BBC’s ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic?’ documentary maker in conversation

In the latest episode of his podcast series British journalist Jonny Gould talks to John Ware about his documentary “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” which was aired on BBC One’s ‘Panorama’ earlier this month.

“…the [Labour party] press operation is frankly inept…it’s difficult to take some of their stuff seriously.”

“None of them [the Labour party leadership] would submit to questioning. It’s impossible to interrogate them because any communication is conducted…by e-mail, by written answers…it’s not an ideal way to get to the bottom of something…”

“…the Labour party’s relationship to the truth on some of these issues is not what it should be, has not been what it should be.”

The podcast is available here or in additional formats here.

BBC One’s ‘Panorama’ on Labour antisemitism raises another issue

The edition of ‘Panorama’ titled “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” which was aired on BBC One on July 10th (available here on iPlayer or here) swiftly garnered reactions from the Labour party itself – which described it as an “authored polemic” – and its supporters as well as from bodies such as the Chief Rabbi, the JLC and CST and the Board of Deputies of British Jews along with many others.

There is, however, something more to be said about the core topic addressed by John Ware.

At 08:58 Ware told viewers that: [emphasis in italics in the original]

Ware: “Before Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader in 2015, complaints in the party about antisemitism were rare. […] After Mr Corbyn became leader, party membership surged, some attracted by his decades of radical Left activism.

Interviewee: “So there’s an increase in members from a particular perspective and they brought with them a particular world view which unfortunately allowed breathing space for antisemitism to arise.”

That “world view” of course existed in British society long before Corbyn’s election to the party leadership in September 2015 and it was described later on in the film (from 10:21) as follows by Dr Dave Rich.

Rich: “Many people on the Left they define themselves by being anti-racist and actually they define the Right as being racist. So in their world they can’t be antisemitic because they are Left-wing.”

Ware: “For Jeremy Corbyn and those who share his world view, part of being anti-racist is near unconditional support for the Palestinian cause. Yet the campaign for Palestinian rights can blind some anti-racists to another kind of racism against Jews.”

Rich: “If you look back at the kind of antisemitism that existed in the 1930s – Jews using their money, Jews controlling governments – instead you started to see the same ideas were being directed towards Israel. These kinds of ideas are much more acceptable on the Left and in pro-Palestinian campaigning circles because they talk about Israel; they don’t talk about Jews. But actually underneath the surface, it’s the same ideas.”

If one wishes to understand why antisemitism is still so sociably acceptable in the UK in the 21st century that it is not a barrier to becoming a member of – or even a leading figure in – one of Britain’s most prominent political parties, one cannot ignore the country’s biggest and most influential media organisation.

For example, among the images seen during the above section of the programme was this one, apparently from a demonstration in London:

The picture used on that banner – and the falsehood behind it – is a product of inaccurate and irresponsible BBC reporting.

Long before Jeremy Corbyn took over the Labour party leadership the BBC was whitewashing the antisemitism of British politicians and facilitating the spread of antisemitic discourse on its message boards. Over six years ago the BBC was already promoting the notion that “it’s very difficult to criticize the Israeli government without in turn being told you’re antisemitic and some people would say that Jews see antisemitism everywhere” and that was not a one-off case by any means. In its various ‘backgrounders’ supposedly explaining antisemitism to its audiences, the BBC has repeatedly promoted the Livingstone Formulation.

The BBC has hosted known antisemites and Holocaust deniers and provided often offensive anti-Israel campaigners with an unhindered platform from which to promote falsehoods. It has whitewashed antisemitism in British society from sport to charities and academia and has promoted antisemitic stereotypes. BBC audiences have been repeatedly exposed to antisemitic tropes concerning ‘the Jewish lobby’ or ‘the Israel lobby’ and stereotypes about ‘rich Jews’ even from BBC staff and contributors. And of course the BBC has failed to respond appropriately to complaints from the general public concerning antisemitism in its own content.

Since the issue of antisemitism in the Labour party became prominent, the BBC has repeatedly shown itself to be incapable of reporting on that topic accurately, impartially and in a manner which provides the British public with the full range of information.

So while John Ware’s Panorama documentary about institutional antisemitism in the Labour party is obviously a very welcome step in informing the British public about the anti-Jewish racism in their society, it is also necessary for the BBC to put its own house in order by undertaking a serious examination of its own coverage of – and contributions to – that worrying phenomenon.

Related Articles:

One to watch on BBC One

Jeremy Corbyn’s Antisemitism Crisis: a Timeline  (CAMERA)

BBC News not sure whether Corbyn controversy mural antisemitic or not

Reviewing BBC R4’s ‘World at One’ background on the Labour Party story

 

 

One to watch on BBC One

On Wednesday July 10th, at 9 p.m. UK time, BBC One will air an edition of ‘Panorama’ titled “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?”.

“Panorama goes inside the anti-Semitism crisis gripping Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. With exclusive interviews from key insiders and access to confidential communications and documents, this is the story of how the crises developed. Reporter John Ware reveals the evasions and contradictions at the heart of the political party which leader Jeremy Corbyn says has anti-racism at its very core.”

