Honest Reporting Reviews BBC Bias for 2010

[Teddy Bear]

This excellent 29 page study examines 57 articles produced by the BBC for coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for only 3 months between January 2010 to March 2010. You can be assured it has covered every angle the BBC uses to vilify Israel and make the Palestinians look like 'innocent victims' directly contravening its charter to be fair and unbiased. Well worth a read - though because of it's length I will only post the first page or so.

IN-DEPTH MEDIA ANALYSIS - Media Reviewed: The BBC
Time Period: January 1 - March 31, 2010

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the largest broadcasting organization in the world. It is funded principally by an annual television license fee charged to all United Kingdom households, companies and organizations using equipment capable of receiving television broadcasts. Based on its influence and dependency on public funding, one would expect extremely high standards in terms of objectivity from the BBC. However, our in-depth analysis of articles published on the BBC website during the first quarter of 2010 shows that the BBC's coverage is filled with an anti-Israel bias that is reflected in both the style and substance of its daily reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This research demonstrates:

• Daily coverage tends to focus on Israeli actions deemed as undermining the peace process while Palestinian actions violating peace agreements are either ignored or downplayed. The issue of Israeli housing construction in Jerusalem gets wide coverage by the BBC while constant and ongoing Palestinian glorification of terror, a major breach of every agreement, is almost ignored.
• Articles often lead with the Palestinian perspective or bring in partisan, agenda-driven Israeli organizations that take a position critical of the Israeli government for “balance,” representing a small number of Israelis.
• Complex historical issues are often presented without proper context. To say that Jerusalem was occupied by Israel in 1967 without referencing the 3,000 year Jewish history of the city misleads more than it informs.
• Inaccurate terms are often used for fear of passing judgement on the people and events being described. The BBC refers to Hamas terrorists as “militants” or “fighters.” Ironically, that is in itself a judgement. Another example is that the term "right wing" is used frequently when referring to the Israeli governing coalition of Benjamin Netanyahu. By using this term (which we have never seen applied by the BBC to even the most extreme Palestinian political parties,) isn't the BBC passing its own judgement?
Especially considering the fact that "right wing" is usually used as a pejorative rather than a simply descriptive label, it has no place in objective journalism.

This report is part of our continuing series that examines the daily coverage of influential media organizations. A single story that is based on a gross distortion of an event may be easier to identify as biased. Yet it is the soft but no less corrosive bias that pervades day to day coverage that has a greater impact on the way Israel is perceived by the general public.
The BBC's own guidelines state:
Our responsibility is to remain impartial and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.

Impartiality demands that events be reported accurately without trying to sway readers to any specific point of view. News articles must not reflect unwittingly the writer's personal viewpoint or expose lack of deep understanding of a subject. Professional journalism demands that inaccurate statements be identified as such even if they are being issued from people in high official positions. Sources that have found to be lacking credibility should not continue to be relied upon. Sadly, on these counts the BBC fails to live up to its own standards of objectivity.
The fifty-seven articles in this study were published on the BBC website from January 1, 2010 until the end of March 2010.
I) Lack of Balance in Article Selection:
Ignoring Palestinian Violations and focusing on Israeli Actions “Palestinians have said negotiations are futile while Israel insists on expanding Jewish settlements on occupied land.”
- BBC: “Dozens Hurt in Jerusalem Clashes,” 3/5/2010

During the period under study, the BBC published:

• 27 articles which dealt with Israeli settlements and Jewish housing in Jerusalem
• 12 articles on the difficulties of life for Palestinians due to Israeli measures
• 9 articles concerning Israeli military operations against Palestinians
• 3 articles describing acts of vandalism allegedly perpetrated by Israelis against Palestinians

During the same period, the BBC published:

• 1 article on Palestinian glorification of terrorism
• 1 article detailing corruption within the Palestinian Authority
• 0 articles on Palestinian weapons smuggling into the Gaza Strip

The glorification of terrorism is a direct violation of numerous Palestinian obligations. It is vital that news organizations report on this matter if their readers are to gain a true appreciation of the difficulties of moving the peace process forward. Likewise, weapons smuggling and corruption have a much greater impact on current events than an isolated case of vandalism and have been well documented by numerous outside sources. So the question remains, why is the BBC silent on some items while covering Israeli actions with such minute detail?

[Teddy Bear]

A follow-up to the story above by Honest Reporting shows the BBC response to deal with the facts exposing their bias is to try and discredit and diminish 'the messenger' rather than address the facts.

