Jun 15 2013

BBC R4 breaches editorial guidelines in ‘Today’ interview with Jack Straw

The Friday June 14^th edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme included an item in which presenter John Humphrys spoke with Labour MP Jack Straw and Dr. Dore Gold about the election in Iran.

The relevant section of the programme can be heard here from 1:35:30 for a limited period of time.

Following remarks by Straw, including claims of demonisation and humiliation of Iran by the West along with doubts expressed with regard to the intentions of Iran’s nuclear programme, Humphrys says at 1:40:06:

“Let me put that to you Dr. Gold, because if anybody has demonised them, you could argue it has been Israel.”

After Dore Gold’s reply, at 1:41:30, Jack Straw says: [emphasis added]

“Well hang on a second. Israel has the most extensive nuclear weapons capability there [Middle East]. It has no territorial ambitions apart from stealing the land of the Palestinians and it’s not going to use nuclear weapons for that, but it has [a] very extensive nuclear weapons programme…”

Humphrys follows with:

“Right, well you can’t argue…let me put that to Dr. Gold. You can’t argue with that, can you Dr Gold?”

Actually, one can – and indeed should – argue with such a gratuitous, dishonest and inaccurate cheap slur – and that is exactly what John Humphrys should have done as the representative of an organisation committed to accuracy and impartiality. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on live broadcasts state:

“If offensive comments are expressed during live interviews, the interviewer should normally intervene, challenge the comments where appropriate and/or distance the BBC from the comments. If this doesn’t happen we should make an on-air apology at the earliest opportunity. Potentially offensive comments include remarks that may be interpreted as, for example, racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudiced against a religious group, or reflecting an unflattering national stereotype.”

And:

“If it is established during a live programme that a factual error has been made and we can accurately correct it then we should admit our mistake clearly and frankly. Saying what was wrong as well as putting it right can be an important element in making an effective correction. Where the inaccuracy is unfair, a timely correction may dissuade the aggrieved party from complaining. Any serious factual errors or potential defamation problems should be referred immediately to Programme Legal Advice.”

And:

“Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s standards. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. It is vital that any package or interview broadcast during a live event is impartial and fair. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no suggestion of bias. This can be achieved by careful casting and ensuring the presenter/interviewer is properly briefed to conduct a robust interview.”

But instead, we find that – apparently not content with the real time broadcast of that defamatory and libellous lie from Straw – the BBC actually amplified it further, despite the fact that those same Editorial Guidelines clearly state: [emphasis added]

“Live events are often repeated in highlights programmes and are increasingly available on various ‘On Demand’ platforms (for example on the Radio Player, Interactive Television, Video On Demand or the iPlayer). Programme Editors should ensure that any derogatory remarks which caused concern on transmission are edited from any repeat or online provision. Where a defamatory remark has been made, programme editors should ensure they comply with all legal advice given. It is also the responsibility of the programme editors to ensure that, where appropriate, programmes with unexpected legal issues are not repeated or made available ‘On Demand’.”

In addition to the programme being made available to listeners for a week on the programme’s webpage, on a separate “live” webpage we find an invitation to readers to “listen to the discussion” with a link leading to another webpage on the BBC News site featuring a recording of the item.

The ‘Today’ programme’s official Twitter account also promoted another audio version of the item.

So there we have it. Once again the BBC makes a laughing stock of its supposed standards of accuracy and impartiality by not only failing to challenge a deliberate inaccuracy spouted in a live interview, but by promoting it widely afterwards.

May 24 2013

BBC myths and mantras on the peace process

Particularly on the day following the horrendous terrorist murder of a British soldier in Woolwich, it was difficult to find anything remotely newsworthy about the item broadcast on the BBC Radio 4 May 23^rd edition of the ‘Today’ programme with regard to the latest visit by John Kerry to Israel. At the time it was broadcast (9:30 am local time), Kerry would barely have had time to hang up his coat, let alone make any headway in the Middle East peace process. But nevertheless, the BBC Jerusalem Bureau’s Kevin Connolly used the occasion of the visit as a convenient hook upon which to hang three and a half minutes of repetition of jaded BBC mantras and to cook up some new tropes.

The broadcast is available here for a limited period of time and the relevant section begins at 1:30:40. Presenter John Humphrys opens:

“The American Secretary of State John Kerry is in the Middle East today doing what every secretary of state’s been trying to do for decades: trying to encourage a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Direct talks between the two sides had broken down even before the Arab uprising swept the Middle East. Our Middle East correspondent Kevin Connolly reports.”

