May 19 2013

What makes a story newsworthy for the BBC?

A Western journalist working in Israel once remarked to this writer that the reason so many of the foreign media’s reports from the country seem so similar is that a not insignificant number of them are written in the bar of the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem where journalists share stories and experiences. He wasn’t entirely joking.

Reports such as the one appearing on the BBC News website’s Middle East page on May 13^th entitled “Israeli PM Netanyahu drops costly in-flight bedroom“, with its uncanny resemblance to – and reliance upon the same sources as – a Guardian article of the previous day, certainly do nothing to dispel that impression.

The Guardian report stated:

“Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper, Sima Kadmon said: “We thought that nothing could surprise us anymore when it came to the Netanyahus’ personal behaviour. Well, we thought wrong. It turns out that King Bibi and Queen Sara are entitled to do everything … The double bed that was installed on the plane cost the Israeli public, which is buckling under the weight of the austerity measures, half a million shekels. Is there no shame?” “

The BBC article stated:

” “Bibi is king, and in a monarchy, when the king and queen fly, price is no object,” said political commentator Sima Kadmon, referring to Mr Netanyahu by his nickname, in Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper Yediot Ahranot [sic].”

Both articles are based upon an item broadcast by Israel’s Channel 10 news on May 10^th. Of course this domestic Israeli story has absolutely no relevance for the overwhelming majority of BBC audience members and quite why it was deemed newsworthy by the BBC News website’s editors is unclear – beyond its pandering to the obsession with all things casting Israel in a less than flattering light.

That impression is reinforced when one takes a quick look at some of the other events which occurred in the region around the same time and which the BBC elected to ignore. For example, on the same evening as Channel 10 broke its in-flight bed story, two Palestinians were reportedly injured when gunmen opened fire on a PA police station near Hebron. Several hours later five others were injured in a separate incident in the same area, with the clashes being attributed to the shooting of a woman a few days previously.

“Sair has witnessed clashes since Palestinian police officers accidentally shot and killed a woman in the town on Wednesday night.
Police officers opened fire at a fugitive’s vehicle and accidentally killed his wife, 30-year-old Khalida Kawazba. A security source told Ma’an that police had ordered the woman’s husband Nawwaf Kawazba to stop, but he instead accelerated, “forcing police to open fire.”
After the shooting, angry residents hurled Molotov cocktails and stones at PA police, who used tear gas to disperse the clashes.”

The BBC has made no attempt whatsoever to report these incidents. Another newsworthy story ignored by the BBC came to light on May 8^th. In the village of Husan – located in the Bethlehem governorate of the Palestinian Authority – an IDF operation to clear the village’s farmlands of old Jordanian land mines began.

“The Palestinian side is supporting and encouraging this project,” said Lieutenant Colonel Eyal Zeevi, who heads the Bethlehem Coordination and Liaison Administration. “This project has two goals: First, to eliminate ongoing danger to human life, and ensure that all mines have been cleared. Second, to return the land to its rightful owners, for the use of the village as a community.”

Also last week – and also ignored by the BBC – Israeli doctors at the Wolfson Medical Centre in Holon successfully operated on a four year-old Syrian child with a life-threatening heart condition as part of the ‘Save a Child’s Heart‘ project and with Israeli government co-ordination.

One might have thought that at least some of those stories would be as newsworthy as an in-flight bed, but apparently that is not the case according to BBC priorities.

May 13 2013

BBC’s Bowen invents new quarter in Jerusalem

The Old City of Jerusalem – as the vast majority of people are aware – is comprised of four quarters. They are named the Jewish Quarter, the Armenian Quarter, the Christian Quarter and the Muslim Quarter, and have gone by those titles for donkey’s years.

But then along came the BBC’s Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen and not only erased the Christian and Muslim Quarters from the map, but also invented a new one.

In a December 2012 interview with the travel section of the Telegraph on the subject of Jerusalem, Bowen stated: [emphasis added]

“You should go to the Old City, home to the Western Wall (the holiest place in the world for Jews to pray), the Aq sa [sic] mosque and the Dome of the Rock, not to mention the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I like to visit the Old City’s various quarters – Jewish, Palestinian and Armenian.”

Obviously Bowen’s expertise in Jerusalem geography is about as precise as his knowledge of Jewish prayer traditions.

Somehow, this faux pas got past the Telegraph’s fact checkers. Perhaps they mistakenly relied on the assumption that the man ultimately in charge of Middle East content for the BBC would stick to the facts.

May 8 2013

BBC’s Bowen plays dumb to weave tangled web

The Monday May 6^th2013 edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme included a contribution from BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen on the subject of the preceding weekend’s alleged Israeli air-strikes on targets in Syria.

The recording can be heard here for a limited period of time, with the relevant section beginning from around 2:31:20.

