BBC: the fish will be the last to discover the water

So the BBC has published its report on its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian coverage.

It sounds like something of a revolution. The BBC finds it needs to improve its coverage. It says it should be using the word "terrorist" to characterize terrorist acts. Well, that will be a huge improvement. If it does do that in practice.

However, a closer reading of the report and of the accompanying research on which it partially based its conclusions shows that some of the most egregious core assumptions of the Beeb remain untouched. Perhaps that's hardly surprising when you consider that the report is by the BBC on itself, and that its independent panel was nominated and serviced by ... the BBC.

I haven't time yet for a more in-depth discussion, but I'll show what I mean by giving what seem to be some of the most glaring examples.

Throughout the report runs a fervent commitment to pursue the BBC's ideal of impartiality. Of course this has particular resonances in relation to the whole history of the UK in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the position favoured by both the Foreign Office and the UK media is to present the UK as an "honest broker" or disinterested friend. To those with more awareness of the UK's historical role, that just fits too well with the self-congratulatory ideal of the colonial administrator, rising above the mean squabbles of the warring natives. And the present role of the UK in its EU manifestation is to be an advocate of the Road Map, with a very large stake in funding the previous Fatah government, and pouring money into the Palestinian infrastructure.

So here are some instances of the "impartiality" the BBC claims for itself in its future coverage.

It says:

instead of a purposive effort to tell a complicated story in the round and
to remedy the well attested incomprehension of the generality of viewers and listeners (incomprehension further evidenced in the research commissioned for this Review). One important feature of this is the failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation. Although this asymmetry does not necessarily bear on the relative merits of the two sides, it is so marked and important that coverage should succeed in this if in nothing else.

Now this strikes me as an astonishing interpretation of what "impartiality" means. For one thing, the BBC has never used the concept of conveying asymmetry in a conflict between a nation and terrorist groups as a marker of impartial coverage.

The BBC does not see it as either important or necessary to convey the disparity in the Chinese and Tibetan experience, in the experience of the Spanish and the Basques, the Russians and the Chechens, the asymmetry in the situation of the Taleban and the US/UK forces and in the situation of the terrorist groups in Iraq who define themselves as fighting and living their lives under occupation. Still less did it take that sort of principle as its guide in reporting about the conflict in Northern Ireland.

It's particularly pernicious to fix on what looks like a priority to provide the argument of asymmetry in relation to Palestinian actions in the conflict, because it lies behind the main justification offered by apologists like Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi. He argues that the Palestinians need to use suicide bombers because they don't possess F16s.

The BBC seems to feel it's being highly impartial in making a defining priority for coverage "the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation." Well, it's a mainstream British view, but how impartial is it? Try this rephrasing for size:

the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is under direct existential threat from a powerful country in the region which funds terrorist attacks from the other side, from which it tries to defend itself, and which the other side supports as "resistance".

Then, there's the question of how it characterizes terrorism and terrorists. Yes, it does advocate the characterization of bomb assaults on civilians in cafes and the like as terrorist acts, but the BBC sets its face against calling organizations like Hamas terrorist. Here's the highly impartial rationale for that:

It seems clear that there is a risk that describing actors as terrorists may obscure meaning both because the pejorative weight carried by the word is so great, and also because the designation may become permanent. In fact the
commission of a terrorist act, however reprehensible, may be the work of a moment, and it is a truism that many who have carried out terrorist acts have subsequently become respected politicians, even statesmen. (This is as true of those active in the Zionist movement before the foundation of the state of Israel as in others.) For similar reasoning, it would be a mistake to
use the expression “terrorist” in respect of organisations, even though the terrorist act was carried out at their instigation.

Since when has terrorism, particularly terrorism by Palestinian groups, been "the work of a moment"? Behind every suicide bomber stands an elaborate organization of funders, recruiters, indoctrination schools, videotapers, transporters to the murder scene and cheerleading organizations to promote their acts. Gunmen who shoot down Israeli drivers or independent-minded Palestinians aren't otherwise quiet little guys who get overtaken by moments of desperation. They too are selected, organized, funded and trained. They don't acquire AK45s by saving up money from car boot sales. And they aren't funded by tombola evenings in the Palestinian villages. To refuse to use the expression "terrorist" in respect of organizations which openly instigate, organize and celebrate terrorist murders is not impartiality.

The IRA is now participating (or trying to participate in) the democratic government of Northern Ireland. That has never stopped the BBC from characterizing the IRA as having been a terrorist organization when it was in the full time business of organizing and delivering terrorism.

I hope to return to discussion of other similarly gross obsfuscations in the report, particularly in the way it's used what is in fact a highly tendentious and methodologically dubious piece of content research to seek to demonstrate that its present reporting is loaded in favour of Israel and against the Palestinians.

But I have to be out early this morning. And that's enough for now.

UPDATE: Some wonderful comments from Guido Fawkes on how the BBC sees itself, and the criticism it gets from bloggers here.

Comments

[Lynne]

eh... ...since when didn't the BBC make it central to any coverage that Israel is the Goliath in the piece and cast the Palestinians as stone-throwing Davids?

