Our hearts go out to the family and friends of BBC cameraman Simon Cumbers who was murdered by terrorists in Riyadh as he and correspondent Frank Gardner filmed a report. Many questions remain as to whether Saudi Arabia will descend into further instability, but there is no question that anyone can become a target in this war on terror. I recently posted on Frank Gardner (and the BBC’s) questioning stance on the very idea of a ‘war on terror’. Though we may disagree on this point, all of us at B-BBC wish and pray for the speedy and full recovery of Mr Gardner and comfort to the bereaved family of Simon Cumbers.
Deepest Sympathy to BBC team attacked in Saudi Arabia.
Bookmark the permalink.
Yes, sympathy to Gardner and his family. But Gardner has been part and parcel of the moral equivocation at the BBC, and it is ironic that even the BBC reports on the attack raise the usual issues about “when is a terrorist a terrorist.” And show the BBC squeamishness about making any criticism of Muslims and Muslim societies. (Can’t have any of that Kilroy-Silk stuff here !)
It is noteworthy that Gardner himself did not describe Sheikh Yassin as a terrorist – just a kinda venerable old man.
Creepy.
And check it out, right on cue. An American gets shot in Saudi today, and guess what? The “terrorists” have suddenly morphed back into “gunmen.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3787439.stm
Is the ghost of George Orwell secretly running the BBC?
If you are going to accuse the BBC of dishonesty, have the grace to be honest yourselves.
In the piece contributed by the Israeli ambassador, there are seven uses of the word “terrorist”. His words. Unchanged.
The BBC describes the piece using their word “militant”. It is explicitly a summary of the piece, not a direct quote.
In reporting the Frank Gardner attack, the BBC describe the gunmen as gunmen, not terrorists. E.g:
“Saudi security forces are hunting the gunmen who struck as they filmed the house of an al-Qaeda militant.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3785699.stm)
In the Gardner piece, the use of the word terrorist is only where the BBC are reporting either the Ambassador’s words:
“Sherard Cowper-Coles said the area had seen “a number of clashes” between security forces and terrorists.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783799.stm)
or in a separate piece, those of the Foreign Office:
“The Foreign Office has advised against all but essential travel to the country and says it believes further terrorist attacks are planned after the Khobar killings.”
Elsewhere the BBC also describe the Saudi gunmen as gunmen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3781877.stm
Where exactly is the inconsistency? Or is this another case of this blog making a mountain out a molehill over very tenuous inferences of bias?
The first version of this post said “edited” re the acting Israeli ambassador’s remarks. It was only up for a few minutes before I changed it to “paraphrased”, which is more accurate. However it is a misleading paraphrase, giving the impression not merely that the ambassador used a form of words that he did not use but that he used a format that he probably strongly objects to.
This is indeed an example of a small point. They are all small points. But there are a lot of them. They add up to a consistent propaganda line being put forward by an institution with worldwide influence.
BBC will give reporters armed guards in dangerous places:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1234086,00.html
But…but…but — shouldn’t we deal with terrorists by negotiation and addressing their “root causes”?
Armed defense will only increase terrorism, after all.
Gardner often reported from outside UK intelligence HQs, having been briefed by spooks. Is his religion something to give those spooks pause for thought? Just because I have never heard a UK Muslim supporting the overthrow of Saddam, does not put them on the other side, I guess.
Ben
There is a long-running issue regarding the BBC reports of what most people would call terrorism. Like blowing up trains, planes, buses, or ambushing a car with a pregnant woman and four young children and videoing their cold-blooded murder close up.
The BBC usually flinches from using the word in its own reporting. And just look at how Gardner himself described Sheikh Yassin. man who was proud of organising terrorism, sending young men and now women to commit suicide by blowing up civilians.
So yes, this is a standing issue of concern. As is the use of quotation marks around words that are perfectly plain and apposite.
Of course there’s always this:
“Ice was one of the 168 who died when American-born terrorist Timothy McVeigh targeted federal employees in his rage against the United States government.” — BBC News, 22-Aug-2002
If you’re going to call the BBC on standards of editing, choice of language and selective presentation of facts, then you have to exceed your expectations of it in your own blog.
