For the BBC it is an article of faith that Hamas are full of good intentions and that try as they might they are unable to control other groups within Gaza.
Given the ruthlessness and total grip over Gaza that Hamas has that was always an unlikely scenario.
Hamas in all probability has complete control over every event in Gaza including who launches rockets and when into Israel….and the ‘detainment’ of the BBC’s own Alan Johnston was likely similarly choreographed from Hamas HQ.
The BBC in the shape of Jon Donnison may have finally woken up to that fact as BBCWatch reveal that the penny has dropped from his eyes:
So that’s what the Gaza Strip’s new military academy is for (mentioned on Alan’s link page) – catching illegal rocket-firing gangs. Nice to know the aid money is building something useful, and trust al Beeb will mention this to counter the Jooo propaganda.
Posted this originally on the Open Thread, but seems more relevant here.
Predictably, the BBC only see Israel as the cause of any problems for Palestinians. Never self created, or certainly never due to any other nation or force, like terror sponsors Iran.
So what happens when the news shows that this time Egypt is causing hardship for Gazans (justifiably so), and Israel are being the good guys?
For the BBC – it doesn’t exist.
Guardian and BBC ignore Egyptian crackdown on Gaza trade
Eyes may be ‘opened’ at times, but they know when to close them again – tight shut.
Hope he doesn’t have to delete that tweet because the BBC got complaints about it being pro-Zionist. It’s also a shame nobody at the BBC figured this out five years ago. Or, you know, when Alan Johnston was held hostage and it was considered infinitely beyond Hamas’ control.
‘Hope he doesn’t have to delete that tweet because the BBC got complaints’
‘Delete’ is such an ugly word, especially for a professional news broadcaster of such integrity.
The mot du jour is surely ‘redacted’?
Pollard Report
11. Documents produced by Lord Patten were reviewed by the BBC Trust’s lawyer with redactions made on the grounds of legal professional privilege,
Trouble is, that still sounds a bit evasive, not to mention selective on the holding certain powers to different account front.
Especially when there is a bit of form with the guys in oversight, or… not so much…
Pollard Report
52. Mr Entwistle said that he did not read the email referring to ‘the darker side of the story’ and he does not believe it was sent in an effort to warn him.
That renowned BBC ‘belief’ rears its head again. Interesting how it can apply to something not even read.
Whatever happens subsequently, there are ways to ‘handle’ the explanations…
Pollard Report
74. ‘Thought of the hour. PR changes blog and accepts he was wrong and goes giving panorama a scalp. GE then goes into Select saying he backed his editor as you would expect. Turns out he was wrong sad but he did the right thing and we all move on???’
Moving on….
Pollard Report
88. The BBC needs to decide what their blogs are for, particularly Editor’s blogs.
Are they a true journalistic outlet, in which case they must meet BBC editorial
standards and the Press Office should not be involved with them. Or are they a public information device? If so, that needs to be made clear to those writing them, approving them and reading them. Do they get many readers?
Are they more trouble than they’re worth? I have some doubts as to whether they are genuinely a useful tool for accountability.
I’d love to know Mr. Pollard’s views on ‘nothing to do with my employer’ tweets then.
Still, you can rely on such a trusted entity to do the right thing.
Pollard Report
154. ‘… so they’re trying to block it without BBC sharp practice sending an e-mail saying ‘cover it up’’.
Cover up? That just makes ‘delete’ look classy. And ‘redact’ almost honest. Speaking of honesty at the BBC…
Pollard Report
15. Mr Vaughan-Barratt’s response was:
‘Agree. I’d feel v queasy …I saw the real truth!!!
So… maybe… not so much a ‘deletion’… but ‘editing to avoid the real truth’? Still, the guys at the top are on the ball to ensure all is well.
Pollard Report
64. I asked Ms Boaden whether she considered asking for all of the underlying Senior management and full facts material herself. She said that she didn’t (and was under considerable pressure at the time), but with hindsight ‘bitterly regrets’ not doing so.
Oh, well, seems to have worked out well for her particular ‘talents’, and indeed ‘market rate’ pretty well anyway.
Pollard Report
16. Quite separately, increasingly convoluted discussions were occurring among the BBC Executive as to its corporate position. For example, during the
afternoon of 1 October Paul Mylrea, David Jordan, Julian Payne and Nadia Banno debated a ‘slight tweak’ to its ‘Savile line’ to include a statement from Rippon insisting that the decision was an editorial one and any claim that internal pressure was applied is a malicious rumour. Cooks and broth come to mind
With you there, Mr. P. Along with the BBC putting words in and out of folks’ mouths at will.
