BBC Gaza correspondent was kidnapped

[mora]

Last Updated: Monday, 12 March 2007, 18:01 GMT



Fears for BBC Gaza correspondent



Johnston has been the BBC's reporter in Gaza for three years


The BBC says it is concerned for the safety of a correspondent who has gone missing in the Gaza Strip.
The corporation said it had been unable to contact Alan Johnston, but did not comment on Palestinian reports that he had been kidnapped.

Johnston's car was found abandoned in Gaza City shortly after he left his office to drive home.

Several journalists and aid workers have recently been kidnapped in Gaza. All have been released unharmed.

Johnston has been the BBC's correspondent in the Gaza Strip for the past three years.

"We are currently unable to contact him and are concerned for his safety," the BBC said in a statement.

"We are trying to gather as much information as possible."

'Experienced reporter'

Details of what happened are sketchy. Palestinian police said four gunmen were seen in the vicinity of where Johnston's car was found.


Palestinian Interior Minister Sayeed Sayyam said Johnston's disappearance was a "criminal act".

Palestinian security forces have set up checkpoints around Gaza and are searching for the correspondent.

The BBC described Johnston, one of the few Western correspondents remaining in Gaza, as a "highly experienced and respected reporter".

"It is his job to bring us day after day reports of the Palestinian predicament in the Gaza Strip," said the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Paul Adams, himself a former Middle East reporter.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6442663.stm


BBC's Alan Johnston record

Media Backspin

backspin.typepad.com/backspin/



IDF corporal Gilad Shalit - The Kidnapped Soldier


Sunday, June 25 2006
Israeli Soldier Kidnapped
Israeli media reports that an IDF soldier was kidnapped by Palestinians in this morning’s attack on an army outpost near Kerem Shalom.

Sunday, June 25 2006
What Would We Do Without Alan Johnston?
After Palestinians infiltrated Israel and staged a major attack on an IDF outpost near the Gaza border, the BBC’s Alan Johnston made the following observation:

The BBC's Alan Johnston in Gaza says that if Hamas did participate in this attack it represents a serious escalation in its dealings with Israel.

What Would We Do Without Alan Johnston, Part 2
BBC correspondent Alan Johnston continues to be a master of understatement:

The BBC's Alan Johnston in Gaza says the assault on the border post marks a very serious escalation particularly because it involved Hamas.

Strange that he should have any doubts, he usually swallows whatever the "Palestinian spokesperson" says, and in this case Hamas actually says it was involved.

Also typically Alan Johnston he hasn't missed an oportunity to affirm once more that he believes Israel was responsible for the Gaza beach incident.

The armed wing of Palestinian militant group Hamas said its forces aided the attack, using firearms and bombs.

Hamas, currently the governing Palestinian party, ended an informal ceasefire with Israel earlier in June following the deaths of eight members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach.

Hamas blamed the beach explosion on shelling from an Israeli warship, a charge Israel has denied.



Breaking news! - Alan Johnston now gets it:

Israeli soldier 'seized' in raid

The BBC's Alan Johnston in Gaza says the assault on the border post marks a very serious escalation particularly because it involved Hamas.

He says Gaza is braced for an Israeli military response.



BBC News' new blog, The Editors

The Editors' blog
Why careful language is essential when reporting on Gaza

The BBC is the only Western broadcaster to maintain a permanent presence in Gaza. It's on days like this that the expertise of people like correspondent Alan Johnston comes into its own. He and his colleagues from the BBC's Arabic Service live close to our bureau in Gaza City, enabling them to draw on the context - and contacts - gleaned from literally living the story.

It's that imperative - of eyewitness reporting - that goes to the heart of what we do. It's why we maintain a network of more than 40 bureaux around the world. So in addition to Alan in Gaza, as the crisis over Cpl Gilad Shalit deepens, we now have reporters with the Israeli military, in Jerusalem, in Ramallah - and in Syria where the Hamas military leadership is based.
But deployments - who goes where - are only part of what we've been wrestling with. As ever in reporting the Middle East, language - and the choice of words - is incredibly important. Was the soldier kidnapped or captured, were the Hamas politicians arrested or detained?
Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry value judgements. Our job is to remain objective. By doing so, I hope we allow our audiences on radio and television to make their own assessment of the story. So we try to stick to the facts - civilians are "kidnapped", Cpl Shalit was "captured"; since troops don't usually make "arrests", the politicians were "detained". Doubtless some will disagree. But that's, in essence, the heart of the story - two competing narratives.


