Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
Israeli settlement plans will 'bury' idea of Palestinian state, minister says
Israeli settlement plans will 'bury' idea of Palestinian state, minister says
Far-right Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich announced approval for 3,401 new homes in the controversial E1 area project in the occupied West Bank.
www.bbc.co.uk
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
New Israeli rules stopping critical aid getting into Gaza, charities say
New Israeli rules stopping critical aid getting into Gaza, charities says
More than 100 aid organisations say they are increasingly being told they are "not authorised" to deliver supplies.
www.bbc.co.uk
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
UN condemns targeted Israeli attack that killed four Al Jazeera journalists
UN condemns targeted Israeli attack that killed four Al Jazeera journalists
Israel says it targeted correspondent Anas al-Sharif, accusing him of leading a Hamas cell, which he had denied. Israel provided little evidence for the claim.
www.bbc.co.uk
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
Who were the Al Jazeera journalists killed by Israel in Gaza?
Who were the Al Jazeera journalists killed by Israel in Gaza?
Prominent reporter Anas al-Sharif and six other journalists were killed when Israel targeted a tent used by media, the broadcaster said.
www.bbc.co.uk
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
Comment Phylo: The UK US special relationship has led Britain to act in lockstep with the US, making it complicit in arming and supporting Israel during operations widely documented as genocidal—underscoring the cost of subservience to Washington in terms of moral, legal, and humanitarian responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------William Dalrymple: ‘Britain’s education system sold me a lie about Palestine’ | Real Talk
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
BBC COVER UP SELECTIVE REPORTING
CNN: Leaked recording reveals ex-Israeli military intelligence chief calling 50,000 deaths in Gaza ‘necessary’
The Jerusalem Post: Former IDF official: For every person killed on October 7, '50 Palestinians need to die'
HARRETZ: 'They Need a Nakba' | Former IDF General Calls Palestinian Death Toll in Gaza 'Necessary' in Recording
INDEPENDENT NEWS: ‘It doesn’t matter now if they are children’: Ex-IDF chief said 50 Palestinian deaths for every 7 October victim was ‘necessary’
The Gardian: Ex-Israeli intelligence chief said 50 Palestinians must die for every 7 October victim
‘It does not matter if they are children,’ said Aharon Haliva in recorded comments calling the death toll ‘necessary
BBC: ..................
CNN: Leaked recording reveals ex-Israeli military intelligence chief calling 50,000 deaths in Gaza ‘necessary’
The Jerusalem Post: Former IDF official: For every person killed on October 7, '50 Palestinians need to die'
HARRETZ: 'They Need a Nakba' | Former IDF General Calls Palestinian Death Toll in Gaza 'Necessary' in Recording
INDEPENDENT NEWS: ‘It doesn’t matter now if they are children’: Ex-IDF chief said 50 Palestinian deaths for every 7 October victim was ‘necessary’
The Gardian: Ex-Israeli intelligence chief said 50 Palestinians must die for every 7 October victim
‘It does not matter if they are children,’ said Aharon Haliva in recorded comments calling the death toll ‘necessary
BBC: ..................
Last edited:
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
BBC ON GAZA-ISRAEL:ONE STORY,DOUBLE STANDARDS
CfMM’s new report concludes that the BBC is systematically biased against Palestinians in Gaza war coverage.
Analysis of 35,000+ pieces of BBC content shows Israeli deaths given 33 times more coverage, per fatality, and significantly more emotive language
The most comprehensive analysis of the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza reveals a systematic pattern: the minimisation of Palestinian suffering and perspectives and the amplification of Israeli narratives, victimisation and emotive stories.
The study, conducted by the Centre for Media Monitoring, analysed 3,873 articles and 32,092 broadcast segments from 7 October 2023 to 6 October 2024, alongside comparative analysis of 7,748 articles on the Ukraine conflict. During the analysis period, 42,010 Palestinians and 1,246 Israelis were killed – a 34:1 ratio that provides crucial context for assessing the impartiality of the BBC’s coverage. It also used extensive case studies extending into 2025.
The report reveals a systematic omission of key historical and contemporary context that has acquired an institutional quality at the BBC. Whether this be overlooking the genocidal rhetoric of Israeli leaders – now referenced in war crimes charges against them – or properly scrutinising Israeli claims and denials in the face of ethnic cleansing and other war crimes, the BBC have simply underreported what is now overwhelmingly being seen as a ‘live-streamed genocide’ and crimes against humanity.