Reactions from the Labour party have already been forthcoming.

“A row has broken out in the senior ranks of the Labour party after it emerged it was trying to use non-disclosure agreements against former staffers who contributed to what is expected to be a critical documentary about Jeremy Corbyn’s team and antisemitism. […]

The split was triggered by Labour’s response to an approach from the BBC about allegations it will feature in a Panorama programme to be broadcast on Wednesday. The film has been made by the veteran investigative journalist John Ware and it is expected it will use leaked documents and interviews with insiders to revive claims that advisers working for Corbyn intervened in antisemitism disciplinary cases in such a way as to favour some of those accused.

According to the Sunday Times, up to half a dozen former Labour staffers spoke to Panorama despite having signed NDAs with the party. Some of them have received letters from Labour’s lawyers saying they could face legal action for breaking their NDA obligations.”

And:

“The Labour Party is reportedly in fresh turmoil as fresh allegations are about to air on the BBC that key aides of Jeremy Corbyn tried to protect leftwingers accused of antisemtism.

The Sunday Times reported today that leading allies of the Labour leader have demanded he remove his chief of staff, Karie Murphy, and director of communictions and strategy, Seamas Milne. […]

But another Labour source told the paper the party was preparing to complain about the programme. “Rather than investigating antisemitism in the Labour Party in a balanced and impartial way, Panorama appears to have predetermined its outcome and created a programme to fit a one-sided narrative.””

As one Labour MP put it:

 

BBC criticised over debate programme participant

The evening of June 18th saw a televised debate titled ‘Our Next Prime Minister’ on BBC One.

“Emily Maitlis presents a debate between the candidates vying to succeed Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party.”

Among the members of the public selected to present questions to the five candidates was a man presented as “Abdullah Patel, Imam of a mosque” (which was identified by different BBC departments as being in both Gloucester and Bristol) who brought up the topic of Islamophobia.

Writing at the Spectator, journalist Stephen Daisley continues the story:

“Shortly after the programme concluded, someone tweeting under the name Abdullah Patel (@AbdullahPatel94) claimed on Twitter to be the imam from the programme. His Twitter bio describes him as an ‘imam, primary deputy head, teacher, youth worker [and] trainee counsellor’ with a degree in psychology and counselling. He offered a critique of each candidate’s answer to the question posed on-air […]

The BBC News website embedded his Twitter thread in a follow-up article, meaning the Corporation either knows @AbdullahPatel94 to be the same man featured in the debate or its journalists assumed this to be the case and republished his comments without checking.

It’s important to establish these facts because, if @AbdullahPatel94 is, as he claims and the BBC seems to believe, the Abdullah Patel from the debate, the Corporation has some serious questions to answer about how extensively it vetted him. Guido Fawkes tweeted, before heading to bed, that those interested should have a gander at @AbdullahPatel94’s tweets about Jews. I did and what I found wasn’t pretty. Many of the tweets have now been deleted, so what follows is the screen grab. It was there for anyone to read.”

As well as the offensive Tweets highlighted by Stephen Daisley (including some suggesting an equivalence between Auschwitz and the Gaza Strip), additional information not limited to social media appears in an article by David Toube at the Quilliam Journal.

Stephen Daisley closed his article:

“…if @AbdullahPatel94 is who he claims to be, there could scarcely be a less suitable person to question anyone about prejudice. If the man who interrogated the Tory leadership candidates is the author of these tweets, the BBC has catastrophically failed in its editorial duties by giving him air time. The Corporation will have to account for this grave lapse in broadcasting standards and work to rebuild trust with viewers as well as the Conservative party. They have let both down badly.”

BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast’s Nicky Campbell apologised for interviewing the same person the morning after the debate.

The BBC put out a statement:

BBC editor Rob Burley added:

However the Guido Fawkes website pointed out that a search showed that the BBC’s interviewee had been active on Twitter as recently as two days before the debate.

The BBC is claiming that an apparently very last-minute check did not turn up anything to preclude Mr Patel from taking part in the programme and one of the Tweets the BBC says it did not see was this one:

Readers may recall that in April 2016 the BBC was incapable of recognising that same image as antisemitic when it was found to have been promoted by a Labour MP and only described it as such after Naz Shah herself defined it in that term.

The question that therefore arises is even if the BBC had seen Mr Patel’s Tweets before the BBC One debate, would it have been capable of recognising their offensive nature? The BBC’s past record and the fact that the corporation does not work according to the accepted definition of antisemitism unfortunately makes that debatable.

Related Articles:

Another BBC antisemitism backgrounder promotes Livingstone Formulation

 

 

 

‘News at Ten’ continues the BBC’s ‘blockade’ campaign

On January 15th the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry published an English language Facebook post in which – apparently this time in reaction to the delay of a transfer of cash from Qatar to Hamas – it claimed that “the fuel crisis in hospitals and primary care centers continues to hit critical levels”.