Presenter Justin Webb opens the segment with the following introduction:

“Israel has not said publicly that it has attacked Syrian targets, but that is what has happened, twice in recent days. There seems to be no doubt about it and no real doubt about why either. In the short term at least, an effort to stop sophisticated Iranian-made weapons getting from Syria into the hands of Hizballah – the militants based in Lebanon. And perhaps a possible wider aim as well: to get President Obama involved. The risk, of course, is a wider war. A war that causes huge suffering but also destroys the fragile balances of power in the whole region.”

So what do listeners learn from Webb’s introduction? They are informed that Israel’s alleged actions might well be an attempt to coerce the US in another Middle East war and that Israel is destabilising the entire Middle East. Does Webb have or provide any factual evidence for those very serious assertions? Of course not: this is mere speculation on his part, with no small amount of conspiracy theory-style mud-slinging thrown in.

Webb’s first guest is Jeremy Bowen who, inter alia, makes the following statements.

“And the Israelis are acting – they say – because of the need to stop weapons getting through to Hizballah – their rivals in err…their obdure enemies in Lebanon. But you know the thing about this war, this Syrian civil war, is that it’s always been a battle ground for wider regional struggles. You know one reason the Saudis and the Qataris are backing the rebels is to strengthen themselves against Iran, which backs Assad, and of course the Israelis have also got an eye on Iran and Hizballah and Assad because that triangle is err..self-styled axis of resistance against the Israelis themselves and you know you can go on about it too as well: the pressure on the US to get involved, an element of old-fashioned East-West rivalry: the US, UK and France backing the rebels, Russia and China supporting Assad and so on.”

Justin Webb continues to weave the web:

“Um. Why though – I mean this is a sort of basic question, but an interesting one – these sophisticated weapons – we think these are missiles, aren’t they? Missiles: land to land missiles. Missiles that could be used from southern Lebanon into the heart of Israel if they were in the hands of Hizballah. But I mean given that Assad is fighting a pretty desperate war to stay in power – to stay alive indeed – it seems odd that he’d be passing any weapons to anyone.”

Bowen responds to Webb’s (pre-arranged?) cue:

“Yeah, strange, but I mean there’s speculation about this. Hizballah is increasingly said to be involved in the fighting in Syria. Hizballah very effective fighters in their dealings with the Israelis over the years. Perhaps he’s doing that as some kind of quid pro quo. Err…passing more weapons over to them. Perhaps he’s worried they might fall into rebel hands. Perhaps it’s part of a wider deal with the Iranians. I think nobody really knows. It is a bit strange as well because Hizballah is powerful in Lebanon and to…pretty much controls the airport. Now, [scoffing laugh] do they have to get weapons in through Syria if they could get them flown in direct from Iran, if that’s what they particularly wanted? And there’s been quite a bit of speculation in the Israeli press saying this is about a little bit more than moving weapons because it’s a big raid. It was a big raid in Damascus and the New York Times is reporting that ah..perhaps even hundreds of regime soldiers were killed in the raid.”

The BBC defined Jeremy Bowen’s job description as follows in 2006:

“Jeremy Bowen’s new role is, effectively, to take a bird’s eye view of developments in the Middle East, providing analysis that might make a complex story more comprehensive or comprehensible for the audience, without the constraints of acting as a daily news correspondent. His remit is not just to add an extra layer of analysis to our reporting, but also to find stories away from the main agenda.”

To be frank, Bowen’s so-called analysis – in this case as in many others – does anything but make the story more comprehensible to BBC audiences. His insistence upon muddying the waters by throwing into the equation his own baseless speculations (yes, the “Israeli press” – by which one presumes Bowen means mainly the English language version of Ha’aretz – is capable of writing drivel too) regarding occult ulterior motives for the alleged air-strikes unnecessarily complicates and clutters the picture.

But Jeremy Bowen is by no means stupid or dumb and has certainly been knocking around the Middle East for long enough to understand exactly what went on in Syria – and why – over the last weekend, so his pretence that “nobody really knows” why weapons are being transported to Hizballah is about as credible as a pantomime horse. Bowen’s near conspiracy theory insinuation that the target of the air strikes might actually not be weapons consignments because, according to him, Hizballah “pretty much controls the airport” in Beirut, can only be either the result of jaw-dropping ignorance of the extensive documentation of years of arms smuggling from Iran to Hizballah – particularly via Syria – or a deliberate attempt to herd audiences into the pens of his pet conspiracy theories. Neither of those alternatives is befitting of the Middle East Editor of a major media organization which chalks reliability and trustworthiness on its banner.

Those following Bowen on Twitter will have noticed a similar exercise carried out on May 5^th.

Neither Haifa nor Tsfat (Safed), where the Iron Dome was deployed are of course “close to border with Syria”, but the main point behind this Tweet was obviously to introduce over 35,000 people reading it to the idea that the deployment of a missile defence system could be anything other than a precautionary move. In this case Bowen had to back down pretty rapidly as Twitter users took him to task.

