Of the 30 best-paid state-employed media executives in Britain

1 BBC Mark Thompson Director General 619,000
2 Channel 4 Kevin Lygo Director of TV 565,000*
3 Channel 4 Andy Duncan Chief Executive 549,000*
4 BBC Mark Byford Deputy Director General 456,000
5 BBC John Smith Chief Operations Officer 444,000
6 Ofcom Stephen Carter Chief Executive 440,667
7 Channel 4 Andy Barnes Sales Director 409,000*
8 BBC Jana Bennett Director of Television 353,000
9 Ofcom Kip Meek Chief Policy Partner 338,579
10 BBC Zarin Patel Finance Director 324,000
11 BBC Jenny Abramsky Director of Radio and Music 322,000
12 BBC Caroline Thompson Director of Strategy 317,000
13 BBC Ashley Highfield Director of New Media 311,000
14 Ofcom Ed Richards Chief Operating Officer 308,930
15 BBC Stephen Dando Head of BBC People 292,000
16 BBC Tim Davie Director of Marketing 287,000
17 Ofcom Sean Williams Partner, Competition 251,186
18 Ofcom Tim Suter Partner, Content and Standards 243,387
19 Ofcom Peter Ingram Chief Technology Officer 238,540
20 Ofcom Dominic Morris CBE Director of the CEO’s Office 221,692
21 Ofcom Philip Rutnam Partner, Competition and Strategic Resources 210,811
22 Ofcom Sandra Jenner HR Director 210,191
23 Ofcom Lord Currie Chairman 193,737
24 Ofcom Graham Howell Secretary to the Corporation 182,668
25 Ofcom Tony Stoller CBE External Relations Director 182,595
26 Channel 4 Rod Henwood New Business Director 180,000*
27 Ofcom Rona Chester Finance Director 177,639
28 UK Film Council John Woodward Chief Executive 176,794*
29 Channel 4 Anne Bulford Finance Director 173,000*
30 Central Office of Information Alan Bishop Chief Executive 155,000

More:

http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/

We are told by careful pollsters that half of the American people believe that American troops should be brought home from Iraq immediately. This news discourages supporters of our efforts there. Not me, though: I am relieved. Given press coverage of our efforts in Iraq, I am surprised that 90% of the public do not want us out right now.

http://city-journal.org/

Human Shield Jihate update#

Palestinian terror organizations used woman and children as human shields
this past weekend to save terrorists holed up in a mosque in Gaza. The group
of terrorists were under siege and Israel was demanding their surrender. In
response, the Palestinians organized a human shield of more than 200 woman
and children to surround the men and walk them to safety.

According to the PA daily:
“About 200 female residents crossed the village along with their children
until they reached the besieged Al Nasr mosque, broke into it and released
15 armed men… During this mission, two women died .”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 4, 2006]

According to the report, the Palestinians had decided that the lives of the
terrorists were more important than the lives of the woman and children:

“Muhammad, from the Al Qassam Brigades, the military branch of the Hamas,
who was among those under siege [said]: ‘What matters is that we were
released.’ His mother . said that the women waved white flags, ‘but the
tanks kept shooting at us. All we cared about was to release our sons, even
if it cost our lives.’ The woman citizens walked quickly surrounding the
exhausted fighters. towards the ‘safer alleyways’ of Beit Hanun.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 4, 2006]

As PMW has reported in the past, this is not the first time the PA has urged
civilians to enter combat zones. It is part of a consistent pattern since
the outbreak of the terror war in October 2000. In one previous instance the
PA called on “woman, children, and the elderly” to stand in front of IDF
bulldozers that were searching for weapons tunnels between Gaza and Egypt in
May 2004 [Al Ayyam, May 17, 2004].

Meanwhile UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan seemed to blaming Israel for the
civilian deaths saying he was:
“deeply concerned about the continuing escalation of violence and rising
death toll caused by the Israeli military operation in northern Gaza…
several civilians have already been killed and wounded, including women and
at least one Palestinian child” ( http://www.imra.org.il ).