When all else fails, there are always semantics…
Pollard Report
26. This decision is particularly puzzling in light of Mr Mitchell’s conversation with Mr Jones the previous month, from which Mr Mitchell was aware that Mr Jones
remained concerned about Mr Rippon’s decision making. It should have been apparent from this that Mr Jones and/or Ms MacKean may well have had a
different perspective on the relevant factual matters.
Have to remember that one. For ‘different perspective on factual matters’, read…
29. The briefing note was, it is now clear, factually flawed in a number of critical respects.
You can see how the trust just oozes out of every pore.
Still, they do have their guidelines to fall back on when telling outsiders how right they get it:
Pollard Report
36. In light of the sensitivity around citing disbelief of the witnesses, it was decided, as Ms Boaden put it: to use the ‘rather measly and mealy mouthed, “Editorial reasons” which of course tells you nothing’.
Well yes, which is probably the whole point. This is of course the lady with the complaints email to nowhere. At risk of Bandicoot telling me this is not funny, in all, deadly seriousness, agreed… too unique.
Anyway, it’s not all top down. There are still avenues for individual initiative:
Pollard Report
41. The email exchange continued with Mr Paxman suggesting that the decision not to run the Savile investigation ‘must have been a corporate decision
(whatever your blog says)’,to which Mr Rippon replied:-
‘It wasn’t corporate honestly. I guess I may be guilty of self-censorship.
Sometimes the loaded Webley on the table is enough.
Anyway, back to what BBC staff write as ‘reporting’, and what they write as… um… other stuff under the BBC banner (like tweets?):
Pollard Report
44. ‘I think there is a sense in which it isn’t journalism because it is about the workings of the BBC. So, in other words, it is reflexive. Unusually – we don’t spend a lot of time talking about what we do.
Clearly. But at £145.50pa, with careers and often lives at stake… maybe the BBC should? Just sayin’
Pollard Report
47. It seems to me that the BBC is not clear in its own mind whether a blog is, or is not, part of the BBC’s journalism and, as such, subject to usual editorial
standards. If the blog was subject to editorial standards, it clearly breached a number of these.
Sadly, Mr. Pollard did not look at tweets, or arrive at a view. Those of the ME desk would seem a great seam to mine should a review be contemplated. Unless it was covered under the Balen Report. Now, how was that treated again? Oh, yes… it was ‘redacted’.
Pollard Report
118. Mr Entwistle read this note that evening. The MacQuarrie process had achieved little. Mr Entwistle spoke to Mr MacQuarrie the next day (11 October),
and told me that after this call he was convinced that it would not be possible to get an accurate account of events ‘that would be bought into by the entire culture’ unless an external review was held.
Of course, whatever review is held, accuracy and transparency within the BBC can always remain within the BBC at whim. That’s how other powers get held to account by the BBC, but no one gets to hold the BBC to account. Ever.
Even internally, when it comes to ‘evolving the story’, there is always the neat trick of evolving the bits that don’t need it to distract from the bits that do;
Pollard Report
The correction does not deal with the most glaring inaccuracy in the blog. The blog says the whole motivation of the investigation was that the key witness told us the police had investigated the claims but the case had been dropped on the grounds that he was too old. That is completely false.
Still feeling the trust?
But rules are in, place…er…sort of…
Pollard Report
Paragraph 3.4.24, which deals with the removal of online content requires that: ‘An appropriate mechanism, including a system of referrals, should be in place to remove or revoke BBC online content.. and published on a BBC site or syndicated elsewhere’. I have tried to find the guidance suggested by these words and it does not seem to exist – the online version of the Guidelines contains a link to a page which states that this is “coming soon”
How very ‘Beware of the Leopard’. Seems Mr. Donnison will be in the clear as the BBC doesn’t have it written down what is right or wrong, so such distinctions cannot exist, or be made.
Still, if all else fails we, the public, can appeal to The Trust. Sadly, as Bandicoot has reminded me, they base their decisions pretty much solely on what they are told by the people they are supposed to be representing the public with on matters of BBC competence, accuracy and impartiality.
Pollard Report
161. …left defending something that wasn’t true’.
Don’t know about anyone esle, but this hardly fills one with confidence on what goes in to the BBC, what rattles around within it, what comes out or how it all gets overseen, by any of the multiple £100k managers then, now and soon to be in place.
