BBC Bias

I've long suspected the BBC of a pro-Palestinian bias, so maybe I am reading too much into this. But nonetheless I find the way this article is written as quite a striking example of this subtle, almost subliminal, bias.

The headline is “Captured Israeli 'in good health'”. Good news, I hear you say. But for me the real story is only mentioned in the fifth paragraph – with the militant’s statement of "We are ready to keep him for years so long as our demands are not met." And it is only in the sixth paragraph (of nine) that we hear what compromises the Israelis have made – “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has offered to release "many" Palestinian detainees, if the Palestinians free Cpl Shalit and set up a national unity government that would recognise Israel and renounce violence.”

So, in summary, this is the first announcement since Gilad Shalit was seized last summer about his condition. And yes, it is great news that he is in good health. But I can’t help but feel that the poor sod would also be in good health if he was at home with his family. I would imagine his primary concern is not the fact that he is good health, but rather that he is a hostage, a prisoner of war. And I think the threat of keeping him for many years in spite of the generous and eminently sensible deal offered by the Israelis should be the focus of the story. Not the fact that Shalit is in good health and doesn’t have a fucking cold.

The real headline is "Militants threaten to hold hostage for years". Unless, of course, you are biased towards said militants...