|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
BBC pays ?200,000 to 'cover up report on anti-Israel bias'by PAUL REVOIR
Last updated at 21:24 22 3�? 2007
Comments (19) Add to My Stories
The BBC has been accused of "shameful hypocrisy" over its decision to spend �200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.
The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards Palestine.
BBC chiefs have been accused of wasting thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money trying to cover-up the findings of the so called Balen Report into its journalism in the region, despite the fact that the corporation is funded by the British public. |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444074/BBC-pays-200-000-cover-report-anti-Israel-bias.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More criticism of the BBC's coverage of Gaza
Take care over caution
Faced with frustrating and highly charged conditions, the BBC's attempts to offer balanced reporting of the Gaza conflict have weakened it, says John Kampfner
| Quote: |
In 2002 I made a series of films for the BBC on the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the first episode of The Ugly War the crew followed commando units of the Israeli army making raids into Palestinian territory. In the next I spoke to fighters of the al-Aqsa brigade in a bomb-making factory in Jenin. BBC guidelines allowed us to film members of officially recognised organisations but not to be party to preparations for suicide bombings. There was no attempt made at "internal balance". The aim of the documentaries, together awarded "film of the year" by the UK's Foreign Press Association, was to see life entirely through the eyes of each set of protagonists.
As I have watched and listened to the BBC's coverage of the Gaza conflict over the past two weeks, it seems less likely than ever that the corporation would take the same risky approach again.
The latest escalation is the first real test of guidelines on the BBC's reporting of the Middle East brought in after criticism of pro-Palestinian bias levelled at the corporation in 2005. In the past two weeks, the signs of caution have been more in evidence than before.
With some honourable exceptions (a post-holiday Jeremy Paxman and Newsnight), the questioning of Israeli spokespeople has been weak. Compare, for example, Channel 4 News's grilling of Mark Regev, the Israeli government's chief spokesman, on 8 January, with much of the BBC output. Alex Thomson asked Regev "in the name of humanity" to apologise for the refusal of the Israeli army to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to get to "starving children". Thomson put it to Regev that the Red Cross workers had to "walk one kilometre" to reach the scene. Regev stonewalled, but Thomson did not relent. It was good, objective, non-hedged questioning.
Compare that with various BBC outlets, including similar allegations put on The World at One on 9 January to another Israeli spokesman, Yigal Palmor. Palmor was allowed to fob off the charges with relative ease in an interview with the usually rigorous Brian Hanrahan. These spokespeople, along with Major Avital Leibovich of the Israeli army, have been ever present on the news channel, but rarely have they been truly pressed.
Sometimes the problem can be put down to workload: rolling news anchors, by the nature of their work (one minute Israel, next Gordon Brown on his round-Britain tour, next English cricket), do not have time to prepare for interviews. In order to achieve balance, both sides are allowed to give their view. But then, in visual terms, a hospital overwhelmed with dying and injured children is given equivalence to the funeral of a single Israeli soldier.
In the most highly charged part of the world, the BBC has a special locus. A public service broadcaster financed by the licence fee, it regards its requirements to impartiality and accuracy as sacrosanct. Accused of a liberal bias by its detractors, it has found itself almost constantly in the firing line. Since a 2005 report into its Middle East coverage by an independent panel, by the then governors, the BBC has made changes.
Among the report's many observations was that "our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments". And yet superimpose that approach to other theatres of conflict. Was such restraint used in the Russian bombardment of Georgia in August? For much of the time, one side was seen as the attacker, the other the embattled victim. Burma? Tibet?
Language, as any propagandist knows, is the most important tool. Hamas fighters are called "militants". That, I am told, is a halfway house between "terrorist" and more sympathetic labels such as "guerrillas". The Israeli army is often referred to by its formal title, the Israel Defence Forces. The bombardment of Gaza has regularly been described as "the Israeli operation". Such language denudes coverage of impact.
The reporters, led by the experienced Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, are operating in the most frustrating of environments. At the time of writing, they had still not been allowed inside Gaza. When it comes to Zimbabwe, each presenter's cue into a reporter's package invariably states: "The BBC is banned from reporting inside Zimbabwe, and so here is X from South Africa". The refusal by the Israelis to allow correspondents access inside Gaza has been mentioned, but not as a matter of course and not as prominently.
Peter Horrocks, head of the multimedia newsroom at the BBC, rejects criticism that it has shown undue caution. "We have sought to explain the Israeli mindset, but in no way can we be seen to have held back from the effects of the military action," he says. He points to the work of Palestinian, Gaza-based producers, and to an interview with an angry Norwegian doctor inside a hospital last week as examples. But he acknowledges special care is taken when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "There is an established contentiousness that might mean the language we use is more precise and that we measure it more carefully."
Obviously, a three-minute package cannot go into detail, but there are issues that should be aired more thoroughly: during the six-month truce, to what extent did living conditions inside the Gaza Strip improve? How often, even in the West Bank, do Israeli soldiers mount raids?
Power of the message
Led by Regev, a charismatic, Australian-born spokesman, Israel has amassed a formidable public relations operation. Following the failures of the Lebanon war it has created a National Information Directorate. The power of the message has long been at its strongest in the US, where academics and journalists know that criticism of Israel may harm their careers. It has become slicker in the UK too. There is nothing wrong with that. But it should be acknowledged to be much better funded and more professional than anything the Palestinians have mustered.
