"BBC BENDS OVER BACKWARDS TO ACCOMMODATE ISRAELI CLAIMS" (contrast in reporting)

[danny la rouge]

Medialens email some of you may be interested in:

MEDIA ALERT: WHEN FACTS AND PROPAGANDA COLLIDE - THE BBC BENDS OVER BACKWARDS TO ACCOMMODATE ISRAELI CLAIMS


When a Thai kibbutz worker was killed in Israel by a rocket launched from Gaza last week, BBC News online gave the incident headline coverage flagged up on its home page. (BBC news online, ‘Rocket fire from Gaza kills man in southern Israel’, 23:42 GMT, Thursday, 18 March 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8574138.stm)

By contrast, the killing of two Palestinian teenagers, Mohammad Qadus and Osaid Qadus, by Israeli soldiers on Saturday was buried at the end of a short news report on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's Middle East visit. Even worse, the BBC’s footnote simply echoed Israeli propaganda that “no live bullets were fired, only tear gas and rubber bullets”, despite ample evidence to the contrary. (BBC news online, ‘UN chief says Gaza suffering under Israeli blockade’, 11:26 GMT, Sunday, 21 March 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8578611.stm)

Yesterday morning, we joined with a number of media activists in sending complaints to the BBC. We emailed Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen. We asked Bowen why BBC News so often channels the Israeli version of events without proper scrutiny. We pointed out that, in contrast to the BBC, other news media had given the tragic killings of Mohammad Qadus and Osaid Qadus significant prominence, while also providing strong evidence that directly contradicted Israeli claims. For example, the Palestinian Ma'an news agency reported that the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem had obtained an X-ray of Osaid Qadus's body that refuted the Israeli army's assertion that “no live bullets were fired”. B‘Tselem commented:

"Rubber-coated steel bullets will not enter and exit the body in that way. It's very clear these injuries would not have been caused by any kind of crowd-control measure. The army's explanation is simply impossible and not consistent with the evidence." (Ma’an news agency, ‘Army explanation “simply impossible”’, 22 March, 2010; http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=270326)

Likewise, the Guardian challenged Israeli claims on the use of live ammunition, reporting that "a hospital x-ray of Osaid Qadus, seen by the Guardian, showed a bullet lodged in his brain." The Guardian added:

"Ahmed Hamad, a doctor at the hospital who treated the two, said the x-ray showed a 'classic, pure metallic bullet'. He said both boys had injuries with small entry wounds." (Rory McCarthy, ‘Palestinians shot dead by Israeli troops near Nablus. Two teenagers killed day after boys, 15 and 17, shot in village’, guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 March 2010 14.22 GMT; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/palestinians-shot-dead-isreal-nablus)

The Independent was also able to verify that a conventional bullet was "lodged in the brain of Osaid Qadus". (Donald Macintyre, ‘Two more Palestinian youths shot dead by Israelis in bloody weekend. X-rays show deaths were caused by conventional bullets but military claim only rubber rounds were fired’, Independent, 22 March 2010; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ad-by-israelis-in-bloody-weekend-1925044.html)

We concluded our challenge to Bowen:

“Why, by contrast, has the BBC provided an echo chamber for Israeli propaganda on the army killings of these two Palestinian boys? Why were their deaths buried at the end of a report on Ban Ki-Moon's visit? Why not give headline coverage, as you did when rocket fire from Gaza killed a man in Israel?”

We have not yet received a response.


Postscript: A Belated Note of Scepticism

Several hours after media activists emailed the BBC, an online news report finally appeared on the BBC website casting doubt on the official Israeli version of events. (‘B'tselem says live bullets may have killed Palestinians’, 18:42 GMT, March 22, 2010; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8580150.stm).

Perhaps the BBC would anyway have returned to the story, but we suspect that the complaints pricked consciences and at the very least helped accelerate the response (BBC personnel have admitted as much to us in the past). What, in any case, did the broadcaster now report?

The new BBC article stated that B’Tselem is “calling for an investigation into the deaths of two Palestinians it suspects were killed by live fire, contrary to military claims.” The report then generously afforded Israel some wiggle room:

“On Saturday, the Israeli military said live fire had not been used.

“On Monday, spokeswoman Avital Liebowich told the BBC that had been the conclusion of an initial investigation, and maintained that the army ‘did not give any orders to use live fire’.

“She said a ‘debriefing’ was taking place at brigade level regarding the incident.”

The article was, as far as we could see, not flagged up from the BBC news home page - in stark contrast to last week’s report of the kibbutz worker killed in Gaza.

This latest report also carefully stepped back from the BBC’s initial echoing of Israeli propaganda on the deaths of two more Palestinian youths killed on Sunday; namely, that “the Israel army said soldiers shot dead two Palestinians who tried to stab a soldier at a checkpoint in the West Bank.” (BBC news online, ‘UN chief says Gaza suffering under Israeli blockade’, 11:26 GMT, Sunday, 21 March 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8578611.stm)

In the latest approved version, published yesterday evening, the BBC again worked hard to accommodate the shifting Israeli version of events:

“The military initially said the Palestinians had tried to stab a soldier. Later reports said they had attacked security forces with pitchforks and an axe.

“On Monday Ms Liebowich said the two Palestinians were carrying a container filled with rocks and a medical syringe, and possibly also pitchforks.