That post made no mention that the actual content of the interview was unedited and only the summary contained BBC terminology.
Frankly, in this instance, the BBC is guilty of, at worst, slightly sloppy editing. It has allowed the Israeli ambassador’s comments to stand as they are, with the original language.
The wider issue of the BBC’s use of the term “militant” is a moot point. A guy blowing up cafes is a terrorist. An armed guy running about in the West Bank fighting Israeli soldiers is not necessarily one. An armed Israeli soldier defending rightful Israeli property is just a soldier. But Israeli soldiers who radically lower the standards of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, are arguably guilty of a form of terrorism. This can be debated till the cows come home, depending on what one believes are each side’s rights are to bear arms and use force in Israel.
Indisputably, Israel is contentious. In order to circumvent an argument each time it has a report on Israel, the BBC has to bring some neutrality to the language it uses when covering it. “Militant” isn’t a great term to cover groups that also espouse terrorism, but then frankly neither is “soldier” when the Israeli army kills as indiscriminately as they do.
I wasn’t aware that al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia had anything to with Israel, one way or the other.
“An adviser to the Saudi ambassador in Britain has told the BBC that commandos went in after the militants started killing hostages… One man, who said he was among 25 hostages freed in the dawn raid, told AFP news agency the militants had slit the throats of nine captives.” — BBC News, 10-MAY-2004
The issue of the BBC using the term militant relates to Israel. The original post contrasted the use of the term “militant” in relation to the situation in Israel with the use of the term “terrorist” in a report on Saudi.
I suspect the BBC has now decided that terrorism is a loaded term and it compromises its ability to report the news independently.
I’d agree it is off the mark when describing individuals who are committing nothing but terror, militating against nothing but civilians and defending nothing, but in the interests of not having to make a value judgement about violent groups from the outset, perhaps that is how the BBC ensures some degree of neutrality.
The decision seems no different from that of any large organisation that has to apply a single standard to deal with heterogenous situations: in some cases the rules will look shaky/absurd/wrong, but one can understand why they were taken.
The BBC isn’t the only major news organization to selectively use the word militant in place of terrorist. But the primary reason isn’t because of actions by Israel’s military, brutal or not. And the selective use isn’t limited to Palestine.
Terrorism is a loaded word and labeling a group as terrorist has the effect of delegitimizing it, because civilized people regard terrorism as beyond the pale. Likewise torture and genocide are also beyond the pale.
Use of a euphemism instead, such as “militant”, is to tacitly excuse inexcusable behavior. Selective use of euphemisms (Timothy McVeigh is a “terrorist”, while al Qaeda and Hamas are “militant”) signals sympathy for certain causes and an unwillingness to delegitimize them by applying the same standard (label) as is applied in other circumstances. That isn’t good journalism • it is bias.
I dont think you can credibly make and argument that the the BBC does not not to make value judgements every second of the day.
Easiest example
Life in Palestine = high value
Life in Sudan = low value.
I’m afraid you’re seriously delusional Ben if you think it is possible for a news organisation to be value neutral.
“I dont think you can credibly make and argument that the the BBC does not not to make value judgements every second of the day.”
Luckily, I’m not. I’m simply saying that in the specific and highly contentious case of Israel, where there is no middle ground of opinion, the BBC has tried to introduce some degree of neutrality into its terminology.
You read this is as bias. Millions of others don’t. Therein lies the BBC’s difficulties and the rationale for its decision.
Frankly, Israel is an indecipherable mess. Palestinians target civilians. Apprarently the Israeli army doesn’t and yet it still kills a phenomenal number of them. If you can ascribe a moral judgment to each side’s actions and come up with a winner, good luck to you.
You are delusional if you believe that the BBC is ever going to report “the truth” of this struggle without incurring widespread accusations of bias from one side or another.
Off topic: BBC1 10 o’clock news last night featured (anti-) US correspondent Matt Frei portraying the UN’s unanimous vote on the Iraq resolution entirely in terms of a defeat for the US and the UK’s approach to Iraq (didn’t need UN to go to war but they sure as hell need it to get out etc etc). It’s one viewpoint, but not the only one (securing agreement seems to me like quite a triumph for US and UK diplomacy, given the institutional hostility towards them in the UN, France, Germany and Russia). But after two years of non-stop rubbishing the US position, Frei could hardly back down now, could he?