And then the ‘back-up’ was produced:

Only an organization with a monopoly grip on the licence fee payers’ wallets could pass off Bowen’s speculations on the ‘Today’ programme as analysis. Any Middle East analyst worthy of the title would have reminded listeners of Iran’s long history of financial and military support for its terror proxies Hizballah and Hamas and pointed out Syria’s long-standing involvement in the violation of UN SC resolution 1701 as far as arming Hizballah is concerned. A worthy analyst would then have explained to listeners that the alleged air-strikes should be seen in that context, rather than as having any direct connection to the civil war in Syria.

Fortunately, the guest following Bowen on the ‘Today’ programme was Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, who tried to balance Bowen’s insinuations and those made during the conversation by Justin Webb. Nevertheless, it is past time for senior BBC management to make it clear to their Middle East Editor that his remit of “find[ing] stories away from the main agenda” does not mean making them up.

However, Bowen’s performance was not the only attempt made on that particular programme to advance a specific agenda regarding the recent events in Syria. More on that tomorrow.

Related articles:

Where did Jeremy Bowen learn the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Ask Jeremy: Twitter Q&A gives insight into ME Editor’s approach

BBC’s Jeremy Bowen: “a deliberate escalation by Israel”

Jeremy Bowen: “The Israelis would have killed me too”

Apr 7 2013

BBC reports from Hebron funeral again promote PA propaganda

The BBC’s coverage of the funeral of Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh – the 64 year-old Palestinian terrorist who died last week of esophageal cancer – includes a written report placed on the Middle East page of the BBC News website and a filmed report by Jon Donnison which appeared on BBC television news, both dated April 4th.

Both reports continue the practices of previous recent related BBC articles in that they promote unverified Palestinian Authority propaganda regarding Abu Hamdiyeh’s death and downplay the rioting incited and fuelled by that propaganda.

The written report states:

“The clashes began after thousands took to the streets to mourn the death of Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh, who died of cancer in an Israeli jail.

Palestinian officials have accused Israel of medical negligence – Israel says care was provided.

Abu Hamdiyeh was serving a life sentence for a failed bombing attack on a Jerusalem cafe in 2002. Palestinians say he should have been released on compassionate grounds and the death has sparked protests across the West Bank.”

Later on it also states:

“Palestinian officials claim Israel did not provide the 64-year-old with adequate medical care and failed to release him after diagnosing that his illness was terminal.”

The synopsis to the filmed report states:

“His death has sparked angry protests, with Palestinian officials accusing Israel of medical negligence.”

This repetition of PA propaganda does not represent ‘impartiality’ but rather the spreading of baseless hearsay and rumour which – as pointed out here previously – has long been employed by the PA in order to whip up fervour on the streets in order to serve its own political motives. The fact that the BBC – in this case and others – voluntarily aids and abets the spread of that conspiracy theory based propaganda, whilst lending it the coveted BBC stamp of legitimacy, raises some very serious concerns regarding the nature of the working relationship between the BBC’s Jerusalem Bureau and the Palestinian Authority and calls the BBC’s impartiality into question.

The written report opens: [emphasis added]

Palestinian rioters in Hebron, April 4, 2013. Photo: Tovah Lazaroff

“Palestinian protesters have clashed with Israeli troops in the West Bank city of Hebron following the funeral of a prisoner who died in an Israeli jail.

Soldiers used tear gas and rubber bullets – protesters threw stones.”

The construction of that last sentence shows a clear attempt to dictate the impressions received by the reader through the deliberate inversion of cause and effect.

The report also states: [emphasis added]

“The clashes began after thousands took to the streets to mourn the death of Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh, who died of cancer in an Israeli jail.”

And:

“Thursday also saw the funerals of two Palestinian teenagers killed by Israeli forces on Wednesday during clashes between soldiers and youths.”

In the article’s side box titled ‘At the Scene’, Yolande Knell writes:

“Many shops and businesses have been shut in a general strike and there have been violent clashes with Israeli soldiers.”

The synopsis of the filmed report states:

“Two Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli forces on Wednesday during clashes between soldiers and youths.”

The repeated use of the word ‘clashes’ in this article and others deliberately creates an impression in the reader’s mind of a violent conflict between two opponents. What it does not do is reflect the fact that all of the violent riots (whatever their pretext) and the hundreds of attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers of the past few months – the majority of which have gone completely unreported by the BBC – are not inevitable. Contrary to the manner in which the issue is approached by the BBC, Palestinians are not obliged to throw stones and firebombs at Israeli vehicles or to riot after funerals and the Palestinian Authority has the ability to contain those riots should it wish to do so.

The fact that instead of presenting audiences with an accurate and realistic picture of the scale of violence and its causes, the BBC adopts and promotes the PA narrative by inevitably rebranding riots as ‘protests’ or ‘demonstrations’ is displayed in this report by the decision to include the following:

“He [Mahmoud Abbas] also criticised Israel for continuing to use force to suppress what he described at peaceful protests.”

Donnison’s filmed report also includes an example of the advancement of a narrative by means of the failure to include relevant information.