Rizwana Hamid, Director of the Centre for Media Monitoring said: “The BBC has a duty to reflect the full reality of this devastating war, including the lived experience of Palestinians. When language, framing, and editorial choices consistently favour one side, the public loses access to the truth. Our findings are based on evidence, not ideology — and we urge the BBC to reflect, engage, and reform.”
Alistair Campbell, co-presenter of the ‘Rest is Politics’ podcast said: “All too often, on domestic issues, the BBC’s response to criticism from the right is to accept rather than challenge it and adapt coverage accordingly. This is perhaps best understood in the context of the incessant drumbeat of anti-BBC sentiment in a commercially and politically motivated right-wing press. But we see the same pattern in some of its approach to international issues too, notably Israel and Palestine. The Israelis and the right-wing media do a very good job of persuading people that the BBC is biased in favour of Palestinians. This report suggests otherwise…at the leadership level, there seems to be a bias not against Israel but in favour of its talking points and the defence of its actions.”
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, former co-chair of the Conservative Party said: “This powerful research by the Centre for Media Monitoring exposes how, during Israel’s war on Gaza, the BBC consistently prioritised Israeli pain and perspective – at the expense of Palestinian lives and voices…..This is no cherry-picked critique. It is a comprehensive, evidence-based indictment that cannot be ignored. If the BBC is to maintain any claim to impartiality, it must now engage seriously with these findings and the recommendations that follow.”
CfMM’s new report concludes that the BBC is systematically biased against Palestinians in Gaza war coverage.
Analysis of 35,000+ pieces of BBC content shows Israeli deaths given 33 times more coverage, per fatality, and significantly more emotive language
Key Findings:
- Palestinian deaths treated as less newsworthy: Despite Gaza suffering 34x more casualties than Israel, BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs 201 Israelis).
- Systematic language bias favouring Israelis: BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied ‘massacre’ 18x more to Israeli casualties, and used ‘murder’ 220 times for Israelis vs once for Palestinians.
- Suppression of genocide allegations: BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference.
- Muffling Palestinian voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217).
The most comprehensive analysis of the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza reveals a systematic pattern: the minimisation of Palestinian suffering and perspectives and the amplification of Israeli narratives, victimisation and emotive stories.
The study, conducted by the Centre for Media Monitoring, analysed 3,873 articles and 32,092 broadcast segments from 7 October 2023 to 6 October 2024, alongside comparative analysis of 7,748 articles on the Ukraine conflict. During the analysis period, 42,010 Palestinians and 1,246 Israelis were killed – a 34:1 ratio that provides crucial context for assessing the impartiality of the BBC’s coverage. It also used extensive case studies extending into 2025.
The report reveals a systematic omission of key historical and contemporary context that has acquired an institutional quality at the BBC. Whether this be overlooking the genocidal rhetoric of Israeli leaders – now referenced in war crimes charges against them – or properly scrutinising Israeli claims and denials in the face of ethnic cleansing and other war crimes, the BBC have simply underreported what is now overwhelmingly being seen as a ‘live-streamed genocide’ and crimes against humanity.
Rizwana Hamid, Director of the Centre for Media Monitoring said: “The BBC has a duty to reflect the full reality of this devastating war, including the lived experience of Palestinians. When language, framing, and editorial choices consistently favour one side, the public loses access to the truth. Our findings are based on evidence, not ideology — and we urge the BBC to reflect, engage, and reform.”
Alistair Campbell, co-presenter of the ‘Rest is Politics’ podcast said: “All too often, on domestic issues, the BBC’s response to criticism from the right is to accept rather than challenge it and adapt coverage accordingly. This is perhaps best understood in the context of the incessant drumbeat of anti-BBC sentiment in a commercially and politically motivated right-wing press. But we see the same pattern in some of its approach to international issues too, notably Israel and Palestine. The Israelis and the right-wing media do a very good job of persuading people that the BBC is biased in favour of Palestinians. This report suggests otherwise…at the leadership level, there seems to be a bias not against Israel but in favour of its talking points and the defence of its actions.”
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, former co-chair of the Conservative Party said: “This powerful research by the Centre for Media Monitoring exposes how, during Israel’s war on Gaza, the BBC consistently prioritised Israeli pain and perspective – at the expense of Palestinian lives and voices…..This is no cherry-picked critique. It is a comprehensive, evidence-based indictment that cannot be ignored. If the BBC is to maintain any claim to impartiality, it must now engage seriously with these findings and the recommendations that follow.”
