The Malaysian blogger, Raja Petra (which on a point of trivia, probably means he’s related to the Malaysian royal family in the North East of the county) has a site called Malaysia today. It is very critical of the Malaysian government.
In an article by the BBC we are informed of Raja Petra’s detention under the countries ISA law. At the side of the page, Malaysia Today is the first link under the “RELATED INTERNET LINKS ” section. The link to Malaysia Today is fair enough, we’d expect an organisation which never tires telling us how good and impartial (!) it is, to live up to that once in a while and give a balance or reasonable discussion in it’s reports. Although solely in regard to their filed reportz, I must say, I’ve never seen one that doesn’t discuss Malaysia in anything other than in a negative light. It’s worth bearing in mind that there may actually be ‘favourable’ reports, but I’ve never seen a single one!
Raja Petra is challenging the the Malaysian ruling class – which is known for also being heavily intertwined with the business class. As such, Petra’s activities are to be welcomed (if legitimate). Critique of any power structure (including and especially anything calling itself Islamic) is in my opinion an essential part of a healthy society.
But when it comes to SOME news stories the BBC’s impartiality goes out of the fake, self declared window!
Disagree? Look up a selection of BBC Newz articles about 7-7 and 9-11. See how many times they link to http://911blogger.com/ and http://julyseventh.co.uk/. You’re going to be sadly disappointed. I saw a link to loose change but guess what? It linked to google video, not their website at http://www.loosechange911.com/ (which weirdly now directs to some blog)
But it’s not just that. When did you last see a link to http://www.craigmurray.org.uk, http://www.johnpilger.com/, http://www.prisonplanet.com, http://www.globalresearch.ca, http://www.indybay.org/, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/ etc.
Answer: You probably didn’t and you probably wouldn’t.
Like the tactics of the British empire of old, the BBC is (intentionally or not)pursuing a line of ‘divide and conquer’ whereby it appears to encourage dissent/strife abroad (Russia, Malaysia, Sudan etc) which strangely happens to correspond with the British government foreign policy, but when that dissent relates to serious British domestic issues and British/occidental centres of power, the BBC vividly practices self-censorship against alternative streams of information.
This makes made the think once more about “BBC BLOGS” – Why do they exist? I’ve suggested one or two reasons in the past. In these blogs/forums you do find subjects like 9-11 and 7-7 getting a bit more of a discussion there, and that’s good, however in those ‘informal’ pages, you will find no links to things like the 9-11 and J7 truth campaigns (if you find one PLEASE let me know !) but it allows the BBC to claim that it has had an even handed approach to matters like the state sponsored terrorist actions of 9-11 and 7-7
I hope all Brits bin their TV, depriving the BBC the TAX which funds it. Its serious documentary works can largely be obtained on the internet, as can much more accurate factual and less prejudicial reports of stories around the world from different organisations.
Here’s hoping TPTB in the Malaysian government come to their senses and release Mr. Petra.
P.S. Please read John Pilgers latest article relating to the perverse (dictator director of BBC newz), Helen Boaden . The article is entitled: “A MURDEROUS THEATRE OF THE ABSURD”
And on the subject of balance, here’s a zionist blogger saying
“BBC is trying to rewrite history by lying about Israel, spreading anti-semetic ideas, and make it appear that anyone that is willing to fight Radical Islam is clueless.”
in an article entitled: “BBC Lies About Bush Speech, Then Tries To Cover It Up” Give it a read see if he’s right and I’m wrong.