Members of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hebron

At around 1:05 Donnison says:

“..there is nowhere else in the West Bank which is quite as tense as Hebron. It’s a city with around 160,000 Palestinian people and right in the middle there is an Israeli settlement which has a large number of soldiers in order to protect it.”

Of course Donnison fails to inform his audience that Israelis living in Hebron do so according to the terms of Article VII of Annex I of the Oslo Accords – i.e. with the consent of the Palestinian Authority and the approval of the agreement’s international midwives – and that according to the 1997 agreement signed by the PA, Israel is responsible for their security. Given the BBC’s repeated promotion of the notion that Israeli ‘settlements’ are ‘illegal’ that omission is a particularly glaring example of disingenuous inaccuracy.

The BBC’s approach to the subject of the recent rise in violence in general, and the rioting under the pretext of various issues relating to Palestinian prisoners in particular, is increasingly problematic. A serious review of that approach’s role in repeated breaches of editorial standards is urgently needed because clearly the mechanisms put in place in order to guarantee adherence to those standards are not functioning.

Mar 12 2013

BBC appoints Jon Donnison as ‘Shin Gimmel’ of Masharawi story

In Hebrew, the expression ‘the Shin Gimmel syndrome’ is used to describe a situation in which the public blame for an operational failure is placed upon the lowest ranking soldier – the one guarding the front gate – so that high-ranking officers can avoid having to take the responsibility and its consequences. Needless to say, the use of the ‘Shin Gimmel’ as a scapegoat is a symptom of a serious failure of leadership.

That is precisely what the BBC has done in its belated attempt to stave off criticism of its handling of the Omar Masharawi story: it has sent Jon Donnison – the lowest ranking journalist involved in this story – to do damage control.

It has not allocated that task to Donnison’s boss at the Jerusalem Bureau, Paul Danahar, who Tweeted unverified claims that an Israeli attack had killed Omar Masharawi. Nor has the job been given to Danahar’s boss, Jeremy Bowen, whose position as Middle East Editor was created especially in order to avoid precisely such situations in the wake of previous criticisms of the BBC’s record of accuracy and impartiality when reporting on Israel. Neither was the Head of News or anyone else further up the chain of command required to provide explanations for the BBC failure. Instead, lowly Donnison was sent to take the rap.

Is it any wonder then that Donnison gives the impression of being distinctly out of his depth as he flails about trying to make passable-sounding excuses for the BBC’s failures?

Donnison’s article – entitled “UN disputes Gaza strike on BBC man’s house” – opens with the same picture of Jihad Masharawi carrying his son’s body which the BBC touted so extensively at the time. This time, however, the caption is particularly loaded. [emphasis added]

“Jehad Mashhrawi’s 11-month-old son Omar was killed in the attack on his house in Gaza”

In other words, the BBC wants to place in readers’ minds from the very beginning the idea that there was a deliberate attack on Masharawi’s house, rather than an accident.

Donnison begins:

“The son of a BBC journalist and two relatives killed in last November’s war in Gaza may have been hit by a misfired Palestinian rocket, a UN agency says.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said its conclusions were based on a visit to the site a month after the attack.”

All the information in the first five paragraphs of Donnison’s article is for some reason repeated further on into the article and so we later find the following statements, which clearly intend to cast doubts upon the UN findings, not least because of the passage of time:

“UN officials visited the house four weeks after the strike.

They said they did not carry out a forensic investigation, but said their team did not think the damage was consistent with an Israeli air strike.

However, the UN said it could not “unequivocally conclude” it was a misfired Palestinian rocket.

A UN official said it was also possible the house was hit by a secondary explosion after an Israeli air strike on Palestinian weapons stores.”

The UN’s report states:

“On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.”

A footnote adds that the UN investigated the incident itself and the UN has confirmed that the above passage in its report indeed relates to the incident at the Masharawi home.

Donnison’s “UN official” quote above also appears in an AP report which includes further information which Donnison elected not to include in his piece:

“Matthias Behnke, head of OHCHR office for the Palestinian territories, cautioned he couldn’t “unequivocally conclude” that the death was caused by an errantly fired Palestinian rocket. He said information gathered from eyewitnesses led them to report that “it appeared to be attributable to a Palestinian rocket.”

He said Palestinian militants were firing rockets at Israel not far from the al-Masharawi home. Behnke said the area was targeted by Israeli airstrikes, but the salvo that hit the al-Masharawi home was “markedly different.”

He said there was no significant damage to the house, unusual for an Israeli strike. He said witnesses reported that a fireball struck the roof of the house, suggesting it was a part of a homemade rocket. Behnke said the type of injuries sustained by al-Masharawi family members were consistent with rocket shrapnel.”

Donnison’s efforts to pick holes in the UN findings are a deliberate attempt to distract readers from the essential point. As BBC Watch noted last November:

“Whether or not Jihad Masharawi’s house was hit by a short-falling terrorist rocket, by shrapnel from secondary explosions of Fajr 5 missiles deliberately hidden by Hamas in built-up residential areas or whether an errant IDF shell targeting those rocket launching sites and weapons storage facilities caused that accident, we may never know.”