“‘The soldiers understood they were about to get hurt and opened fire to save themselves,’ she said.

“But a local Palestinians [sic] told the BBC the two men were arrested before they were killed, on the basis of a phone call a village elder says he received from the military saying they were being held, before later hearing that they had been shot dead.”

It is clear that this is a real test for BBC News - while it much prefers to echo the Israeli perspective, the facts must somehow be accommodated.

Serious questions remain, then, about the BBC’s professed commitment to fair and impartial reporting. Why did the broadcaster’s initial reporting present the Israeli view at face value? Why was it so slow to present evidence to the contrary? And why does it continue to give so little prominence to the deaths of Palestinian youths at the hands of Israeli soldiers?


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor
Email: [email protected]

Steve Herrmann, BBC online news editor
Email: [email protected]

Mark Thompson, BBC director general
Email: [email protected]

Helen Boaden, BBC news director
Email: [email protected]

Please send a copy to the Chair of the BBC Trust which is responsible for ensuring that the BBC upholds its obligations to the public:
Michael Lyons
Email: [email protected]

Please also send a copy of your emails to us
Email: [email protected]

 

[dylans]

Stinks doesn't it.

 

[danny la rouge]

Stinks doesn't it.

Always has done.

 

[kyser_soze]

What's funny are the endless accusations of BBC bias toward Palestinians levelled at them by, well, Israel, some Tories, various Zionist orgs etc.

So clearly if they're pissing off concerned&complaingins on both sides they're somewhere near where they should be.

 

[danny la rouge]

What's funny are the endless accusations of BBC bias toward Palestinians levelled at them by, well, Israel, some Tories, various Zionist orgs etc.

So clearly if they're pissing off concerned&complaingins on both sides they're somewhere near where they should be.

Except that the truth isn't decided by compromise.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So clearly if they're pissing off concerned&complaingins on both sides they're somewhere near where they should be.

People say this every time and I don't know why. It just doesn't make sense. Reports of any sort are always challenged by both sides.

 

[danny la rouge]

Kyser, I'll give you an example of how your line logically extends: most historians say the evidence shows that approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Some Holocaust deniers say it didn't happen. Would the BBC be doing its job best if it:

a) tended towards the former
b) tended towards the latter
c) insisted both were equally valid
d) decided it must be halfway between the two

 

[editor]

Is there a Godwin's law equivalent for bringing up the Holocaust in threads?

 

[danny la rouge]

Is there a Godwin's law equivalent for bringing up the Holocaust in threads?

That it will eventually happen?

Anyway, it's an example. It's emotiveness is pertinent.

 

[London_Calling]

Is there a Godwin's law equivalent for bringing up the Holocaust in threads?

It's not actually about whether the Holocaust happened or how many died, the analogy works as well - but less clearly - with most political issues; the BBC mantra, as expressed often on programmes like Points of View is "if both sides complain we must be doing something right" *chuckle chuckle*

It's a bullshit defence by the BBC because, in this ase, it would mean the BBC had again reported the middling view ( . . "in excess of 3 million Jews were known to have died). Cop out bullshit.

 

[XerxesVargas]

Except that the truth isn't decided by compromise.

This is a fundamental issue with BBC news. They see everything through the lense of "balance" - which stems from their political reporting obligations. But some things don't always have two valid sides. For example, for every story they do on MMR/Andrew Wakefield they provide a link to JABS. JABS are proper loonspud anti-vaxers.

There may be two sides to everything but that does not mean each side is equally valid in its arguments.

 

[CyberRose]

The BBC must have been reading this thread because plastered at the top of their site as the main headline right now is "UK blames Israel in Dubai killing row"

I can see how that might be interpreted by some as "bending over backwards to accommodate Israeli claims"

 

[Kaka Tim]

The BBC essentailly takes its lead from the establisment concensus position - and this is generally pro-israel. at the mo the establishemnt concensus is a bit pissed with Israel with regards to mossad assaasins using brit passports.
Normal service will be resumed next time Israel wants to batter the shit out of Gaza or Lebanon.

 

[danny la rouge]

This is a fundamental issue with BBC news. They see everything through the lense of "balance" - which stems from their political reporting obligations. But some things don't always have two valid sides. For example, for every story they do on MMR/Andrew Wakefield they provide a link to JABS. JABS are proper loonspud anti-vaxers.

There may be two sides to everything but that does not mean each side is equally valid in its arguments.

Indeed.

 

[frogwoman]

Kyser, I'll give you an example of how your line logically extends: most historians say the evidence shows that approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Some Holocaust deniers say it didn't happen. Would the BBC be doing its job best if it:

a) tended towards the former
b) tended towards the latter
c) insisted both were equally valid
d) decided it must be halfway between the two

I had a textbook at school that claimed that 5 1/2 million jews died and "a few hunderd thousand" homosexuals, etc

 

[Barking_Mad]

BBC = Government mouthpiece.

 

[danny la rouge]

I had a textbook at school that claimed that 5 1/2 million jews died and "a few hunderd thousand" homosexuals, etc

We can resurrect one of the Holocaust denial threads to go into this, if you like. I think the analogy works well. I chose it for a reason, though: the Palestinian people, like Native Americans, are being written out of the official history.