It is not clear why Humphrys should see any connection between the timing of “the Arab uprising” and the breakdown of talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Connolly’s report begins:

“Last week Palestinians marked with protests and with rallies the moment in 1948 which helped define the modern Middle East. They call it the Naqba – the catastrophe. Israelis celebrate the same sequence of maneuverings of the UN and fighting in the Holy Land as Independence Day. It was diplomacy as a zero sum game. Israel – it seemed to the Arab world – won because the Palestinians lost. “

What the phrase “sequence of maneuverings of the UN” is supposed to represent is anyone’s guess, but it is notable that Connolly whitewashes the intended annihilation of nascent Israel by five Arab nations by euphemistically referring to “fighting in the Holy Land” and that he describes their defeat solely in terms of a Palestinian loss. Of course, had there been no Arab attack on Israel, there would have been no defeat – and no “catastrophe”. Connolly continues:

“In the decades since, world leaders have come to coalesce around what they believe would be a win-win solution. A Palestinian state could and should be created on the land Israel conquered in 1967. Israel could and should give up that territory in return for recognition and guaranteed security. Land for peace. “

Of course Connolly does not bother reminding readers that “the land Israel conquered in 1967″ was due to another annihilation attempt by Arab nations or that the said land was conquered by Jordan in 1948, with its 19-year occupation never recognized by the international community. Neither does he bother to examine the track record of the ‘land for peace’ principle. He goes on:

“When Barak Obama came to Israel a couple of months ago he put the argument elegantly and passionately, as he’s done before.”

The programme then cuts to a recording of part of Obama’s speech in Jerusalem in March:

BO: “But the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination – their right to justice – must also be recognized. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.”

Then it is back to Connolly:

“Everyone knows the depths of mutual hostility and suspicion that make a deal so difficult. But the key players know how to avoid international condemnation by sounding like they’re readier to do a deal than they really are.

Under Benjamin Netanyahu, Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded. They are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes that interpretation. Mr Netanyahu leads a government which includes ministers who oppose the very idea of a Palestinian state, but when he talks about it, it still sounds eminently doable.”

There’s ye olde “international law” mantra, coming before the distinctly bizarre notion that all ministers in a democratic government should have the exact same opinions as their prime minister and if they don’t, then a peace deal cannot be made. The 1979 Knesset debate on the subject of the peace treaty with Egypt lasted a turbulent 28 hours – and not because all those present agreed with each other – but in the end the treaty was approved.

The broadcast then cuts to a recording of Binyamin Netanyahu:

BN: “So let me be clear: Israel remains fully committed to peace and to the solution of two states for two peoples. We extend our hands in peace and in friendship to the Palestinian people.”

Connolly goes on:

“The Palestinian leadership, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, says there can’t be peace talks until that settlement expansion stops. But on other issues Mr Abbas sounds the very soul of flexibility. He says he’s ready to give up his personal claim to right of return to his own childhood home – which is now in Israel – in order to make peace.”

There’s BBC mantra number two: ‘settlements are an obstacle to peace’. The broadcast then cuts to a recording of Mahmoud Abbas speaking in a 2012 interview with Israel’s Channel 2 TV station.

MA: “But I want to see Safed. It’s my right to see it but not to live there. West Bank and Gaza is Palestine. Other parts [sic] is Israel.”

Connolly conveniently avoids examining the issue of whether all Mahmoud Abbas’ ministers are pro-peace and ignores the fact that the Palestinian governmental system as a whole currently has no legitimate elected mandate. He equally conveniently airbrushes Hamas and the other rejectionist Palestinian factions out of the picture altogether. And of course Abbas’ supposed willingness to “give up…right of return” has absolutely no significance, as Abbas himself soon clarified.

“Talking about Safed is a personal position and does not mean giving up the right of return.” Indeed, he went on, “No-one can give up the right of return as all international texts and Arab and Islamic decisions refer to a just and agreed-upon solution to the refugee issue, according to UN Resolution 194, with the term ‘agreed upon’ meaning agreement with the Israeli side.”

“I do not change my position,” Abbas stressed. “What I say to the Palestinians is no different from what I say to the Israelis or the Americans or anyone.”

Connolly concludes:

“And yet, even with all that reasonableness around and all this renewed effort, another Naqba day has gone by with no deal. There was a time when making peace between Israel and the Palestinians was seen as the key to changing the Middle East, but the Arab Spring has shown that the Middle East was capable of changing while this peace process remained hopelessly stalled.”

Those who may think or have thought that the Arab-Israeli conflict is or was “the key to changing the Middle East” obviously had no understanding of the myriad of complex issues facing the region in the first place, but allowed themselves to be dazzled by the spotlight placed on that issue by political activists. They are – coincidentally – quite often those who equally erroneously promote the idea that the changes brought about by the ‘Arab Spring’ so far have made any significant difference to the lives of the peoples – and particularly the minorities – of the Middle East.

It seems that Kevin Connolly and the BBC are unable – and unwilling – to get themselves out of the rut of incessant repetition of the same old jaded, politically inspired myths and mantras about the Middle East which prevent audiences from gaining any real grasp of the region’s history, present or future.