On January 17th the flagship BBC programme ‘News at Ten’ – aired on BBC One and the BBC News channel – ran an item that seemed to have been inspired by that Facebook post and further milked Mishal Husain’s December 2018 trip [see ‘related articles’ below] to the Gaza Strip.

Failing to clarify to viewers that the health ministry in the Gaza Strip is run by the terror group Hamas, presenter Huw Edwards introduced the report (from 23:49 here) as follows: [emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Edwards: “Now the Palestinian health ministry in the Gaza Strip has said hospitals in Gaza may have to shut down because of shortages of fuel. The UN has warned of a real catastrophe if additional fuel isn’t found. The health system – already on the verge of collapse following years of an Israeli blockade and divisions between Palestinian groups – is now overburdened with casualties from the protests that began last year. More than 25,000 Palestinians have been injured. The BBC’s Mishal Husain visited Gaza and sent this report.”

Edwards of course refrained from clarifying to BBC audiences that those casualties could have been avoided had the same Hamas terror group now claiming that hospitals “may have to shut down” not organised, facilitated and financed weekly violent riots at the border for the past ten months.

As has previously been noted here on the many occasions on which the BBC has falsely promoted the notion of a link between Israel’s counter-terrorism measures and the sorry state of medical services in the Gaza Strip:

“…the restrictions placed on the import of dual-use goods (i.e. items which can be used for terrorist purposes) to the Gaza Strip do not apply to medical supplies. The party responsible for medical services in the Gaza Strip is the Palestinian Authority and it is that body which has in recent months exacerbated the chronic crisis affecting  the healthcare system in Gaza by severely cutting medical aid and referrals for treatment in Israel.”

Edwards did not bother to clarify to viewers that what he euphemistically and unhelpfully described as “divisions between Palestinian groups” actually means the fact that the Palestinian Authority has in addition been responsible for power shortages in the Gaza Strip that have affected medical services as well as other fields.

Mishal Husain began her report by also describing months of violent rioting as “protests”, once again employing the specious ‘everybody does it’ argument.

Husain: “It is a new and extreme burden on a health system that was already stretched to the limit: thousands of people with gunshot wounds. Fourteen year-old Walid Ahu [phonetic] is one of those who’ve been injured at the weekly protests near the perimeter fence with Israel. His father says he went along just as other young people have. An Israeli bullet went through both of his legs. There’ve now been months of demonstrations at the boundary. Many Palestinians say their intentions were peaceful, although some have thrown stones, burnt tyres and sent incendiary kites and balloons over the fence. Israel says it’s only used live fire when necessary to protect infrastructure, its soldiers and Israeli civilians living nearby.”

Significantly, Husain sabotaged her audience’s ability to understand and assess what “Israel says” by concealing the fact that in addition to stone-throwing, tyre burning and incendiary attacks, what she calls “protests” have also included border infiltrations, shooting attacks, grenade attacks and IED attacks, with a high proportion of those killed or injured during the riots connected to terror organisations. She went on:  

Husain: “The vast majority of the gunshot wounds have been to the lower limb. People like 23 year-old Ahmed Abu Guri [phonetic] who was hit in the upper thigh and will need two more operations and months of rehabilitation. Doctors here say health care in Gaza is now overwhelmed. One calls it an epidemic of gunshot injuries.”

Viewers then heard unsupported speculation from Mohammed Abu Mughalseeb of Medecins Sans Frontiers:

“From my experience I think the…you know, from some friends and colleagues in United Kingdom and in France and United States, if they had the same number of injuries received in the emergency department the health system would collapse. No other places in the world can cope with this, with this huge number of injuries.”

January 2019 report

Husain: “Even before this hospital here had acute and unmet needs. This is Gaza’s biggest emergency department which sees around 500 patients every day. There’s a long list of what hospitals here are short of – it’s beds, drugs, medical supplies – but also there’s a chronic shortage of power. There isn’t enough fuel for their backup generators and they don’t even have enough clean water; whether for the patients to drink, for the staff to wash their hands or even to sterilize their instruments.”

As was the case in her December reports, Husain yet again made no effort to adequately explain the background to power and water shortages in the Gaza Strip.

Husain: “For the last few years staff here have received only half their salary. Some are paid by Hamas which controls Gaza, others by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. The blockade of Gaza and its effect on the economy comes up again and again. Israel says it doesn’t restrict most medical supplies but Gaza has little money to pay for the health needs of its people.”

Husain failed to inform viewers that medical supplies to the Gaza Strip are provided by the Palestinian Authority or that her claim that “Gaza has little money” for healthcare does not stand up to factual examination.

“According to various estimates by the PA and Israel, Hamas raises NIS 100 million ($28 million) every month in taxes from the residents of Gaza. A significant part of that amount covers the wages of its members. But a large portion is diverted for military purposes. Estimates say Hamas is spending some $130 million a year on its military wing and preparations for war.”

Viewers then heard from Dr Ayman Al Sahabani of Shifa hospital who, while providing a list of those allegedly ‘responsible’ for the dire situation, notably could not bring himself to utter the word Hamas but did employ the terror group’s favoured inaccurate ‘siege’ terminology.

