BBC Arabic radio promotes Israel-free map of ‘Palestine’ for children

A post by CAMERA Arabic.

h/t: YCD

The October 24th episode of BBC Arabic’s radio show “Dardasha Layliya” (‘Nightly Chat’) included an interview with an Israeli Arab environmental engineer called Omar Asi who identified himself as being a resident of “the interior of Palestine” and who was described by the BBC presenter as calling from “Palestine”.

In that interview – presented by BBC Arabic’s Heba Abd al-Baqi – listeners were acquainted with Asi’s project: a child-friendly map of “Palestine” from the river to the sea. The map and a link to the programme were also promoted on the BBC News Arabic Facebook page.  

(all translations, emphasis and in-bracket remarks by CAMERA Arabic):

“(26:55) What distinguishes this map is that we see a lot of diversity, a lot of colours in it, and the colours […], indeed, aren’t coincidental, I mean, Palestine is always characterized by [this], it is said that during certain times [of the year], it has four seasons on the same day, in the Negev you’d see summer, in the North you’d see winter, and there’s a lot of diversity in Palestine, in terms of climate, even in terms of biodiversity, I mean, if we look at the map we’ll see that in Jaffa there are oranges, in Hebron there are grapes, in Nablus there’s kenafeh [a type of dessert], and in Jerusalem there are bagels, all of this diversity, it would be impossible for the child to get it from maps he sees in schools, the traditional maps. That is if he [even] sees maps of Palestine, I mean, many children like me, who went to schools which are called ‘Arab-Israeli schools’, children from the interior of Palestine, they don’t see maps of Palestine, they see maps of Israel…”.

The map promoted by BBC Arabic is devoid of anything Israeli or Jewish including population (all the people portrayed are visibly Arab and/or Muslim), landmarks (the sole Jewish landmark shown is the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron – see below), or cities (Jaffa is surrounded by orchards with no indication that Tel Aviv ever existed or that Jews make up a majority in the mixed cities such as Haifa and Acre which appear on the map). This is obviously intentional since Asi himself mentioned later in the interview (30:27) that he lived and studied in Tel Aviv and came in contact with Jewish students at the beginning of his adult life.

In response to further questions by Abd al-Baqi, Asi elaborated on the role of the map in shaping young Palestinian minds and educating them about what both he (30:06) and his interviewer (32:48) referred to as “the Palestinian cause” (Arabic: al-Qadiya al-Filastiniya). The activist expressed his conviction (32:59) that the illustrations of places on the map would prompt children to find out more about stories behind them which relate to the Palestinian national struggle.

“(33:43) If he goes and visits Hebron, he will see that the Abrahamic Compound [i.e. Cave of the Patriarchs] today is divided between Jews and Muslims, I mean, they [the Jews] took control over a large portion of it. He will also see the military barriers”

Providing another example, Asi also revealed (32:17) that the seemingly innocent illustration of “Jerusalem bagels” is actually a reference to “the Prince of Shadows” – an autobiography of Hamas’ mass-murderer Abdullah Barghouthi in which he expressed his love of this local food. Barghouthi is a bomb-maker who was given 67 consecutive life sentences for his part in the murder of 66 Israelis in numerous suicide bombings during the early 2000s. Notably, in an blogpost that Asi wrote in 2017 for Hamas-related Gaza news agency “Shehab” he admitted that the arch-terrorist’s book had “impressed” him.

The interview concluded with Abd al-‘Baqi wishing (36:35) Asi and his team of illustrators “good luck to you all”. This was after she already heard him make the following statement in the introduction to the item:

“(0:40) My dream is that every Palestinian child would hang the map [in] his bedroom, so that he will be able to view at the characteristics of the Land of Palestine and love them the same way they love him”.

Asi’s project is of the “greater Palestine” genre that Israelis have become accustomed to see from some radical activists, including (as in this case) fellow citizens of their own country. However, this form of hate speech is rarely amplified by media outlets in the West; certainly not in such an unreserved manner.

