angered the White House over it's reporting of the rescue of the female GI from Iraq. Demands that the BBC retract their report was rejected.

point#8 You seem to think that just because certain broadcasting companies in some countries are run by Goverments and Political Masters the same applies in the UK. There have been a number of instances when British politicians have walked out of programs and interviews because they didn't like the line of questioning they were being subjected to.

In Iran as in any other country, the BBC was broadcasting facts, what was happening, who said this or that. I repeat, it is neither an instigator of British policy nor is it a promoter of life in Iran. Nor does it spout out on demand the massaged spin driven policy of the UK gov.
You may in fact be aware that just this week the British Gov. has been in conflict with the BBC because the broadcaster won't accept the British Gov's statements and reasons for the recent events in Iraq.
Believe what you like, but I have listened to, watched and read BBC news items for a long time and if you don't like what they say, you have 2 options. Ignore them or don't let the BBC into your country.
Cos if the BBC wont bow down to Blair or Bush, it certainly wont bow down to anyone else.

What I have written above is my opinion of what I know and what I've seem, heard and read. Anyone is free to accept it or reject it.

Isn't your reaction a bit over the top. You can disagree with the broadcast policy of the BBC (like many can't find themselfs in the broadcast policy of FOX or Al-Jazeera). But to say the BBC sympathises with terrorists and even promote terrorism? Get real!

Thanks, olk