Tuesday, November 7 2006
Straight From Which Horse's Mouth?
Why is the BBC putting words in the mouths of Palestinians? Could it be that Alan Johnston couldn’t find anyone to express the usual lines about the way “Israel grossly over-reacts” to rocket attacks? We have to wonder which horse’s mouth this snippet came from:

And all Palestinians would argue that Israel grossly over-reacts to the missile attacks from Gaza.
The crudely made rockets often cause panic and minor injury, but they very rarely kill.


How hard should it be to find one Palestinian accusing Israel of over-reacting?

Tuesday, September 7 2004
BBC: Hamas are freedom fighters
Has BBC failed to learn the lesson Reuters learned regarding accurate portrayal of Hamas' stated goals?

In today's BBC TV report (see video) Alan Johnston states:

Many times in the course of its fight against Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, Hamas has sent suicide bombers into cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Also, in today's BBC article 'Hamas swears Gaza strike revenge', the reporter refers to Palestinian mortars and rockets that 'struck Jewish areas near Gaza,' and also to 'the Jewish town of Sderot.'

Is the BBC defining a new area inside of Israel, yet close to Palestinians -- 'Jewish areas' and 'Jewish towns' as opposed to 'Israeli'?



Neutral Ground No Longer
After Hamas gunmen entered Gaza's al-Shifa Hospital and executed Mahmud al-Sharif and Walid Hamdiya in their beds, most media reports spun the story as a further example of the degenerating security situation in the Palestinian areas. And though Human Rights Watch slammed the murders for violating the hospital's neutrality, the BBC took its coverage in a different direction:

The BBC's Alan Johnston in Gaza says the allegation that Mr Sharif gave information to Israel would have been a great source of shame to his relatives, and they may have acted to try to restore the family's honour.
The Beeb was more concerned about the neutrality of the hospitals last year when the IDF arrested fugitives in hospitals. (One wanted Palestinian was using the hospital as a base while the other feigned sickness.) In that report, the BBC wrote:

There have been several similar raids in recent months weeks, increasing fears among medical staff and human rights groups that hospitals are no longer neutral ground.
But the Israelis say Palestinians are violating international law by allowing militants to use hospitals as sanctuaries.


Of course, there’s no comparison between the execution of two injured men in their beds and the arrest of terrorists hiding in hospitals. We only wonder about the BBC’s recent lack of concern for the brual violation of a hospital’s neutrality.

[Teddy Bear]

Excellent post Mora. I have noted Johnston's bias elsewhere on this forum from time to time. I was actually quite surprised that he was kidnapped considering his pro-Palestinian reports, bending over backwards to slant every story their way. My guess is he'll be freed soon and will tell what a wonderful time he had. I do hope he's sweating it in the meantime though, and has a chance to get a good look at his captors and 'freedom fighters' he supports so much.

Regarding how every time the plight of 'poor Palestinians' is blamed on Israel, there's another report I'm going to post separately, where the Palestinian finance minister, who seems to be the only honest guy in the whole of that administration, reporting that hundreds of millions of dollars in aid has simply disappeared. The Telegraph carried the story a few days ago. Do you think it appears anywhere in the BBC field of news? Of course not. They prefer to blame Israel.

[steevo]

You can tell he is important. I can understand why they nabbed him. He's a great looking target. But yes, once they know who he is its all but a sure thing he'll be released. And no doubt, a better man.

[Teddy Bear]

Since Alan Johnston was due to be replaced very shortly after finishing his gig in Gaza, I believe this kidnapping is simply a message for whoever is to follow him to 'toe the Palestinian line'.

The Beeb issued a statement today where among other things they say:

"The BBC continues to be concerned about the welfare of Alan Johnston. We have had no firm information about Alan since he left our bureau in Gaza on Monday afternoon.

This is a difficult time for Alan’s friends and colleagues within the BBC – and especially for Alan’s family. They are being kept fully updated and have been very moved by the expressions of support for Alan that have come in from Gaza, the Middle East and around the world.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone in Gaza for the help they have been able to offer us so far in trying to resolve the situation. In particular, I would like to thank the offices of President Abbas and of Prime Minister Haniyeh for their assistance at what has obviously been a busy time for them.
Alan Johnston has dedicated the past three years to living and working among the people of Gaza so that their experiences can be reported fairly and accurately to the outside world.
It is clear from the messages we have had that these efforts are valued enormously here in Gaza.
We would therefore urge everyone with influence here to continue their efforts so that Alan may be reunited with his family and colleagues at the earliest opportunity."

