It had to be concerning the misrepresention of the UN’s position, didn’t it? Nothing else could rouse the BBC Governors and the panel they appointed to investigate matters.
According to the EJP report here, a BBC report published late last year, ‘suggested the UN called for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from territories seized during the six-day war when in fact it called for a negotiated “land for peace” settlement between Israel and “every state in the area”.’
The Beeb was criticised over it by their Governors, and had to amend their report on complaints because they omitted it from the original (not exactly user-friendly, is it?). B-BBC commenter Ritter noticed this: ‘Whoops, the BBC ‘mistakenly omitted’ to include this judication from the Complaints to the Govenors that found against the BBC in its portrayal of Israel. Funny that eh?’
The EJP source linked first above suggests that a special report into BBC bias on this subject is going to be released soon, with this instance as a key example of BBC bias- specifically online bias.
We await with interest; but it seems that here we have an archetypal instance of BBC bias which supports many of the points made on this site on a regular basis.
***
Thanks ever so much to Will, whose memory has proved invaluable in updating and improving this post- there were things I had got confused in the original, though the basic thrust was ok- and to Ritter, naturally. You can see from my comments to Will in the comments section that I was a bit adrift. The main reference of the bias is to misrepresentation of UN Resolution 242- foundational to the diplomatic process in the Middle East. It’s all quite complex (report into report, followed by amended reports and a following report- following me still?) and I hope even now I haven’t got anything muddled up. It’s late now and I’ve had quite a long day (violins, please). Anyway, I know I can rely on the commentariat to point out where I am wrong :-). (Thx to ATWfor the EJP link.)
One of the eagle eyed commenters on this blog spotted this item on 17 March & pointed out that the complaint had first been rejected by BBC management & then the governors (or the governors’ management scribes) had originally managed to omit the governors’ decision from the published record.
Yes, thanks. Perhaps I missed the full significance of that at the time. I think that point referred to the Barbara Plett situation, didn’t it? Where she cried for Arafat? The Beeb rejected accusations of bias over it but the governors later changed their position.
That’s in part what led to the report, according to the source linked to in the above post. This source.
Ritter’s the man/person he wrote:-
Whoops, the BBC ‘mistakenly omitted’ to include this judication from the Complaints to the Govenors that found against the BBC in its portrayal of Israel.
Funny that eh?
BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Govenors
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ …_octdec2005.pdf
Reissued March 2006 (amended)
March 2006
This bulletin has been republished because a finding was mistakenly omitted. The finding relates to
A History of Conflict: Israel and the Palestinians • The 1967 War on bbc.co.uk/news, and can be
found on page 10. Note that this appeal was upheld.
Page 10
A History of Conflict: Israel and the Palestinians • The 1967 War
bbc.co.uk/news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ …_octdec2005.pdf
a) The online article
The article was an account of the 1967 War in a ‘timeline’ summarising Middle East history. It
described the Israeli action and territorial gains. It then summarised UN Security Council
Resolution 242.
It said:
“The UN issued Security Council Resolution 242, stressing ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of
territory by war’ and calling for ‘withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the
recent conflict’.”
b) The complaint
The complainant felt that the item misrepresented UN Resolution 242. In his view, the item took the
two quotations out of context, suggesting that the Resolution condemned Israel for having acquired
territory by force and instructed her to withdraw unilaterally. He maintained that, in fact, Resolution
242 condemned no one and called for a negotiated settlement based on the principle of
exchanging land for peace.
The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to
the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.
e) The Committee’s decision
The Committee noted that the full text of UN Resolution 242 gave balanced emphasis to principles
to be applied both to Israel and to “every State in the area”.
The Committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the online article did not
accurately reflect this balance, and gave a biased impression. It therefore breached editorial
standards on both accuracy and impartiality.
The appeal was upheld.
…..and any action taken to remind the likes of Bowen what the definition of ‘impartiality’ or ‘fairness’ means?? er…nope.
