Complaints
BBC World
London, U.K. June 10, 2007
Re: BBC Integrity/Impartiality
Dear Sirs,
There should be a full inquiry into the coverage BBC World of the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
I have been a paying subscriber to BBC World for quite some time,because I felt it offered a more balanced view of world events/issues than the jingoistic, one-sided pro-American and, yes, even pro-Israeli reporting we get on U.S. networks.
However, I have been most appalled at the coverage of the Israel/Palestinian dispute I have witnessed on BBC World in the past year and a half. All that is missing is heroic music to background the Palestinian struggle against Israeli “aggressors.”
It is now almost like watching Al Jazeera.
And I believe I come to that conclusion quite impartially: in 2006. I retired after 37 years reporting in the Canadian media (10 years in print journalism and more than 26 years in television reporting. I have covered some difficult sensitive areas myself, including eight years at Canada’s Parliament in Ottawa and I have won several awards, both provincial and national And just recently, I was invited to sit as a judge for the 2006 and 2007 Webster Awards, British Columbia’s most prestigious media awards. So I think I can honestly separate biased, one-sided coverage from the fair/balanced coverage independent reporters/producers should aspire to and try to achieve.
I believe BBC World has failed miserably in the past year and a half.
I have noted, with great dismay, a terrible one-sidedness in the coverage of the War with Hesbollah. In fact, day after day, a clear editorial pattern could easily be discerned…. as follows:
LEAD STORY: Israel continues to pound Lebanon … show lots of destruction, many close up poignant shots of bodies, etc and point out all the victims certainly seem to be civilians. (By the way, what exactly does a Hesbollah terrorist look like … BBC apparently knows!). Use clips wherever possible of crying or angry men,women,children But if any footage of the dozens of rocket hits on Israel is used, keep it short, use a few shots of damaged buildings and maybe an ambulance,but avoid the same intensity in clips of any Israeli civilian victims.
STORY TWO: In depth on Lebanese suffering … more emphasis on the victims of Israel’s bombing … heart-rendering tales of death and family impacts, crying children. Have a reporter stand amidst the debris saying it was “clear” (?) this building/factory was only used for civilian purposes. Huh? Show refugees from the conflict struggling in Beirut .Outline the terrible impact on the Lebanese economy. But downplay any impact the war has had on Israeli families, their children … their fear, or the fact that a million Israelis had also fled their homes.
STORY THREE: The Israeli side of the conflict …but not really. Instead show mostly the Israeli artillery shelling Lebanon, their military buildup, lots of tanks,soldiers, And treat as an aside any deaths, injuries and impact the fighting and rockets have had on Israel. Use a few quick visual shots .. nothing like the in-depth coverage of Lebanese suffering. And in pointing out the mounting toll of Israeli casualties, just have the reporter mention it in an on-camera chat .. but rarely show wailing civilians, crying Israeli children or mourners.
ANALYSIS: Ask over and over how long Israel’s punishment and destruction of Lebanon will go on. Repeatedly suggest condemnation if Israel is growing, but neglect all except the usual U.S. and British condemnation of Hesbollah. Use diplomats from both sides ..but then add UN officials or any clearly one-sided world leaders (Iran, France, Russia) who condemn Israel’s assault, but avoid asking them why the UN failed to do its job, enforcing Resolution1559 and said/did nothing as Hesbollah dug tunnels and amassed 15,000 rockets. And try to make it look like George Bush and Tony Blair are alone in supporting Israel. (If there’s a particularly eloquent anti-Blair think tank type, use twice in the story!) Certainly avoid using remarks from other world leaders,like Canada’s Prime Minister made both at the G-8 in Russia and back in Canada condemning Hesbollah as the source of the problem and completely supporting Israel. Surely others have also said that .. but I missed it on BBC World.
Of course, there were exceptions to this format. But, much to my disappointment, I could not help but conclude that, over-all, during the Israeli-Hesbollah war, BBC World”s coverage IN NO WAY came close to being fair and impartial.
I am not saying the coverage had to be equal; the damage and casualties on the Lebanese side were certainly far more extensive. But day and night, it certainly became clear to me that BBC World CONSISTENTLY glossed over, underplayed or omitted the terrible impacts the war has had on Israel and its population.
I almost hate to admit it ..but I now actually find the coverage on U.S. television stations/networks more fair. .
And with the coverage of the 40th Anniversary of the Six Days’ War, the BBC’s coverage has continued to sully its previous first-rate reputation.
I would urge you appoint a special panel of seasoned journalists to examine/monitor BBC World newscasts to examine your Mid-East coverage to determine if it is truly balanced or, as I believe, one sided and slanted against Israel.
I personally believe the reputation of BBC World has been badly damaged by its coverage of the Mid-East.. and that is a terrible shame and a betrayal of the BBC’s once-noble reputation.
Regretfully,
HarveyOberfeld
Senior Reporter (Ret.)
