HR-led protest to BBC
November 7, 2004 11:20 by ManagingTeamThe Guardian reports a ton of complaints sent to the BBC over reporter Barbara Plett’s tears for Arafat, mentioning HonestReporting as the source of the protest:
The BBC believes the email campaign sparked by Plett’s comments was instigated by American Jewish website Honestreporting.com.
Honestreporting carries a message under the title "Weeping for Yasser" that urges users to email Malcolm Balen, the BBC’s senior editorial adviser on the Middle East, to complain about Plett’s report.
"Plett’s revelation of an emotional bond with Yasser Arafat is a clear acknowledgement of her partisan stand in the conflict… What does it say about the BBC that they employ news reporters who are emotionally or ideologically attached to one side of the conflict?" the website said.
The UK’s Daily Mail also carried an item on the HR protest to BBC over the weekend.
alvin
1:44 pm
Nov 07, 2004
Very good. Although, in this case, pointing to HonestReporting is a bit of a cop-out.
Anyone reading up on various blogs will find that a great many people unrelated to HonestReporting were shocked at Plett’s tears. British citizens heard Plett and complained. As I understand it, the BBC was innundated with phone calls – in Britain – by British viewers.
For the Guardian (and the BBC) this is very inconvenient. By ‘blaming’ presenting these complaints as being the result of HonestReporting they attempt to make it seem as though only Jewish American pro-Israelis sent emails, and even this – at the request of the site.
The fact is, a great many British people find Arafat extremely distasteful and don’t appreciate finding the BBC cries at his death.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
marn
2:21 pm
Nov 07, 2004
I do believe this is the largest amount of schadenfraude I’ve ever had at the imminent demise of a person. I’m almost afraid to look at what the Canadian press is writing about Arafat since they were so enamored with him too.
Anyone who cries tears of sorrow over the death of this man seriously needs his/her head examined. But I guess there are still the wackos who cry over Hitler’s death too.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
steve
5:17 pm
Nov 07, 2004
Your views of the British and European media being strongly pro-Palestinian are very wide of the mark, as anybody who has ever lived there knows. In fact the very opposite is true. The media in Britain and Europe are very pro-Israeli when it comes to coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are not as strongly pro-Israeli as the media in the US, but this is due to (slightly more) balanced reporting, not pro-Palestininan balance.
An extensive research project in 2004 by the Glasgow University Media Unit, Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences, which looked into media bias and the effect this has on the audience found the following interesting points. If you have any interest in looking seriously at the issues you pontificate about you should look at objective studies such as this as well as pointing out every case of anti-Israel bias you can allegedly find in the world’s media.
1. The study suggests that television news on the Israel/Palestinian conflict confuses viewers and substantially features Israeli government views. Israelis are quoted and speak in interviews over twice as much as Palestinians and there are major differences in the language used to describe the two sides. This operates in favour of the Israelis and influences how viewers understand the conflict. The study focused on BBC One and ITV [the British commmercial channel] News from the start of the current Palestinian intifada
2. There is a preponderance of official ‘Israeli perspectives’, particularly on BBC 1, where Israelis were interviewed or reported over twice as much as Palestinians. On top of this, US politicians who support Israel were very strongly featured. They appeared more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.
3. TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict. The great majority of viewers depended on this news as their main source of information. The gaps in their knowledge closely paralleled the ‘gaps’ in the news. Most did not know that the Palestinians had been forced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. In 1967 Israel occupied by force the territories to which the Palestinian refugees had moved. Most viewers did not know that the Palestinians subsequently lived under Israeli military rule or that the Israelis took control of key resources such as water, and the damage this did to the Palestinian economy. Without explanations being given on the news, there was great confusion amongst viewers even about who was ‘occupying’ the occupied territories. Some understood ‘occupied’ to mean that someone was on the land (as in a bathroom being occupied) so they thought that the Palestinians were the occupiers. Many saw the conflict as a sort of border dispute between two countries fighting over land between them. As one viewer put it:
“The impression I got (from news) was that the Palestinians had lived around about that area and now they were trying to come back and get some more land for themselves – I didn’t realise they had been driven out of places in wars previously.”