“Our civilians people died and injured all the time. Big question – why? Why? And why we are seeing the siege for 12 years?”

Husain: “Who do you hold responsible for what you are experiencing at the hospital?”

Al Sahabani: “All people. The United Nations, Red Cross, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, here…eh…eh…who’s are in the authority. All are responsible.”

Husain closed her report with a story that does not include enough detail to be verified.

Husain: “Those at the very start of their lives are among the most vulnerable, dependent on specialist equipment and in some cases with conditions that can’t be treated here. Because the blockade restricts the movement of people, patients need to request permission to leave. This two-day old baby with a congenital heart defect was waiting for an exit permit when we filmed him. Four days later he died. His permission hadn’t come through.”

When Husain’s colleague Yolande Knell similarly used the story of an unnamed baby with congenital heart disease in 2017 BBC Watch contacted COGAT and was told that:

“To our regret, an internal Palestinian dispute harms the residents of Gaza – instead of the regime in Gaza helping them – but Israel has no connection to the issue. We would highlight that in cases in which the Palestinian Authority sends requests, and particularly those classified as urgent, COGAT coordinates the immediate passage of patients at any time of the day in order to save lives. This activity is carried out on a daily basis at the Erez Crossing, through which residents of Gaza enter Israel for medical treatment.”

The permits for patients from the Gaza Strip to receive treatment in Israel of course include not only “permission to leave” but a commitment from the Palestinian Authority to fund that treatment. Whether or not the Palestinian Authority – which went completely unmentioned by Husain – actually submitted a request to the Israeli authorities concerning the baby in her report we do not know but what is clear is that Husain attempted to lay the blame for his death at the feet of “the blockade” – i.e. Israel – while concealing the PA’s role in the process of patient transfers from audience view.

Throughout this report and its introduction BBC audiences heard multiple references to Israel’s counter-terrorism measures – but no explanation of why they are necessary – and just one euphemistic reference to “divisions between Palestinian groups”. Yet again we see that the BBC is fully conscripted to promotion of the false narrative according to which the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is primarily attributable to ‘the blockade’ and that it will erase the actions of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, use sketchy stories about dead babies and dig out previously unused footage filmed over a month ago in order to promote that politically motivated narrative.

Related Articles:

BBC Radio 4’s selective framing of the “hardships” of Gaza Christians

BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ Gaza Strip special – part one

BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ Gaza Strip special – part two

BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ Gaza Strip special – part three

BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ Gaza Strip special – part four

BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ Gaza Strip special – part five

Mishal Husain does ‘life in Gaza’ for BBC One TV

The BBC’s monochrome framing of Gaza’s chronic utilities crisis

The common denominators in the BBC News website’s Gaza reporting

 

 

 

 

Mishal Husain does ‘life in Gaza’ for BBC One TV

The December 16th edition of ‘News at Ten’ – aired on BBC One and the BBC News channel – included a report titled ‘Life in Gaza’ by Mishal Husain who was scheduled to report from the Gaza Strip the following morning for BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme.

“Two million people in Gaza are poised to slip deeper into poverty and increasingly deplorable living conditions – according to the UN – it warns that basic services are at risk of collapse. Gaza’s economy has been badly hit by a blockade by Israel and Egypt – needed, they say – for security reasons.

The blockade was tightened after Hamas took full control of Gaza more than a decade ago. Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by Israel, the United States and many Western governments.

Inside Gaza – 54% of the labour force is unemployed, and 97% of tap water is unfit for human consumption.

Mishal Husain visited the Bolbol family to find out what life under the blockade is like.” [emphasis added]

Unsurprisingly, Husain followed the usual format seen in BBC reporting from the Gaza Strip: high on pathos and slogans, low on facts and context. [emphasis in bold added]

Husain: “It’s a densely populated strip of land. A place that the United Nations has warned could be unlivable by 2020. One of the most acute problems is a shortage of clean water – something that Maher Bolbol needs not only at home but for his business. It’s a coffee stall where he makes the equivalent of just £2 a day. Gaza’s economy is at a standstill; badly affected by years of a blockade by Israel and Egypt – they say for security reasons.”

Gaza’s water problems of course have nothing to do with the counter-terrorism measures imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas’ violent take-over of the territory in 2007. Those problems stem from excessive pumping from the aquifer by the local population and attempts to alleviate them by means of foreign-funded desalination plants have been thwarted by Hamas and by internal Palestinian disputes.

With Husain failing to make any mention of the terror attacks against Israeli civilians which are the reason for the implementation of restrictions on the import of dual-use goods into the Gaza Strip, viewers then heard from her main interviewee.

Maher Bolbol [voiceover] “This blockade is like a cancer in the whole Gaza Strip. It spread and affects everyone and of course it’s endurable unless the blockade is lifted.”