Considering that he's living on top of a powder keg there, and this kidnapping goes to prove just how vulnerable anyone who resides or works there really is, how can the BBC say 'Alan Johnston has dedicated the past three years to living and working among the people of Gaza so that their experiences can be reported fairly and accurately to the outside world'?

CNN finally admitted, but only after Saddam was deposed, that they had been pro-Saddam biased before that. They claimed it was because of threats to their staff there, and of closure to their offices if they weren't. The BBC never did admit it, although they would have been subject to the same restrictions , but they think we are stupid to imagine that they they can report 'fairly and accurately' in Saddam's Iraq, or the Palestinians Gaza.

One of the biggest jokes is in another article at the Beeb where they report the Hamas PM Haniyya as saying the "Kidnappings were unacceptable and "harm the civilised face of our people". Just exactly to whom do they have a civilised face? How can the BBC keep a straight face at this tripe?

[steevo]

I would like to add my own opinion on the twist of restrictions. I can't say for sure CNN wasn't threatened and a victim of sorts but it was an easy card to play, especially after being exposed. They would have reported no different if Saddam's men didn't warn them. Just like in Afghanistan before and during the war when we were reminded every day: Americans would be invading a sovereign people, and we were bombing babies. As we were saying here, "CNN, the voice of the Taliban." I don't know how much presence Fox News had but you can be assured there was no slant towards Saddam or the Taliban.

It would be no surprise to me if these murderers did warn the BBC. But that would be stupid (which they're plenty capable of) as they would be threatening an ally who wouldn't do it any different.

[Teddy Bear]

I'm sure the BBC are quite happy to report the way they do, even without any restrictions put on them. To highlight the stupidity of the Palestinians, only today i read in the news that a group of militants had fired 14 shots at a UN vehicle, and but for the fact that it was an armoured car, would have killed the occupants. It was in fact a UNWRA vehicle, those responsible for distributing aid to the Palestinians.

It's been said before, but they are like the children that kill their parents and then plead mercy and pity because they are orphans.

[Teddy Bear]

The father of Alan Johnston has today issued an appeal for his release. He makes the point several times in saying that he's a friend of the Palestinians. He also says that ""This holding Alan is not doing the Palestinian people any favours, quite the opposite," .

In the first place I don't think any journalist that's supposed to fairly reporting in a conflict should be a 'friend' to one side or the other. But I can certainly understand why any journalist would have to be a 'friend to the Palestinians' in order to survive whilst residing in one of their cities and report the news. Not that Johnston isn't himself a willing accomplice in producing the desired BBC spin on events in this area.

Secondly, the father makes the observation that by this abduction they (The Palestinians) are "not doing themselves any favours". One can infer from this that so long as they only blowing up Israeli families and inflicting maximum civilian casualties they are okay, but until they actually 'touch' the lives of the so called bleeding heart liberals that erstwhile choose to appease the militant Islamists of the world, they might then go out of favour.

What goes around - comes around. Be careful what you spread in the first place.

Father's appeal for BBC reporter

Johnston has been the BBC's reporter in Gaza for three years


Father's appeal
The father of missing BBC correspondent Alan Johnston has appealed for information, one week after his disappearance in the Gaza Strip.
Graham Johnston urged anyone holding his son to "just let him go", saying he was a friend to the Palestinian people.

Earlier, the BBC said it now seemed certain the reporter had been abducted.

The BBC's Middle East bureau chief Simon Wilson said he was disappointed there was no firm news, adding it was time to redouble efforts to find him.

On Saturday, Palestinian journalists demonstrated outside parliament in Gaza City in support of the correspondent.

Palestinian security officials say Mr Johnston was kidnapped from his car by masked gunmen on Monday.

There has been a series of abductions of Westerners in the Gaza Strip where law and order has deteriorated. All were eventually released unharmed.


It it is no way to treat a friend of the Palestinian people, and all I can say to the men who are holding Alan is: please let my son go, now, today

Graham Johnston

In a televised appeal for information from the family home in Argyll, Graham Johnston said his son had made friends with many Palestinians while working in Gaza.

"This holding Alan is not doing the Palestinian people any favours, quite the opposite," he said.

"It is no way to treat a friend of the Palestinian people, and all I can say to the men who are holding Alan is: please let my son go, now, today."