The following are 2 stories that appeared in the Palestinian official daily
Al Hayat Al Jadida:

“Hundreds of female residents managed, in a dangerous mission, to break the
siege on the mosque which was besieged by the occupation tanks in the center
of the Beit Hanun village, after dozens of residents, some of whom were
armed, took refuge in it…

“The women passed through several armored tanks, which were stationed in the
western entrance to Beit Hanun, while under the fire from Israeli combat
helicopters. About 200 female residents crossed the village along with their
children until they reached the besieged Al Nasr mosque, broke into it and
released 15 armed men from different [terrorist] factions. During this
mission, two women residents died as Shahids [died for Allah]…

“Iman Al-Yaziji, who was accompanied by her 13 year old only son, told
Agence France Presse, that the women tried ‘in vain’ several times to break
into the area of the mosque, and added. ‘Finally, we decided to enter
despite the fact that some of us died as Shahids and got injured, and we
entered the mosque and we released the resistance men [terrorists].’ She
continued: ‘Bullets were showered on our heads from the tanks and the
helicopters and killed two of us mercilessly’…

“Muhammad, from the Al Qassam Brigades, the military branch of the Hamas,
was among those under siege, and told the French news agency: ‘What matters
is that we were released.’

“His mother, Um Muhammad. said that the women waved white flags, ‘but the
tanks kept shooting at us. All we cared about was to release our sons, even
if it cost our lives. The woman residents walked quickly, surrounding the
exhausted fighters, who seemed to be unarmed, towards the ‘safer alleyways’
of Beit Hanun.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 4, 2006]

“The occupation forces escalated their attacks, which began three days ago,
on the Gaza Strip . while the female residents in Beit Hanun and Bethlehem
went out to challenge the occupation army.

“The occupation forces continued their attacks yesterday on the Beit Hanun
village, where they killed two women during a march of women who broke
through the occupation’s armored tanks that besieged the Al Nasr Mosque. The
women managed to save dozens of residents and resistance fighters [e.g.
terrorists] who were under siege in the Mosque.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 4, 2006]

From:

Palestinian Media Watch.

BBC ‘guilty’ of ignoring public opinion says senior executive

A senior BBC executive has admitted the politically correct views of the corporation are at odds with most of its viewers.

BBC commissioning editor for documentaries Richard Klein admitted the broadcaster was out of touch with the British public, saying it was guilty of “ignoring” mainstream opinion.

Speaking to a room full of TV viewers and BBC staff, he suggested that if the current situation continued it could affect the organisation’s long-term future.

Klein said: “By and large, people who work at the BBC think the same and it’s not the way the audience thinks. That’s not long term sustainable.”

“We pride ourselves on being ‘of the people’, and it’s pathetic…..Channel 4 tends to laugh at people, the BBC ignores them.”

His comments, reported in the corporation’s in-house magazine, come on the back of news earlier this week that a string of BBC executives and journalists have admitted that the corporation is institutionally biased.

Details from a recent “impartiality” summit held at the BBC highlighted how some of the corporation’s own top staff now believe it is guilty of promoting left-wing views, is biased against Christianity and as an organisation is disproportionately dominated by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also claimed the BBC overtly promotes multiculturalism and is anti-American and anti-countryside.

Klein, who made his views known at an “audience festival” organised by the BBC last week to find out what its viewers think, admitted that the BBC’s liberal internal culture did not match that of the wider British public.

He said: “Most people at the BBC don’t live lives like this, but these are our licence payers. It’s our job to reflect and engage.”

The TV executive, who sponsored a study to find out what issues concerned viewers, even warned other BBC staff about the dangers of ignoring popular opinion.

“They may be challenging to us, but don’t dismiss them”, he said.

His comments come after repeated claims that the BBC has misjudged the mood of British public.

Last month the corporation was deluged with complaints after a Muslim extremist was given 12 minutes of airtime on Radio 4’s flagship Today programme.

It also came under attack in the summer when it broadcast a “sick” comedy, which showed Tony Blair being assasinated and terrorists crashing a jet into parliament.

The BBC was also criticised last year after it was revealed that the corporation had cautioned journalists against using the word terrorist – claiming the word was too judgmental.

More recently the BBC has agonised over whether news-reader Fiona Bruce should be allowed to wear a necklace with a cross on it.

Research conducted by the BBC showed that many viewers felt “gagged and alone” and also believed mainstream views were being driven underground.

Ann Davies, who carried out the research for the corporation, openly questioned whether the BBC should change its approach.

She asked: “Should we, the BBC, be a pressure valve for that opinion? Should we help break the contraints of the PC police?”

Research into audience members views showed that many thought that politcal correctness had become endemic in Britain.