Ritter | 17.03.06 – 3:54 pm | #
Thanks a lot Will. Seems like I misunderstood slightly the precise nature of BBC’s failings, though the general point is clear. I’ll have to update this post to reflect that. Thanks for digging that out for me.
people are funny. this site could have gone on and on for as long as it liked about bbc europhile bias way back when, and would have been contemptuously dismissed by bbcophiles until (in this instance) one of the bbc’s own investigations found them guilty of it. then it’s as though it’s much ado about nothing, and was an isolated instance, as opposed to a corporate culture, of sorts.
anyone here expecting any fundamental change in their middle east reporting?
i still think plett got off too easily. exactly how was she sanctioned, anyway, if at all? and remember, as someone has already pointed out, some bbc person wrote – i dare say, confessed – that plett was found to have OVERidentified with arafat. so basically, she had done the right thing, just too much of it?
i suppose now this latest un charge, if upheld, will (also) end in “action taken – none”
wish i could work for an organization so nice to its misguided employees
amimissingsomething,
Here it is, from the second link of ed’s post:
The BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden has apologized for what she described as an “editorial misjudgment”. Boaden said it appeared Plett “unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause”.
I also found the language quite extraordinary. You are right, of course. The key is in the over-identifying.
I think Boaden herself unintentionally revealed that the BBC mindset sees nothing wrong in identifying with Arafat’s cause, as long as it’s not too obvious.
What they fail to realise, however, is that their bias sticks out a mile.
Bryan | 05.04.06 – 10:52 pm |
ah, yes, of course…it was just an impression, and unintentional at that…how would boaden know, did she ask her?
so what was the INTENTIONAL impression one was meant to get from those flowing tears?
oh, well…all water (tears?) under the bridge by now, i suppose
and one more thing…exactly how does weeping on-camera over the illness of a newsworthy (!) figure qualify as “editorial” misjudgment? i’d call it rank unprofessionalism myself…
The BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden has apologized for what she described as an “editorial misjudgment”. Boaden said it appeared Plett “unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause”
Her report is still there, unmodified and unrepentent.
What’s the point of an apology?
The governors said they approved of the “rapid and comprehensive way” in which Ms Boaden had apologised to those who were offended.
Biodegradable
As far as Israel is concerned, no point at all. Even when the BBC do apologise it is done for effect. The BIG jewish/capitaliat conspiracy, is behind them pointing a gun. Is the impresion they give. It works too.
Thanks mostly to the BBC, otherwise rational British people, believe all anti-Jewish propergander. How many times have you hear the BBC mention, THE JEWISH VOTE in America? However they claim it is only the Israeli goverments policies that the dislike.
Apart from Jews in America making up a very small amount of the electorate. Nearly half vote Democrate anyway.
No its quite simple Just like The Romans, Edward 1st, Henry 8th, Starlin, Hitler, and Gordon Brown. To name but a few. The BBC wants the Jews money and freedom, and then all of ours as well.
If we didn’t have the BBC’s unique method of funding it wouldn’t matter if the BBC was biased. I have no objection to biased news services, only biased news services I am forced to pay for. The trashy entertainment they throw in for good measure adds insult to injury.
O/T A good morning for Today presenters boasting about their lack of education. In a report on the dead swan found in a Scottish harbour Sarah (?) Muckabout, failing to explain the different strains of avian flu said “its even more complicated than that and hard for a simple journalist to understand” Especially if you’re too lazy to read any background, or if you refuse to understand anything with a scientific angle. Later John Humphreys (I think – I was driving and not fully concentrating on the radio) said almost exactly the same in an article about the recent drug tests.
If a scientist said he didn’t understand art he would be criticised as a philistine, yet BBC arts graduates BOAST about being at best only half educated.
Anyone who does not understand or willfully distorts UN Resolution 242 has no business discussing or reporting on the Middle East. So why are we still paying Plett and Boaden?
On another matter, did anyone hear the blatant advert on the Today Programme this morning? An actress called Prunella Scales was rabbiting on about the glories of digital TV and the various ways we can receive it.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,410024,00.html
Ha ! Funny !
The US blames Europe for failure to integrate Muslims as threat to security of United States……………
Daniel Fried of US State Department noted that 9/11 attack planned in Germany but still no improvement in security
Looks like the BBC are trying to ‘balance the balance’ again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4882084.stm
Israelis ‘detain’ Hamas minister
Hamas officials say Israeli police have detained a cabinet minister from the new Hamas-led Palestinian government.
Tagged onto the end of this ‘breaking news’ is this little beauty:
Heart of the conflict
East Jerusalem is at the very heart of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The majority of its residents are Palestinian, and Palestinians hope to make it their future capital.
Israel says the whole of Jerusalem is its indivisible capital. East Jerusalem, like the West Bank, has been occupied by Israel since 1967.
Israel annexed east Jerusalem in 1981, but its claim to the area is not recognised internationally.
