Before launching into his valedictory piece on FOOC, Tim Franks confided that he disapproves of solipsistic journalism, which he helpfully defined for us as the narcissistic ramblings of the ‘me me me’ variety, but he asked us to excuse his indulgence, just this once.
Announcing his resignation as BBC Jerusalem correspondent, he blamed his difficulties on being both a Jew and a journalist. He said he gets accusations of bias from all directions, which he interprets as a testament to his impartiality and objectivity.
When opining negatively about Israel it’s de rigueur to make a declaration of special interest by announcing you’re speaking ‘AsaJew.” This trump card is slapped onto the table as though it bestows special powers of credibility upon the blistering criticism of Israel you’re about to deliver.
It’s ‘AsaJews’ that get the mention and the attention. They’re saying “my background qualifies me to criticise Jews and Israel; by virtue of being a Jew myself I can speak against Israel” It has overtones of: “I’m guilty.” ‘I represent wrongdoers.’ This unearned trump card is useful only to Israel’s detractors.
The truth is AsaJews don’t always know more than others. They might even know far less. Obviously, being ‘a Jew’ covers a vast spectrum of ideological ground. It could imply an allegiance to Israel, or exactly the opposite. A number of Jews dissociate themselves from Israel and Judaism altogether, but whatever type of AsaJew you are, you are neither automatically knowledgeable, nor necessarily incapable of objectivity.
In other words, this declaration of special interest really shouldn’t be of any special interest whatsoever.
But it’s not only that. How often do you hear someone declare, ‘speaking as an antisemite?’ Never. How often do you hear a reporter add a qualifying, ‘AsaMuslim?’ Rarely. Yet the BBC uses Palestinian journalists, stringers and fixers all the time; how often is their partisanship noted or brought in as a disclaimer? It doesn’t need to be really, because ‘we are all Hamas now.’ That is to say, reporting negatively about Israel is the mean standard, the consensus. It’s the position from where we all start. In these turbulent times the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself is being called into question.
Jeremy Bowen has taken advantage of his Charles Wheeler award to indulge in some solipsism of his own.
He told guests at the award ceremony in London last night:
“The BBC Trust accused me, wrongly in my view, of some inaccuracies in my reporting,”
he declaimed, adding:
“They did that because of a rather nasty campaign group in the United States and some highly politically-motivated individuals in this country who were in fact the enemies of impartiality, but they got their thoughts through.”
It’s the Jewish Lobby, don’t you know.
“I think we need to realise that proper news coverage is as important as ever,”he said.
“Charles Wheeler knew that telling the truth, which journalism is supposed to be about, that can put a few people’s noses out of joint…
“If that means that at the BBC we offend a few people and we receive a few nasty letter and some rude articles in some of the newspapers, then I think that is absolutely fine. I think it’s good, why not?”
He could have said “I speak AsanAntisemite.” But he didn’t need to. He just said “I’m impartial; trust me.”
Sorry, but since when the rejection of the beliefs of late nineteenth century Jewish nationalists (Herzl et al), or even its lesser brother, the questioning of the actions of the government of the modern state of Israel, a popular position in Israel itself (read the Haretz newspaper) classed as anti-Semitism?
Like many on the right, you dangerously equate anything less than unqualified support of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism, and therefore play into the hands of the anti-Semitic extremists you claim to oppose.
Who’s talking about questioning the actions of Israel? The reporting we dislike isn’t questioning anything, it’s repeating one side of the argument, and omitting the other.
But I think what you are questioning is the legitimacy of Israel. Do you think that’s the job of the BBC?
By the way, one rarely comes across unqualified support of the Israeli, or any other government. This ‘Israel Firster’ argument is hackneyed and clumsy in my opinion. It doesn’t tackle reality at all.
I may be *like* many on the right, but I’m not on the right. At all.
michaelriordan,
Am I right in assuming that you don’t believe Jews worldwide would be in any danger if Israel were to be dismantled or destroyed outright? Would I also be right in assuming that you accept that Jews worldwide must accept physical violence and other forms of prejudice against them because they support Isreal’s right to exist (or, as you put, the beliefs of nineteent century Jewish nationalists)? In other words, the Jews in Malmö, for example, deserve what’s been happening to them?
