The BBC has shown me quite a good time over these last few weeks. It's been flattering to have been invited to blog for the Today programme and get the extra bonus of being on their web site, complete with link to my own Adloyada site. It's been even more flattering to be interviewed and have my usual highly opinionated tones broadcast on the Today programme, and available for download and offer to Adloyada readers. Ultimate vanity. Thanks, BBC, and especially Today programme team. I really very much appreciate it.
The orthodox Jewish religious tradition takes a pretty dim view of the function of this sort of stuff. It regards accepting alluring invitations which might affect your judgement as bribery and corruption. Yep, that extends to things like accepting lunches, free trips and the like. It says in no uncertain terms that not only is there no such thing as a free lunch, but accepting the freebies you're offered is bound to affect your judgement in some way. Even if, like me, you think you are terribly sussed and vigilant and of course you would never let your own judgement be influenced. Yeah, right. Not of course that I think the BBC regards me as at all a significant critic who they need to incorporate. The whole point about the BBC is that they see their own viewpoint as unproblematically neutral, balanced, unbiased etc. It's all those others who have agendas, not the BBC.
So when the latest circular from Honest Reporting popped into my inbox this morning, I smiled broadly. Honest Reporting seems to have a terrible reputation amongst the liberal left intelligentsia I spend a lot of my time with. They seem to regard it as an extremist organization which mobilizes armies of mindless hard right racists to mail bomb any poor old media organization which dares to criticise Israel. I don't see it that way, though I do think that calling up email campaigns invariably unleashes those who look for an excuse to be abusive. I have just as much of an issue with news organizations who promptly discount and ignore complaints if they perceive them to be organized and originating from one particular source. In doing that, they invariably ignore their own complaints policies, which usually require each complaint to be taken individually.
Today's email, though, is Honest Reporting's annual Dishonest Reporting award. Not surprisingly, there's a great deal of worthy competition for the award, with leading runners being superstar mainstream media organizations such as CBS, CNN and Reuters. The email gives excellent examples of their form in dishonesty around reporting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But guess what? The prize goes to the BBC. And, with full acknowledgement to Honest Reporting, I reproduce their citation and evidence here:
But one news service's skewed coverage stood out the most, "winning" the award in a landslide. From the first day votes came in, it wasn't close, which may explain the dearth of nominations for perennial runner-ups like the NY Times, Associated Press and The Independent. The 2005 Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award goes to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The impact of BBC coverage cannot be understated. A Google study found that for breaking news, internet users around the world were more likely to turn to the BBC than CNN. More than 270 million TV viewers around the world watch BBC World. Even more people listen to BBC World Service, which broadcasts in 42 languages.
Readers provided a full laundry list of complaints and we found the most effective way to condense the biggest offenses was in a simple list form. The examples of bias from the year past indicates a pattern of naiveté, dishonesty, forcing facts conform to a narrow worldview and, arguably, a desire to inappropriately influence events-all paid for by British television viewers through the TV License Fee, which costs the typical household £126.50 per year.
Here are the top 10 reasons (listed in chronological order) why the BBC is HonestReporting's Dishonest Reporter of the Year.
10. In January, Palestinian presidential candidate Dr. Mustafa Barghouti (not to be confused with his better-known distant relative, Marwan) tried to use Israel and the Western media to get some free publicity for his campaign by getting himself arrested at the Temple Mount. The Independent's Donald Macintyre saw straight through Barghouti's ploy, but the BBC's Martin Asser proved more gullible:
9. Every morning, listeners can tune into BBC for an uplifting "Thought of the Day." One February morning, Rev. Dr. John Bell used the feature to describe an Arab-Israeli acquaintance only identified as "Adam." According to Rev. Dr. Bell, this acquaintance was "conscripted" into the Israeli army, where "he was also imprisoned for refusing to shoot unarmed schoolchildren." See the full transcript here. 8. In March, the BBC apologized to Israel for reporter Simon Wilson's handling of an interview with Mordechai Vanunu. A former technician at the Dimona nuclear plant, Vanunu is prohibited from talking to foreign reporters, but Wilson, in 2004, was caught trying to smuggle tapes of his interview out of the country. Although the apology-which paved the way for Wilson to return to Israel-was supposed to remain confidential, it was inexplicably posted on the BBC's own web site for several hours. The BBC once intended to rent out a luxury apartment for Vanunu paid for by British television viewers.7. He retired from the BBC, but former Mideast correspondent Tim Llewellyn (now an executive member of the Council for the Advancement of Arab British Understanding) makes this list for an interview he gave to Electronic Intifada. We are concerned Llewellyn's views are shared by colleagues within the BBC:6. In May, BBC correspondent Orla Guerin reported that construction linking Maale Adumim to Jerusalem would split the West Bank in two, destroying any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. HonestReporting noted that construction in the area known as E-1 doesn't take away territorial contiguity. A map produced by our colleagues at CAMERA highlights how the Palestinians would have continuous territory, which, at its narrowest, would be nine miles (or 15 km) wide-which also happens to be the width of Israel's "waistline" between the Green Line and the Mediterranean.