Given the bad press the UN got before the war and the way individuals such as Hans Blix were briefed against, this move is a climbdown for the US.
The US strategy for Iraq was predicated on being able to achieve its objectives with or without the UN. Politically, it is a major reversal for George W Bush to go to the UN and request assistance. The US may have won a short term diplomatic victory, but it’s not unreasonable to explain how in an election year this plays into the hands of John Kerry, nor how it is a concession that France, Germany etc are needed to achieve success in Iraq.
Ben
The Coalition forces – not the UN -remain essentially in control of military events – and there is no deadline for their withdrawal which the French and others had been pushing for. The new Iraqi Government has the unanimous backing of the Security Council.
The ones who have backed down here are the French and their friends. Backed down because the Iraqis poured scorn on their political manouvrings.
This has not been a climbdown by the US or the UK. It has been a vindication of realpolitik and a dig in the eye for Old Europe, friends and arms suppliers to tyrants like Saddam. But noone would expect you to recognise that.
I hate to be the contrarian, but here goes. Frank Gardner, and the BBC are more than dupes or passive non-supporters of liberty. Frank – by actively supporting Jihad, Islam, the wicked Palestinians – is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds. From the pictures that I saw, it looks as if Frank’s member was blown off. Good. I hope he, and every other leftist, suffers for their crimes. It’s time that leftists start being physically punished for their evil behavior.
“Frankly, Israel is an indecipherable mess. Palestinians target civilians. Apprarently the Israeli army doesn’t and yet it still kills a phenomenal number of them. If you can ascribe a moral judgment to each side’s actions and come up with a winner, good luck to you.”
Isn’t resorting to euphemisms in order to avoid “ascrib[ing] a moral judgment to … actions” a cop-out?
Would it be appropriate to use a euphemism instead of the word “torture” if a captured al Qaeda terrorist is tortured, simply because the word “torture” implies a moral judgment? Isn’t the use of the euphemism itself a moral judgment?
The BBC refuses to use the word terrorist because the word has the effect of delegitimizing those who use terrorism. To resort to euphism is to tacitly condone such behavior.
That isn’t neutrality. It is bias.
Were you born this nice or did you have to practise?
The people directly responsible for terrorist murders are those who commit them, and those who send them out to do it. That is what “directly responsible” means.
If you’re so against leftists, try looking into traditional conservative ideas of personal responsibility sometime.
My previous was directed to “Angry Infidel”, not Bruce Rheinstein.
Good comment, Bruce.
Exactly, Bruce.
“Isn’t resorting to euphemisms in order to avoid “ascrib[ing] a moral judgment to … actions” a cop-out?
Yes, it is a cop-out. In an ideal world, suicide bombers would be called godless terrorists, killers of civilians fed lies by corrupt ideologues. Trigger happy Israeli soldiers would be called called war criminals for their disregard of civilian life and property and pitiful rules of engagement in the pursuit of terrorists.
But this terminology doesn’t actually resolve much, and it wouldn’t help the BBC report the news, either.
Ben
Using suicide bombers is a matter of POLICY for leading Palestinian organisations, and appears to be applauded round much pof the Muslim world.
So is the use of large mobs chucking rocks at Israeli troops – mobs that often serve to shield gunmen.
“Trigger-happy Israeli soldiers” is patently NOT a matter of policy. On the contrary, if the IDF was really trigger-happy there would be carnage at every riot.
You suggest that it needs an ideal world to allow suicide bombers to be called godless terrorists. Many of us think that any honest reporting would use the word “terrorist” for bombers of buses and restaurants and weddings and bus queues. No need for an “ideal world” – just some honesty from the BBC.
“Trigger-happy Israeli soldiers” is patently NOT a matter of policy”
Rot.
Just because the Israeli army doesn’t kill everybody with a rock in his hand doesn’t mean it is not a matter of policy to accept very aggressive rules of engagement or high levels of collateral damage. If it isn’t policy, where are the ongoing enquiries questioning the high levels of civilian casualties?