That essential point – which Donnison does his level best to bury – is that there was no solid evidence at the time that the Masharawi house has been hit in an Israeli air-strike and indeed, several other possibilities (as now confirmed by the UN) existed. The BBC, however, not only dismissed those other possibilities – to which it had been alerted by bloggers – but exclusively and unquestioningly promoted the notion of Israel’s responsibility for the infant’s death with no factual evidence to back up that assertion.

Donnison continues:

“At the time, human rights groups blamed the deaths on an Israeli air strike.”

He later adds:

“The family, and human rights groups, said that the house was hit in an Israeli attack.”

Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas addresses the PCHR 2006 conference

Donnison does not name the “human rights groups” he cites, but it can safely be assumed that he is referring to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) which claimed on November 15^th – the day after the incident – without providing any concrete evidence whatsoever, that:

“..an Israeli warplane fired a missile at a house belonging to Ali Nemer al-Masharawi in al-Zaytoun neighborhood in the east of Gaza City. Two members of the family (a woman and a toddler) were killed: Hiba Aadel Fadel al-Masharawi, 19, and Omar Jihad al-Masharawi, 11 months.”

Far from being an objective “human rights group”, the PCHR uses the mantle of human rights in its political campaign against Israel and has a long history of unreliability. This is certainly not the first time that Jon Donnison has unquestioningly promoted information from the PCHR – apparently being unable to distinguish between a genuine human rights organization and a Hamas accessory.

Donnison continues his attempt to bring the reader back round to believing the original BBC claims of Israeli culpability by writing:

“The Israeli military says it never denied carrying out the strike because it was not clear what had happened.”

He later adds:

“The Israeli military made no comment at the time of the incident but never denied carrying out the strike.

Privately, military officials briefed journalists that they had been targeting a militant who was in the building.”

If that were true, and if Donnison was aware of the presence of a terrorist in the building, then the next question must be why no reference was ever made to that in any of the BBC’s reports on the subject – including his own.

Donnison continues:

“The UN says 33 other Palestinian children died in Israeli attacks during the conflict.”

Towards the end of the article, and contradicting his own use of the words “33 other”, he adds:

“The UN report concluded that at least 169 Palestinians were killed by Israeli attacks during the offensive.

It said more than 100 were civilians, including 33 children and 13 women. The report said six Israelis were killed by Palestinians attacks, including four civilians.”

As Elder of Ziyon has pointed out, the UN report – which apparently suddenly gains renewed credibility in Donnison’s eyes when it can be used against Israel – actually says:

“During the crisis, 174 Palestinians were killed in Gaza. At least 168 of them were killed by Israeli military action, of whom 101 are believed to be civilians, including 33 children and 13 women.” [emphasis added]

As we have previously pointed out here, other reports on the casualty figures in the Gaza Strip during Operation Pillar of Cloud indicate that as many as 60% belonged to terrorist organisations.

Further on in his article Donnison states:

“Now, though, the United Nations says the house may have been hit by a Palestinian rocket that fell short.

This is despite the fact that the Israeli military had reported no rockets being fired out of Gaza so soon after the start of the conflict.”

However, the above claim of “no rockets” is contradicted by Donnison himself in his ‘From our own Correspondent‘ report of November 24^th:

“But at that time, so soon after the launch of Israel’s operation, Israel’s military says mortars had been launched from Gaza, but very few rockets.” [emphasis added]

As BBC Watch remarked at the time, and as the UN official quoted by AP above confirms:

“Regarding Donnison’s claim of mortars, “but very few rockets” having been fired at the time (BBC Watch has seen no such statement by the IDF, but would be delighted if Donnison could produce it), as is pointed out here, “very few rockets” does not mean no rockets.”

Under the curious subheading “Rubbish”, Donnison goes on to inform readers that:

Jihad Masharawi at his brother’s funeral

“Jehad Mashhrawi dismissed the UN findings as “rubbish”.

He said nobody from the United Nations had spoken to him, and said Palestinian militant groups would usually apologise to the family if they had been responsible.”

Apparently Donnison seems to think that this anecdote adds some kind of back-up to his story, perhaps forgetting that his own organization had (probably unwittingly) broadcast footage of Jihad Masharawi’s brother being buried in a Hamas flag.

Donnison also states that:

“A photo of BBC video editor Jehad Mashhrawi cradling the corpse of his baby son Omar became one of the iconic images of November’s short war.”

It certainly did, but only because the BBC deliberately and energetically promoted the story far and wide, despite having no concrete evidence whatsoever to back up its claims that Israel was responsible for Omar’s death.

The disturbing fact is that the BBC’s only response to the findings of the UN report has been to belatedly send Jon Donnison out to offer up a badly written collection of excuses and insinuations published five days later on the Middle East page of its website, whilst Donnison’s original article remains intact on that same website’s ‘Magazine’ page with no correction and no link to his article on the UN report.