[Teddy Bear]

Now the UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett has also made a statement which proclaims about Johnston "it was particularly sad when someone who had been a long-standing friend of the Palestinian people suffered in this way".

The BBC is not there to be a friend of the Palestinian people, they are there to report the news. The government mandate requires the BBC to be fair, impartial and balanced in their reportage, NOT to be a friend of either side.

The fact that the foreign secretary openly acknowledges this bias is indeed outrageous.

UK presses Abbas on BBC reporter

Johnston has been the BBC's reporter in Gaza for three years


Father's appeal
The UK has raised the disappearance of the BBC's Alan Johnston with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, the foreign secretary has said.
Margaret Beckett said London was using every possible channel to secure the release of Johnston, who disappeared in Gaza over a week ago.

The EU has also said it is doing all it can to establish his whereabouts.

The BBC has again appealed to everyone with influence to intensify efforts to ensure Johnston's quick release.

"We continue to work tirelessly with the authorities in Gaza and elsewhere to try to locate Alan," the BBC said in a statement on Tuesday.

"However, despite the assurances that we've received about his welfare, we still do not have any firm knowledge regarding his condition or his whereabouts."

The BBC also expressed thanks to all who showed their support at demonstrations in the UK and the Middle East on Monday.

Answering questions in parliament, Mrs Beckett said it was particularly sad when someone who had been a long-standing friend of the Palestinian people suffered in this way.

[Teddy Bear]

The Walll Street Journal has published an article which also picks up on the fact that because Johnston was so pro-militant Palestinian he never expected to be kidnapped, which is why it was so easy to take him. Also, that previous journalists like Barbara Plett and Orla Guerin were of a similar bias.

Naturally the BBC deny it, calling the Wall Street article 'scurrilous', when it is in fact making a reasonable assessment based on the facts, and I am posting their attempt to pour scorn on it below the WS article.

Notice the BBC doesn't have any real other excuse to justify just why there was no security in place to prevent Johnston's abduction. All they can do at the end is complain about the level of journalism of the Wall Street journal in making this kind of accusation, when in fact it's a perfectly legitimate observation, something the BBC would do well to learn from instead of the real scurrilous stuff they so often run. They believe they can continue their garbage with impunity, and it's good when they are 'pulled up'.

A Reporter's Fate
The BBC held hostage in Gaza.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Dozens of hostages were released in Gaza over the weekend, in the wake of a truce called between the warring factions of Hamas and Fatah. The BBC's Alan Johnston, now in his 11th week of captivity, was not among them.

I last saw Mr. Johnston in January 2005, the day before Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Yasser Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Johnston was by then the only Western correspondent living and working full time in Gaza, although the Strip was still considered a safe destination for day-tripping foreign journalists. He kindly lent me his office to interview Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, and asked whether I was still editing the Jerusalem Post. He seemed genuinely oblivious to the notion that my by-then former association with an Israeli newspaper was not the sort of information I wanted broadcast to a roomful of Palestinian stringers.

January 2005 was also the last time one could feel remotely optimistic about an independent Palestinian future. Mr. Abbas had campaigned for office promising "clean legal institutions so we can be considered a civilized society." He won by an overwhelming margin in an election Hamas refused to contest. There had been a sharp decline in Israeli-Palestinian violence, thanks mainly to Israeli counterterrorism measures and the security fence. A Benetton outlet had opened in Ramallah, signaling better times ahead.

In Gaza things were different, however, and Mr. Johnston was prescient in reporting on the potential for internecine strife: "This internal conflict between police and the militants cannot happen," one of his stories quotes a Palestinian police chief as saying. "It is forbidden. We are a single nation." Yet in 2005 more Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians than by Israelis. It got worse in 2006, following Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Hamas's victory in parliamentary elections. "The occupation was not as bad as the lawlessness and corruption that we are facing now," Palestinian editor Hafiz Barghouti admitted to Mr. Johnston in a widely cited remark.

When Mr. Johnston was kidnapped by persons unknown on March 12--apparently dragged at gunpoint from his car while on his way home--he became at least the 23rd Western journalist to have been held hostage in Gaza. In most cases the kidnappings rarely lasted more than a day. Yet in August FOXNews's Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig were held for two weeks, physically abused and forced to convert to Islam. Plainly matters were getting progressively worse for foreigners. So why did the BBC keep Mr. Johnston in place?
One answer is journalistic fidelity. Mr. Johnston had been the BBC's man in Kabul during the Taliban era; he was used to hard places. His dispatches about the travails of ordinary Gazans brimmed with humane sympathy. And any news organization would prefer to have its own reporter on the scene than to rely on stringers.