May 20 2013

Checking BBC-propagated untruths about checkpoints

We recently discussed the May 9^th 2013 edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme in which veteran anti-Israel campaigner Ghada Karmi was given more or less free rein to propagate a collection of untruths and defamation. Among Karmi’s many deliberately misleading statements was the following:

“The reality is that life for Palestinian academics is extremely hard. They suffer from under-funding – the universities are under-funded. The universities are closed. They’re prevented from getting to their places of work. Students are prevented from going to their lectures by checkpoints. They are under extremely harsh conditions there.”

As we remarked at the time:

“Karmi’s claim that Palestinian lecturers and students are “prevented” from travelling to universities by checkpoints conveniently whitewashes out of the picture the fact that those checkpoints did not exist before the Palestinian decision to launch a terror war in September 2000.”

Enjoying to no small extent the cooperation of some of the media, anti-Israel campaigners repeatedly try to delegitimize Israel by distorting Israeli counter-terrorism measures such as checkpoints or the anti-terrorist fence as deliberate means to cruelly inconvenience Palestinians instead of measures to protect the Israeli civilian population. That campaigning narrative is aimed at the emotions of Western audiences in particular and relies to a very large extent on its audience’s lack of familiarity with the facts.

So what are the facts? How many checkpoints actually exist and do they really “prevent” Palestinians from travelling to work or to university?

“The number of checkpoints in the Central Command went from 40 in July 2008 to just 12 in October 2012. Furthermore, these checkpoints are only used some of the time and the frequency of checks is dependent on the security threat at the time.”

Read more about the reality of checkpoints, crossings and movement in this useful fact sheet.

May 14 2013

BBC Radio 4 enables Ghada Karmi’s delegitimisation

h/t JK

On Thursday May 9^th 2013 BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme included presenter John Humphrys discussing the decision by Stephen Hawking to cancel his participation in a conference in Jerusalem. Starting from 1:34:38, the relevant section is available here for a short period of time and here as a podcast.

Humphrys’ guests were Dr. Toby Greene of BICOM and Dr. Ghada Karmi of Exeter University. Ghada Karmi will of course be familiar to many readers as a long-standing proponent of the “one-state solution“, especially – but by no means exclusively – on the pages of the Guardian. Radio 4 listeners were however not informed of Dr Karmi’s views before she launched into her diatribe. Rather – in contravention of clause 4.4.14 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines on impartiality – she was introduced merely as a “Palestinian writer at the University of Exeter”.

Here is Karmi speaking at a PSC demonstration organized as part of the ‘Global March to Jerusalem‘ events in London in March 2012.

Not only was Karmi’s rich record of campaigning for the dissolution of Israel concealed from Radio 4 listeners, but she was given a platform from which to promote her tirade of downright lies and defamation with very little hindrance.

At 1:36:18 Humphrys says:

“Dr. Karmi; isn’t it always better if people talk to each other?”

GK: “Well it would be. It’s always better and we welcome the talking…”

JH: “So why the boycott?”

GK: “…if it has any effect [scoffing laugh] and the whole issue with Israel is that talking, engaging – all the stuff that Dr. Greene is talking about – has been happening for decades and we wouldn’t stop it but the fact…”

JH: “But you have stopped it with the boycott.”

GK: “No, not at all. Let me correct you. This is very important. We’ve never stopped. We never would stop talking. The issue is not that. The issue is what is to be done because it is not enough to talk. People have been talking to Israel for a very long time. It has made no difference whatsoever.”

There’s lie number one. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, led by PACBI, explicitly rejects all forms of what it terms ‘normalisation’ - i.e. conversation – between Israelis and Palestinians.

“In April 2010, PACBI produced a document endorsed by ‘Palestinian youth’, including the Birzeit University Student Council. The document states that “we declare our rejection of normalization with the Israel (sic) on all levels”. The definition of ‘normalization’ given is as follows:

The definition of normalization, in brief, is “participating in any project, initiative or activity whether locally or internationally, that is designed to bring together-whether directly or indirectly- Palestinian and/or Arab youth with Israelis (whether individuals or institutions) and is not explicitly designed to resist or expose the occupation and all forms of discrimination and oppression inflicted upon the Palestinian people.” “

Additional lies are swift to follow. Humphreys asks:

“But if a boycott is not intended to stop people talking to each other, what is it meant to do?”

GK: “It’s meant to give a signal, to raise awareness, to make people understand who might not know the situation – that Palestinian academics under occupation have no academic freedom. That’s what this is about. Now for Professor Hawking to refuse to go to this conference is honourable, it is principled and he is to be commended because he has given an important signal to the world saying a state like Israel which practices the kind of repression and apartheid against Palestinian academics should not be dignified with the attendance of people like him.”