4. Journalists gave different views on why there was so little explanation on the news. Lindsey Hilsum from Channel 4 News commented on how difficult it was to report in a controversial area:
“With a conflict like this, nearly every single fact is disputed, I think ‘Oh God, the Palestinians say this and the Israelis say that…’ I know it’s a question of interpretation so I have to say what both sides think and I think sometimes that stops us from giving the background we should be giving.”
5. Because there was not account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as “starting ” with Palestinian action. On the news, Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised – they were often shown as merely “responding ” to what had been done to them by Palestinians (in the 2001 samples they were six times as likely to be presented as “retaliating ” or in some way responding than were the Palestinians). This apparently influenced many viewers to blame Palestinians for the conflict, as in these comments from two 20 year olds:
“You always think of the Palestinians as being really aggressive because of the stories you hear on the news… I always think the Israelis are fighting back against the bombings that have been done to them.”
“I wasn’t under the impression that Israeli borders had changed or that they had taken land from other people – I thought it was more a Palestinian aggression than it was Israeli aggression.”
7. In news reporting there was a tendency to present Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as vulnerable communities, rather than as having a role in imposing the occupation. But as the Israeli historian Avi Shlaim has written, they have a key military and strategic function. They have been built on hilltops to give a commanding position and their occupants are often heavily armed. The Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, has pointed to its role in attacking Palestinians in attempts to seize land. Most viewers knew very little of this – one describes his surprise at learning that the settlements controlled over 40% of the West Bank:
“I had absolutely no idea it was that percentage… I saw them as small embattled and surrounded by hostile Palestinians – that’s entirely thanks to watching the television news.”
8. There was a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news, relative to Palestinians (even though Palestinians had around 2-3 times the number of deaths as Israelis). In one week in March 02 which the BBC reported as having the most Palestinian casualties since the start of the intifada, there was actually more coverage on the news of Israeli deaths. There were also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians – words such as ‘atrocity’, ‘brutal murder’, ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold blooded killing’, ‘lynching’ and ‘slaughter’ were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’ (BBC 1 lunch time news and ITV main news 5/03/02). TV News coverage influenced some viewers to believe most deaths had been Israeli as in these comments about the reporting of suicide bombs:
“I remembered it was the suicide bombers – they are the one who go in and take maybe a whole busload and I thought it would be more Israelis.”
And this is from a viewer who believed the Israelis had five times as many casualties as Palestinians:
“I would imagine it’s going to be more casualties on the Israeli side, but it’s purely from television – that’s where I get my info from.”
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Gloria
6:22 pm
Nov 07, 2004
I find it interesting how they are so quick to point out that Honest Reporting is a Jewish website, while they NEVER point out the religion as far as Muslims are concerned. Just how convenient to point to a Jewish website if they receive too many complains. Now they have the perfect excuse to ignore all complaints, because it’s not the biased coverage, it’s that Jewish American website who is at fault.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
alvin
6:43 pm
Nov 07, 2004
I began reading this distorted pro Palestinian comment, but no way would I bother to read all of this.
I caught some snippets. Regarding Israelis talking (from the Israeli point of view) much more than Palestinians. Needless to say, this is ridiculous and almost funny! I noticed again and again and again how Palestinians/Arab speakers get to talk far more than Israelis on the BBC news.
On top of that, the Israeli speakers are constantly challenged and attacked whereas the Palestinian/Arab ones are usually left to expound their views and go on endlessly even when their propaganda must be recognised as outright lies by thr BBC presenter.
As if this isn’t enough, a favourite (and rather disgusting) trick of the BBC was to invite so-called experts to explain the situation. These ‘experts’ were treated as though they’re objective rather than “the point of view of one of the sides”. Unsurprisingly, these ‘experts’ usually just happened to be Palestinian or Arab and just happen to side with the pro-Palestinian view.
If this ridiculous study of Glasgow University really claims that Israelis talk more than Palestinians in the BBC (and I’m far from sure that the study claims that) then there are a number of tricks they had at their disposal in order to cook up these figures. They probably measures Israeli speakers as opposed to Palestinian voices rather than Israeli speakers as opposed to Palestinian+(other)Arab voices. A neat trick.