Yet the BBC also seemed to operate in the Palestinian Authority with a sense of political impunity. Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti described Mr. Johnston as someone who "has done a lot for our cause"--not the sort of endorsement one imagines the BBC welcoming from an equivalent figure on the Israeli side. Other BBC correspondents were notorious for making their politics known to their viewers: Barbara Plett confessed to breaking into tears when Arafat was airlifted to a Parisian hospital in October 2004; Orla Guerin treated Israel's capture of a living, wired teenage suicide bomber that March as nothing more than a PR stunt--"a picture that Israel wants the world to see."

Though doubtlessly sincere, these views also conferred institutional advantages for the BBC in terms of access and protection, one reason why the broadcaster might have felt relatively comfortable posting Mr. Johnston in a place no other news agency dared to go.

By contrast, reporters who displeased Palestinian authorities could be made to pay a price. In one notorious case in October 2000, Italian reporter Riccardo Cristiano of RAI published a letter in a Palestinian newspaper insisting he had not been the one who had broadcast images of two Israeli soldiers being lynched in Ramallah. "We respect the journalistic regulations of the Palestinian Authority," he wrote, blaming rival Mediaset for the transgression. I had a similar experience when I quoted a Palestinian journalist describing as "riff-raff" those of his neighbors celebrating the attacks of Sept. 11. Within a day, the journalist was chided and threatened by Palestinian officials for having spoken to me. They were keeping close tabs.

Still, whatever the benefits of staying on the right side of the Palestinian powers-that-be, they have begun to wane. For years, the BBC had invariably covered Palestinian affairs within the context of Israel's occupation--the core truth from which all manifestations of conflict supposedly derived. Developments within Gaza following Israel's withdrawal showed the hollowness of that analysis. Domestic Palestinian politics, it turned out, were shot through with their own discontents, contradictions and divisions, not just between Hamas and Fatah but between scores of clans, gangs, factions and personalities. Opposition to Israel helped in some ways to mute this reality, but it could not suppress it.

This is the situation--not a new one, but one the foreign media had for years mostly ignored--in which the drama of Mr. Johnston's captivity is playing out. Initial reports suggested he had been kidnapped by the so-called Popular Resistance Committee; later an al Qaeda affiliate called the Army of Islam claimed to have killed him. More recently, evidence has come to light suggesting he's alive and being held by a criminal gang based in the southern town of Rafah. The British government is reportedly in talks with a radical Islamist cleric in their custody, Abu Qatada, whose release the Army of Islam has demanded for Mr. Johnston's freedom. What the British will do, and what effect that might have, remains to be seen.
For now, one can only pray for Mr. Johnston's safe release. Later, the BBC might ask itself whether its own failures of prudence and judgment put its reporter's life in jeopardy. The BBC's Paul Adams has said of his colleague that it was "his job to bring us day after day reports of the Palestinian predicament." For that act of solidarity one hopes a terrible price will not be paid.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

and the BBC response

Weighing the risks
Fran Unsworth 27 May 07, 10:16 AM

A scurrilous piece of journalism appeared in the Wall Street Journal this week regarding Alan Johnston’s kidnapping. An article by Bret Stephens criticises BBC management for our failures of “prudence and judgment which put our reporter, Alan Johnston’s life in jeopardy.” Fair enough. It is not as though all of us responsible for Alan’s safety have not asked ourselves the same question many times over the course of the past 11 weeks.

But the article goes on to propose that our reasons for this complacency were as a result of our institutional pro-Palestinian views which meant we felt able to operate in the Palestinian authority with “political impunity”. He would appear to be suggesting that Alan was a Palestinian sympathiser and therefore we felt he would be protected by that. The author throws in the few other BBC correspondent names to stack up his case – saying Barbara Plett and Orla Guerin had also made their views known to the public.

He alleges we believed this stance gave us “institutional advantages in terms of access and protection” and that is why “we felt comfortable posting Alan in a place no other news agency dared to go".

Aside from the lack of sympathy shown by the Wall Street Journal, who must have asked themselves a few questions over the appalling tragedy of Daniel Pearl, it also happens to be totally unfounded. I would have thought the writer would have attempted to establish some facts before committing to the page. Had he put a call into the BBC he might have discovered that we had been by no means complacent about Alan’s safety.