As Toby Greene tries valiantly to make clear, the notion that Israel ‘represses’ Palestinian academics in either the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip or the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories is nothing more than a figment of Karmi’s imagination. Karmi conveniently ‘forgets’ to inform listeners that there were no universities in what is today the area under PA rule until 1967 or that one of PACBI’s prominent leaders, Omar Barghouti, studied at Tel Aviv University – which obviously puts paid to her baseless and defamatory charges of “apartheid”. But Karmi carries on with the promotion of her blatant lies, interrupting Toby Greene’s explanation that Palestinian universities are not under Israeli control with theatrical laughs and condescendingly saying:

“Dr. Greene. Listen. Take a taxi. Do me a favour. Go to the West Bank, try to go to Gaza. See what’s going on there.”

If Dr Greene were to take up Karmi’s suggestion, he would of course see exactly what ‘academic freedom‘ apparently entails for the likes of Dr. Karmi.

Birzeit University, December 2012

Humphrys interjects:

“The point is that they are not controlled by Israel.”

Karmi replies:

“Well that is nonsense! They are under Israeli occupation and that is simply nonsense. The reality is that life for Palestinian academics is extremely hard. They suffer from under-funding – the universities are under-funded. The universities are closed. They’re prevented from getting to their places of work. Students are prevented from going to their lectures by checkpoints. They are under extremely harsh conditions there.”

Of course any under-funding of Palestinian universities has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the priorities of the Palestinian Authority – which spends 6% of its budget on salaries for convicted terrorists – and Hamas – which spends untold amounts of money on weapons. Karmi’s claim that Palestinian lecturers and students are “prevented” from travelling to universities by checkpoints conveniently whitewashes out of the picture the fact that those checkpoints did not exist before the Palestinian decision to launch a terror war in September 2000.

Humphries concludes:

“So the boycott will continue until the occupation – as you describe it – is lifted?”

Karmi uses the opportunity to repeat her lies yet again:

“Absolutely! And I think that everyone with the slightest conscience in the world should support the idea that a state like Israel which practices the kind of apartheid and repression against another people cannot be given credit or treated ‘business as usual’.”

The case could be put that this part of the ‘Today’ programme was balanced, having given the opportunity for expression to both sides of the issue. However, what most listeners will take away from it is the bundle of lies which Ghada Karmi was given the chance by the BBC to voice and repeat without adequate correction on the part of the presenter.

There is, however, a bigger and much more important problem with this programme. By concentrating on the frankly trivial and transient subject of Hawking’s decision and presenting it as a subject for discussion between the holders of two opposing viewpoints, the BBC has muffled the much more crucial bigger picture – the one of which its audiences do need to be made aware.

That, of course, is the fact that the BDS movement is not about getting this or that ‘celeb’ to cancel a lecture or a concert in Israel, but about the campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state in public opinion, with the racist ‘end game‘ of bringing about the dissolution of that state and an end to Jewish self-determination. By providing Ghada Karmi with a platform from which to spout her untruths and delegitimisation unhindered, the BBC is – intentionally or not – enabling that racist campaign.

May 9 2013

BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ promotes more Syrian regime propaganda

h/t JK

The May 6^th edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme did not only feature a potentially BAFTA-winning performance by Jeremy Bowen pretending that “nobody really knows” whether or why Iranian long-range missiles might be transferred to the terrorist organisation Hizballah via Syria. Earlier on in the programme – from 1:09:07 here for a limited period of time – over four minutes of air time was dedicated to the uninterrupted promotion of propaganda directly from the Iran/Syria/Hizballah coalition by its mouthpiece ‘Conflicts Forum’ director Alastair Crooke.

Presenter Justin Webb introduces the item by stating:

“Israeli jets bombed Syria yesterday. It was the second attack in 48 hours. The Syrian deputy Foreign Minister called it an act of war. The United States, according to an intelligence official, was not given any warning before the air strikes which most people are assuming were on targets connected with the Iranian supply of weapons to Syria and then on to Hizballah – the militant group based in Lebanon which is backed by Iran and by President Assad. Alastair Crooke is a former EU mediator in the Middle East. He’s director now of the NGO Conflicts Forum and is on the line from Beirut. Good morning to you.”

Webb’s claim that “Israeli jets bombed Syria” is of course a deliberately wide – and inaccurate – interpretation of pinpoint strikes carried out against specific targets in very specific areas of a very large country. Webb’s failure to inform listeners of the political motivations of Crooke’s organisation directly contravenes BBC Editorial Guidelines on impartiality, and in particular section 4.4.14 of those guidelines.

“We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities) are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made.”

The interview continues:

Alastair Crooke: “Good morning to you.”

JW: “What do you think is happening?”

AC: “Err..we’ve had some reaction overnight err..from Hizballah and some sources have been speaking in Damascus. Erm..what Hizballah are saying – and they’re quite calm about it – they say they regard this very much as a political event by – political demonstration if you like – err.. by Israel. Err.. they say that they recently received emm.. effective – quote – effective weapons emm… across the border from Syria and that Israel were [sic] a little bit late on the uptake on this and that we have seen – as indeed we have seen – that Lebanon has been crisscrossed by Israeli aeroplanes during the recent days and they believe that they were unable to find what they wanted and so they gave a demonstrative attack, if you like, on the previously attacked erm.. weapons logistics centre near Damascus and this was intended really emm… having not succeeded in stopping this effective, as far as Hizballah is describing it, Israel is sending a message saying well don’t think of doing it again because we will reply.”