Nevertheless, at no point during the interview did the BBC’s Abd al-Baqi challenge, criticize or even contextualize Asi’s ideas about indoctrinating young children using a map of an imagined “Palestine” which erases Israel. Nor did the BBC Arabic journalist ask him how “the Palestinian cause” which he promotes relates to the millions of Israeli Jews who are native to the land no less than him. Rather, she herself described the item as coming from “Palestine” (0:38), as did the BBC News Arabic facebook page.

By promoting this item BBC Arabic normalises the negation of Israel’s right to exist within any borders and the denial of the right of Israeli Jews to live peacefully in their homeland. Asi’s mention of Abdullah Barghouthi also mainstreams implied support for terrorism against Israeli civilians.

The BBC Academy’s ‘style guide’ states that BBC journalists “should not affix the name ‘Palestine’ to Gaza or the West Bank” but apparently its writers had not taken into consideration that BBC content might promote the use of the term ‘Palestine’ instead of Israel.

Similarly, neither BBC nor OFCOM guidelines on ‘harm and offence’ relate to content promoting the negation of a sovereign country’s existence and the right to self-determination for people of a specific ethnicity – presumably because their authors did not consider such a scenario likely in ‘enlightened’ 21st century Britain.

BBC editorial guidelines on ‘controversial subjects’ (4.3.6) state that:

“When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active.”

Obviously no alternative perspective was given to this item’s negation of the State of Israel and the BBC Arabic journalist clearly disregarded the editorial guideline (4.3.11) stating that:

“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 opinions 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.” 

Once again we see that the BBC’s Arabic language content fails to meet the standards of journalism which the publicly-funded corporation claims to embrace.  

 

The background to the BBC’s use of inverted commas

Members of the public may have been surprised by the BBC’s use of inverted commas in a Tweet promoting a report about the US House of Representatives’ passing of a resolution recognising the Armenian genocide.

The same punctuation was found in the original version of the report – headlined “US House votes to recognise Armenian ‘genocide’” – but was removed some eight hours later.

The background to that editorial policy can be found in a 2008 ruling by the now defunct BBC Editorial Standards Committee on pages 4 – 7 and 17 – 31 here, including the following on page 26:

“As to the language of how the Armenian massacre and starvation is reported the Committee noted the comments of the Head of Editorial Compliance, BBC News who stated:

“We put ‘genocide’ in inverted commas in our online reports, and in our television and radio reports we use the word in the context of reporting the dispute about premeditated intent. If we failed to do this, contrary to what you suggest, our coverage would indeed be unbalanced and misleading – unbalanced because the Republic of Turkey vigorously denies that its predecessor administration had any such policy and bitterly criticises some if not all of the source material you quote; misleading because we would be through our use of language addressing the issue as if it were decided when the news developments revolve around the disputed nature of the events.”

The Committee endorsed the comments expressed by BBC management, although it was concerned that the use of inverted commas was not always consistent in online content. It considered the use of quotes was not always necessary as long as the piece mentioning the event noted the level of dispute as to the use of the terminology.”

Those following BBC coverage of Israel have long been familiar with the corporation’s use of inverted commas (usually in connection with terrorism) as a way of ticking the ‘impartiality box’ – often with absurd results. For example:

Punctuation, qualification and ‘he said/she said’ reporting mar BBC report on terror attacks

BBC adds superfluous punctuation to US and Israeli statements on Hamas

BBC not sure cross-border tunnel intended for terror?

In which BBC News abandons all pretence of fact checking

Nevertheless, the BBC obviously believes that the employment of such punctuation is the most appropriate way to display ‘balance’ in its journalism. 

The BBC News pot and the Washington Post kettle

October 28th saw the publication of a report headlined “Washington Post criticised, and lampooned, over Baghdadi headline” on the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ and ‘US & Canada’ pages.

“The Washington Post faced criticism on Sunday for calling Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State group who had died the day before, an “austere religious scholar”.

The newspaper amended its headline to call him an “extremist leader”.