Israel is in "control" of matters in the sense that jail guards are in control of convicts. They are dealing with a population that is very hostile, belligerent to the point of nihilism, who suffer profound sense of entitlement.

[Paul Malin]

It seems clear that there is a risk that describing actors as terrorists may obscure meaning both because the pejorative weight carried by the word is so great, and also because the designation may become permanent....

If I still lived in Britain, that paragraph alone would make me want to withhold my license fee in outrage.

What a shameful bit of excuse-making. We shouldn't call murderers murderers, because some of them kill without extensive premeditation, and because some of them might end up in government. And by extension, we can't label the organisations which nurture and direct and use them. Is there any other word in the language that the BBC makes such extravagant efforts to avoid—at least in the context of Israel? Why not, in fact, embargo the word "murderer" for precisely the same reasons?

[Eli Tabori]

Adloyada
Shalom,
Look at the composition of the PANEL. You will have all the answers.
Regards,

Sir Quentin Thomas

Sir,

I should to draw your attention to the fact, that some of the members picked by the BBC for the review have in the past expressed, on record rabidly anti Israel positions, a fact which should cast a serious doubt on their supposed "impartiality".

I realize that you may not be aware of this fact. I take the liberty to inform you officially, that you may have a serious problem on your hands, and that you might have been misled.

Lord Eames is one of the heads of the Anglican Church, the same organisation that has been busy recently implementing sanctions against Israel; one can guess where his sympathies lie.

Stewart Purvis actually started working for the BBC before ITN, and following the Hutton report and the departure of Greg d**e, left no doubt how he felt BBC coverage had been maligned in this article:

Moist-eyed appreciation of Greg

To know Philip Stephens' views on Israel one has only to see this article by him which was posted on an Islamic website.
Sharon and Arafat are locked in a lethal embrace

Regarding Dr. Elizabeth Vallance, other than being married to a Lib Dem peer, which may be significant, I can find little to show why she was picked. It might be that she is the most 'independent' of the others, but being outnumbered ; it won't make a lot of difference to the outcome.
The fact that the BBC itself should pick the people who are going to judge if they are "impartial" is already raising eyebrows, more so if they pick people who have no genuine objectivity and no expertise in the issues involved.
The audacity of the BBC in presenting this as an independent panel to judge their bias seems to know no bounds.

The review, announced in May, was supposed to look at BBC impartiality "with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias, actual or perceived".

Yours Sincerely,
Eli Tabori
65 Boulevard Lannes
Paris 75116

[dumbcisco]

I agree it is nonsense to call an atrocity terrorism, the perpetrator a terrorist - but not to iuse tyhe T word to describe the organisation that indoctrinated him, trained him, equipped him, provided the logistics for hims - and PLANNED what to do.

Incidentally, Q Thomas who chaired the review was cosy with the BBC back in the mid-1980s when he was in the broadcasting Division of the Home Office. He was a fence sitter then - he failed to act on the clear technical evidence that the BBC had taken entirely the wrong approach to satellite TV. They lost millions and millions of the licence-payers money and lost any effective place in the new industry. He just got promoted up the line.

[Huldah]

Looking forward to your future fisking of this report, Adloyada!

I was struck by the number of times the report quoted the research as saying that viewers thought BBC coverage was impartial.

Were these the same viewers who also told the researchers that they didn't feel that they understood the Middle East dispute?

Ah, I see. The viewers don't understand the dispute, but are nevertheless sure that the BBC coverage is impartial.

So that's alright then.

More Kafka anyone?

[Inna]

Eli,

Do you have Sir Quentin Thomas' contact information? E-mail is best but if not that, anything will do.

Thank you,

Inna

[The Vole Strangler]

When Israel engages in state terrorism, I notice that the BBC also balks from using the T word. Perhaps one of the problems is that the BBC just tries to be too polite.

[Huldah]

Volestrangler

Oh, I don't know.

Perhaps the BBC recognises the difference between suicide bombers blowing up civilians going to school or going for a pizza, and the IDF targetting terrorists who plan to destroy the State of Israel and its Jewish citizens.

I'd like to think so.

[Uponnothing]

Behind every suicide bomber stands an elaborate organization of funders, recruiters, indoctrination schools, videotapers, transporters to the murder scene and cheerleading organizations to promote their acts.

I think you oversimplify things in this respect, to say that terrorism is caused purely by such organisations is to miss the point of why the organisations were created in the first place. The key to understanding terrorism is to question why such organisations exist, rather than just blaming them as if they are the sole reason people commit terrorist acts.

I could create and fund a terrorist network, but would I be able to 'brainwash' people without a cause, without some initial grievance, into blowing themselves up.

You can certainly condemn the organisation, but don't be under the impression that condemning an organisation will achieve anything, without looking at the root causes of the problem.

[billy]

Huldah,

Perhaps the BBC recognises the difference between the IDF blowing up civilians going to school or going for a pizza, and Hamas targetting the terrorists who are destroying all hope of a State of Palestine and its citizens.

I'd like to think so.

[Term Papers]

Yes i watch that news flash,When Israel engages in state terrorism, I notice that the BBC also balks from using the T word. I will post further discoveries, thoughts and experiences as I proceed.