In today's Times, Stephen Pollard attacks the BBC for what he believes was its unbalanced coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict on yesterday's Andrew Marr programme.
"Of the four guests invited, not one had anything but bile to pour over Israel. It is entirely proper for the BBC to give a platform to such views. But it is entirely improper that that not one second should be allowed on what the BBC's website calls its "flagship programme" for the views of anyone who thinks there might be some justification for the Israeli action", opines today's Thunderer.
I never watched the programme in question, so don't really want to pass comment on it, but what I did watch-(and listen to) extensively, was the BBC's coverage of the death of Slobodan Milosevic on the weekend of 11th-12th March. Throughout the whole weekend, there was not a single person invited on to a BBC programme who deviated from the official "Slobo was an ethnic cleansing war criminal who started six wars and whose death robbed Kosovan Albanians of justice" line. Neither I, nor John Laughland, Mark Almond, Ian Johnson or any other critic of the Hague show trial was invited on to the BBC to put an alternative view of the career of a man the BBC had already decided was guilty as charged. It was an absolute disgrace, but the funny thing is- I don't recall Stephen Pollard, writing about the lack of BBC balance then. Come on Stephen, do you want proper balance on the BBC or don't you? Or do you only call for both sides to be given the microphone when its Israel's actions that are under discussion?