Honesty. If the suicide bombers are going to be morally judged by language, why should the IDF escape similar moral judgment for its use of force and the effects it has?
If one is to engage in moral absolutism, would the IDF’s tactics and civilian casualty rates be acceptable in domestic terrorism scenarios such as Northern Ireland? Categorically not.
The British Army, by contrast, was placed under extraordinary scrutiny to examine the legality of its operations countering a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, even when it was shooting terrorists in the process of implementing a bombing
Ben
You seem to suggest that Israeli soldiers are encouraged as a matter of policy to be trigger-happy.
If this were so, there would be thousands more casualties among the mobs throwing rocks and hiding gunmen. Tens of thousands more.
You cannot duck the fact that organisations like HAMAS deliberately set out to kill civilians. It is their raison d’etre. And they don’t mind killing Palestinians either.
I’ve suggested no such thing that soldier are *encouraged* to be trigger happy.
I have stated that they are given rules of engagement that enable them to act with low barriers of proof that their target is a direct threat to them, or that they will not cause civilian casualties.
This is supported by the facts that a high number of civilians are, in fact, killed, including peace activists, journalists and numerous adult and juvenile Palestinians.
The military is explicitly given the flexibility to destroy properties on the basis of possible terrorist activity. Or to fire at a building where a terrorist is believed to be hiding.
These rules of engagement and operations are policy. Were they not to be, the IDF would operate under different rules of engagement that cause radically lower civilian casualties and no or less damage to property. Such as the British Army did in Northern Ireland.
I don’t deny it is Hamas policy to engage in terrorism. Nor that suicide bombers are, indeed, terrorists.
The original issue here is not who does what, but the compromises the BBC must make to be seen as impartial across different geographies and widely divergent viewpoints.
Those compromises are that it uses the more neutral term militant to cover anyone engaged in an armed struggle against Israelis, civilian or military. And that it does not apply anywhere near the same levels of scrutiny or standards to the Israeli army as it would to the British Army. In effect, it engages in moral relativism towards both sides and probably satisfies neither.
Ben
As before, you are exaggerating. For instance, you seem to suggest that “peace activists” are killed with impunity because the IDF rules of engagement allow great flexibility. Again, if this were fact, there would have been many more peace activists killed. Surely the facts are that there have been only a handful – including people like Rachel Corrie who brought about her own demise – and each ISOLATED case leads to an enquiry.
No Ben, you are playing the BBC moral relativism game. HAMAS and similar organisations are PURE EVIL. They coldly plan to kill civilians. The IDF does not lay deliberate plans to kill civilians.
BBC reporters like Frank Gardner appear to respect evil men like Sheikh Yassin. That is the acid test of bias, of moral blindness IMHO.
John, it might serve your cause to battle strawmen and throw about generalisations, but it is unhelpful to this conversation. I don’t “seem to suggest” to peace activists are killed with impunity any more than you “seem to suggest” the IDF can kill civilians and it’s all OK.
There is no exaggeration that the IDF uses rules of engagement that would be unacceptable in a fight against terror or insurgency in, for example, the UK. This is a fact.
Corrie, Hurndall, James Miller are notable exceptions because they are non-Palestinians. This is a fact. The facts behind each Palestinian civilian death remain largely uninvestigated.
By IDF estimates, around 1 in 5 of those killed is an innocent civilian. This is a fact. Other organisations put the number of civilian dead much higher.
Either you find these tactics acceptable or you don’t. If you do, you are sanctioning these high numbers of civilian deaths as an acceptable compromise.
Hamas and the IDF are not morally equivalent. Nonetheless, the IDF *should* be held to much higher standards than a non-accountable terrorist organisation and in this respect their tactics are highly questionable.
Herein, once again, is the BBC compromise. It uses a more neutral term to describe Hamas et al, and it backs off from applying the same standards to the IDF that it would elsewhere.
Pro rata the Israelis are facing far more terrorist atrocities than Britain did. Maybe if similar circumstances had applied, British security forces would have killed more people. Also. you suggest that 20% of deaths are innocent civilians – that does not look out of line with what happened in Ulster.