Alan was highly alert to the possibility of kidnap. He had come out of Gaza on several occasions in the months before he was taken; we had drawn up plans to avoid it happening and even a plan of what we would do if it should. He had spent the previous three years in Gaza during which time the security situation had progressively deteriorated. He had been due to come out two weeks before he was kidnapped, and the BBC was assessing whether Gaza was safe enough for western journalists in the immediate future.

Obviously none of this prevented the desperate situation in which Alan is now in. We, as his managers, have repeatedly asked ourselves what more we could and should have done to protect him, including the issue of whether he should have been there at all. But we do think very carefully about putting our staff into dangerous parts of the world and take every measure we can to minimise the risks. We continually talk to our correspondents on the ground, as we did with Alan, about how to do this. However, newsgathering is not, and can never be, an entirely risk free business.

But I am surprised that one of the US’s leading newspapers with a great tradition appears to think that a desire to provide first hand reporting for our audiences, on a key news story of major significance, was an enterprise to be regarded as foolish and complacent, rather than what journalism is supposed to be for.

Fran Unsworth is head of Newsgathering

[steevo]

"Aside from the lack of sympathy shown by the Wall Street Journal, who must have asked themselves a few questions over the appalling tragedy of Daniel Pearl." Well Mr. Stephens does pray for his release. I do wonder what the BBC had to say about Mr. Pearl?

"I would have thought the writer would have attempted to establish some facts before committing to the page. Had he put a call into the BBC he might have discovered that we had been by no means complacent about Alan’s safety." Mr. Stephens knew Johnston, even being in his company experiencing first hand his recklessly confident attitude, and that with Stephens' safety. Minister Mustafa Barghouti's description says a lot; really everything. And Stephens understood well the benefits of taking a pro-Palestinian stance. The years of being reasonably safe from danger for a foreign voice of advocacy were on the wane and obviously neither Johnston or his BBC took it serious enough. I wonder with the Fox News hostages and their unusual 2 week ordeal before being released if the BBC felt it may have been because they are not pro-Palestinian.

And not surprisingly the BBC are very specific trying to make the American based publication look presumptuous for daring to be critical of one of the UK's finest.

[Teddy Bear]

Tom Gross of the National Review, and author of the article 'Living in a Bubble' which we posted here comments on a similar theme

media.nationalreview.com

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

BBC attacks WSJ over article on kidnapped BBC Gaza
correspondent, taking cheap shot at Daniel Pearl as it does

By Tom Gross

A senior BBC news exec has attacked the Wall Street Journal
over an article in which Journal columnist Bret Stephens accused the BBC of "failures of prudence and judgment" that put abducted BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston's "life in jeopardy."


Writing on the BBC website's editors' blog , the BBC head of
newsgathering, Fran Unsworth, called Stephens's article "a
scurrilous piece of journalism." She also then takes a cheap
shot at Daniel Pearl.

Stephens had written last week that:

The BBC seemed to operate in the Palestinian Authority with a sense of political impunity. the broadcaster might have felt relatively comfortable posting Mr Johnston in a place no other news agency dared to go. For now, one can only pray for Mr Johnston's safe release.
Later, the BBC might ask itself whether its own failures of
prudence and judgment put its reporter's life in jeopardy.


Unsworth hit back:

"Aside from the lack of sympathy shown by the Wall Street Journal, who must have asked themselves a few questions over the appalling tragedy of Daniel Pearl [who was decapitated by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan five years ago], it also happens to be totally unfounded.

I am surprised that one of the US's leading newspapers with a great tradition appears to think that a desire to provide first-hand reporting for our audience, on a key news story of major significance, was an enterprise to be regarded as foolish and complacent, rather than what journalism is supposed to be for."


Stephens's view, however, is widely accepted among reporters
covering the Middle East, including myself www.tomgrossmedia.com/BBC.htm . It is common
knowledge that Johnston, who was abducted in Gaza on March
12, was one of the most pro-Palestinian reporters in the region. However, sources tell me that some in Hamas may have felt that his reporting had become too pro-Fatah, which is one possible factor in his abduction by a Hamas-connected group, and also a possible reason why (despite the BBC's repeated claims that the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority is doing everything in its power to secure Johnston's release) in fact the Palestinian Authority has been doing next to nothing to help release the kidnapped BBC man.

When will the BBC realize that pandering to terrorism just doesn't work?

05/30 06:26 AM