BBC News misleads by omission

A report published on the BBC News website on January 20th under the headline “Israel’s PM Netanyahu signs deals with Chad’s President Deby” includes an example of how audiences can be misled by a statement that is in itself factually correct but excludes relevant information.

At the end of that report on the renewal of diplomatic relations between Israel and Chad readers were told that: “the Israeli prime minister is trying to separate the peace process with the Palestinians from relations with majority-Muslim countries” and the report then went on:

“In 2016, Mr Netanyahu became the first Israeli premier to visit Africa in nearly three decades, with a trip to Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda.

A year later he attended a meeting in Liberia of heads of state from the West African regional group, Ecowas. But an Israel-Africa summit that was supposed to take place in Togo in October 2017 was cancelled.” [emphasis added]

Reasonable readers would obviously conclude that the reason for the postponement of that summit was linked to Israel’s diplomatic efforts in Africa. In fact the summit did not take place as planned because of domestic unrest in Togo.

“The landmark Africa-Israel summit has been postponed at the request of the president of Togo amid growing unrest in his country and calls for his resignation.

Some 54 African countries had been invited to meet with Israel at the Oct. 23-27 summit in Lome, the capital of Togo.

President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe emphasized that “elaborate preparations are needed” in order to guarantee the success of the event, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement Monday announcing the postponement. The summit will be moved “to a mutually agreed upon date,” the statement said. “

And so, while receiving accurate information BBC audiences were nevertheless misled by the omission of relevant detail.

Related Articles:

NGOs’ political campaign opportunistically recycled by BBC News


21 comments on “BBC News misleads by omission

  1. No reasonable readers would not think that. Why would they?
    You have as usual provided no reasons why people would think of such a position.

    You are in fact more wildly inaccurate than the article you criticise

      • Mr Mcnabb did so in the very first sentence.
        Obviously very few people have any experience of foreign affairs at all.

        World trips are called of a a variety of reasons by countries other than Israel. Imputing something is very lazy and inexperienced. It pays to learn about a topic you are going to write about.
        A person in Australia said if you support the two state solution then you are an anti-semite ( this in itself ironic given how many semites there are amongst Palestinians).

        Tat statement is as stupid and ignorant as those made here.i

        • The only ignorance is on your part, do research of your own and you will discover that being a semite has nothing at all to do with being Palestinian. A semite is a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs. In 1964 when an Egyptian born Yasser Arafat helped form and became the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, an organization created to liberate Palestine, an area that was not actually a country but encompassed the modern day countries of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel. Prior to that date if you called an Arab a Palestinian he would certainly have been insulted and probably would have slit your throat for such an insult, prior to that date Palestinians were only Jews which is why the Palestine Symphony Orchestra was composed of just Jews, which is why the Palestine football team was composed of just Jews. Anti-Semitism, i.e. hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group was first coined as a term in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The phrase anti-semitism has long been used to single out only Jews and only Jews.

          • Your statement sadly once again makes no sense, perhaps you meant it to be the other way round? Doh……None-the-less according to Abbas who after all has studied this subject indeed took a doctorate in Russia on this very theme, Palestinians have existed for 10,000 years, this despite there being not one single record of this, nor one single artifact discovered anywhere. There is a theme here, Abbas is now in his 14th year of his four year term of office, I get the sense that dyscalculia is a serious issue for him. BTW Philistines were descendants of Greeks ( and Macedonians ) – also, Cretans ( Minoans ) who invaded Egypt and were repelled, ending up in the land of the Philistines, where they also fought with the Israelites, so could not be indigenous to the area.

          • a bit if history for you. Before the State of Israel was created there were two types of peoples living there Palestinians-jews and Palestinian- arabs.

            you must be a defender of trangenderism
            If a person feels like they are something then they are that something

          • Refugee status has got nothing to do with bloodlines, how about you answer the question rather than deflecting the question, or are you too embarrassed to?

          • You as usual show yourself incapable of answering a simple question or providing justification for anything Palestinian

          • I have already done that. Knowing your education was limited I tried to enlarge it.

            You apparently did not understand.

          • You have answered not a single question, so I repeat in simple English for you, why should Palestinians have a perpetual and generational birthright to financial refugee aid and refugee status regardless of the country they were born in and the country they settled in? A status that no other refugees in the world have ever been granted.

          • Oh dear I missed this amongst the many other questions which avoided the original point.They shouldn’t.
            Of course they would not be ‘refugees if they had their own homeland.
            It seems ironic if not hypocritical to people who set up Israel to deny this.

          • Yes you missed the point again, how many times can you offer peace? In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state. In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state. In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan. The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence. The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis. In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat, who was born in Egypt not the British Mandate of Palestine, said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical. The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities and the leadership need to be held to account and explain to the world why. The truth is they do want peace because they are indoctrinated from birth to hate Jews and to kill Jews and nothing less than the destruction of Israel will suffice.

          • All the Palestinians have to do is come to the table, but all the various fragmented factions have gone on record as saying there will be no peace settlement, hence the impasse. Let’s be clear here, they cannot even agree among themselves who is in charge! , yet everyone blames Israel, how pathetic

  2. Anyone trying to justify the BBC’s lies and omissions is anti-Israel and, by implication, an anti-Semite.

  3. Pingback: Summary of BBC News website portrayal of Israel and the Palestinians – January 2019 | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.