Donnison’s cringe-worthy attempt at damage control does nothing to address the real problem underlying this story. That problem is not one of determining which type of ordnance fired by whom hit the Masharawi house, but that the BBC knowingly published and extensively promoted a story based on local anecdote for which it had absolutely no proven evidence, purely because it fit in with the political narrative accepted and promoted by the BBC.

Fronted by Donnison, but undoubtedly with the full knowledge of his superiors, this self-destructive attempt to shift the focus of the story away from the real issue of the BBC’s complete failure to meet its own editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality – and to protect those further up the chain of management from the obvious conclusions of that failure – calls into question, once again, both the sincerity of the BBC’s commitment to the values behind which it hides and the quality of the organisation’s leadership.

Mar 11 2013

A reminder of the chronology of the BBC’s Omar Masharawi story

As media outlets return to work after the weekend, the news (reported here last week) that a recent UN HRC report determined that the BBC’s much promoted version of the tragic death of Omar Masharawi on November 14^th 2012 was the result of a missile fired by Palestinian terrorists rather than an Israeli air-strike – as claimed by the BBC – is gaining traction.

The Washington Free Beacon has had it confirmed by a UN official that the incident described in the report indeed referred to that in which Omar Masharawi – son of the BBC employee Jihad Masharawi – was killed.

For clarity’s sake, it is worth revisiting the chronology of the spread of the story.

On the evening of November 14^th 2012, soon after the incident had happened, BBC Arabic in Gaza broke the story when it interviewed Jihad Masharawi as he held his son’s body. That film footage was used the next day in a report by Jon Donnison which appeared on BBC television news and can be seen here.

On the same evening, BBC employees began Tweeting about the event, including for example the BBC’s correspondent in Washington who sent the following Tweet – retweeted by others 3,441 times:

On the day after the incident – November 15^th – the head of the BBC Jerusalem Bureau and chair of the Foreign Press Association, Paul Danahar, arrived in the Gaza Strip and visited the Masharawi house from where he began sending a series of Tweets which – less than 24 hours after the event and with no credible professional investigation having been carried out – unequivocally determined that the incident had been the result of an Israeli attack.

As BBC Watch documented last November, Danahar gave permission for the photographs he had Tweeted to be used by Max Fisher at the Washington Post. Other media outlets which ran with the story on the same day – some directly citing the BBC as their source and all unquestioningly giving an Israeli attack as the cause of the infant’s death – included the Guardian, the Huffington Post , the Daily Mail, the Sun and many more. The story was of course also picked up by a plethora of anti-Israel blogs and websites.

On November 24^th 2012, the BBC ran Jon Donnison’s now infamous version of the story on its ‘From Our Own Correspondent’ programme on Radio 4, and also later on the World Service. A written version of that same report was placed on the BBC News website and at the time of writing is still there.

Within less than two weeks, the BBC had ensured that an unverified story based purely upon evidence-free speculations by its own journalists had made its way round the entire world.

The fact that a story which in no way met the standards of accuracy laid down in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines managed to get past the BBC’s entire system of checks and balances including the Jerusalem Bureau editor, the Middle East Editor, the Head of News, the website Editor- together with no small number of producers along the way – indicates the existence of an organisational culture which clearly renders the BBC incapable of self-regulation.

Jan 27 2013

Obsession in numbers: comparing BBC coverage of elections in Israel and Jordan

The day after the elections in Israel on January 22^nd 2013, a no less important (and some would say, much more consequential) election was held in the country next door – Jordan. Comparing the BBC’s coverage of the two elections we see some very interesting trends and phenomena.

The Jordanian elections were the subject of a total of five reports on the BBC News website. Two of those articles were published the day before the election: a Q&A item and an article entitled “Jordan election: Risks of not changing“. On the day of the election itself – January 23^rd – two items appeared on the BBC News website: one filmed report and one written item. The day after the election, one report was published.

In none of those reports do any of the following words or phrases appear: Right-wing, far-right, ultra-nationalist, hardline. The main opposition movement in Jordan – the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Islamic Action Front’ – is described as having a “moderate tone”. One adjective used to describe some candidates in the election is “socially-conservative”.

“As in previous elections, most of the 1,500 candidates are nominally independent but tend to be socially-conservative government loyalists. Their campaign material is long on family heritage – important in a traditional society like Jordan – and short on campaign pledges.”

By comparison, the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli elections began long before the day prior to the vote. In the days and weeks before the elections, the BBC News website published eight articles – see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. The BBC World programme ‘Hardtalk‘ also addressed the subject of the elections.

The day before the Israeli elections, the BBC News website published six reports – see here, here, here, here, here and here.

On the day of the elections themselves (January 22^nd) six new articles appeared on the BBC News website – see here, here, here, here, here and here. One additional report by Jon Donnison was published and then later scrapped. The BBC also created and promoted a designated Twitter list of its correspondents Tweeting about the Israeli elections.