2 responses so far ↓
1 Belinda // Feb 28, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Nasser: Many tankhs for that link to the Blanford videos, that was a very informative talk he gave. I’ll have to keep an eye out for his reporting in the future.Neil M: Your point that Hizballah will function differently in the next war than it did in the 2006 war is specifically stated by Blanford in the Youtube videos cited below. Well worth watching. Blanford believes that Hizballah in the next Lebanon war will be much more aggressive than it was in 2006, and much more capable of doing real damage to Israel, at least on a psychological level against the Israeli public, than it was in 2006.However, I don’t agree that Israel’s limitations on its ground forces means it cannot attack Iran for the more limited purpose of dragging the US into a war with Iran. The recent assessments of some experts is that Israel as little as four years ago did not have the capability to attack Iran by air. That situation has apparently changed, with the addition of longer range fighter bombers, longer range mid-air refueling capability, and the like. The current assessment is that Israel can effectively conduct an aerial attack on Iran and inflict significant damage on at least some Iranian nuclear facilities. Since Israel is unlikely to be intent on conducting a long-term war with Iran, the whole point of an Israeli strike on Iran would be as a provocation, to provoke Iran into retaliating against the US and thereby provoke the US into attempting to destroy Iran. Therefore, it would not matter if Israel could not follow up effectively on its initial air assaults. Iran can’t do anything against Israel directly, other than fire some missiles which will have minimal effect on Israel and against which Israel has anti-missile defenses which are better than the versions available to it during the previous Gulf wars, however ineffective they may ultimately prove to be overall as compared to their expense (Blanford makes that point vis-a-vis Hizballah’s arsenal). So Israel really has no down side to attacking Iran from a military standpoint. Neither country can really harm the other. The whole point is to involve the US.So the question of the IDF’s limitations really don’t alter the Iran war calculus, except insofar as Hizballah can be considered a direct deterrent against an Israeli attack. And of course a deterrent is only as good as the enemy believes it is. If the IDF can convince itself that it either a) has no choice but to take out Hizballah first regardless, or b) believes it CAN take out Hizballah first, than that is no deterrent against another Lebanese war and thus no deterrent against an Iran strike.And again, these calculations may be from the military standpoint but politicians don’t always adhere to their own military’s calculations. And militaries frequently overestimate their own capabilities, as Israel did in 2006, and the US did in Vietnam. The US didn’t learn from Vietnam, and I suspect Israel really didn’t learn from 2006. Too many egos involved in the Pentagon and the IDF. That and the fact that the guys in charge don’t tend to be the ones getting killed on the ground.
2 Ktom // Mar 1, 2012 at 3:29 am
I think the 2 staets solution would also be in Iran’s interests if the Palestinian state made out of that would be strong enough to defend itself at the minimum, and Iran should not be worried about Israel in that front. the 2 staets solution means: dismantling nearly 350,000 settlers in the East Jerusalem and the West bank (5% of the whole population), and most importantly returning the Golan High without which Israel would lose its supremacy in its immediate neighborhood (actually I think the day Golan high is returned, Israel is gone, and I don’t think Israel would ever do that). In the long run, Israel is out of the question, no matter how much noise they are trying to make. it has more than double people above 65 years old compare to its neighbors (more than 10% which is pretty high in the region’s standard). it also has more than 23% Arabs (these are from CIA fact book for 2007) and it’s growing fast. I don’t have the data for 10 or 20 years ago, but if the trend goes like this, 10 or 20 years from now the situation would be totally different. and Israel would not be welcomed in the Arab and the Muslim world anytime soon, that’s enough time for Iran to make heavy gains. I am not sure how much Muslim opinion really matters in the case of a de-facto nuclear Iran. Iran could take the path of Turkey, at least. and I don’t think, Iran should fear a unified Arab front like few decades ago. the Arab world is divided and will be divided for the time being. modernization (if not modernity brings more tribes and clans and races in the equation) would certainly make the those Arab regimes hostile to Iran less secure, if not even some its friends like Syria and Ghatar, if only Iran could be a role model of an Islamic nation, not necessarily the kind of spoiler today is. the objectionist policy of Iran is detrimental for the U.S, and has given Iran a lot of leverage. but I don’t Iran would gain anything very tangible in the long run. in the long run, it would be a lose-lose situation, the kind of the game Iranians are a master of! the question is, how far U.S is going to go for a new Iran and ascendant in the middle east? Iran certainly don’t want to get very closed to the U.S, not just because of the Arab worlds (the Muslim world, excluding the Arabs, is not necessarily seen U.S-Iran rapprochement a lose of face for Iran. many of those staets, such as Turkey, Malaysia have been U.S friends for some times), and it will never be. unlike what you say, an Iran-U.S rapprochement would not necessarily be a death kiss for Iran. indeed, the situation now is a win for Iran in any circumstances for the short term. the current situation is detrimental for the U.S and still beneficial to Israel. in the case of a rapprochement, Iran would get a lot of benefits. at the minimum the country’s very high educated people would have a great contribution for the well being of the country (as much as Iran’s rulers were afraid of the agitation of these educated people in the past few months, they would also be wise to use them to build the country. Ahmadinejad’s camp seems to be appreciating this fact. I am not sure of the supreme leader, he wouldn’t be that secure). that would also inject hope to a 70 million people. with a Shiite Iraq friendly to Iran, and probably Bahrain underway, there is not such a bloc of immediate anti-Iran front in the Arab world. making a comparison between the Shah’s era and current situation is not a realistic one.
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.