One said: “Politicians know more about how a Muslim lives than they do about what it’s like to be me, day in, day out.”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23372115-details/BBC++’guilty’+of+ignoring+public+opinion+says+senior+executive/article.do

War is Deception: The Al Dura Jihate

Last Thursday a French court found Philippe Karsenty guilty of libeling
France 2 television network and its Jerusalem bureau chief Charles Enderlin.
Karsenty, who runs a media watchdog Web site called Media Matters, called
for Enderlin and his boss Arlette Chabot to be sacked for their September
30, 2000 televised report alleging that IDF forces had killed 12-year-old
Muhammad al-Dura at Netzarim junction in Gaza that day.

Their lawsuit against Karsenty was the first of three lawsuits that Enderlin
and France 2 filed against French Jews who accused them in various ways of
manufacturing a blood libel against Israel by purposely distorting the
events at Netzarim junction that day. The second trial, against Pierre
Lurcat, is set to begin this week. Lurcat organized a mass demonstration
against France 2 on October 2, 2002 after the broadcast of a German
television documentary film by Esther Schapira called Three Bullets and a
Dead Child: Who Shot Muhammad al-Dura? Schapira’s film concludes that IDF
bullets could not have killed Dura.

September 30, 2000 was the third day of the Palestinian jihad. That day an
IDF position at Netzarim junction was attacked by Palestinian Authority
security forces. A prolonged exchange of fire ensued. That afternoon, France
2’s Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma submitted footage of a man and a
boy at the junction cowering behind a barrel. The two were later identified
as Jamal al-Dura and his 12-year-old son Muhammad. Enderlin, who had not
been present at the scene, took Rahma’s 27 minutes of raw footage and
narrated a 50-second film in which he accused the IDF of having shot and
killed the boy. Enderlin’s film itself does not show the boy dying. There
are no blood stains where the boy and his father were crouched. No ambulance
came to evacuate them. No autopsy was performed on Muhammad’s body.

FRANCE 2 distributed its film free of charge to anyone who wanted it –
although not the full 27 minutes that Rahma filmed.
The film was shown repeatedly worldwide and particularly on Arab television
networks. The results of the footage were murderous. On October 12, two IDF
reservists, Yosef Avrahami and Vadim Novesche, were lynched by a mob at a PA
police station in Ramallah. The mob invoked Dura’s death as a justification
for its barbarism. The Orr Commission which investigated the violent rioting
by Israeli Arabs in October 2000 stated in its final report that “Muhammad
al-Dura’s picture, which was distributed by the media, was one of the causes
that led people in the Arab sector to take to the streets on October 1,
2000.”

Countless suicide bombers and other Palestinian terrorists have cited Dura
as a justification of their crimes. For the past six years PA television has
continuously aired a film showing Dura in heaven beckoning other Palestinian
children to “martyr” themselves by becoming terrorists and join him there.

The Palestinians are not the only ones who have used Dura as a terrorist
recruitment tool. He is prominently featured in al-Qaida recruitment videos
and on Hizbullah banners. Daniel Pearl’s murderers interspersed their video
of his beheading with the France 2 film. Throughout Europe, and particularly
in France, Muslims have used Dura as a rallying cry in their attacks against
Jews – attacks which broke out shortly after the Dura film was broadcast.

AT FIRST, Israel accepted responsibility for Dura’s death without conducting
an investigation. Yet, in the weeks that followed the event, engineers Nahum
Shachaf and Yosef Doriel conducted investigations on behalf of the IDF’s
Southern Command.

Both men separately proved mathematically and physically that the IDF forces
on the ground could not see the Duras from their position and that it was
physically impossible for their bullets to have killed Muhammad. Then OC
Southern Command Maj.-Gen.Yom Tov Samia held a news conference in late
November based on their findings at which he said that the probability that
the IDF had killed Dura was low.

Yet Samia was the only senior Israeli official to question the veracity of
the film. Then chief of General Staff Shaul Mofaz disavowed Samia’s
investigation. Prime minister Ehud Barak never questioned the veracity of
Enderlin’s murderous accusation against the IDF.

In the intervening years, private researchers and media organizations have
taken it upon themselves to investigate what happened that day. Their
findings have shown that at a minimum, the probability that the IDF killed
Dura is minuscule and more likely, the event was either staged or edited to
engender the conclusion that Dura had been killed by Israel. The few people
who have been allowed to watch Rahma’s entire film have stated that it is
impossible to conclude that Muhammad was killed because he raises his head
and props himself up on his elbow after he was supposedly shot.

Respected media organizations like The Wall Street Journal, CBS News,
Atlantic Monthly and Commentary magazine have published detailed
investigations that all conclude that the footage was either staged or
simply edited to show something that didn’t happen.