Husain: “Today the World Bank says half of Gaza’s population is living in poverty. This is the busy home of a big family – the grandparents, their sons and daughters, their sons and daughters-in-law and all the grandchildren. But of course in a place like this that means many mouths to feed and it’s not easy to provide for such a large family in Gaza. The household is 21 people in all, living here since 2014 when their old home was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike. There are three generations under this roof but Maher is the only one who has any work at all.”

Viewers were not told where the family’s “old home” was or why it was allegedly “destroyed in an Israeli airstrike”.

Khadra Bolbol [voiceover]: “No clothes, no furniture. It’s barely enough for food and water and sometimes we can’t even find that.”

Husain: “This is the only existence the children know. But for the generation in the middle – their parents – dreams of jobs and livelihoods have been shattered.”

Alaa Bolbol [voiceover]: “It is sad to have to drop out of university. I thought I was going to make something of myself, that people would call me Alaa the accountant. Now I find myself unable to pull myself out of the hole I fell into.”

Husain: “He has a wife and child but no means of supporting them. His unpaid debts meant he had to go to prison. Now Maher has a new worry – another son went to the weekly demonstrations near Gaza’s boundary with Israel and was hit by a rubber bullet.”

In compliance with standard BBC editorial policy, Husain described eight months of violent rioting that has included shooting attacks, arson attacks, grenade attacks, IED attacks and border infiltrations in which a high proportion of people connected to terror organisations have been killed or injured as “demonstrations”.

Mohammed Bolbol [voiceover] “All young adults go and take part. I went there just like the rest of them, like anyone does. God willing the blockade will be lifted, then we will find jobs, live our lives and secure a future for our children.”

Maher Bolbol [voiceover]: “After the injury of course I’m upset. This is my son, I raised him. I’m scared for him. I also know that this will be an added burden to us as a family.”

Husain: “Tonight there is fresh bread even if scrap paper is the only available fuel. And few believe the blockade can end while Hamas – whose founding charter denies Israel’s right to exist – is in power here. When I’ve talked to Israeli officials and ordinary people they have said that Gaza is in this position because of Hamas. What do you think of that?”

Maher Bolbol [voiceover]: “No, our internal Palestinian governments cannot be held responsible. The siege that was imposed is really strangling us.”

Making no effort to clarify to BBC viewers that the counter-terrorism measures are not a “siege” and that they were implemented because of Hamas’ terror attacks against Israeli civilians, Husain closed her report with a brief and opaque tick of the ‘impartiality’ box.

Husain: “But as well as the blockade incomes here have been affected in the last year by Palestinian divisions; sanctions imposed on Hamas by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Maher’s family like many others here say they have little real hope of a better future.”

On the day that the BBC aired this report Hamas staged a rally in Gaza to mark 31 years since its founding. According to documents obtained by Israeli journalists, the cost of that rally amounted to over half a million dollars. BBC audiences of course heard nothing about that or about the highly relevant topic of Hamas’ long-standing diversion of funds and resources for the purpose of terror at the expense of the Gaza Strip’s civilian population.

Instead – and notwithstanding Husain’s few half-hearted ticks of the ‘impartiality’ box’ – BBC audiences were once again steered towards the view that the root cause of the problems faced by civilians in the Gaza Strip is the counter-terrorism measures that had to be implemented due to Hamas terrorism – the “blockade” – rather than Hamas terrorism itself.

Related Articles:

One to listen out for tomorrow on BBC Radio 4

Revisiting another of the BBC’s 2018 campaigns

In this post we continue to take a look at some of the topics that the BBC chose to promote during 2018 in a manner that went beyond ordinary reporting both in terms of the amount of content produced and adherence to standards of ‘due impartiality’.

Another campaign amplified by the BBC related to the Bedouin encampment of Khan al Ahmar. On September 5th Israel’s High Court rejected a petition to prevent the demolition of the illegally constructed encampment after a protracted court case. That story was reported on the BBC News website on the same day.

5th September 2018, BBC News website:

Khan al-Ahmar: Israel court approves demolition of Bedouin village

Discussed here.

“…in addition to the serious omissions in the BBC’s representation of this story, audiences saw four times more comment (and two links) from outside sources opposing the evacuation of the illegally constructed settlement than they did opinions in favour.”

A week later – as the demolition order was due to be lifted – the BBC’s London-based Middle East editor flew in and the corporation’s radio and TV audiences saw and heard a further five reports in the space of six days.

13th September 2018, BBC World Service radio, ‘Newshour’, Jeremy Bowen:

Discussed here.

“…despite Bowen’s faulty geography, his amplification of the ‘contiguity’ myth and his failure to provide BBC audiences with the full background to this story (not least the fact that related court cases have been going on for nine years and the residents of Khan al Ahmar have been offered free plots of land on which to build homes nearby) and notwithstanding his erasure of the politically motivated interventions by the Palestinian Authority and the EU in this case, BBC World Service listeners were told that they had just heard an ‘expert’ explanation.”

17th September 2018, BBC One, BBC News channel, Jeremy Bowen:

The West Bank village facing demolition

Discussed here.