Pollard doesn’t understand that the point of the editor’s blog is simply to choose and arrange words in an order which gives the impression that the BBC got it about right. Once that’s understood, enlightenment will follow.
They don’t follow or enforce their own guidelines about social media unless they’re called on it, and only on a case-by-case basis even then. There is no oversight, no supervision except in hindsight. It’s not because of the poor management structure supposedly revealed by this review, either. It’s because they don’t care and know they can get away with it. The BBC lied to me about Jude Machin’s account being deleted, and then only after complaining about them lying to me (or passing along Machin’s lie, whichever) in response to my initial complaint.
I see some parallels between that and the way the top Beeboids dealt with Pollard. The only difference being that he merely shrugs his shoulders at being lied to.
Pretty sure Mr. Pollard understood, and understands, plenty. Especially what the space between shoulders can be used to accommodate in that nest if viper world if boundaries get exceeded.
Hence a degree of understanding in some cases that suggest he is either very credulous or very forgiving.
Which makes what he does weigh in on all the more potent.
Look at some of those conclusions.
Especially those regarding senior staff now back in place like their forgetfulness and lack of curiosity and inability to tell a straight story that adds up would have a Paxo restored to career nirvana before he could ask a second time.
Given the chance.
Personally, the BBC lying to you, me, or the country, because they know they can, and get away with it, is a unique too far.
On the open thread, Teddy Bear drew our attention to the lack of coverage by the BBC of Egypt’s flooding of the Gaza tunnels. Jon Donnison tweets
Jon Donnison @JonDonnison
#Gaza #Egypt tunnel flooding story has a lot of pick up but no sign tunnel trade badly damaged. No queues 4 fuel. Plenty of cement in shops.
Why no pick up at the BBC, Jon?
Plenty of fuel and cement? Isn’t Israel to blame for Gazans living in the shattered ruins of their homes because they can’t import building materials?
A few obligatory anti-Israel replies to Donnison’s tweet, I see. What a shock.
BBC (and Guardian’s CiF) get dishonorable mentions in a Jerusalem post article: ‘Watchdogs on the media battlefield’
http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Arts/Article.aspx?ID=302316&R=R1&t=t
God Bless Israel!..and Julie Burchill.
Now can I post this irrelevance, given that it`s called Eyes Opened? Tiles can be pretexts and excuses to some of us!
Please read the review in todays Telegraph of the autobiography double entered by the Stones accountant.
The book is called ” A Prince among Stones”…coming to The Works anytime soon please God! Absolutely brilliant-the reviewer sounds as hurt as anybody striving to get on Kirsty or Marks vehicles by way of “Culture/Reviews” could ever be.
Let`s get Rupert-this “Prince among Stones,” around all the media outlets to show just what those Blair and all those ever-ready rebels of wrinkling rock actually turn out to be funded by…is paid for,lionised, indulged by those paste medal chumps that the BBC/Guardian and all those linen suits actually are in thrall to…and bloody Rupert (that name again folks!) pisses on all their chips, according to poor Neil…the Telegraph blue-jeaned priest of pap who wrote this paean to pain…bet HE`died before he got old now!
I`d watch out if I were Prince Lowerbrau!…arf, arf! He`s put a fire blanket over the sparklers and bunfire candles that THEY call Rock and Rool (punch the air, no sell out, don`t tell the accountant…especially if he writes like this!)
Is he an offshore tax dodge too, i ask…that name thinks he just MIGHT be!…boo!
Get this man round all the outlets NOW(quoting Bob Geldof)…a good nights sleep is assured, I`d say…and given how late some of us are up watching the BBCs crap, it`s due!
More coffee waiter!..comedy gold I tellsya!
Do you remember the TV table tennis game from the late 70’s.
He approached them through what he liked to call “preventive diplomacy” and while doing so sought to establish
more independence and effectiveness in the post of Secretary-General itself.
s definition to include climate activism,
human rights, and micro-financing.
This is my first time go to see at here and i am truly happy to read all
at one place.
Hello my loved one! I want to say that this article is amazing, great written and
include almost all significant infos. I would like to peer extra posts like this .
This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post.
Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks!
I’m amazed, I have to admit. Rarely do I encounter a blog that’s equally educative
and amusing, and let me tell you, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The issue is something that too few people are speaking intelligently about. I’m very happy I
came across this during my search for something relating to this.