Yet, even as private individuals were dedicating their time and passion to
proving that France 2 had purposely broadcast a blood libel against Israel
that caused the death and injury of Israelis and Jews throughout the world
and marred the honor of the IDF, official Israel remained silent.

The Foreign Ministry never asked France 2 to show its officials the full
27-minute film. Neither the IDF nor the Foreign or Justice Ministries
defended the IDF or called into question the veracity of Enderlin’s film. As
late as this past June 23, IDF spokeswoman Brig.-Gen. Miri Regev told
Haaretz, “I cannot determine whether the IDF is or is not responsible for
the killing of al-Dura.”

IN THE French judicial system, the people’s interest is represented by a
special court reporter who recommends verdicts to the judges. It is rare for
judges to disregard the reporter’s recommendations. During his trial,
Karsenty and his witnesses produced piece after piece of evidence that
called into question the credibility of the France 2 film.

For its part, France 2 sent no representatives to the trial. Its attorney
did not question any of the evidence submitted by Karsenty nor did she
cross-examine any of his witnesses. She brought no witnesses of her own. She
simply produced a letter of support for France 2 from President Jacques
Chirac. The court reporter recommended dismissing the case.

In their judgment last week, the judges argued that Karsenty’s allegations
against Enderlin and France 2 could not be credible since “no Israeli
authority, neither the army which is nonetheless most affected, nor the
Justice [Ministry] have ever accorded the slightest credit to these
allegations” regarding the mendacity of the Dura film.

Over the years Israeli officials have justified their silence by saying that
it was a losing proposition to reopen the Dura case. We’ll be accused of
blaming the victim, they said.

This statement is both cowardly and irresponsible. As the French verdict
shows, without an Israeli protest, the protests of private individuals,
however substantial, ring hollow. When Israel refuses to defend itself from
blood libels, it gives silent license to attacks against Israel and world
Jewry in the name of those libels.

In 2000, Barak was desperately trying to close a peace deal with Yasser
Arafat. The last thing he wanted was to admit that Arafat was promulgating
blood libels against Israel. So he was silent. This is unforgivable, but
understandable.

Israel’s continued silence is a sign that Israeli officialdom has still not
understood what the war of images demands of it. The Dura film, like the
fictional massacre of Lebanese children at Kafr Kana in Lebanon this summer,
shows that victory or defeat in wars is today largely determined on
television. To win, Israel must go on the offensive and attack untruthful,
distorted images that are used to justify the killing of Israelis and Jews
throughout the world.

When Karsenty heard the court’s verdict last week, he said, “If this
judgment is upheld, Jews should ask themselves questions about their future
in France. Justice covers the anti-Semitic lies of a public channel. It’s a
strong signal, it is very severe.”

To this it should be added that if the Israeli government continues to be
silent as the good name of the IDF, of Israel and of the Jewish people is
dragged through the mud by distorted television images broadcast by foreign
news outlets; if the Israeli government does nothing to defend those who are
persecuted for fighting against these distortions, then Jews will have to
ask themselves some questions about how on earth we are supposed to defend
ourselves, let alone win this war against those who seek our destruction.

Jerusalem Post

Censorship and EUrabia in Disguise: Amateur ‘video bloggers’ under threat from EU broadcast rules