Vice president of communications Kristine Coratti Kelly said the headline “should never have read that way and we changed it quickly”. […]

The first version of the Washington Post’s headline called Baghdadi “terrorist-in-chief”, before it was changed to “austere religious scholar at the helm of Islamic State”.”

The BBC is of course itself no stranger to problematic portrayals of terrorists and terror attacks. As we have documented on these pages over the years, the corporation has described the terrorist Leila Khaled as “beautiful”, “sultry-eyed”, “iconic” and a “dissident”.

Other Palestinian terrorists have also been portrayed by the BBC as “dissidents” and terms such as “militant”, “guerrilla” and “political prisoner” have been employed in BBC reporting for nearly five decades. In 2014 the BBC’s Jon Donnison reported the death of a Palestinian ‘charity worker’ without mentioning that the PFLP described him as a “fighter commander” in its ranks.

The BBC itself “faced criticism” from multiple sources in 2015 when it reported a fatal double stabbing attack in Jerusalem with the headline “Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two” and again in 2017 when it reported the murder of an Israeli policewoman with the headline  “Three Palestinians killed after deadly stabbing in Jerusalem”.

In October 2014 the BBC reported a fatal terror attack with the headline “Nine hurt as car hits pedestrians at Jerusalem station” and the following month a similar attack was covered in an article titled “Driver hits pedestrians in Jerusalem”.

With many more such examples of miserable BBC reporting having been documented, one can but wonder whether or not the BBC will devote any of its attention to the issue of its own record rather than merely highlighting that of other media organisations.    

 Related Articles:

Washington Post’s remake of terrorist Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi not unique  (CAMERA) 

 

BBC clarifies inaccurate claim by Jeremy Bowen but fails to meet editorial guidelines

Earlier this month we documented an inaccurate claim made by the BBC’s Middle East editor during the September 26th edition of the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘From Our Own Correspondent’.

In an item relating to post-election Israeli politics Jeremy Bowen told listeners that:

“Netanyahu has a compelling reason to stay in office. He faces serious allegations of corruption, which he denies. They’re due to come to court next month.” [emphasis added]

As was noted here at the time:

“That, however, is not the case: “next month” – i.e. October 2019 – pre-indictment hearings before the attorney general will take place over four working days commencing on October 2nd. As the Times of Israel notes:

“The hearings, which will see Netanyahu’s lawyers argue his conduct was entirely proper and within the boundaries of the law, will stretch over four days and wrap up before the start of the Yom Kippur fast on Tuesday evening.

Prosecution officials told Channel 12 news on Tuesday they hoped to reach a final decision on whether to indict the premier by the end of the year.”

In other words, Bowen’s claim that allegations against Netanyahu will “come to court next month” is inaccurate and misleading to audiences both from the point of view of the time frame presented and with regard to the implication that indictments have already been made. Any potential indictment is dependent upon the outcome of the ongoing hearings and as we see above, that process will take time.”

BBC Watch submitted a complaint concerning Bowen’s inaccurate claim which BBC Complaints initially tried to dismiss with the following response:

“Thank you for contacting us regarding From Our Own Correspondent, broadcast on Thursday 26th September.

We have spoken with the programme team about your concerns. During his report Jeremy Bowen says, “Netanyahu has a compelling reason to stay in office. He faces serious allegations of corruption, which he denies. They’re due to come to court next month.” Although a verdict is due to be made by the end of the year we don’t believe it was inaccurate for Jeremy to say “they’re due to come to court next month”, as he was referring to the allegations that were due to be bought forward at this time. We hope this clarifies Jeremy’s statement.”

BBC Watch submitted a second complaint, pointing out that the response received was unsatisfactory:

“What is “due to be made by the end of the year” – is a decision by the Attorney General’s office whether or not to indict Netanyahu on all or any of the three cases. Hence “the allegations” are not “due to come to court next month” as claimed by the BBC – i.e. October – because as yet no indictment has been made. Reasonable members of the audience would understand from Bowen’s words that a court case is due to commence in October and would necessarily conclude from that that an indictment has been made. That is not the case and so Bowen’s claim is both inaccurate and misleading.”