“Notably the BBC’s Middle East editor – whose job it is to “make a complex story more comprehensive or comprehensible for the audience” – chose yet again not to tell the BBC’s funding public that the EU has also carried out illegal construction at Khan al Ahmar and other sites in the vicinity or that the Palestinian Authority and various NGOs have for years used the encampment’s residents as political pawns. To do so would of course hamper the narrative to which Jeremy Bowen has self-conscripted and which he elected to promote in this report…”

17th September 2018, BBC World Service radio, ‘Newshour’, Jeremy Bowen:

Discussed here.

17th September 2018, BBC Radio 4, ‘The World Tonight’, Jeremy Bowen:

Discussed here.

18th September 2018, BBC World Service radio, ‘World Update’, Jeremy Bowen:

Discussed here.

“Once again Bowen deliberately refrained from informing listeners that if the residents of Khan al Ahmar had not been exploited by the Palestinian Authority for entirely political purposes they could, like other members of their tribe, have relocated to a site nearby offering free plots of land, utilities and a school, with no need whatsoever for the community to ‘suffer’. Those facts, however, do not help advance the political narrative to which Jeremy Bowen has self-conscripted and so in these three radio items – just as in his previous filmed and audio reports – they were erased from the one-sided and politicised picture he presented.”

When the demolition of Khan al Ahmar did not take place as he had anticipated, Jeremy Bowen jetted off back to London. The encampment’s residents were subsequently given until October 1st to demolish the illegally constructed structures themselves. That did not happen and the encampment remains in situ, with the BBC having – for the time being at least – lost interest in the story to which it provided one-sided, politicised amplification in six reports in less than two weeks.

Related Articles:

Reviewing a BBC slap to the face of impartial journalism

BBC’s Wyre Davies plays wingman to anti-Israel NGOs

The LA Times, The Bedouin of Khan Al Ahmar and ‘Their Land’  (CAMERA)

Reviewing a BBC slap to the face of impartial journalism

As the year’s end approaches we will be taking a look at some of the topics that the BBC chose to promote during 2018 in a manner that went beyond ordinary reporting both in terms of the amount of content produced and adherence to standards of ‘due impartiality’.

One of the BBC’s campaigns began in late December 2017 and continued until March 21st 2018, with an encore on July 29th. It related to Ahed Tamimi who, together with other members of her ‘activist’ family, had been featured in BBC content in the past.

However, in this case the supposedly ‘impartial’ BBC elected to lend its voice – and considerable outreach – to promotion and amplification of a blatantly political campaign. 

19th December 2017, BBC News website:

Palestinian girl arrested after troops ‘slapped’ in video

Palestinian girl arrested after ‘slap’ video

Both items discussed here.

“To sum up, the BBC’s ‘reporting’ on this story promotes – twice – filmed footage for the most part produced by family members of the story’s main protagonist, two Facebook posts from her father, one article from a notoriously partisan and inaccurate media outlet quoting her aunt, one Ynet report quoting her father and a second Ynet report relating to a previous incident in which she was involved.”

1st January 2018, BBC News website:

Palestinian girl charged after slapping soldier on video

Discussed here.

“Notably, while the BBC did elect to amplify the Tamimi family’s claim of “legitimate resistance” and to inform its audiences that “many Palestinians have hailed Tamimi as a hero of the resistance to Israeli occupation”, it refrained from telling them of her support for terrorism and advocacy of the murder of Israelis.”

1st January 2018, BBC World Service radio, ‘Newshour’, Yolande Knell:

Discussed here.

“…the BBC’s Yolande Knell was already aware of the charge of incitement.”

3rd January 2018, BBC Radio 4, ‘Today’:

Discussed here.

“No mention of the additional charges of rock-throwing and incitement was made throughout the item, which included interviews with Israeli MK Dr Michael Oren and B’tselem’s research director Yael Stein. Neither were listeners told that Ahed Tamimi’s mother Nariman has collaborated (along with additional members of the family) with B’tselem’s ‘armed with cameras’ project.”

8th January 2018, BBC Radio 4, ‘Today’, Yolande Knell:

Discussed here.

In this report from Yolande Knell, listeners heard from former IDF chief prosecutor Maurice Hirsh who noted the charge of incitement against Ahed Tamimi. They also heard interviews with an Israeli MK, Tamimi’s lawyer, Tamimi’s father and statements from a member of an anti-Israel NGO.

“Significantly, although the video footage of Ahed Tamimi urging others to carry out acts of violence is in the public domain, it has not been presented to BBC audiences.”

17th January 2018, BBC News website, Yolande Knell:

Ahed Tamimi: Spotlight turns on Palestinian viral slap video teen

Discussed here.

“The four interviewees who appeared in Knell’s audio report – Ahed Tamimi’s lawyer Gabi Lasky, her father Bassem Tamimi, Israeli MK Anat Berko and former IDF chief prosecutor Lt-Col (res) Maurice Hirsch – are also quoted in this written report.”

31st January 2018, BBC One, BBC News channel, BBC News website, Jeremy Bowen:

Is a slap an act of terror?

