Report of All-Party inquiry into Antisemitism adduces BBC content

February 9th saw the publication of the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary inquiry into Antisemitism which was commissioned by John Mann MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism.

In the view of this writer, the report is not without issues and perhaps one of the more obvious is the absence of clarification of the connections of boycott campaigns against shops in the UK to the parent body behind those individual actions – the BDS movement. The resulting failure to identify the antisemitic aims of the BDS movement as a whole as well as those it inspires in individual cases of harassment of retailers constitutes a serious omission from this report.

As readers who have already had a chance to read the publication will be aware, several references are made to the BBC.  In the chapter titled ‘Traditional and Social Media’ (page 49 onwards), section 151 includes the following:BBC building

“…there was an overwhelming consensus amongst those that submitted evidence or gave personal testimony at the regional meetings we held, that the media, and in particular the BBC, had a role to play in whipping up anger through emotive content in the news and analysis that was broadcast. There was certainly a significant focus on the conflict. Using various analytical tools, Dr Ben Gidley found that there had been particularly intense coverage of protests and demonstrations against Israel and the conflict in general when compared to other countries and conflicts. He argued that the excessive focus on Israel in the media allows for inappropriate language to be used, although we discuss this in a later section.” [emphasis added]

Section 154 notes:

“An antisemitic trope about Jewish control of politicians referenced by a BBC journalist”.

The chapter titled ‘The Role of the Media’ appears from page 78 onwards.

Part five of the report is titled ‘Addressing Antisemitic Discourse’. Under the sub-heading ‘Accusations of Dual Loyalty and Malign Influence’ (page 104 onwards), section 376 notes that:

“References to and interest in the ‘Jewish lobby’ was not only a feature of political debate.[…] We were warned however of “the capacity of this sort of article to generate troubling stereotypes” given a reference to ‘the Jewish lobby’ was made when the article was discussed on the BBC News Channel. We note that the language used to collectively describe Jews was raised again in this regard in early 2015.”

The appended footnotes show that the first instance cited refers to a statement made by the BBC’s ‘political advisor’ on November 8th 2014 and that the second instance refers to the remarks made by Tim Willcox in Paris on January 11th 2015. 

There is, of course, a case for differentiating between these two statements broadcast by the BBC. Whilst the first one definitely did tap into the ‘Jewish lobby’ trope (with Tim Willcox later adding another age-old stereotype about ‘rich Jews’), the second one was different in that it held European Jews collectively responsible for the perceived actions of Israel. However, it is interesting to note that the report goes on to state:

“Leading figures and commentators in public life must be clear that it is inaccurate to use the term ‘Jewish lobby’ which used in this context is antisemitic and that there is nothing disreputable about the existence of an Israel lobby. Sadly, antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish influence and dual loyalty, albeit not as prolific as in other periods of modern British history, were used during Operation Protective Edge and afterwards and as Professor Feldman put it, emerged “from all points of the political spectrum”.”

It worth remembering  that complaints made by members of the public about the first of those comments were dismissed by the BBC, whilst complaints made about the second statement were dismissed by Ofcom and are currently pending investigation by the BBC’s ECU.

The references to BBC content in this report (which relates to a defined period of time) do not of course provide a comprehensive picture of the issue of antisemitic discourse in BBC content and on the corporation’s public message boards. Nevertheless, the BBC should obviously be very concerned by the fact that it appears at all in this report. 

Advertisements

10 comments on “Report of All-Party inquiry into Antisemitism adduces BBC content

  1. Are you able to point me towards the constitution and leadership structure of the BDS movement. Your criticism of the report is that it fails to address the ‘antisemitic aims’ of that movement. So please outline who runs it, its base and further details. If you cannot, then it would appear to be somewhat of an unfounded criticism. In addition, your article appears to highlight that the report has done a good job as regards the BBC. The report actually makes a recommendation about reporting frameworks for complaints and about language. Although your introduction points to ‘issues’. Of the two issues you raise, one appears to have actually been addressed at least to some extent and the other, unless you can perhaps provide details, seems difficult to have actually done. Very odd indeed. Wouldnt a better introduction to your article be, “It addressed my concerns but I wanted it to go further”?

    • Why don’t you do your own research ? You might find out something. BDS originated in the West Bank. Barghouti is one of the heads. He is clearly against a two state solution. Research is great. You come across things you never knew existed.

  2. The fact is that the BBC has been criticized before. They don’t care if they are criticized, but will tough it out and deny. They have their agenda and they will continue fulfilling it until someone above them stops it. They and others like them not only defame Israel but are making Britain unlivable for everyday Brits by foisting their “progressive” regime on the country.

Comments are closed.