Personaly, I don’t think the IDF are trigger-happy. You do. I don’t think the deaths of 3 peace activists who deliberately put themselves in a war zone is excessive. You do. (Even when one of them, Rachel Corrie, effectively committed suicide by lying down in front of an unsighted bulldozer.)
Nothing you have equivocated about justifies the BBC’s refusal to describe terrorists as terrorists.
John, you must be joking. If you can provide proof of large numbers of civilian deaths by the British Army, go ahead. About the only incident I can recall is Bloody Sunday. One incident, examined to the tune of £100m+.
Do you think the IDF’s tactics, knowing the effect they have, to be justified? Yes, or no?
Even the IDF are trying Tom Hurndall’s killer in court. An isolated case that has received scrutiny and political pressure.
For the millions of people who do not agree with Israeli tactics, they see the media, including the BBC, as ignoring the realities of the Palestinian death toll and life under the threat of Israeli military action.
Regardless of *your* beliefs and perception of bias, the situation is not simply black and white, with a terrorist aggressor on one side and an army using legitimate tactics and levels of force to defend itself on the other.
I’ve explained the reasoning behind the BBC’s policy of neutrality, and how it is an (imperfect) compromise between two diametric viewpoints. Why the difficulty understanding that in addressing the tactics of the Palestinians by calling them terrorists, the BBC would also be forced into the untenable situation of scrutinising the tactics of the legitimacy of the Israeli military/government’s actions or face serious accusations of bias from the other side?
Do you want the BBC to be unbiased, or do you just want it to reflect your beliefs?
Ben
I am happy for the BBC to examine the actions of the IDF. Just as the Israeli courts do. There’s plenty of BBC coverage of deaths in the occupied territories – the BBC does not shy away from them.
Right now the BBC predominantly reflects YOUR view of moral equivalence. Which is bias to one side of the argument. Refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist is an important issue – an issue that you initially tried to dismiss as semantic. It is not because the BBC is trying to achieve some sort of balance – if this were the case they would have said so. It is because they duck and weave to avoid frontal attacks on HAMAS and all the trouble that HAMAS plans and foments. Including the riots where civilians get killed. You and the BBC see the IDF as the culprit. Others see HAMAS – and Arafat’s spinelessness and unreliability – as the prime cause of the trouble. The BBC does NOT give a balance between these views.
No John, the Israeli courts don’t examine the actions of the IDF, except infrequently. That’s the point. They don’t examine the legitimacy of every Palestinian they kill, or every building they destroy.
The BBC doesn’t reflect my view of moral equivalence. I’ve stated above that I don’t see Hamas and the IDF as equivalent. The BBC doesn’t even reflect my views on Israel. Stop trotting out stock answers and fighting strawmen.
I haven’t dismissed the use of the term “militant” as semantic. This is another strawman argument. I’m well aware of the weight of the word – it’s critical to why the BBC avoids its use. If it were semantics, there would be no issue.
I don’t see the BBC as a culprit, although you clearly do. I think it is in a tough, perhaps impossibly tough situation, trying to find impartiality in a situation where people typically hold one of only two views. From what you write, you appear to hold one of those views. I hold neither.
I would agree that the BBC does not give enough insight into the corruption of Yasser Arafat, nor to the corrupt ideology and terrorism behind Hamas. It also does not give enough insight into the degree to which Israeli policy degrades the life of Palestinians, polarises them and, ultimately, kills a lot of them.
It doesn’t do this for a reason. There is no start point. It is, as the cliche goes, a cycle of violence. In not digging into that cycle, the BBC is avoiding justifying the decisions either side has taken. However, I would accept the BBC is arguably more critical of Israeli policy than that of Hamas.
So it should be: Israel is a functioning democracy with more transparent government, not some quasi-state with a corrupt ruler and a power vacuum. The media also used to give the IRA a similar degree of latitude: terrorist organisations are just that. It’s a given they have low standards.
Ben
The BBC should NOT be more critical of Israel than of the Palestinians. That is the root of the bias that we criticise. The BBC does not depend on viewer figures, we PAY it to give us balanced news, and it is failing in its task. Failing US – the people who pay. Your arguments about the poor BBC having to watch its Ps and Qs cut no ice against the constant anti-Israeli sneering by reporters such as Orla Guerin. And the lack of criticism of Hamas etc by these reporters. Sins of omission that go far beyond the ridiculous refusal to use the word “terrorist”.