Ahed Tamimi: Was Palestinian teenager’s ‘slap’ terrorism?

Both discussed here.

“Clearly both those headlines and presentations suggest to BBC audiences that Ahed Tamimi has been charged with terrorism following her assault of a soldier – but that disingenuous implication is false.”

5th February 2018, BBC World Service radio, ‘Newshour’, Jeremy Bowen:

Discussed here.

13th February 2018, BBC News website:

Ahed Tamimi: Palestinian viral slap video teen goes on trial

Discussed here.

“However, as has been the case in the majority of the BBC’s copious past reporting on Ahed Tamimi’s arrest and indictment, this article too failed to provide readers with details of her call for violence on social media which is the basis of that incitement charge.”

13th February 2018, BBC World Service radio, ‘Newshour’, James Reynolds

Discussed here.

“All the more significant is the fact that he [Reynolds] failed to inform listeners of Ahed Tamimi’s “message to the world” – as defined by her mother – in that same footage which included the call for violence that is the basis for the charge of incitement against her.”

21st March 2018, BBC News website:

Ahed Tamimi: Palestinian slap video teen gets eight months in plea deal

Discussed here.

“…BBC audiences were not informed in this report that the charge of incitement relates to the fact that in the same video produced and distributed by her mother in which Ahed Tamimi was filmed assaulting soldiers, she also made a call for violence.”

Between December 19th 2017 and March 21st 2018, the BBC produced at least thirteen written, filmed or audio reports on that topic: clearly an unusual volume of coverage clearly intended to secure audience attention.

All the written and filmed reports (eight) included the word “slap” (or derivatives) in their title – an indication of what the BBC wanted audiences to think the story was about and how perception of the story was manipulated. Several of the reports told BBC audiences that Tamimi was imprisoned because of a ‘slap’ while failing to adequately explain – or even mention – the most serious charge against her: that of incitement to violence. Only one of the reports (BBC Radio 4, January 8th) provided audiences with a reasonable explanation of the charges against Tamimi.

The reports included interviews with three different Israeli politicians and one former IDF chief prosecutor. In addition to numerous interviews with Ahed Tamimi’s father – together with links to the family’s social media platforms – and quotes from her lawyer, BBC reporting on this story promoted quotes from and campaigns run by inadequately presented partisan political NGOs and activists such as B’tselemJonathan PollackAmnesty International, Avaaz (including a link to a petition set up by Tamimi’s father) and Human Rights Watch.

The BBC returned to the story in late July, with the same editorial policies in evidence in four additional reports.

29th July 2018, BBC News website:

Ahed Tamimi, Palestinian viral slap video teenager, freed in Israel

Discussed here.

“…once again BBC audiences were not informed in this report that the charge of incitement to which Ahed Tamimi pleaded guilty relates to the fact that in the same video produced and distributed by her mother in which she was filmed assaulting soldiers, she also made a public call for violence.”

29th July 2018, BBC World News TV, Nida Ibrahim:

Discussed here.

29th July 2018, BBC News website, Nida Ibrahim:

Discussed here.

“In the film itself the charge of incitement was likewise entirely erased from audience view.” 

29th July 2018, BBC World Service radio, ‘Newshour’, Nida Ibrahim:

Discussed here.

“As has been the case in all the BBC’s coverage of this latest instalment of the Ahed Tamimi story, the fact that the charge of incitement was the most serious of the charges against her – and its details – was erased from audience view.”

Throughout the BBC’s generous coverage of this story, audiences saw her described as “a prominent child activist“, a “star on social media”, “a modern-day Joan of Arc“, “a symbol of resistance to Israeli occupation“, “a national icon” and “the new iconic face of Palestinian resistance“.

BBC audiences were told that Tamimi is to be seen as “standing up to the reality of Israeli occupation, defending her home with her bare hands” and “standing up to armed soldiers on occupied land” and that her aim is “to resist the occupation“.

The one-sided politicised campaigning that BBC audiences saw instead of objective coverage of this story is a slap in the face for journalism and – not least in light of the BBC Middle East editor’s campaign contribution – detrimental to the BBC’s reputation as a trustworthy media outlet committed to accurate and impartial reporting.

Related Articles:

BBC reporter’s Tweets breach impartiality guidelines

BBC brushes off a complaint about a journalist’s Tweets

The BBC ME editor’s response to criticism of his recent reporting

BBC’s ‘Hardtalk’ hosts Ahmad Tibi – part one

BBC Arabic producer breaches social media guidelines again

 

 

 

 

BBC One’s ‘Sunday Morning Live’ erases a third of the royal visit

h/t TG, MF

BBC One has a programme called ‘Sunday Morning Live’ – currently presented by Sean Fletcher and Cherry Healey – which purports to provide BBC audiences with “thought provoking discussions of ethical questions of the week“.

The July 1stedition of that programme (available in the UK here) included a papers review together with guests presented by Fletcher as “journalist and writer Christina Patterson and comedian Aatif Nawaz“.