It probably also discounts the time spent inside news reports which includes interviews with ‘the man in the street’ – usually a Palestinian – since that’s the side which interests them. It might also not bother to count the minutes of the so called ‘experts’ and the extreme bias used in choosing them. Use tricks such as this, hey presto! They can, without directly lying, turn the figures right on their head.
I caught another snippet, from ‘steve’ in which it seems he was talking about how people are left un-aware that Israel took over ‘Palestinian’ land in 67′ or ‘made Arabs move’ in 48. Interestingly, he doesn’t mention that the land is not “Palestinian” at all (people are not aware of that) nor does he (nor the study, presumably) mention that people are not aware of how these situations came about: namely, of Arab military agression to destroy Israel and kill the Jews (or throw them into the sea, as they liked to say) in 48 and in 67 (Egypt’s throwing the UN peacekeeping troops out of the Sinai in preperation for attack).
I could go on and on.
Finally, I recall some study (am almost sure this was by Glasgow University) in 2002. That ridiculous excuse for a study claimed that the media in Britain show a ‘pro-Israel bias’ in describing Israeli military actions as a retaliation for Palestinian actions. The ‘study’ thought that by describing Israel’s actions this way, the media is taking Israel’s view point. This is quite amusing really:) I guess they’d have liked Israel’s military actions to seem like random attacks based on nothing
In actual fact, only some of Israel’s actions were ‘retaliatory’ – such as blowing up a lone and empty Palestinian security building in response to the Palestinians blowing up a crowded bus inside Israel.
Usually, Israeli military actions were aimed at reducing the Palestinians’ ability to blow Israeli civilians up. In that context, describing Israel’s actions as being a ‘retaliation’ is perhaps an example of a pro-Palestinian bias in the media.
Moreover, there are all the common tricks the BBC used and uses. When an empty Palestinian security building was bombed following a Palestinian suicide bombing, the BBC would show the clip over and over again but wouldn’t always ‘remember’ to inform viewers that the building was empty or that nobody was killed. While not technically lying, this method of being economical with the truth, ensures viewers would imagine that several or many are dead and leave them wondering why the BBC isn’t discussing the dead.
I look now at the last lines from ‘steve’. “TV News coverage influenced some viewers to believe most deaths had been Israeli as in these comments about the reporting of suicide bombs:”
“some viewers” means precious little. It is noteworthy that this wording is chosen rather than “many” or “a majority of”. Obviously, this represents a very small minority.
I bet there are certain aspects which the study should have checked out (if it wants to truly judge the situation). For example: many viewers don’t realise that a majority of Palestinians regarded the Intifada as having had the goal of destroying Israel rather than of creating an independent Palestinian state outside 67′ borders. Most Palestinians supported that.
Many viewers don’t know that Palestinian maps in Arafat’s schools show Israel as simply not existing.
Many viewers are unaware of the Arabs wars against Israel. Most viewers are unaware that Indonesia’s former president testified Arafat informed him the reason he wouldn’t sign a peace-deal in Camp-David is because “this is a 100 year old battle and we can still throw all the Jews into the sea, so why sign a peace deal?”. For that matter, many viewers don’t even know Indonesia is the largest Muslim country so the former president’s testimony is of value.
The BBC would usually not bother to mention that Arafat funds the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, nor would the BBC usually mention what everyone in the territories knows: that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are in fact, the so called armed wing of Arafat’s Fatah party.
This is rather a lot to sweep under the carpet, but sweep it under the carpet is exactly what the BBC usually did. With few exceptions, the BBC either would mention the Brigades without mention of it being part of Fatah or else the BBC would choose to say something like “loosely linked to Arafat’s Fatah” or “a spinoff from Yasser Arafat’s Fatah” rather than inform it was very much a part of Arafat’s Fatah and funded by Arafat.