I am not totally pro-Israel as you seem to suggest. I just want them to be treated fairly by our national news service.
Of course the BBC should have higher expectations of an army than a terrorist organisation and of a democratic government than a non-elected one.
That expectation isn’t bias against Israel. It’s a demand placed on lour own government as well. The Israeli government, like all governments under stress, don’t want to be critised and apply considerable pressure on the BBC to report issues more along their thinking.
Incidentally, I don’t buy the theory of anti-Israeli sneering. How can one sneer in an anti-Israeli way?
For the record, there is a BBC-watching site set up to monitor treatment of Palestinian issues. Guess what? They also believe the BBC is failing through omission and bias to tell the “true story”.
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=25
They can, and do, list numerous examples of pro-Israeli bias. How can a news organisation be realistically simultaneously biased against two opposing sides? How can they cite so many examples of bias towards the Israelis?
Ben
Maybe I am getting old. I have read, watched and listened to the news for 5 decades now, and I simply know in my bones that the BBC is biased in a Guardian sort of way. The examples are too numerous to recite, they occur every day.
You ask for a definition of anti-Israel sneering ? I give you Olga Guerin = pure sneer.
You remarks about the BBC setting low expectations for the Palestinian Authority are amazing. The average BBC viewer is NOT given enough facts and figures about its corruption, let alone its mendacity, or its repression of journalists. That is a grievous sin of omission on the BBC’s part.
“Maybe I am getting old. I have read, watched and listened to the news for 5 decades now”
And of course John, your views haven’t changed one iota, while society and the BBC have moved on.
It’s also obvious your hearing has gone, you mistaking an Irish brogue for “pure sneer”. Use Ceefax p888.
The average BBC viewer doesn’t need facts and figures about the Palestinian Authoritiy. Viewers know it is corrupt and mendacious, and the only sin being committed is yours for insulting that audience’s intelligence.
Time for the knacker’s yard eh John?
Reith
My views have changed significantly over the decades, but previously the BBC covered all manner of views. Or rather – it concentrated more on presenting facts, rather than letting its presenters colour everything with their own opinions and the BBC house-tilt.
If viewers know that the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, it is because they have learned it elsewhere. In other words the BBC has failed in its duty to inform. Likewise it has mostly steered well clear of the UN oil scam, a massive con. But it still found time today to go back to interviewing the Foreign Office official who resigned over the legal disputes about the Iraq invasion. And can always find time to parade Robin Cook for polemics in the prime slot, rather than giving facts and figures about elections in the regions. Grinding away at the same agenda.
John, I learnt from the BBC that the Palestinian Authority was corrupt. It was obvious from the BBC’s reporting of the facts.
The problem is that you and many other people round here seem to think that unless the BBC put it in front of you in 72-point headlines, then the BBC is biased.
Your post is also instructive in that it points out another blatant fact: “they have learned it somewhere else”. Yes, everyone these days has multiple sources of information, which means any claim that the BBC is biased is meaningless, because no-one relies on a single source.
The UN oil scam is old news, and the BBC has covered it. The corruption of the Palestinian Authority is also an old chestnut on the BBC. The interviews you refer to were in the context of the election results which were so fresh, they were still steaming.
News moves on, so should you.
The BBC spends far more time attacking Israel than pointing to the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. And has paid very little attention to the UN oil scam compared to all its usual eulogies of the fine nature of the UN.
It doesn’t matter what other news sources do or say. they don’t have a Charter requirement of balance in the way the BBC has. Its Producer Guidelines spell out the requirements. And others are not financed by a compulsory charge on the citizenry. You keep missing these basic points that require higher standards from the BBC than they at present deliver.
Re whether Frank Gardner was a muslim.
Wouldn’t the old boy have had to change his name as seems to be the custom/requirement for converts?
Frank would also seem to be an unusual name for a person born a muslim.
The idiot journalist Yvonne Ridley is a muslim – no noticible name change there.
Of course Ridley married a muslim, she wasnt born one. Is Gardner supposed to have been born a muslim?