Things might be looking up. On last night’s R4 World Tonight there was a discussion about the Camel Corps bloggers . The inappropriate sentiment blogged by two important Middle East diplomats and representatives of Her Majesty’s Government; namely UK ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy’s fond farewell to the late suicide bomb enthusiast and ‘moderate Hezbollah spiritual leader’ Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, and the Arabist /anti Israel views of James Watt, Britain’s ambassador to Jordan, expressed in no uncertain terms on his FCO blog.
The discussion was preceded by the BBC’s Jim Muir who painted a defensive word portrait of Sheikh Fadlallah, which Stephen Pollard rightly described as nonsense. He and Rosemary Hollis of City University chatted to Robin Lustig about whether it was okay for ambassadors and diplomats to publish “paeans of praise for Ayatollahs” or “screeds of anti Israel ranting” on their blogs.
Stephen Pollard said not, while Rosemary said Frances Guy’s admiration for the Ayatollah was tactical and should be taken in the context of diplomacy and foreign office policy, and reminded us that Islam is off limits in terms of “what can be said.”
In March 2009 a programme was broadcast in the Documents series on Radio 4 concerning the BBC’s partisan conduct during the Iranian revolution. In the 1970s accusations of BBC bias abounded. It was thought that the BBC was creating, rather than reporting the news, and had actively encouraged regime change. It had put out a misleading interview with Ayatollah Khomeini, which hid his malevolence and appeared to back him against the Shah.
The conclusion, that there was ‘no evidence of bias’, belied the contents of the programme. But it was being broadcast on the BBC, and it screamed Mandy Rice Davis.
An article that was more interesting still was by Stephen Ward in the Indy of all places, published in 1993. this was about another programme in the Document series, unfortunately no longer available to listen to. The link comes from a comment in Mel’s blog.
“Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed. “
Not only was antisemitism rife in the Foreign Office and the BBC during WW2, there was a widespread belief that this view was shared by the general population of the UK. News of atrocities was disregarded because it came from Jewish sources, and for that reason, echoes of Richard Ingrams, “tended not to be believed.” It’s rather fascinating and shows that this problem is long standing and deep seated.
All these programmes were actually on the BBC as well as being about the BBC. Perhaps the BBC cannot be biased after all, since such openness could be regarded as evidence of self examination and self awareness. But as the first was weighted in favour of Fadlallah, the second came to an unconvincing conclusion, and the third, well, we can’t hear it any longer. So. As you were.
In days gone by there was no internet and the BBC ruled O.K., so although the familiar gathering storms resonate, while there’s blogs, there’s hope.
The Hidden Costs of Jew-Baiting in England
The article should be read in its entirety but I’ll focus on the BBC reference.
News agencies send their journalists to special courses in self-defense for how to deal with hostile situations. How much of this responds to the pervasive dangers of doing journalism in Muslim countries, and how often does it come up in those areas where the Queen’s writ does not run? One such journalist who works for the BBC reports that when a mob turns ugly, they are told to stand back to back, palms open, pointing down and out — a posture of non-threat, but also one of subjection.
And of course, the best protection is positive coverage. Most of the time, “but we’re from the BBC” works to allay Muslim hostility: it’s code for “we’re on your side.” But for some crowds, even that’s not enough.
Jim Muir thinks that Lebanon is occupied by Israel and that Hezbollah is a legitimate defense force against this occupation.
Good post Sue. Thanks for the links and information.
Thank you. I thought the articles and programmes were real eye-openers.
The Iranian one had so many contemporary parallels, not only because of the misguided politics, but the unconvincing hindsight self-exoneration from the BBC.
The Indy article was fascinating. I wish we could hear the Documents programme itself. I suppose seven years is a long time to hang onto Listen Agains.
Yeah they were. I actually use the quote you blogged “Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office” adding “nothing much has changed has it BBC?” on their YouTube channel
I must have hit a nerve ’cause they usually let me alone with my BBC bashing but this is one they removed. Proof the BBC remove comments they do not like. Will just have to re-post it.
and the Arabist /anti Israel views of James Watt, Britain’s ambassador to Jordan, expressed in no uncertain terms on his FCO blog.
I bet he just loves T.E. Lawrence and those Arab boys.
And when exactly is this low wattage specimen going to be removed from his post by this new government?
I don’t know why I wrote Majesties rather than Majesty’s. It looks as though I was being disrespectful as well as careless and illiterate. Hmm.
Sorted H M the Queen out now.
Here’s an article by Denis MacEoin that was cross posted on CiFWatch. His thoughts on antisemitism. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who actually thinks of Gilad Shalit as a nazi, but I do see what he means. The article is a good read.