On October 28th we received a further response from BBC Complaints in which once again we see that the BBC takes the liberty of declaring a second response at Stage 1b of the procedure “your first reply”. [emphasis added]

“Thank you for taking the time to contact us again. We are sorry to learn that you were not satisfied with our earlier response.

We’re sorry you had to come back to us and we appreciate why. We always aim to address the specific points raised by our audience and regret any cases where we’ve failed to do this. Your [sic] previous reply didn’t tackle the exact issue you raised and we’d like to offer you a new response here. The following should now be considered your first reply.

We have spoken with the From Our Own Correspondent team about your concerns. They would like to respond with the following:

“Thanks for writing in again and I’m sorry you weren’t happy with the previous reply.

You are right to suggest that Jeremy was referring to the pre-trial hearing with the attorney-general, which took place behind closed doors at the Justice ministry.

Jeremy was using a turn of phrase, to indicate the legal process was reaching its crucial next stage, but in case listeners thought the case was actually coming to court next month we can clarify the point on our complaints website.

The Attorney-General has of course already indicated that charges are likely.”

Thank you again for getting in touch.”

On October 28th the following correction was posted on the BBC’s ‘Corrections and Clarifications’ page:

However, no notification of that correction has been added to the programme’s webpage, where the item is still available to audiences.

The new BBC editorial guidelines published in July state that:

“Where mistakes in our on-demand content, which is available online after broadcast, are unlikely to be a serious breach of editorial standards, a correction should be published on that platform, so that it is visible before the output is played. Such on-demand content does not then normally need to be changed or revoked.

Where mistakes to our on-demand content are likely to be considered a serious breach of editorial standards, the content must be corrected and the mistake acknowledged, or in exceptional cases removed. We need to be transparent about any changes made, unless there are editorial or legal reasons not to do so.”  [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, BBC audiences will continue to be misled by Jeremy Bowen’s inaccurate account because BBC Radio 4 has not complied with those editorial guidelines.

Related Articles:

BBC’s Middle East editor warns against premature claims yet makes one

BBC Complaints makes it up as it goes along

BBC publishes new Editorial Guidelines

BBC News NI and the ‘family holiday gone wrong’

On October 28th the BBC News website posted a filmed report titled ‘I was whipped with metal chains in an Egyptian prison’ on its ‘Video’ page with the following one-line synopsis:

“For Ibrahim Halawa, what began as a family holiday in 2013 became four years in an Egyptian prison.”

The same video also appeared on the same day on the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ page with a longer synopsis. [emphasis added]

“For Ibrahim Halawa, what began as a family holiday in 2013 became four years in an Egyptian prison.

The Irish Egyptian student was arrested at a Cairo mosque after a sit-in protest descended into clashes with security forces.

He was accused, with 500 others, of inciting violence and sabotage. He was acquitted of all charges and release from prison in October 2017.

Speaking to the BBC Mr Halawa claims that while in an Egyptian prison he was physically and mentally abused, including being whipped with metal chains, stripped naked and hit with an AK47.

Before his imprisonment, Mr Halawa had taken part in protests against the military ousting of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi.

After his released he and members of his family faced questions about links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Halawa denies claims that he or members of his family are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The BBC contacted the Egyptian Government for a comment but did not receive a response.

Mr Halawa is now studying law at University College Dublin.”

The video is credited to Niall McCracken of BBC News Northern Ireland. According to McCracken’s Twitter feed, an additional report on the topic was aired on the ‘Good Morning Ulster’ programme on October 28th.

The details of Ibrahim Halawa’s case have been researched at length by Irish academic Dr Mark Humphrys but what should be made of the BBC’s amplification of Halawa’s claim that neither “he or members of his family are members of the Muslim Brotherhood”?

Ibrahim Halawa’s father is Hussein Halawa who, in addition to being a cleric  at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland in Dublin – aka Clonskeagh mosque – is also General Secretary of the ‘European Council for Fatwa and Research’ (ECFR) and has held that position for some considerable time.

