The BBC does confound

On the one hand, I love the BBC as they report on world news at a level that seems nearly impossible to maintain in this day and age. On the other hand, they’re such patriarchal Imperialists, that is making me nuts at times.
I’ll leave the Africa elements out of it for the time being and focus on articles such as this one. Okay, so despite the crap title it’s about a Croatian doctor in Croatia who allegedly refused treatment to a man who is Serbian. Think about this for a second. What would happen in Britain if a doctor of say British lineage refused to treat someone of say Irish lineage. Would it be worthy of an international headline? No. Would it even make it out of the local news? Probably not unless there was a lawsuit. Most people would probably see it as one or two guys being ignorant dumbasses which is what is happening in this instance. This is on the same scope yet here it is.
But the reason it’s news is because for some reason, which I guess must be some weird form of Empire solidarity, the British sided with the Serbs in the Yugoslavian wars. Because here’s the other problem I have with the article, “Many international organisations have expressed concern that only around half of the Serbs who left Croatia have gone back, with over 100,000 still displaced.” They don’t happen to mention the uh… hundreds of thousands of Bosniaks and Croats who haven’t returned to Bosnia because of what the Serbs did there.
And that’s the real problem in that the BBC casts a wide net, but they are far from balanced as seen with this very positive article about Serbia by the same author. I’ve had to stop reading the Europe news altogether and Africa I mainly just glance at to see if something comes up. I dread the day that I actually have to stop reading it altogether, but with how blogs are forming the majority of my news sources these days, I’m sure the day will come in the near future.
The BBC does confound

2 Replies to “The BBC does confound”

  1. I can’t speak for the Beeb, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the British as a whole sided with Serbia. The overwhelming majority of opinion favoured the seceding nations – I think it’s a British thing to side with the underdog.

    1. By ‘British’ I mean the country as an entity. It’s like saying that the Americans invaded Iraq. I (and a great many others) was completely against the incursion, but still America as an entity unlawfully went in there, just as Britain sided with Serbia.

Comments are closed.