Even now we see the BBC’s glowing reviews of Arafat, with little or no mention of his being a terrorist, of his calling for bloodshed, of his calling for terrorism against ‘the enemy’ (yes, he used the word “terror”), of his funding the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who have carried out numerous suicide bombings, of his saying one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic, of his monstrous lies, etc, etc, etc…
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
ben
7:02 pm
Nov 07, 2004
dear steve
you said that, “There were also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians – words such as ‘atrocity’, ‘brutal murder’, ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold blooded killing’, ‘lynching’ and ‘slaughter’ were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians by journalists”. palestian
i’ve seen this stude before so i guess you’re good at copy and paste.
i’ll answere here on the points of the study:
1) first of all this is a study. there are many studies who support the opposite. many of them can be seen at this site.
2) maybe israeli’s where intreviewed as much as you claim, but you didn’t write anything about total time of the interview. in other words, you can 5 interviews lasting 5 minutes each and one interview lasting 30 minutes.
3) about the gaps in the news
i guess most viewers didn’t know also that in 1948 five muslim countries who outnumbered the jews 25 to 1, and had better equipment, told the arabs in palestine to abandon palestine so that they could “drive the jews to the sea”. Viewers probably didn’t know that monthes before 1967,
jordan and egypt and syria mobilized ther troops and called for masscare of the jews, and driving them to the sea. israel won in a defensive war, because if egypt would have won , all the jews of israel would have been mass murdered. israel allowed the arabs to stay, and wanted to give back the land they conquered in a defensive war back. up until the 90′s it was called disputed terretories not occupied. i don’t know how vieweres got confused, especially when most news reports from BBC and the Guardian use sentences like “israel continues to build illegal settelment on the occupied terretories”, or “IDF killed palestinians in occupied terretories”
4)a good official study should not have opinions of biased journalists, since this one does have it, it shows what kind of ‘study’ this is. also, there are many journalist who say the opposite.
5)you are right, there is no account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, because there are no historical events supporting this theory. also, BBC usualy, after an idf attack on palestians terrorists, first in the article is the palestinian description, and than in middle of the article, sometime in the end, it says the israeli description. if this is not a bias, than i don’t know what a bias is.
6) (you don’t have number 6 in your article)
7) you are right, settelments are very vulnrable communities that nedds a lot of protection and security especiialy because they live next to palestianst, who won’t hesistate to shoot an israli. besides claiming israel can not build settelments in the west bank, is like saying the us has no right to built towns in texas, or that Britian had no right the build anything on the countries and colonies that they conquered when thay were an empire.
murder of jews is describe in those words because palestinians do brutaly murder, slaughter, lynch (the lynch in rammalla for example in 2000). i don’t know where you live or what newspaper you read, but since 99 or 2000, palestinians terrorist are called millitan or extermists, never terrorist.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
9:06 pm
Nov 07, 2004
Steve,
You have been given much food for thought. . .eat it.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
AC
9:58 pm
Nov 07, 2004
Steve,
As it happens I am presently reading a book “Bad News From Israel” by Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the Glasgow Media Group. I find it one of the most dishonest pieces of scholarship I have ever read because, while it purports to be “scrupulously fair” its authors cleverly slant every so-called historical “fact” against Israel.
This sort of insidious propaganda dressed up as scholarship is what makes Honest Reporting necessary.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Pablo
12:33 am
Nov 08, 2004
Follow this link if you don’t want to register into The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1344569,00.html
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Steve T
2:10 am
Nov 08, 2004
Another thing Steve, forget studies, surveys, etc.
Using a bit of common sense you should get the picture. If you are honest with yourself, simply by reading read media reports with an open mind you will see for yourself the language used, how Palestinian claims are often blindly reported as fact but Israeli views clearly stated only as such, the innuendo that often appears, and often what is missing rather than what is being reported.
Be honest with yourself and you will see that there is indeed a lot of bias against Israel in the British & European media.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Jim
5:29 am
Nov 08, 2004
A good example of how Palestinian claims are reported as ‘fact’ are the events in Jenin 2002, when the media (esp European and British) blindly accepted as fact the tale that thousands of palestinians were been massacred in Israeli opertation to root out terror.