The ECFR was created by the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe’ (FIOE) umbrella group and until November 2018 it was headed by Yusuf Qaradawi – a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The ECFR stated in 2018 that Hussein Halawa “presents a weekly call-in fatwa programme for Al-Hiwar channel in London”. Al-Hiwar was founded and is run by Azzam Tamimi who is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Notwithstanding those well documented facts, the BBC obviously considered it appropriate to amplify Ibrahim Halawa’s denials and his allegation that anyone raising questions about his family’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood does so out of racist motivation because he is “brown” rather than “blonde”, preferring instead to promote a superficial story about a “family holiday” gone wrong to its domestic and worldwide audiences.

Examining the BBC’s claim of Palestinian support for the two-state solution

Back in May, in a report concerning Palestinian rejection of the as yet unpublished US peace initiative, BBC News told its audiences that:

“It is unclear whether the [US] plan will be based on the so-called “two-state solution” – a long-standing formula for resolving the conflict by creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with Jerusalem a shared capital.

The Palestinians and most of the international community support this approach in principle, while the Israeli leadership is cooler towards it.” [emphasis added]

As was noted here at the time, the BBC has been promoting the theme of Palestinian support for a two-state solution at least since December 2016 – while amplifying the PLO’s interpretation of that shorthand.

“In addition to avoiding the obviously inconvenient fact that the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected offers based on the two-state solution which the BBC claims they “support”, the BBC’s implication that there is one unified Palestinian voice which supports the two-state solution is clearly inaccurate and misleading. […]

…the BBC’s wording does not inform readers that an essential part of the two-state solution is the concept (repeatedly endorsed by the Quartet) of ‘two states for two peoples’ – a definition which would require Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state – and that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have repeatedly refused to do so.”

So what really is the approach of the PLO/Fatah/Palestinian Authority clique to the idea of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Earlier this month the University of Chicago’s ‘Pearson Institute’ held a conference in Berlin. One of the speakers was Husam Zomlotcurrently head of the Palestinian mission to the UK – who readers may recall gave a briefing to BBC journalists just before the Bahrain economic workshop in June and who has been a regular contributor to BBC content.

For those interested in the topic of how the PA promotes its selective narrative in the West – and the contradictions and falsehoods that lie behind that narrative – Zomlot’s contribution (from around 2:30:00 here) is worth watching in full.

But one section in particular (from 3:04:43) has gained attention on social media because it reveals what actually lies behind that BBC claim that the Palestinians support the two-state solution.

[emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Zomlot: “OK: about the two-state solution. Let me explain something that I think is missed in the discussion. People think the two-state solution is a Palestinian demand. Wherever we go now they tell us ‘oh I know that you demand a two-state solution’. […] This really, really must end. Number one, the Palestinians…you know the two-state solution was never a Palestinian demand. It was a Palestinian concession. And it was a Palestinian concession towards becoming aligned with international [inaudible]. For Palestinians it doesn’t make sense that early on, the starting point of forgoing 78% of what was rightly yours. You don’t start there. You start somewhere else. Having said that, for us, the Palestinians, let me confirm we have two positive acceptable outcomes for the future. The first is two states on the 1967 borders [sic]. A state of Palestine, sovereign – we’re not talking about Mickey Mouse state – sovereign, independent. East Jerusalem is our capital. Not a capital in East Jerusalem. Not shared capital in Jerusalem. Not the fantasy that we will establish a capital in Abu Dis. East Jerusalem from the exact line […] and this is final by the way. It’s final. One of the biggest mistakes that people thought that us accepting and recognising the two-state solution was the beginning of our concessions. No, no, no: it was the end of our concessions. […]

The second option is one person, one vote: one democratic, egalitarian state that provides for all of its citizens regardless of your language, your religion, your colour, your height, your width. A state in the meaning of a state. And I say it maybe on behalf of my Palestinian side: we will accept either. It’s not like we are obsessed. We are obsessed about a solution. But we know that the second option is a non-starter in Israel. We know that. And you know why? Do I need to dwell on it? Because Israel see us, the Palestinians, primarily as a demographic threat. Because the dream of establishing a state of all its citizens might be generations away. Because only few months after the Israeli state…nation state law that discriminated against the Palestinian citizens of Israel and deliberately told them that they can never have the right of self-determination – it’s exclusive to Jews. In such an environment to aspire to that is really to be almost like wanting to fight a heavyweight boxer when you are unable to even defeat a lightweight. And that’s why we are more in the area of possibility than desirability and from a possibility point of view we remain to be convinced that the two-state solution is still possible. And we remain convinced that it is the best course to the immediate future.”