Using the same country and area codes, Webb’s producers could have telephoned Hizballah’s offices in the Dahiya area of Beirut and received the exact same commentary of course – albeit in perhaps less of a polished accent. Webb continues:

“And the point is these weapons – it’s the Fateh 110 isn’t it? It’s a missile that could reach Tel Aviv from southern Lebanon so in the event, for instance, of Israel attacking Iran over its nuclear programme, then this could be quite an effective active retaliation by an Iranian ally.”

Crooke responds:

“Yes, but Hizballah – and the Israelis said this quite publicly – have already got such weapons. Erm.. there’s another version of this weapon which is very similar which has been produced in Syria in recent years and almost certainly that has reached Hizballah. In any case Hizballah is fully armed. I mean there’s no question about that. Israeli intelligence sources .. amm.. admit quite clearly that they have far greater potential weapons power now than they ever had during the war in 2006. So I don’t think this – the loss – even if there was a loss of a particular weapons shipment – would be critical – strategically critical – to Hizballah’s position.”

An appreciation of the similarity of Crooke’s claims to those made by Hizballah itself can be gleaned by taking a look at this recent statement from its leader Nasrallah:

“Israel believes that if it attacks facilities and strategic stockpiles, it changes the resistance capabilities. This is an erroneous assessment.” He said,”The reason being that the stocks of the resistance have been filled with all that it needs.”

Webb then asks:

“What – are we to see this then in the context of an effort by Israel to persuade the Americans that they need now to take sides and do something?”

Crooke replies:

“Yes, I think that’s exactly right. What we’re seeing – I think it’s got two things in it – and again Syrian sources informally were saying overnight that from their point of view there was little loss. It was the same building and of course they’d cleared it since the last attack and there was nothing substantial there. Err.. they do tie it very much to the advances – and Hizballah shares this view, I believe – that the Syrian armed forces have had err.. huge advances in cutting off, if you like, the supply routes between Lebanon and Homs in Syria and also in the south and advances in the east and opening the highway to the north. In fact, I mean, it’s a huge shift taking place on the ground and they think that this is disturbing to both Israel and America: any thought that there could be a comeback by President Assad and his government and indeed a victory in military terms by them – and so there was a thought that providing a strike that would assist the opposition could be an advantage and also, in Israeli calculation, help bring err.. American involvement a little closer and by pushing America towards involvement in Syria and pushing them off their red line – the American red line as you may recall was that the use of chemical weapons would be the only cause of American direct involvement. But by blurring that and pushing America towards shifting their red line on Iran – which is the acquisition of nuclear weapons. “

Webb concludes:

“Very interesting. Thank you Alastair Crooke and we’ll be hearing the Israeli side of this in so far as we can get it after half past eight.”

That last remark refers to an interview with Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland which was conducted after the one with Jeremy Bowen.

If readers are now beginning to suspect that the BBC simply saved itself a phone call to the Syrian Ministry of Propaganda by inviting Alastair Crooke to this programme, they might not be far wrong.

We previously addressed the subject of the nature of Crooke’s organization on these pages in light of the BBC’s use of input from him in a 2011 article entitled “Hezbollah: Terrorist organisation or liberation movement?” which was recently recycled by the BBC.

“Broadly speaking, Conflicts Forum is a Western-sounding mouthpiece for the Iranian regime and its various client militias such as Hamas and Hizballah, as well as Iranian allies such as the Assad regime.

In 2007, with EU funding, Conflicts Forum produced a report (now strangely absent from the internet) detailing strategies to rebrand the proscribed terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbollah in the West as proponents of “social justice” and specifically promoting “Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s values, philosophy and wider political and social programmes”.

“We need to clarify and explain that Islamist movements are political and social movements working on social and political justice,” the report explains, “and are leading the resistance to the US/Western recolonisation project with its network of client states and so-called ‘moderates’.” It claims “the progressive space of social movements [in the West] is empty” and asks, “how the West can learn from the values and the notion of society that Hezbollah and Hamas have at the centre of their philosophy?”

Of course, access to the mainstream media dovetails with the Conflicts Forum strategy very well, but one would expect members of the media organisations themselves to be aware of the organisation’s background and aims before using quotes from its officials.”

Providing Alastair Crooke with the opportunity to spout the spin of a terrorist organization and a murderous dictatorship to millions of listeners unchallenged is obviously bad enough. But when that is done without due disclosure of the political connections of the man and his very dubious organization, then the BBC is displaying wanton disregard for its own obligation to impartiality and once again putting its own political colours – and agenda – in full view.

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 4 2013

New BBC DG coy on subject of licence fee

The latest Director General of the BBC, Lord Tony Hall, began his new position this week with an e-mail to BBC staff and an interview on Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme.