Under the plan for further unilateral disengagement proposed by acting Prime Minister and Kadima party leader Ehud Olmert, East Jerusalem and large areas of the West Bank, especially the area around the city, would remain under Israeli control.
This seems an appropriate thread for the following question:
Anyone know what’s happening with the BBC Governors’ Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review? The one that accepted submissions from organisations and members of the public until late November last year and the results of which, including all submissions submitted, are/were meant to be published this spring???
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/rev_israelipalestinian.html
Did I blink and miss it?
Or have I yet to blink and miss it?
Point is, are BBC staff capable of acknowledging or even simply modifying their implacable bias when it comes to this conflict?
OK, so they’ve transferred the weepy Plett and the grim Guerin. But they’ve retained chief Palestinian propagandist, Alan Johnston, who pumps out endless bias from Gaza, and Katya Adler, who can barely disguise her anti-Israel stance.
So I’m not optimistic that they have either the desire or the ability to change course.
Bryan
I dealt with the chairman of the review, Q Thomas, many years ago when he was at the Home Office.
I found him non-committal to the point of being slippery. he was not a straight-shooter in my book.
I want the review to append the transcripts of all the incidents of alleged abuse by the BBC. Without the transcripts it is all being filtered by this review. The Hutton enquiry gave us access to ALL the documents and transcripts of everything, day by day. That is what made it clear that Hutton was entirely right.
On topic – it remains to be seen whether BBC will in future have full regard to UN Res 242 & report that the others players in the region also have responsibilities & that the pre-1967 borders are not sacrosanct.
However there is another popular BBC phrase “illegal” Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
This statement of illegality is based on Geneve Conventions. But the Convention really relates to the forced resettlement of people.
The BBC etc choose to apply the Convention to the actions of the victor. That doesn’t usually apply, does it? After all, for example, no doubt Poles have freely resettled in the land taken from Germany at the end of WW2.
That is what made it clear that Hutton was entirely right.
dumbcisco
I fully agree. Unfortunately the media, through either opposition to Blair (or Campbell?) or sensationalism, had so distorted reports during the hearing that they had to go along with “Whitewash” at the verdict so as to keep their misinformed audience onside.
The Internet BBC comment on the arrest of the Hamas minister contradicted to an extent the BBC TV correspondent here in Jerusalem. The TV guy said that the Hamas only wanted “East Jerusalem” whereas the bbc Internet story of the incident that I saw said that Hamas wanted all of Israel, according to its charter. Which is it?
Moreover, the Jewish population in what is now called “East Jerusalem” is roughly equal to the Arab population in that area. Arabs drove out Jews from what became “East Jerusalem” in 1948, starting in December 1947, although Arabs had driven Jews out of some neighborhoods in pogroms in 1920, 1929, and 1936-38.
Anyhow, the BBC was not so friendly to Jews even during the Holocaust, and did not give Jews the credibility that the BBC now gives to PLO spokesmen and leaders like Sa’ib Erikat, the late yasser arafat, Hanan Ashrawi, etc. See the blog post at the link below for data on the BBC and the Holocaust.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/bbc-holocaust-was-it-reported-or.html
After all, for example, no doubt Poles have freely resettled in the land taken from Germany at the end of WW2.
will | 06.04.06 – 10:53 am |
Careful. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 had Secret Protocols denied by the USSR until 1988 which transferred to the USSR 50% Polish territory and 14 million people.
These areas were kept by the USSR and are now inside Belarus and Ukraine including the ancient Polish city of Lwow – “Lviv”). The Russians got to keep these areas at Yalta in 1945 and persuaded the Allies to compensate Poland with 20% Germany territiory as of 1937.
The Poles lost twice as much land in the east to the Russians as they gained in the west from the Germans and 2 million Poles had been deported to Siberia in 1939-42.
The analogy with Israel is futile since there were no real countries in the area, and none which had functioned as a nation state as long as Poland; and there was no Major Power Agreement to divide up the territory in the MIddle East between tribes as at Yalta and Potsdam.
The problem in the Middle East is that nation states are themselves a concept alien to most of the area, and the only similarity with Poland is the fact that there are few natural borders
E B Abraham
Yes: and to say their is a difference to the Israeli people and their state is an understatement of a lifetime.
The reason for this lack of long term honesty,by the BBC has resulted,in real and dangerous missinformed anti-semitism in Britain. The likes of which have not been seen here since the 1930s. However it was not propergated then by our own state media. Now it is by our governing political party as well.