Sean Fletcher began by erasing one-third of the itinerary of the recent royal visit to Jordan, Israel and territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. [emphasis in italics in the original]

Fletcher: “And this week in – well – his biggest diplomatic test, Prince William became the first member of the royal family to make an official visit to the Palestinian territories. The Duke of Cambridge, who started his Middle East trip in Jordan, toured a market in Ramallah and spent a moment in quiet prayer at the holy Wailing Wall [sic] in Jerusalem’s Old City.”

Healey: “Christina – such a sensitive issue: how do you think he did?”

Patterson: “I thought he did amazingly well I must say. People tend to speak about Prince William as if he’s, you know, nice bloke, not Einstein, ehm…and, you know, that may be true but I have to say this is a diplomatic minefield and he was clearly very, very carefully briefed. But he didn’t put a foot wrong and he managed to win both sides over.”

Viewers then saw the journalist Patterson – who, as a person on record as claiming that Israelis “raze homes and build new ones on someone else’s land” and “destroy their neighbours’ crops and treat them like criminals” may not have been the most objective commentator on Israel related topics that the BBC could have come up with – make the following pseudo-legal pronouncement:

Patterson: “I think one or two people have said oh, he shouldn’t have talked about the occupied territories. Well they are the occupied territories – that was just factually and legally accurate.”

With the programme’s presenters making no effort to inform audiences of the existence of alternative legal views concerning an issue on which Patterson is clearly not qualified to tell viewers what is “accurate” or not, she went on to potentially confuse them with a reference to the president of a country that they had not been told was included in the visit.

Patterson: “But really, to have got the Israeli president and the Palestinian president and all those people in all those different factions on his side [sic] was an astonishing achievement. And it was also very touching to see how he related to people and I think in particular he was profoundly moved by the plight of the Palestinians and I think, you know, good on him. He really brought quite…something quite tricky off.”

Fletcher then went on to refer to an article in the Sunday Mirror.

Fletcher: “Yeah, Aatif: the front of the Sunday Mirror – ‘Wills: Middle East peace is my life mission’ so according to the Mirror. That, I mean, that’s a tall order. In terms of religious and political tightropes, this is as high as they get, isn’t it?”

Nawaz: “Well I like that he’s up for the challenge, you know, because it is very challenging. You see a lot of heads of state and, you know, people in positions of influence or privilege avoid these situ…or avoid talking about the Middle East or avoid talking about the conflict or the two-state solution or whatever it is that’s brought up about it. But he’s going for it and I really like that because, you know, there’s this perception about the royal family – sometimes they’re very passive and they don’t play a role or they certainly want to avoid talking about anything controversial and it’s a very ceremonial thing. Whereas this is like a really noble, admirable aim for his [unintelligible]. He’ll win a lot of supporters in the Muslim community for acknowledging the occupied Palestinian territories and Palestine and the life of the Palestinians. So I think it’s great and if he could…listen, I’m backing it.  What can I do to help, prince? You tell me ‘cos that’s like let’s bring peace to the Middle East.”

That identity politics dog-whistle closed what apparently passes for “thought-provoking discussion” at BBC One.

Resources:

Contact ‘Sunday Morning Live’

 

BBC’s ECU upholds ‘Andrew Marr Show’ complaint

Readers may recall that back in April the BBC’s Andrew Marr managed to shoehorn Israel into a discussion about the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons.

During the papers review in the April 8th edition of ‘The Andrew Marr Show’ show guest journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer spoke about a Guardian report on the previous evening’s chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma in Syria, stating:

Hartley-Brewer: “We’ve got to stop the nonsense that they’re not using chemical weapons. They are using them. And of course I would say I do think we need to remember that it was our country that chose not to get involved even after chemical weapons attacks as a result of votes in Parliament led by former Labour leader Ed Miliband.”

The “light” Andrew Marr then chose to shine on the issue of international inaction despite repeated chemical weapons attacks in Syria was as follows:

Marr: “And the Middle East is aflame again. I mean there’s lots of Palestinian kids being killed further south as well by the Israeli forces.”

As the Daily Mail reports:

“Anti-semitism campaigner Jonathan Sacerdoti complained, writing: ‘When talking about a story on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Andrew Marr for some reason decided to talk about Israel (which was unrelated anyway). He stated there’s a lot of Palestinian kids being killed further south by Israeli forces.

‘This is completely incorrect and is made up. This was irrelevant to the conversation on Syria… and also actually completely false.’

BBC producers initially tried to defend Marr’s comments by pointing to the fact that five ‘younger people’ had been killed between the beginning of the year and the date of the programme.

They also said several Palestinian children and younger people were killed in the week following the broadcast, but Mr Sacerdoti argued that later events could not be used to justify Mr Marr’s comments.

His complaint has been upheld.”

Mail on Sunday

The relevant part of the ECU’s response stated:

Note the BBC’s use of a WHO document (which is based on figures supplied by the same terror group that organised the violent rioting) as a source of information concerning “a large number of children injured” even though Marr’s comment referred to “Palestinian kids being killed”.