The BBC News website produced 12 reports on the day after the election (January 23^rd) – see here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

So – to compare the numbers – in the days and weeks before both elections, the BBC News website produced no articles on Jordan and nine on Israel. On the respective days prior to the elections, the BBC News website produced two articles about Jordan and six about Israel. On the respective days of elections themselves, the BBC News website produced two articles about Jordan and seven about Israel, with a designated Twitter list created only for the latter. On the respective days following the elections, the BBC News website produced one article about Jordan and twelve about Israel.

The total number of articles about the Jordanian election was five, whilst the total number of articles about the Israeli election was thirty-four, along with a dedicated Twitter list.

Can routine elections in a vibrant democracy really be said to justify seven times more coverage than elections held in a monarchy as part of efforts to contain local manifestations of a region-wide wave of public dissent?

Nov 16 2012

BBC’s Jeremy Bowen: “a deliberate escalation by Israel”

On November 14^th, not long after the commencement of Operation Pillar of Cloud, the BBC’s Middle East Editor – and one of the ‘gatekeepers’ of BBC Middle East reporting – Jeremy Bowen appeared on BBC television news to provide ‘analysis’ of the situation to audiences.

(Note the rather interesting choice of graphic in the background.)

This was Bowen’s report (all emphasis added).

“The assassination of the head of the Hamas armed wing, Ahmed al Jabari, is a deliberate escalation by Israel“.

The firing of hundreds of military-grade missiles at Israeli civilians – a clear war crime – apparently does not enter Bowen’s equation as a cause for escalation.

“The risk of a new war is the reason why its chief military spokesman has warned Israelis to brace themselves.”

Actually, it is the inevitable upsurge in rocket fire after any Israeli action which promoted that warning.

Bowen’s report then goes on to show rocket fire from populated residential areas in Gaza, with the concurrent endangering of Palestinian civilians, but that point is not made clear to viewers.

“This is why Israel says it’s attacking Gaza: to stop Palestinian rocket fire. Israel also said that the assassinated Hamas leader had a lot of blood on his hands.”

Note the use of the term ‘assassinated’ in order to suggest illegality and the dismissal of Jabari’s terrorist record . Footage is shown of the attack with an anti-tank missile on an Israeli patrol jeep inside Israeli territory, but no context or explanation is offered.

“The armed groups who are active in Gaza say they’re the protectors of Palestinians, engaging in legitimate resistance.”

Bowen of course neglects to point out that seven years after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, there is nothing to ‘resist’, except the very existence of Israel itself, of course.

“After days of exchanges of fire, this is damage in Israel.”

Accompanying footage shows a rocket crater. Images of much more serious damage to homes and property or wounded Israeli civilians are not shown.

“Questions are being asked about the timing of the assassination – two months before an Israeli election.”

The BBC has repeatedly pushed this ‘elections’ motif both before and since the beginning of the current operation. Bowen fails to inform viewers exactly who (apart from himself and his colleagues) is asking the ‘questions’ he promotes.

“In the past, military strikes have been used to send messages about the toughness of Israeli leaders.”

Cut to a clip of PM Netanyahu at a recent press conference.

Bowen’s cynical use of this unfounded and unproven allegation is especially sickening as it implies that Israeli politicians gamble with the lives of regular and reserve soldiers merely for political gains.

Cut to footage of grieving Palestinians and a funeral in Gaza.

“Hamas have sworn to hit back. They said the same thing during the last Gaza war, either side of the New Year of 2009. But it showed Hamas’ limitations against Israel’s modern hi-tech army.”

This is a clear attempt to paint the terrorists as underdogs – and we are all familiar with the significance of that in British culture. The use of Fajr 5 and other missiles against civilian targets is of course not the action of ‘underdogs’.

“Before the assassination the Egyptian government had been working to establish a cease-fire between the two sides and its effects had been praised by top Israeli security officials.”

The ‘officials’ are not named, so that claim cannot be corroborated. In actual fact, the ‘ceasefire’ negotiated by Egypt on Monday, November 12^th did not even last until the next day as rockets continued to be fired at Israeli civilian targets. Bowen’s attempt to blame Israel for the failure of a ceasefire does therefore not hold water.

“Egypt’s President is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot. The assassination will be seen in Cairo as a calculated and dangerous insult.”

Any analyst worth his salt would, at this juncture, also point out the contrast between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s attitudes towards its affiliated terror faction in Gaza and its own actions against Salafists attacking Egyptian troops in the Sinai.

“What has changed since the 2009 Gaza war is that the West and Israel have lost their most reliable Arab friend, Egypt’s President Mubarak. They saw him as an indispensable part of the solution at times like this.”

Seeing as – according to the BBC ethos – we are all supposed to greet the ‘Arab Spring’ with open arms, this is a clear attempt to place Israel in the camp of the ‘bad guys’. Mubarak was not Israel’s ‘friend’: he was the leader of a country with which Israel has a peace treaty and was aware of the dangers of Islamist extremism in his own country and on its borders.