You had BBC reporters ‘describing’ their experience as worse than Bosnia and Rawanda. If thats not bias and hyperbole at its worst – than what is.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
5:48 am
Nov 08, 2004
on May 6, 2001, the BBC’s Fayad Abu Shamala told Hamas, “Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder to shoulder together with the Palestinian people.”
Now thats objective reporting.
I wonder if your Glasgow study included this?
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
David
12:47 pm
Nov 08, 2004
Guys
I stopped reading “Steve’s” post when he mentioned the Glasgow University study. It’s a dead giveaway. The Glasgow Media Group, which carried out this “study”, is nothing less than a hard-left Marxist crowd who were active in helping run the Labour Party in the UK in the early 80s when it was at its most far (“loony”) left.
The group is not independent in any rational sense of the word but has a pronounced pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel bias. Nonetheless they were taken extremely seriously when this report of theirs came out. Their key message is a call for greater “context”. However, the context that they seek is the far left anti-colonialist view of the Middle East which sees the Jews as colonialist invaders and the Palestinians as the faultless indigenous race. Clearly most people would reject such an analysis. The best advice I can give regarding this piece of research is that given by the Economist magazine, hardly a pro-Israel slave. The Economist said, in uncharacteristically blunt terms, that the report is trash and should be ignored by anyone serious about this issue. Someone with more time than me can probably find the URL.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
steve
7:14 pm
Nov 08, 2004
The points listed in my previous post are not my own words they are lifted directly from the Glasgow University report.
The group which produced the report has responded to the critical review by the Economist and this is available on their website. The Economist refused to respond to or publish the letter sent to them. Much of the criticism since levelled at the report has stemmed from this article in the Economist but the article is flawed and its author is yet to answer any of the criticisms.
In response to your concerns about “various tricks” possibly employed by this report to distort the facts I suggest you read the eport in full before making such judgements, because your fears are without basis – the report uses standard social science techniques that would not in all likelihood have received any crticism if they had not dealt with such a sensitive subject.
In response to “Interestingly, he doesn’t mention that the land is not “Palestinian” at all (people are not aware of that) nor does he (nor the study, presumably) mention that people are not aware of how these situations came about: namely, of Arab military agression to destroy Israel and kill the Jews”.
The land is not Israeli either, and the “settlers” are mostly religious Israelis or immigrants from Russia, America and elsewhere, who are subsidised by the government to live in what are colonial fortresses in the midst of Palestinian communities, guarded by the Israeli army.
They have no right to be there under international law, and the United Nations says they should get out. Their justification is usually Biblical. In the General Assembly, there have been an estimated 450 resolutions calling, in one form or another, for justice for the Palestinians. This is a world record. No country has incurred the opprobrium of the world community as often as Israel and no country has been excused its “rogue” behaviour so consistently, thanks to its backer, America.
Nobody is denying that in 1948 and 1967 Israel was responding to Arab agression, but it is the issue of the occupation since then on which we disagree. This occupation is oppressive to the Palestinian people and denies them even the most basic of human rights. There is ample evidence of this available on the net and elsewhere – 1st hand accounts from Israeli soldiers, Israeli and international human rights groups. According to a recent US government survey, more than half of all Palestinian children suffer from malnutrition, including chronic malnutrition defined as stunted growth.
This information is widely recorded and available. It is your choice whether you choose to ignore or discount it.
The point of the Glasgow University study, and indeed my point in raising it, is not to condemn or condone either sides actions in this ongoing dispute. There are atrocities committed by either side. But what most people on this site fail to realise is that Israel, as an occupying military force, is gulity of ongoing human rights abuses which at least in part, are reponsible for Palestinian terrorism.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Steve T
1:57 am
Nov 09, 2004
I don’t have the time to respond to everything Steve has brought up, but in relation to the following quote from Steve I have to say my piece.