5. When members of the British Association of University Teachers considered a boycott of Israel's Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities, BBC radio tried to influence the vote with a report by correspondent John Reynolds from the College of Judea and Samaria. As Melanie Phillips wrote in May:
4. When terrorists linked to Al-Qaida struck the London transportation system in July, many thought the BBC would finally use the word "terror" to describe the wanton attacks on civilians. To their credit, a small handful of initial reports did. But appearances of the "t-word" in initial coverage were soon removed from the BBC's web site (but not before Tom Gross documented the inconsistencies). Yet Roger Mosey, the head of BBC's television news, contradicted BBC policy when he wrote in The Guardian that there was no ban in the first place!
3. Following the London terror attacks, the BBC admitted loading the studio audience with a disproportionate number of Muslims for Questions of Security: A BBC News Special. (See Biased BBC for links to video of the show.) Among the complaints, one viewer wrote angrily:
2. Within hours after Israel completed its pull-out from the Gaza Strip, Palestinians wasted no time desecrating synagogues and looting greenhouses. BBC's Orla Guerin was one of several journalists who actually justified the sad, senseless destruction:1. Whatever happened to Malcolm Balen, who was appointed to help improve the BBC's Mideast reporting? Back in November, 2003, the BBC hired him as a "senior editorial advisor," or, as some put it, "a Middle East policeman. " Some HonestReporting readers were hopeful when Haaretz reported that Balen was supposed to present a "conclusive and comprehensive report" to BBC executives. Balen even told Haaretz:
* * *
Yet even in December, former director-general Greg Dyke, a casualty of the Hutton Report, insists that the network's Mideast reporting continues to be fair: We investigated many of the complaints and most of the time found our reporting had been totally fair. Of course the pro-Israeli lobby didn't accept that but then they had a different agenda. The stakes are certainly high. News services skewing reports from the Mideast are just as capable of warping other important areas of coverage. For the BBC, that's most notably Iraq. The BBC's royal charter expires at the end of 2006 - one year from now -- and officials must explain how it spends income from the TV License Fee. In 2003, this TV tax brought the BBC nearly £2.4 billion in income. Simply put, the British public is subsidizing lousy news. As far as we're concerned, the excuses and apologies have worn thin. The BBC must be held accountable.
By October, the deteriorating coverage reached a point where the Board of Governors requested Sir Quentin Thomas to lead an independent panel to investigate its Mideast reporting. (See here for more details.) The panel is supposed to release its findings in the spring. When the Board of Governors released its Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors, the forward by the chairman of the complaints committee noted that the majority of the complaints (20 out of 27 in fact) dealt with Mideast coverage. Only one-against Barbara Plett-was upheld.
A handy review, but I think your links and quotes are jumbled. Best wishes, Martin
Posted by: Martin Morgan | December 28, 2005 at 11:10 AM
Yes I agree it is jumbled, Judy do a comparison with the original and you will see that it goes haywire midway through.
Posted by: JohnM | December 29, 2005 at 10:21 AM
Sorry folks, I'm not currently blogging from home, so my ability to put this right is limited. I've just cut away the most muddled bit and think the post now makes more sense, even if the running order is misnumbered.
Posted by: Judy | December 29, 2005 at 07:56 PM