In other words, Zomlot is saying that although the Palestinians would prefer a more ‘desirable’ one-state option which would eradicate the Jewish state and bring an end to Jewish self-determination, they are prepared to settle in “the immediate future” for their partisan interpretation of a two-state solution which – notably – does not include recognition of Israel as the Jewish state because they consider all of Israel to be “rightly” theirs.

That of course is significantly different to way in which the BBC portrays the Palestinian position to its audiences. The problem is not that Palestinian officials such as Zomlot and Saeb Erekat do not get enough BBC airtime to explain their stance but that BBC journalists refrain from asking challenging but relevant questions such as why the PA’s interpretation of the two-state solution does not include recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

Related Articles:

BBC News silent on Abbas’ rejection of Jewish state

BBC News amplifies PLO’s interpretation of the two-state solution

BBC News website’s explanation of the two-state solution falls short

BBC Complaints: inaccurate portrayal of Palestinian leadership is not a ‘significant issue’

 

 

 

OFCOM reports on the BBC complaints procedure

On October 24th OFCOM – which in April 2017 became the BBC’s external regulator – published its second annual report on the BBC.

“The Royal Charter requires Ofcom to publish a report each year that sets out how we have carried out our functions as the BBC’s independent regulator, and assesses the BBC’s compliance with the requirements of our Operating Framework and associated documents.

Separately, we are required to report at least annually on the BBC’s performance against the measures we set alongside the Operating Licence. This forms the evidence base for our assessment of the BBC’s performance against its public purposes.”

Given the nature of OFCOM, the report is predictably UK focused but it does include some notable insights into the communications regulator’s view of the BBC complaints procedure – especially for the many members of the public who hoped that external regulation would bring about much needed improvements in that system.

As readers may be aware, the first two stages of the BBC’s complaints system are outsourced to a private company and responses to complaints submitted are all too often not received within the designated time frame of 20 days. In fact in late August this year, BBC Watch received an e-mail from BBC Audience Services concerning three unanswered complaints which appeared to suggest an insufficiently staffed system:

“Many thanks for the complaints you have sent since the beginning of August (attached) with apologies for evidently yet-to-come replies due to the volume of correspondence and (un)availability of relevant staff. I hope you will understand…

More to the point, the complaints are all with the appropriate editorial staff and I hope to have responses to them in due course.”  

Replies received at Stage 1a not infrequently give the impression that they are intended to fob off the complainant.

The accessibility of the complaints procedure is in itself an issue: BBC Watch regularly receives e-mails to our ‘contact us’ address from members of the British public who have difficulty navigating the BBC’s complex and tedious online complaints form.

However on page 49 of its report we discover that OFCOM is of the opinion that the outsourced system is up to standard.

“When a BBC viewer or listener has a complaint, it is important that there is a fair and transparent process in place to hear their views. We believe the current BBC complaints system achieves this at the early stages of the complaints process, but we have some significant concerns […] about the later stages. […]

The BBC’s complaints statistics for 2018/19 indicate that ‘BBC First’ continues to work effectively and most complainants are satisfied with the BBC’s final response to their complaint.”

How OFCOM came to that conclusion regarding complainant satisfaction is not explained.

OFCOM does however have “significant concerns” about the later stage of the complaints procedure – the stage handled by the BBC itself.

Page 53: “However, […] we consider the BBC should provide more transparency on the reasons for its findings from the Executive Complaints Unit on compliance with the relevant requirements in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines which reflect the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. We will be addressing the BBC’s lack of transparency in this area as a matter of urgency.”

