Recommended reading from the BBC’s Paul Danahar

From the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, Section 4, Impartiality:


“Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC – they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality has been achieved.  Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area.  They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence, but may not express personal views in BBC output, including online, on such matters.”

From the BBC’s Editorial Guidance on Social Networking, Microblogs and other Third Party Websites: Personal Use: 

“News and Current Affairs Staff, Blogging and Microblogging

Impartiality is a particular concern for those working in News and Current Affairs. Nothing should appear on their personal blogs or microblogs which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC. For example, News and Current Affairs staff should not:

 advocate support for a particular political party;

express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate;

advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate.”

So – a big thank you is in order to Paul Danahar for ignoring all of the above in order to enlighten us all on the subject of the kind of material the man running the BBC Jerusalem Bureau thinks is “worth a read”. 

Danahar Roger Cohen tweet

Incidentally, others promoting Roger Cohen’s op-ed around the web include 972 magazine, Jewish Voice for Peace, Ibrahim Hewitt of the Hamas-enabling ‘charity’ Interpal and Iranian lobbyist Trita Parsi.

Hewitt tweet

Parsi tweet


5 comments on “Recommended reading from the BBC’s Paul Danahar

  1. “….Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy…..” He left out the except…..

    It defies belief that Danahar can with a straight face, set out editorial guidelines which he and his colleagues drive a stagecoach and a team of horses through, every week, if not daily.

    I suspect they don’t actually understand what they are doing, strange as that may seem. They truly believe they are neutral politically and that their observations on Israel and Israelis are simply without any bias or subjectivity. Many in the media do not have the ability to separate themselves from their surroundings and so get sucked into the narrative of those nearest to them – in Danahar’s case, Hamas and it’s disciples.

  2. There used to be an open group on Facebook consisting of BBC staff – if it’s still there I think it must have become a closed group ;( – and on stickybeaking it 🙂 about a year or so ago when it was clearly very new and devoid of many members I noticed a clear message to the members from one of the convenors reminding them that they should not reveal their political biases online, otherwise they would attract adverse publicity for the dear old Corporation – so at least one or two of them are mindful of the rules! (None of the ME badniks was a group member, it is perhaps superfluous to add.)

  3. Re citica above: I think that rather than ‘not understanding what they are doing’, the BBC, Grauniad, Indie and many others in the Western media truly believe their analyses and comments and that these simply reflect what they think the majority of their audience wish to hear. Their continued rehashing of the demonising/delegitimising agenda with which we have been bombarded for so long results in the situation that if something is repeated often enough it becomes the generally received wisdom and therefore must be true. This agenda has been driven now for so long and with such increasing fervour that it is difficult to envisage how/if it can ever be overcome,(and this is to say nothing of the vitriol constantly being spewed out by the Arab/Muslim media and their western fellow travellers/useful idiots).
    Each side of this ongoing argument continues to preach to its supporters but the problem is how to communicate to the ‘man in the street’, most of whom have no more than a passing interest in Israel/Palestine except when there is major tragedy – retaliation for rockets in the south of Israel or a bomb on a bus.

  4. Paul is simply a poisonous unreconstructed leftist agit-propagandist.

  5. Pingback: Examining a BBC correspondent’s recommended reading on Egyptian Jews | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.