‘In the General Assembly, there have been an estimated 450 resolutions calling, in one form or another, for justice for the Palestinians. This is a world record. No country has incurred the opprobrium of the world community as often as Israel and no country has been excused its “rogue” behaviour so consistently, thanks to its backer, America’
Steve, my comment on your comment is as follows. Anyone who is serious about peace in the Middle East (and I think that includes most people who post comments on this website) is keen to see the Palestinians get a fair deal. The point is that Israel also needs to get a fair deal. Just b/c the UN has brought ’450′ resolutions against Israel, so what? Your underlying assumption is that the UN is a neutral body and that therefore this number carries the meaning you are trying to infer. My point is that there is 1 Israel in the UN and many Arab states that raise resolutions all the time, so of course there will be ’450′ targeting Israel. Just b/c the world chooses to focus solely on the alleged faults of Israel, does this make Israel a ‘rogue’ state as you claim? I think not. To be sure Israel has made mistakes, which country has not? But to single out Israel without ever looking at other countries faults, this is outrageous. Just to name a few examples, China with its plethora of human rights abuses, the dictatorships that are the Arab states and their human rights abuses…..etc etc etc the list goes on & on.
Are you really interested in truth? If so you need to look below the surface at what is really happening. From your comments I don’t know that you are ready to do that yet, which is to your detriment. Just don’t pretend to be seeking the truth, please…
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
2:07 am
Nov 09, 2004
Where are the UN resolutions condemning the genocide in the Sudan? On “honor killing” in the Arab countries, or the resolutions critical of China’s human rights violations?
That there are “450″ resolutions aimed and Israel, and NONE that mention ANYTHING about terrorism means nothing to you?
Why this fanatic need to condemn Israel? What can possible explain the fact that the UN can condemn a FENCE and not genocide?
Steve T is right on all counts. There is no imparital UN, there is no parity, Israel is targeted for scrutiny because she is the Jewish State, and that is antisemitism.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
2:43 am
Nov 09, 2004
Steve:
“The land is not Israeli either, and the “settlers” are mostly religious Israelis or immigrants from Russia, America and elsewhere,”
If you know your history you would be aware of the fact that most of the “Palestinians” had parents and grand parents who came to the land from neighbouring Muslim countries. Usually about the same time as Jews migrating from Europe.
“who are subsidised by the government to live in what are colonial fortresses in the midst of Palestinian communities, guarded by the Israeli army.”
You mean the Israeli army guards the settlers. The Arab communities as you know are autonomous – have their own armed police forces and armed factions – like Hamas and Fatah. They rule the Arab street. The only time the Israeli army actually goes in there is to look for terrorists and stop them.
You will also be aware of the fact that the Palestiian Authority is also subsidised by Israel -they get a whopping US $1 billion a year – thats on top of the billions they get from the US, Russia and the EU. So the settlers can truly eat their hearts out.
“They have no right to be there under international law, and the United Nations says they should get out”
Please provide evidence showing that they have no right to be there under international law. Which binding UN resolution or law saids they are not allowed to be there?
“In the General Assembly, there have been an estimated 450 resolutions calling, in one form or another, for justice for the Palestinians. This is a world record.”
A world record indeed. All these 450 resolutions are NON-BINDING since they are general assembly resolutions. The fact that these resolutions are introduced and passed by 52 Arab states, making it a world record is no suprise. Just because you have the numbers and quantity on your side doesnt mean that morality will automatically side with you as well.
The fact that Israel does not abide to NON-binding resolutions passed by actual rogue states and dictatorships (who have no regard for human rights) does not make Israel a rogue state.
If Israel were not abiding to binding resolutions that would be an entirley different matter. And if those were introducing and passing the resolutions were not totelterian states (who have no regard for basic human rights) it would have made the case against Israel stronger.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Jim
2:44 am
Nov 09, 2004
Sorry forgot sign off with my name to the above post.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Nannette
5:19 am
Nov 09, 2004
Read the following links regarding Greg Philo’s “study”…
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000578.html
http://www.jerusalemposts.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7119
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
David
11:57 am
Nov 09, 2004
Steve,
You seem to miss the irony in your reply to my post: you call the Economist “flawed”, yet fail to see the overwhelming flaws in the report from a bunch of hard-left failed political hacks working for a discredited department in what is at best a second rate university. Given the choice of believing the Economist or believing your chums at the GMG, I know which I’ll choose.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0