This fact now makes the only Jewish state in the world,as essential, as it was in 1947. Which is LIFE OR DEATH for Jewish people. The fact that they have a place to run to, is proberly the main reason they still live in Europe at all.
I do business with several British resident Israeli business men. They have become depressed and very worried. Now they want to go home for good. Taking their money their business and their employment with them. They all voted Labour in 1997, and have always voted Labour in Israel. They certainly know the difference between the two now.
The British Labour movement is not only constitutionaly racist and sexist it cant run or get elected without being so.
Or as their mate AH used to love to do, DIVIDE AND RULE.
Great to the BBC means “Ex terrorist”
“If all sides agree, Nelson Mandela may find himself near other great leaders like Sir Winston Churchill.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4885134.stm
Great leader indeed. One statue i would love to see given the liberal green paint treatment. But that would be racist according to the BEEB
“If all sides agree, Nelson Mandela may find himself near other great leaders like Sir Winston Churchill.”
How does he qualify as a “Great Briton” ?
Rick
As you rightly imply. Winston Churchill might be the father of modern Britain and the savior of western democracy. However I dont expect other countries people to understand respect or even like it. Most of our current goverment wish he had never exsisted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4876192.stm
Is the bbc completely incapable of simply presenting a story that just conveys essential facts?
See if you can spot the context in the above…of course without the context a reader will assume Israel is behaving with barefaced aggression. The fascinating thing is that various online Arab sites give their audience the correct background. So whereas Al Jazeera, The Times of Oman and Middle East Online all give background, the BBC, omitting crucial context present its audience with a very different story!
It’s curious that one topic that would seem to deserve a ‘Have your Say’ is the Mandela statue, yet as far as I’m aware there has never been one. Could this be because it wouldn’t receive the 110% approval that BBC received opinion says it should have?
“Great leader indeed. One statue i would love to see given the liberal green paint treatment”
Although, given the ANC’s recruitment policies the adornment of a burning car tyre might be a more appropriate statement and reminder.
Rick,
How does he qualify as a “Great Briton” ?
I suppose because by overthrowing Apartheid he assuaged great white British guilt. The left is compelled to convince everyone of Mandela’s heroic status to perpetuate the myth that multiculuralism works and that South Africa is a healthy, peaceful, prosperous, ‘rainbow nation’ with everyone living in harmony now that blacks are in control of the country.
If Mandela is diminished in stature, one of the last ideological props of the left will collapse like the proverbial house of cards. So, as a sort of preventative measure, the left does all it can to cement Mandela’s heroic status.
Funnily enough, in some ways the man himself is quite humble.
PJ,
Although, given the ANC’s recruitment policies the adornment of a burning car tyre might be a more appropriate statement and reminder.
Yes, during those dark days the left wing media in South africa and abroad failed utterly in its obligation to tell the true story of the savagery of the ANC-led revolution, preferring to either gloss over the horrific ‘necklace’ killings or portray them as a justified expression of the anger of ‘the people’.
Nobody was spared, not even women and children. Winnie Mandela, then wife of the great man himself, led a gang called the ‘Mandela Football Club’ which was responsible for the murder of a 14-year-old political opponent.
And there was no way I could watch the televised necklacing in one of the black townships of a woman suspected of being an informer.
All for the glory of the revolution.
Time to End the Anti-Israel Agenda at the United Nations! http://adl.convio.net/site/TellAFriend?msgId=4881.0
Actually Mandela is just a Secular Saint…………….they even named an area in front of Leeds Civic Hall after him……………..it was a nice area of gardens…………..I think it is actually a cemetery grassed-over. I wonder how the dead feel about being redesignated as Nelson Mandela Gardens ?
Not good.
Today at 7am one Caroline Quinn said it wasn’t yet clear who will “sneak” in to government in Italy.
I was under the impression that Italy is a democracy and that rather than anyone sneaking in to government, they will actually be elected!
On the Tom Hurndall fiasco — has anyone at al-beeb bothered to ask about the HRW (Human Rights Watch), Hurndall’s group? According to many in Israel this organisation is composed of terrorist-hugging ‘agents provocateurs’ who dangerously and defiantly put their own lives and that of IDF soldiers at risk by entering closed military areas against all common-sense advice. Where exactly was Hurdall “leading” Palestinian children, and why were they there?