“This is the first Palestinian – Israeli crisis since the Middle East began changing profoundly two years ago.”

Over 1,100 rockets fired at Israeli civilians from the Gaza Strip (not including those fired since November 14^th) since the beginning of 2011 were not, apparently, a ‘crisis’ in Bowen’s view.

“That increases the uncertainty and the risk and that’s why immediate warnings about escalation were issued by Britain and the UN Secretary General, among others”. This is another dangerous moment in a region that was already unstable.”

In other words, Bowen wants his audience to go away with the feeling that it is Israel – and Israel alone – which is pushing the entire region to the edge of disaster, rather than the actions of terrorist organisations dedicated to its destruction which commit war crimes against civilians on a daily basis.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the standard of ‘analysis’ which the BBC’s top Middle East expert has to offer you. For more on that, head over to The Commentator .

Oct 31 2012

BBC’s Jon Donnison continues to airbrush Hamas terrorist activity

As we know, this week began (and still continues) with yet more missile attacks on civilian communities in southern Israel and the subsequent closure of schools in Be’er Sheva and – as we noted at the time – the BBC’s reporting on the subject was – to put it generously – decidedly sluggish.

In fact, the first mention of the renewed attacks came well over 24 hours after they began, on Monday October 29^th, in the form of two reports on the Middle East page of the BBC News website.

One report, titled “Violence ends Israel-Gaza truce“, includes the rather tortured explanation:

“It [rocket fire] came hours after Israeli aircraft hit targets in Gaza, after militants fired rockets following the killing by Israel of a Gazan who Israel said fired mortars at its troops.”

The article also sports ‘analysis’ from the BBC’s Gaza correspondent Jon Donnison:

“It is often difficult to pinpoint when a specific escalation in violence started – both sides will always remember what they see as a previous act of aggression by the other which enables them to justify their attacks as retaliation”

The second article, by Jon Donnison, is entitled “Israel-Gaza violence puts pressure on sides to respond” and it opens with the same paragraph. Donnison goes on to attribute the truce-breaking rocket fire to “small extremist Salafi groups in Gaza, that were not party to the unofficial truce”, but fails to mention that the Hamas-backed Popular Resistance Committees claimed responsibility for one of the Grad missiles fired at Be’er Sheva.

Donnison goes on to state that:

“Such groups [Salafists] say Hamas is too moderate in its resistance of Israel’s occupation. Hamas, which governs in Gaza, has sometimes tried to stop Salafis from firing but has not always been able to do so.”

He continues by promoting his usual stance (once more neglecting to inform us by whom it is “widely believed”), according to which:

“It is widely believed Hamas does not want a major escalation in violence with Israel or another war in Gaza. The movement is more interested in consolidating its power and strengthening the economy.”

However, Donnison then adds:

“But when its own members are killed or Palestinian civilians are caught up in the violence, Hamas is under pressure to respond in order to assert its credentials as a resistance movement.

As the governing power in Gaza, it needs to be seen to protect the population.”

So, to recap Donnison’s message, Hamas has no choice but to join in the rocket fire – even though it does not really want to – due to internal pressures.

Donnison, of course, refrains from venturing down the complicated route of defining the kind of organization which deliberately and calculatingly fires rockets at one million men, women and children in a neighbouring country in order (according to him) to boost its own domestic political credentials. He is therefore also unable to approach the question of what sort of political climate in the Gaza Strip produces a governing power which needs to be seen as asserting its credentials as a terrorist organization.

In addition, he fails to address the fact that on the day before his report was published, Hamas released a video showing its own firing of rockets from built up areas of the Gaza Strip, thereby obviously neglecting Donnison’s alleged need “to be seen to protect the population” by its use of the local civilians as human shields.

Donnison then goes on to ridiculously suggest – yet again – that Israeli responses to missile fire are somehow part of an election campaign:

“The Israeli government is also under pressure from the public to be seen to be responding to Palestinian rocket fire which impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people living in southern Israel.

This is especially the case in the run-up to Israeli elections which will take place in January next year.”

Jon Donnison’s muted and misleading airbrushed reporting on Hamas and its terrorist activities may well contribute to his practical ability to report from Gaza with relatively little danger or interference.

However, the type of equivalence his ‘analysis’ promotes – between a terrorist organization repeatedly targeting civilians and a regular army engaged in counter-terrorism activities – reduces rather than contributes to his audience’s understanding of the situation and fails to meet the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines concerning accuracy.

Oct 18 2012

To endorse, or not to endorse, that is BowenBBC’s question

Readers will remember that a few days ago we noted that the BBC’s Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen had updated his Twitter profile to include the notification that “Retweets aren’t endorsements”, after BBC Watch had published an article about his retweet of a Tweet by Joseph Dana.

Well, now Bowen’s profile has been updated again, and the caveat removed.