When I became editor of the New Statesman, I made clear my determination to alter the tone of the NS coverage of Israel after a cover in 2002 that showed a gold Star of David impaling a Union flag and the headline: "A kosher conspiracy?" My view was that careless use of symbols and language - words such as "holocaust" - provided an open goal to denounce legitimate critics of Israeli military excess as antisemitic.
But care should not correspond to caution. The school of thought that says Israel has nothing to reproach itself for, that Hamas is solely to blame and that anyone who thinks otherwise must be hostile to Israel is strong on the blogosphere. People are entitled to that view, but it should not lead to self-censorship by editors.
In 2005, I described the BBC as "broken, beaten, cowed" in a controversial article. I argued - on the basis of evidence from people inside the corporation - that the organisation was displaying an increasing reluctance to challenge authority. In this case, it was New Labour after the BBC had raised the white flag over the Hutton report. My article upset Mark Thompson, the director general. However, in the ensuing days I was contacted by many managers, editors and reporters saying their experiences bore out my argument, and expressing gratitude for putting the case.
The BBC is no longer broken or beaten. It carries strong journalism, allowing senior figures such as Nick Robinson on politics and Robert Peston on business to speak their minds. But I wonder whether - when confronted by governments, media and other organisations that wield real power over it - the BBC remains too cowed.
� John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship, indexoncensorship.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yet again the BBC shows its anti Israeli bias 
| Quote: |
BBC crisis over refusal to broadcast Gaza appeal
The BBC was in crisis tonight as politicians including government ministers, religious leaders and senior members of its own staff condemned the decision not to broadcast a charity appeal to help the stricken people of Gaza rebuild their homes.
The corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, was left isolated as rival broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 agreed to put out the plea for aid made jointly by 13 British charities. The BBC has decided the broadcast of the appeal might be seen as evidence of bias on a highly sensitive political issue.
The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has accused the broadcaster of "taking sides". He said yesterday: "This is not a row about impartiality but rather about humanity.
"This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention. They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief. By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality," the archbishop added.
Communities secretary Hazel Blears said: "The BBC's decision should not discourage the public from donating to this important appeal. I sincerely hope the BBC will urgently review its decision."
The BBC's unrepentant stance has stirred up rebellion in the ranks of it own reporters and editors. One senior BBC news presenter told the Observer: "I've been talking to colleagues and everyone here is absolutely seething about this. The notion that the decision to ban the appeal will seem impartial to the public at large is quite absurd.
"Most of us feel that the BBC's defence of its position is pathetic, and there's a feeling of real anger - made worse by the fact that contractually we are unable to speak out."
Jon Snow, the journalist who presents Channel 4 news, said the BBC should have been prepared to accept the judgment of the aid experts of the DEC. "It is a ludicrous decision. That is what public service broadcasting is for. I think it was a decision founded on complete ignorance and I am absolutely amazed they have stuck to it."
Snow said he suspected a BBC bureaucrat had "panicked" and he called upon Mark Thompson to put the situation right. Martin Bell, the former BBC foreign correspondent, said the BBC should admit it had made a mistake. He claimed "a culture of timidity had crept" into the corporation. "I am completely appalled," he said. "It is a grave humanitarian crisis and the people who are suffering are children. They have been caught out on this question of balance."
But Greg Dyke, Thompson's predecessor as director general of the BBC, said the issue put the BBC in a "no win situation". He added: "Outside of Iraq, the single biggest issue that caused complaints was the coverage of Israel. I can understand why the BBC has taken this decision, because on a subject as sensitive as the Middle East it is absolutely essential that the audience cannot see any evidence at all of a bias."
Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary, who has attacked the BBC's decision, today welcomed commercial broadcasters' decision to break ranks and urged the BBC to think again. "I welcome this decision. The DEC appeal is crucial to help alleviate the suffering of people injured, displaced and hungry in Gaza."
The BBC also faces demands for an explanation from within the Commons international development select committee. Richard Burden, the Labour MP and committee member, said the BBC was out of step with public opinion. Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary, who was this weekend making a visit to Gaza, Israel and the West Bank, said it was up to the BBC, but added: "We believe that they should allow the broadcast to proceed so that the British public, who have proved themselves so generous during recent emergencies in the Congo and Burma, can make their own judgment on the validity of the appeal."
The satellite broadcaster Sky said it was "considering" broadcasting the appeal.
A spokesman for the BBC said: "We do accept that people are strongly guided in their view on this by the humanitarian emergency. We are highlighting the situation in Gaza in every news bulletin and that is one of the reasons the issue is so high on the agenda."
Thompson received backing from the BBC Trust's chairman, Sir Michael Lyons. He said he was "concerned" about the tone of some politicians' comments on the issue, which he said came close to "undue interference" in the BBC's editorial independence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/24/bbc-gaza-palestine-aid-appeal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty1983
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is bizarre to see the BBC reporting on the themselves in the third person.
Maybe this is in reaction to accusations of their bias? Clearly a mistake to take this stance whatever the reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