Page 21: “Transparency is important for public confidence in the operation and effectiveness of the BBC’s complaints process. While we consider, generally, that the BBC First process is working well […] a recent case has given us significant concerns that the way in which the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (‘ECU’) currently publishes its decisions does not give transparency to this part of its complaints process and the reasons for the decisions it reaches on compliance with relevant requirements in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines which reflect the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.”

As for OFCOM’s own handling of complaints concerning BBC content (page 49):

“Between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019, Ofcom received a total of 1,539 content standards complaints about the BBC. However, of these: 1,272 complaints were referred back to the BBC under ‘BBC First’. Although these complaints were about BBC programmes, after an initial assessment we found that these complainants had not completed the BBC’s complaints process before submitting their complaint to Ofcom; and 236 complaints had completed the BBC’s complaints process, but the complainant was not satisfied with the outcome. In all but two of these complaints we did not consider that the complaint raised a substantive issue under the Code which warranted further investigation.” [emphasis added]

OFCOM does not specify how many of those 1,272 complaints it referred back to the BBC reached it because BBC Audience Services regularly refers complainants to OFCOM:

Regrettably, in the two and a half years since OFCOM became the BBC’s external regulator BBC Watch has been unable to discern any meaningful improvement in the BBC’s handling of complaints which, in contrast to OFCOM’s opinion, we consider to be far too slow in comparison to other media outlets, cumbersome and lacking transparency.  

Weekend long read

1) At the JCPA Dr Jacques Neriah asks “Was the American Decision to Abandon the Kurds a Surprise?”.

“The withdrawal of American troops ordered by President Donald Trump from Kurdish-held territories in north-eastern Syria was no surprise to the Kurds. The Kurds had been expecting this move since mid-summer 2019 and were preparing their options in case of such a prospect. The only surprise came from the timing of Trump’s announcement.

According to sources close to the Syrian opposition, the Syrian-Kurds prepared themselves based on their conviction that Turkey’s goal was to take over the Kurdish-held territories along its southern border under the pretext of combating and eradicating terrorism. Turkey further sought to declare the Syrian city of Aleppo as the capital and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army, a Turkish proxy armed, financed, and trained by Turkey.”

2) At the BESA Center Dr Doron Itzchakov looks at “Turkey’s Invasion of Syrian Kurdistan as Seen from Tehran”.

“Unsurprisingly, President Trump’s announcement that US troops would be evacuated from northern Syria was welcomed in Tehran, which had considered the presence of US troops on Syrian soil a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty. However, Erdoğan’s decision to invade Kurdish territory in Syria led his Iranian counterpart, Rouhani, to condemn it on the grounds that it would increase regional instability.

Notwithstanding that criticism, Tehran does not want to risk its relationship with Ankara, which allows it to circumvent US sanctions and constitutes an essential channel for the supply of Iranian gas to major European countries.”

3) The ITIC analyses “Turkey’s Invasion of Syria and Its Influence on ISIS”.

“The dramatic developments weaken the SDF and its ability to continue to play the central role in fighting ISIS it has played so far – not only because of the blow to SDF morale, but because the Kurds lost American political support against Turkey, which had enabled it to turn most of its force and attention to fighting ISIS. In such circumstances ISIS, which has already proved its ability to change its modus operandi and adapt itself to new situations on the ground, can be expected to increase its terrorist and guerrilla attacks in eastern and northern Syria. However, in ITIC assessment, in the short term ISIS will not exploit the new situation to re-establish the Islamic State with territorial borders and control over the population.”

4) Orna Mizrahi discusses “The Mass Demonstrations in Lebanon: What Do They Portend?” at the INSS.

