.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Swedes Call Brits Liars -- Somebody finally challenges BBC

Swedish state TV has shown up the BBC as falsifying a story of starvation in the land of Niger in West Africa. The Swedes with cooperation from Norwegians, of all people, documented the fraud in a 2005 BBC "report" on starvation in Niger, with star BBC journalist Hilary Andersson. Hilary is proficient in a favorite BBC technique of pulling at your heartstrings, eliciting tears from the coldest hearts, winning sympathy for the deserving and the undeserving. Andersson once illustrated a story about alleged contemporary events in Bethlehem by going on melodramatically about the New Testament story of King Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents that supposedly took place in Bethlehem more than 2000 years ago.
. . . Herod is going to search for the child [Jesus] to kill him. . .
Because of his supposed descent from David through his father, Joseph [Matt 1:1-17]. In Jewish tradition, those of Davidic descent are the most legitimate to be kings of Israel. Herod was Jewish by religion but his forefathers were not Jews, let alone of the House of David. Thus he plausibly feared challenge to his kingship by descendants of David. In the NT story, in order to keep Jesus safe from Herod, his parents took him to Egypt. Then,
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted. . . he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and younger. . .
The NT then goes on with Mother Rachel's lament copied from the Book of Jeremiah [31:15]:
A voice is heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted because they are no more.
[Matt 2:13-18; NIV version]
Hilary Andersson's obvious intent was to have Herod's cruelty as depicted in the NT --a book hallowed in the West-- rub off on Israel. Herod was king of Judea as a Roman client king. If stretching Herod's ancient guilt to enshroud modern Israel was not her purpose, then why did she go on at length --this is TV news where every second is precious-- about an ancient story when supposedly reporting contemporary events??? She wanted Israel's allegedly cruel nature to be established in a hallowed narrative, fundamentally unchallengeable by rational discourse. And that is the basic BBC purpose too, as approved by the dominant British psychological warfare experts.

The Swedes and Norwegians are --as governments-- hostile to Israel themselves. So their refutation of another lachrymose BBC tale comes as a welcome surprise.
A documentary broadcast on Swedish public television on Tuesday called into question the reputation of Britain’s public broadcaster, the BBC, for filing misleading and inaccurate reports about the severity of a food shortage in Niger in 2005
. . .
In interviews with experts from the international development community, other journalists, Niger’s prime minister at the time, as well as local farmers from the village of Zinder in Niger where the first BBC reports originated, Ektvedt uncovered evidence to suggest that BBC had misrepresented the facts.

“I’ve never heard of anyone starving to death here,” said one woman from Zinder in the Norwegian documentary "Sultbløffen" (‘The Hunger Bluff’).

“It was tough, but I never saw anyone die of hunger.”

Yet the BBC stories from the time report that thousands of people were dying from starvation in Zinder.
This is revolutionary. If even Swedes and Norwegians cast doubt on the BBC's veracity, albeit not in regard to Israel, what might happen next in the media world?? The BBC of course defended their star tearjerker:
"BBC News refuted the TV2 allegations unequivocally and we absolutely stand by the validity and professionalism of Hilary Andersson's reports," reads the BBC's statement to SVT, which was also supplied to The Local.
What can we expect next from the BBC? An admission of guilt in falsifying??
- - - - -
Thanks to Martin Kramer & Camera as well as Swedish TV.
- - - - - - -
Curiously, another British anti-Israel propagandist, self-styled historian Stewart Perowne, insisted that Herod was an Arab [His mother was an Arab, his father an Edomite/Idumaean, which Perowne overlooks, unless he falsely claims that the Edomites were Arabs!]. If Herod was an Arab, then (according to Hilary Andersson's logic) shouldn't his cruelty in the Bethlehem Slaughter be attributed to -- Arabs?? Can't these British propagandists get their stories straight?? [Stewart Perowne, The Pilgrim's Companion in Jerusalem and Bethlehem (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1964), p32].

Perowne has only words of praise for Herod, nothing negative: ". . . a brilliant and energetic ruler. . . a great builder" [p32]. The NT story of the Slaughter of the Innocents is not mentioned, which is curious in a guidebook for the Christian pilgrim. Here is a sampling of the flavor of the book, pro-British Empire, pro-Arab allies of Britain, anti-Israel by insinuation:
"The British mandatory regime imposed here [in Bethlehem] as in Jerusalem, respect for order and dignity, a tradition which the present Government of Jordan has most happily perpetuated." [p 131]
And the book's dedication:
Their "fortitude" probably refers to their fortitude in struggle against Israel.
- - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home