During the interview – which is well worth a listen in full – Hall claimed that public trust in the BBC is rising and that he intends to respond “to things I hear from both outsiders and also insiders”. The delightfully feisty programme host John Humphrys raised the subject of the licence fee, but Hall declined to give a straight answer to the question “does the BBC need more money?”.

On that issue, The Commentator recently published a very interesting article by the initiator of a petition calling for a referendum on the licence fee.

“The Licence Fee was established at a time when there was no alternative to State-funded radio or television, but has now created a dumb, yet enormously fat and happy playground bully that pervades, influences and commands almost every aspect of the British way of life.

In an age of media “a la carte”, the BBC insists on dictating the menu, as well as fixing the price. The politicians won’t take the lead in muzzling this beast: the Tories had their opportunity but are running scared; Labour and the Lib Dems sycophantically suck-up to get their free shot of publicity (Vince Cable is almost a saint). Even UKIP is strangely silent on this issue.

So it is up to us, the great British public, to do something about it.”

If Mr Hall is genuinely interested in listening to his funding public, the proposal raised by this petition presents an innovative and inclusive way in which to do so.

Jan 30 2013

The BBC, Bell and the blood libel

On January 29^th 2013 the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme brought in Stephen Pollard – editor of the Jewish Chronicle – and Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell to discuss the subject of Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon which was the subject of much objection when it appeared in the Sunday Times on Holocaust Memorial Day, and for which the paper’s owner Rupert Murdoch has personally apologized, as has its acting editor.

The entire programme can be listened to here or alternatively a podcast of the relevant section can be heard here.

At 1:38 in the podcast Steve Bell says:

“I think apologizing for this cartoon, which in fact, for once, wasn’t a bad cartoon…I think Stephen Pollard invokes terms like ‘the blood libel’ and kind of genocidal hate rage, he’s attributing this to a cartoon which is actually, it’s sort of like a mirror image of the cartoon that Scarfe did the week before which was about President Assad doing exactly…I think it was clutching the head of a baby the week before which is even considered to be more offensive. Not a squeak about that.”

Not a squeak from the programme’s presenter either – who apparently saw no problem in Bell’s attempt to compare a cartoon of a dictator waging a civil war – which has claimed more lives in under two years that the entire Arab-Israeli conflict – with one of a democratically elected prime minister. Crucially, as Stephen Pollard pointed out on his Editor’s blog:

“It’s a fair point to say that the previous week Scarfe depicted Assad in a similar way, and he’s entitled to his view of Netanyahu, just as the Sunday Times are entitled to print it.

But there’s never been an anti-Alawite blood libel, and the context matters. The blood libel is central to the history of antisemitism.”

Bell goes on: [emphasis added]

“Ahm..the problem with the State of Israel and the – if you like – Zionist lobby is that they never acknowledge the crime of ethnic cleansing upon which the state was founded and that’s a permanent problem. It’s always going to be a difficult issue. It’s always going to set people at odds like this…”

No intervention from the presenter in the name of accuracy or impartiality there either.

Bell continues:

“If you use the term blood libel as loosely and as ridiculously as that… the blood libel refers I think to a medieval belief that the Jews actually ate their own children – or ate Christian children – which is not actually a current..ahm…idea that’s abroad. Nobody’s actually saying…”

So now we learn that Bell, whom the BBC invited to talk about a cartoon judged by many to be offensive because it invokes the blood libel, does not actually know what the blood libel is. Needless to say, the presenter did not bother to correct Bell’s erroneous assertions on that point and neither did he trouble his audience – many if not most of whom will not have a clue as to what the blood libel is – with a factual explanation of its historic roots and modern interpretations. The BBC’s written ‘explanation’ of the term here also leaves much to be desired.

Later on Bell says: [emphasis added]

“The problem with this argument is, it’s extraneous notions like ‘blood libel’ and.. err.. are dragged in and sensitivities are talked up when there actually don’t….the very word antisemitic – it becomes devalued. They throw it around with such abandon and if there is real antisemitism, it’s actually getting ignored.”

Of course the audience is not informed who “they” are, but we do not need a cartoonist’s imagination to understand Bell’s intentions.

So what did Radio 4 audiences learn from Bell’s participation in this discussion? They found out that there’s a “Zionist lobby” that ignores “ethnic cleansing” of which Israel is guilty and that there is something called the blood libel which involves beliefs about Jews eating children. They also learned that “they” accuse people falsely of antisemitism, which may or may not be real, by invoking the term blood libel.

Had Radio 4 actually tried to get as many erroneous and offensive notions about Jews and Israel as possible into a seven minute item, it would have had difficulty topping this. And yet, the ‘Today’ presenter allowed Bell a free rein, at no point stepping in to correct his distortions.

This broadcast yet again raises the subject of BBC interviewees who use the platform provided to them to promote untruths – either due to ignorance or as deliberate politically motivated propaganda.