“The demonstrations throughout Lebanon over the last week erupted spontaneously and saw a full range of the population participating and calling on the leaders of all communities to form a new government and change the current order. […] The mass protest reflects the despair and exasperation with a corrupt leadership. On the other hand, there are signs that all components of the leadership, including Hezbollah, are not interested in changing the current system, and therefore supported a “recovery plan” that was hastily drafted by the cabinet. The plan entails placing the tax burden on the stronger socio-economic levels, but implementation is expected to be difficult. Clearly the public, which continues with the protests, has little faith in the plan. It is difficult to assess whether the protest will ebb soon or lead to the cabinet’s resignation or even to anarchy. It seems that Lebanon’s salvation can only be achieved with generous foreign aid, preferably from the West and from Gulf states so as to prevent Hezbollah and its patron, Iran, from assuming complete control over the country.”

 

No BBC Sport report on judo disciplinary decision against Iran

A report headlined “Iran banned after ordering Saeid Mollaei to withdraw from World Judo Championships” which appeared on the BBC Sport website’s Judo page on September 18th informed readers that:

“Iran has been banned by the International Judo Federation after it ordered Saeid Mollaei to pull out of the World Championships in Japan. […]

The case was referred to the IJF Disciplinary Commission, who said there was a “strong reason to believe that the Iran Judo Federation will continue or repeatedly engage in misconduct or commit any other offence against the legitimate interests, principles or objectives of the IJF”.”

The BBC did not clarify that the ban it reported in that article was provisional pending investigation by the International Judo Federation (IJF).

On October 22nd the IJF published the results of that investigation and the decision of its disciplinary commission.

“To pronounce against the Iran Judo Federation a suspension from all competitions, administrative and social activities organized or authorized by the IJF and its Unions, until the Iran Judo Federation gives strong guarantees and prove that they will respect the IJF Statutes and accept that their athletes fight against Israeli athletes”

The Iran Judo Federation – which in the meantime has claimed that the allegations were false – has 21 days in which to appeal the indefinite ban, during which the previous provisional suspension remains in force.

BBC audiences have to date not seen any coverage of this latest development.

Related Articles:

Discrimination in sport continues to be ignored by the BBC

BBC Sport reports the outcome of a story it ignored last month

 

A Gaza healthcare story the BBC chooses to ignore

In early August we noted that work had begun on a sixteen-department field hospital near the Erez Crossing at the north of the Gaza Strip and that the Palestinian Authority was objecting to the project.

“Although BBC audiences are told plenty about the dire state of medical services in the Gaza Strip, they rarely hear about the PA actions which exacerbate that situation such as the longstanding insufficient supply of medications. Whether or not they will be informed of this latest own goal from the Palestinian Authority remains to be seen.”

Despite the fact that the BBC has a staffed office in the Gaza Strip, audiences have indeed heard nothing about the new hospital or the Palestinian Authority’s specious claim that the field hospital was “part of a plan to separate the West Bank from the Gaza Strip”.

Since then the PA’s official media has managed to come up with even more bizarre claims – as reported by PMW.

“A private American organization is to build a hospital at the northern end of the Gaza Strip. Israel has already admitted hospital equipment into the Strip. But the project is being condemned by the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Health, which claims that “the American hospital project is not innocent, and its goals are dangerous.” [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 27, 2019]

Elaborating on these alleged “dangerous goals,” an op-ed in the official PA daily claimed that the hospital is run by “the CIA,” and its purpose is not to treat the sick Palestinians but “to carry out experiments on the sick Palestinians,” and “to be a partner in trafficking in human organs”.”

As the Jerusalem Post reminds us:

“In March, the Palestinian Authority announced it would stop providing its citizens with medical treatment in Israel. This was its reaction to the Israeli decision to withhold $138 million in tax money from the PA, which is the implementation of the Jewish state’s “Pay-for-Slay” law that instructs it to deduct and freeze the amount of money the authority pays in salaries to imprisoned terrorists and families of “martyrs” from the tax money Israel collects for it.”

Apparently the BBC is not interested in stories relating to healthcare in the Gaza Strip if they cannot be used to promote the inaccurate view that (as also claimed by Hamas) that the system’s many problems are primarily attributable to Israel’s counter-terrorism measures and the roles of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in creating and exacerbating the crisis cannot be airbrushed from the story.

Related Articles:

Will BBC audiences be told this Gaza healthcare story?