Last edited:
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
- Who controls the US Congress ?
- Who is the tail that wags the dog?
- It's shamefully wrong, too, because there are, so 89% of Congress takes, corporate PAC money.
- 87%, is owned by AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby,
Congresswoman's UNBELIEVABLE Story Of Getting Threatened By Pro-Israel Colleagues
MONEY CONTROLS THE US CONGRESS
- .... talking point are given to members of Congress at Corporate PACs
- They are, you know, regardless of whatever foreign lobby it might be, you're given talking points.
- .... What is horrifying is when you are required to stick to those or you won't get your money
Definition of PACs
A Political Action Committee (PAC) is a type of political committee in the United States organized for raising and spending money to elect or defeat candidates. PACs typically represent businesses, labor unions, or ideological interests. They are governed by strict rules regarding how much money they can donate to campaigns and candidates, and must register and disclose details to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).- Regular PACs can donate up to $5,000 per election to candidate committees, up to $15,000 per year to national party committees, and receive up to $5,000 annually from individuals or other PACs. Contributions from corporate or union treasuries directly to candidates are illegal, but they can sponsor and administer PACs to solicit funds from members or employees.
- Super PACs (independent expenditure-only committees), enabled by the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions, provided their expenditures are independent and not directly coordinated with candidates or their campaigns.
How Super and Corporate PACs Influence US Policy
Super PACs
- Unlimited Spending and Influence: Super PACs receive unlimited donations, which lets wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions pour vast sums into supporting candidates via advertising, outreach, and other indirect means. This can lead to a disproportionate influence over US policy, as these entities may heavily shape political discourse and public opinion.
- Dark Money and Coordinated Messaging: Not all donors are disclosed due to use of nonprofit intermediaries ("dark money"), obscuring accountability. Super PACs sometimes illegally coordinate messaging with campaigns through techniques like “redboxing” (signals posted online). Enforcement of campaign finance rules is weak, meaning large, often anonymous donors wield outsize influence on policy and election outcomes.
- Shaping Candidate Behavior: The threat or promise of super PAC spending can pressure elected officials to align with donor interests rather than those of ordinary constituents, especially when large donations are tied to specific policy agendas.
Corporate PACs
- Corporate Money Funnel: Corporate PACs are established and funded by corporations that can then solicit donations from employees and stockholders. These PACs allow corporations to collectively amplify their financial influence over candidates, especially those on congressional committees affecting their industry.
- Legislative Influence: When members of Congress receive substantial corporate PAC money, they may feel pressure to support policies favorable to their donors rather than the views or needs of their constituents. This can mean prioritizing tax breaks, deregulation, or industry-specific subsidies, regardless of broader public benefit.
- Compromised Politicians: Some politicians may publicly claim they don’t take corporate PAC money while accepting funds from trade organizations or shell PACs linked to corporate donors. Such practices can compromise lawmakers who prioritize donor interests in exchange for campaign funding—undermining accountability and public trust.
How PACs Compromise Members of Congress and Constituent Representation
- Exchange of Money for Influence: When lawmakers adopt PAC-driven policy positions in return for campaign funding, their allegiance may shift from voters to influential donors. This can result in legislation that benefits PAC backers at the expense of everyday citizens, such as downgrading consumer protections or blocking reforms that would disadvantage major donors.
- Failure to Represent Constituents: Members who push PAC policy risk alienating constituents, disregarding local priorities or popular wishes. The effect is a democracy in which elected representatives are incentivized to follow the money rather than the will of the people.
- Loopholes and Lack of Transparency: Even pledges to reject corporate PAC money are frequently circumvented through shell entities or accepting funds from trade groups tied to corporations. This undermines public trust and transparency in congressional decision-making.
Key Takeaways
- PACs, especially super and corporate PACs, provide channels for wealthy donors and business interests to influence elected officials and public policy.
- Super PACs magnify outsized, often opaque spending that can distort campaign messaging and priorities.
- Corporate PACs directly funnel business money into election campaigns, sometimes overriding constituent interests.
- These dynamics erode the integrity of representation, as members may prioritize donor agendas over those of their constituents, ultimately compromising faith in democracy.
Last edited:
Phylo
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,099
- Likes
- 398