Can the BBC shirk its obligations concerning accurate and impartial broadcasting by hiding behind the defence that these are an interviewee’s opinions – no matter how wrong or offensive? Or does the BBC have an obligation to correct misleading assertions presented as ‘opinion’ in order to meet its own standards of accuracy and impartiality?

Jan 27 2013

A BBC template response to complaints

On November 7^th 2012 an edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme featured a conversation between the presenter and the BBC’s World Affairs Editor, John Simpson, relating to the re-election of Barak Obama. The relevant portion of the programme can be heard here.

At 03:13 Simpson says: [all emphasis added]

“And anyway, Obama has taken a rather different line towards Israel – a more hostile line towards Israel. And he’s still won the election in spite of everything the Israeli Prime Minister could do to discourage Americans from voting for him…”

Later, the presenter says:

“A message of sup…I was going to say support…not a message of support – a message of congratulations (laughs) from Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli (laughs) Prime Minister. But..erm…I wonder what, briefly, will be going through his mind.”

Simpson replies:

“Oh, I should think he’s really disappointed. Err…he threw everything that he could, including calling..err…Mr Obama – effectively calling him weak in dealing with Iran. Including saying …err…more openly that he wasn’t the kind of friend that Israel would have chosen. Ahm..he didn’t use those words, but that was very clear. Ah..so he must feel that he’s got the wrong president there.”

Several members of the general public have informed BBC Watch that they made complaints to the BBC regarding Simpson’s claim in this programme that attempts were made by the Israeli Prime Minister to influence the US elections. Interestingly, all those who submitted complaints received exactly the same reply from the BBC.

Dear ******

Reference ***********

Thanks for contacting us about Radio 4′s Today broadcast on 7 November.

Firstly we’d like to apologise for the delay in replying. We realise correspondents expect a quick response and we’re sorry you‘ve had to wait on this occasion.

We understand you believe John Simpson made inaccurate and slanderous comments about the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, during a discussion on the 2012 US Presidential election.

We forwarded your concerns to the Today programme who pointed out that John Simpson specifically said:

”Obama has taken a…more hostile line towards Israel and still won the election despite everything the Israeli PM could do to discourage Americans from voting for him.”

Later he amplified that by saying:

“He (Netanyahu) threw everything that he could including…effectively calling him weak in dealing with Iran including, saying more openly that he wasn’t the kind of friend Israel would have chosen – he didn’t use those words but that was clear – so he must feel he got the wrong President there.”

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the relationship between the two leaders is poor and this has been reported elsewhere in the media. Reuters has referred to “long-strained ties” between the two, while the Telegraph has referred to difficulties between the two:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100180493/barack-obama-refuses-to-meet-benjamin-netanyahu-on-his-us-visit-a-rude-snub-to-7-million-israelis/

Meanwhile in the Guardian it was reported how the relationship was dysfunctional:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10611303

And how, in a story about Netanyahu’s appearance in a political ad produced by a fringe non-profit group to criticise President Obama, that:

“The ad is the latest in a series of appearances by Netanyahu in the heated US presidential election. The prime minister made a point of being photographed with Republican challenger Mitt Romney on his visit to Israel in July and praised the candidate’s views on Iran. In a Jerusalem press conference on the 9/11 anniversary, Netanyahu criticized the Obama administration’s refusal to notify Iran of a ‘red line’ that would trigger an attack on its nuclear facilities. Complaints by the prime minister’s office about Obama declining a meeting at the UN next week have been eagerly used by Republicans in attacks on the president.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/20/netanyahu-us-political-ad-obama

(Please note that the BBC isn’t responsible for the content found on any external websites.)

The BBC’s Jeremy Bowen also spoke of how: “As expected, Israel is being supported from the United States – despite the poor relationship between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346981

The programme added, in closing, that the poor relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu is an open secret and has been widely reported and commented upon. And it’s part of John Simpson’s job as World Affairs Editor to offer analysis of this kind for our audience.

Nevertheless, we appreciate your concerns about John Simpson’s comments and we’d like to assure you that we’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

Stuart Webb

BBC Complaints

The most striking thing about this response is its utter failure to answer the substance of the complaints. Readers did not complain about Simpson’s portrayal of the relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, but about his claim of attempts by the Israeli Prime Minister to influence the US elections.

Of the four references the response provides as evidence for the rejection of the complaints, one is from the BBC itself: a one-line quote from Jeremy Bowen which merely reflects his own subjective assessment of the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu. Another reference comes from the Daily Telegraph and two others from the Guardian – the first actually being a reproduction of an AP article which quotes a representative of ‘Americans for Peace Now’. Interestingly, the BBC apparently finds it legitimate to use articles from other sources (including even the Guardian - singled out on more than one occasion by the CST in its annual report on antisemitic discourse) as ‘evidence’ for its stance, whilst simultaneously stating that “the BBC isn’t responsible for the content found on any external websites”.