By Adam Sherwin, Media Correspondent

THE Government is seeking to prevent an EU directive that could extend broadcasting regulations to the internet, hitting popular video-sharing websites such as YouTube. The European Commission proposal would require websites and mobile phone services that feature video images to conform to standards laid down in Brussels. Ministers fear that the directive would hit not only successful sites such as YouTube but also amateur “video bloggers” who post material on their own sites. Personal websites would have to be licensed as a “television-like service”. Viviane Reding, the Media Commissioner, argues that the purpose is simply to set minimum standards on areas such as advertising, hate speech and the protection of children. But Shaun Woodward, the Broadcasting Minister, described the draft proposal as catastrophic. He said: “Supposing you set up a website for your amateur rugby club, uploaded some images and added a link advertising your local sports shop. You would then be a supplier of moving images and need to be licensed and comply with the regulations.” The draft rules, known as the Television Without Frontiers directive, extend the definition of broadcasting to cover services such as video-on-demand or mobile phone clips. Ministers argue that while television programmes should be subject to minimum standards, the content of websites should not be subject to EU regulation. Mr Woodward is proposing a compromise that requires EU states to agree a new definition of what constitutes “television”. He said: “It’s common sense. If it looks like a TV programme and sounds like one then it probably is. A programme transmitted by a broadcaster over the net could be covered by extending existing legislation. But video clips uploaded by someone is not television. YouTube and MySpace should not be regulated.” British criminal law already covers material that might incite hate or cause harm to children, Mr Woodward added. The Government’s definition of online broadcasting covers feature films, sports events, situation comedy, documentary, children’s programmes and original drama. It excludes personal websites and sites where people upload and exchange video images. “The real risk is we drive out the next MySpace because of the cost of complying with unnecessary regulations,” Mr Woodward said. “These businesses can easily operate outside the EU.” Ofcom, the media regulator, is also opposing the proposed directive, which it believes could discourage new multimedia business in Europe. Mr Woodward is seeking EU member state support for the British compromise. So far only Slovakia has pledged support, but Mr Woodward believes that other nations will come onboard before a key EU Council meeting on November 13. The influence of “user-generated” websites was demonstrated last week when Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion (£883 million). Launched in February 2005, it has grown into one of the most popular websites. YouTube has 100 million videos viewed every day. The House of Lords European Union Committee began an inquiry yesterday into the directive, which could also introduce paid-for product placement on UK television for the first time. Lord Woolmer, the committee chairman, said: “The proposals bring within the regulatory framework areas of the media previously untouched by broadcasting legislation. “Britain is at the cutting edge of new media and alternative broadcasters in Europe, and we are keen to ensure that the proposals will not damage this growing industry in seeking to incorporate them into EU regulation.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2407359,00.html

The Associated (with terrorists) Press

Let me repeat that: An Associated (with terrorists) Press journalist gets caught with an alleged al Qaeda leader and tests positive for bomb-making materials. That. Is. News. How does a news organization explain away its decision to sit on it for five months? Like this: “The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach.”Read it all:
http://jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin092006.php3

Have you been a victim without knowing…….

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184543.php

Thanks to the JAWA Report

Now on the bloggroll

Column One: Terrorist theater tricks

 What are we seeing when we watch events from the Middle East on our television screens? Is it news or is it terrorist theater?

Let us observe two media events which occurred on Sunday in Gaza. Sunday afternoon released hostages and Fox News journalists Steven Centanni and Olaf Wiig spoke before the cameras. The fact of their release and their statements were reported by more than 1,000 news organizations throughout the world.

At the press conference, Centanni and Wiig, who were forced by their Palestinian captors to convert to Islam, praised the Palestinians. Centanni said, “I just hope this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover this story because the Palestinian people are a very beautiful, kind-hearted and caring people that the world need[s] to know more about.” Wiig similarly praised the Palestinians.

While their remarks were covered extensively, no one seemed to think that the fact that their first post-release statements were made at a Palestinian Authority sponsored media extravaganza in Gaza was significant. No one noted that the men were flanked by Palestinian “security forces,” and stood next to Hamas terrorist leader and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

No mention was made of the fact that the two were initially kidnapped by just such PA “security officials,” or that Haniyeh is one of the leaders of one of the most fanatical jihadist organizations in the world, an organization that the majority of the “beautiful, kind-hearted and caring” Palestinians voted into office last January.

That is, no mention was made of the fact that until the two men left Gaza, they remained unfree. No one asked whether they had been given the option of not giving a press conference in Gaza. And now that they have spoken, there can be little doubt that a second press conference by the two men, in Israel or the US where no one will force them to convert to Judaism or Christianity or threaten to kill them, will draw far less media interest. After their press conference, the two men became yesterday’s news.

Conveniently, the same day the PA released the men who its own forces had kidnapped, Reuters reported that the IDF had shot a missile at its press vehicle and wounded two cameramen – one from Reuters and one from Iranian World TV network – while they were en route to a battle taking place between IDF forces and Palestinian terrorists. Reuters, which is demanding an independent investigation into the attack, is portraying its cameraman Fadel Shana as an embattled hero who would do anything to bring the truth to the world.

Yet it is unclear why anyone should believe ……………

Read on:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525961870&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Why we don’t believe you

Does the mainstream press ever wonder why conservatives distrust them so much?

If so, they need look no further than the “fauxtography” scandals of the last couple of weeks. Conservative bloggers have been hard at work sniffing out suspected fakery and staging in the photos sent back on the newswires from the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and the investigation got pretty smelly.

First, there was Reutersgate….

Read on: 

http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_we_dont_believe_you&ns=MaryKatharineHam&dt=08/28/2006&page=full&comments=true