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.)
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.