The second of those Guardian links refers to a video made by a third-party in which publicly available footage of Netanyahu speaking about the Iranian nuclear operation was used. Neither it, nor any of the other links provided by the BBC, show evidence of the direct – and massive – intervention which Simpson claimed had occurred.

As a supposed response to numerous complaints on the same subject, this reply from the BBC is sorely lacking in both substance and respect for its audiences’ intelligence.

Jan 15 2013

Elections in Israel and the BBC

With a week to go until the Israeli elections on January 22^nd 2013, the BBC’s coverage of the subject has so far been extremely sparse. The Jerusalem Bureau’s Kevin Connolly has produced a few items, including a December 20^th article focusing mainly upon Binyamin Netanyahu’s chances of re-election and an item on the BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme of January 7^th about the Israeli politician Western journalists love to hate – Avigdor Lieberman.

Apart from that, BBC audiences will so far have scant idea of the characteristics of the thirty-odd parties standing for election, their political leanings or their manifestos. They will know little about the women heading some of those parties such as Sheli Yechimovitch, Tsipi Livni, Zahava Galon or Asma Agbarieh-Zahalka. They will not know, for example, that in addition to the usual Arab parties, a new one named “The Hope for Change” is running this year on a very different platform than that usually offered to Arab voters or that there are two parties running which aim to represent Israel’s Ethiopian community.

Instead, like much of the Western media, the BBC so far seems intent upon portraying these elections in terms of an ominous shift to the right by the Israeli electorate and revolving solely around the issue of peace with the Palestinians.

The kind of interpretation of the Israeli political scene which appears to be prevalent at the BBC is represented in this blog post from Robin Lustig, who recently stepped down from his BBC posts after 23 years of presenting. As a now private citizen, Mr Lustig is of course entitled to write whatever he likes, but for those of us trying to make sense of the BBC’s coverage of Israel, he provides some valuable insights into the prevailing accepted wisdom in its corridors.

“Two-state solution? Forget it – even if President Obama really tries to push for a settlement (and let’s be honest, there’s been no sign so far that he intends to), Mr Netanyahu will simply say sorry, no can do, the Knesset won’t wear it.

Here’s the situation: Israelis have discovered they can live with the status quo. With the exception of those periods when Palestinian fighters fire rockets into Israel from Gaza, spreading real fear but causing mercifully few casualties, the vast majority of Israelis can get on with their daily lives without thinking about Palestinians at all.

So why even talk to them? Most Israelis still say they believe in a two-state solution, but it’s the sort of thing you can say without having to think too much about it. After all, anyone who looks at a map of where the Israelis have already built in the West Bank, which they’ve occupied now for more than 45 years – and where they intend to build – can see the reality: there’s no room left for anything that would remotely resemble a viable Palestinian state. […]

So, to many Israelis, it may look as if what they have now is sustainable, that somehow the Palestinians in the West Bank will eventually forget that they ever wanted a state of their own or the opportunity to decide their own futures — and that Palestinians in Gaza will no longer mind living in what they have long called the world’s biggest open-air prison.

In my view, this is a profound, and potentially disastrous, mistake. Israelis need only look to their neighbours in Egypt and Syria to see what happens when prolonged injustice is allowed to fester. But for now, what many Israelis see is a region mired in uncertainty and instability, and growing Islamist power which looks deeply alarming.

That, I suspect, is why they’re turning to leaders who speak the language of strength and resistance to compromise. What matters to them is not whether they’re liked, or even whether they’re approved of. What matters is that they’re feared. ”

Beyond his disturbingly ill-informed and superficial sound-bites (for a more nuanced view, Mr Lustig - and the recipients of his newsletter which recently included this blog-post – might like to read this recent article by Daniel Gordis), Robin Lustig provides an excellent example of the widely popular ‘doom and gloom’ approach to anticipated results of the democratic process in Israel.

And of course what is really interesting about that approach – characterized as it is by the frequent use of adjectives such as ‘hardline’, ‘right-wing’, ‘nationalist’ or ‘hawkish’ – is the glaring contrast with the way in which the BBC approached the elections in Tunisia and Egypt, for example.

Tunisia’s winning party Ennahda was repeatedly described as “moderate Islamist” by the BBC and one will certainly not find any of those above adjectives used to describe Mohamed Morsi, who – the BBC was very keen to inform audiences on multiple occasions – is “quietly” or “softly spoken”. In fact, as long as the ‘Arab Spring’ elections could be described as free and democratic, the BBC seemed to be perfectly willing to enthusiastically embrace the people’s choice, no matter what the ideology of those elected.

Any rightward shift which may or may not take place in next week’s vote in Israel will be the result of free and democratic elections. It is a pity that the BBC seems too often to be unable to appreciate that the Arab-Israeli conflict is just one of many issues facing those going to the polls or to respect the right of Israeli voters to make their own choices – even if those choices do not square up to the BBC world view.

BBC Watch

Tag Archives: ‘Today’