As for your false accusation of “unqualified support” for Israel, I challenge you to spend a little time researching the archives of this blog and actually read some posts here criticizing Tim Franks’ reporting, then come back here and explain how I or anyone else has been demanding unqualified support as opposed to mere factual reporting.
Otherwise, your comment reads like a drive-by shot of anti-Jewish sentiment. All accusation with no substance to back it up. Feel free to correct me at any time.
At least we’ve got it straight from the horse’s elbow. Jeremy Bowen claims that good journalism means taking on the Vast Zionist News Conspiracy. A-huh.
Hmmmm… wonder what he thinks about the Mo Toons?
sue,
It’s ‘AsaJews’ that get the mention and the attention. They’re saying “my background qualifies me to criticise Jews and Israel; by virtue of being a Jew myself I can speak against Israel” It has overtones of: “I’m guilty.” ‘I represent wrongdoers.’ This unearned trump card is useful only to Israel’s detractors.
This is why the BBC hired Franks and Katya Adler in the first place. Franks will always be convinced his Jewish identity has nothing to do with his posting, but that doesn’t mean he’s right.
Also, it would be interesting for Franks or some other Beeboid to actually examine the complaints of bias from both sides. Franks has misrepresented things, hidden facts, and at times told outright falsehoods in his reporting. Facts aren’t opinions. When he hides or twists facts or reports them in a false context, that’s beyond opinion. I doubt anyone has accused him of being pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian can point to one instance where he’s done it in that direction.
This is why I’ve been calling him a “useful Jew”, after Lenin’s “useful idiots”. He has no idea what he’s doing, but he’s useful to a certain cause all the same.
Interesting to see that he is still smarting from being criticised by the BBC Trust. How dare anyone find fault with him! I read somewhere the other day – it might have been something posted here – that there was anger among his colleagues in the BBC about it. Just shows you what they are like. Think they are above criticism. Not very receptive to any other point of view, are they?
They think they’re above criticism but think everyone else should be subject to their ‘rigorous scrutiny’. Everyone else that is apart from people who share their political stance.
MichaelRiorden,
The Balen Report – Why do you suppose the BBC refuse to relaease it?
This is what Abu Bowen describes as “a rather nasty campaign group in the United States”:
http://www.honestreporting.com/
What’s “nasty” about it?
Well, if you’re Bowen I suppose this doesn’t go down too well:
http://www.google.com/custom?as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.honestreporting.com&q=bowen
Hey, Sue, Bio,
Been battling with computers, but now back. So Bowen, the poor dear, is having trouble with HR? Good, at least they are getting through his thick skull, on some level.
And it is great news that Tim Franks is going. Few did a better job than him in delivering the sly BBC distortions of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
It’s interesting as I have pointed out in the past that the one and only time the BBC and Tim Franks have ever publicly confirmed his Judaism or even defined it. He attends a synagogue (probably more than I do).
Tim attempted, not necessarily successfully, to depart from the BBC playbook and illustrate aspects of life in this geographical area other than war and violence. He should be commended for this.
On the other hand his solipsy shows that even on the way out he misses crucial points. The Palestinian 3rd generation ‘refugee’ claims Haifa as home but at no time does Franks question the unique Palestinian position of inheritable refugee status nor even suggest that the word indoctrination would be the correct word for this response or even brainwashing. There is never a suggestion the attitude is completely self defeating. How would the BBC relate to a third generation German refugee claiming his home was Sudentenland, Czech Republic?
He notes correctly that a percentage of Jews, even self identifying religious Jews, oppose a Jewish presence in the land captured by Jordan in 1948 and captured from the Jordanians in 1967. Perhaps we will have to wait for his forthcoming Memoirs of a ‘Jewish’ Journalist </SARC> before we will hear of a Palestinian with the same sensibility in the opposite direction? I certainly don’t recall him ever writing on Palestinians with any doubt about the morality or even the results of their actions.
Tim Franks was, by far, not-the-worst BBC journalist to cover Israel/Palestine. If only because we have no reason to expect a better coverage from his successor, he will be missed.
Further to deegee’s comment above, Franks never mentions the equivalent number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who most definitely do not want to go back but who were absorbed into Israel. To inject this factor into the ‘narrative’ would certainly ruin the BBC’s pro-Palestinian agenda.