Consider this statement by the BBC in trying to waive any guilt of being biased: Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting

Can asking an audience whose perspective of the world comes from BBC reporting really be expected to know whether the news they believe is accurate or not? If the BBC were not so disingenuous they would never use this as any kind of justification for their reporting.

Another statement refers to: The independent panel set up by our board of governors found no deliberate or systematic bias in the BBC coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
I covered the details showing exactly who comprised this 'Independent Panel' at the time, and why it was never going to be a surprise that they would find no bias.

BBC's Non-Response to HR Report

The BBC prefers to shoot the messenger rather than address the message.

Having sent the BBC our latest in-depth analysis of its Israel coverage, we have yet to receive a direct response. However, this didn't stop the BBC from making the following statement to the UK's Jewish Chronicle:

It's not uncommon to hear these sorts of findings from pressure groups but our role is to provide independent reporting and analysis of all perspectives of a story, so our audiences can make sense of what's going on themselves.

The independent panel set up by our board of governors found no deliberate or systematic bias in the BBC coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Our study showed that the BBC certainly does not "provide independent reporting and analysis of all perspectives of a story" as its spokeswoman claims. We also take issue with the BBC's instant dismissal of HonestReporting, which is viewed by the BBC as a "pressure group". Once again the BBC's standard response to criticism is to shoot the messenger rather than address the message.

It is disingenuous and hypocritical to dismiss HonestReporting's study of BBC bias on the grounds that we are a "pressure group". How many times does the BBC rely upon non-governmental organizations and other politicized groups for stories and statistics on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Why are groups that are portrayed as "pro-Israel" not deemed credible by the BBC while Arab-Israeli organizations and human rights groups with an anti-Israel agenda are constantly quoted in BBC reports, as we have shown in our own studies?

Many of you also put in your own complaints to the BBC using our material. One such response from the BBC contained the following:

We're committed to honest, unbiased reporting and are determined to remain free from influence by outside parties, whether political or lobbyists. Our Corporation's Charter and Agreement allows us independence from political pressure and the licence fee gives us independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. Impartiality forms the cornerstone of BBC News and Current Affairs and we've nothing to gain by weighting our coverage in political terms or by allowing influence from any other outside body.

However, it isn't always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC doesn't seek to denigrate any view or to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting.

If, indeed, "editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area", why then have HonestReporting's studies consistently found this not to be the case? Why can the BBC not refute our latest analysis? And if the BBC is interested in reporting on significant trends, why, as our study reveals, does it fail to report on continuing Palestinian incitement and glorification of terror?

[djfearross]

Israel Bashers Bash the Beeb

Only the most extreme Israel haters could possibly accuse the BBC of being "little more than an extension of Israel's PR offensive".

Over the years, the BBC has regularly found itself on the receiving end of Honest Reporting's critiques. Indeed, the BBC has something of a reputation for its slanted reporting on Israel. But the BBC has now come under attack from an unlikely source.

In an open letter to the BBC's Director General, some 150 signatories have accused the BBC's coverage of the Gaza flotilla of being "little more than an extension of Israel's PR offensive."

We do not wish to deconstruct the entire contents of a letter that barely deserves a response but five observations can be made:

• The signatories attack the BBC for not automatically adopting the knee-jerk narrative of events that was debunked by the evidence that emerged in the aftermath of the flotilla incident. They unquestioningly hold to the position that the incident was an act of Israeli "piracy" and "in complete defiance of international law".
  
• The signatories accuse the Israeli evidence, mainly video footage, of being "tainted" simply due to its source and Israel of "resorting to crude forgeries". This, despite there being no evidence that this is the case and logical and reasonable explanations for those cases where there were initial doubts.
  
• The signatories accuse Israel of "attempted genocide" in Gaza and downplay the impact of Qassam missile attacks on Israel. The reference to 'rockets' placed in quotation marks indicates how seriously these people take deliberate terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. They throw the unsubstantiated figure of 7000 dead Gazans in 7 years attempting to use a comparison of casualty figures on either side to whitewash the intent to kill on the part of Palestinian terrorists.
  
• The placement of the word 'terrorism' in quotations indicates that these signatories do not believe that attacks on Israeli civilians are anything of the sort and they make the laughable claim that Hamas would "accept a genuine two-state solution".
  
  
• The letter even claims that the BBC has been cowed by the Israeli government and its supporters and reporters have been silenced. A look at HonestReporting's long-term studies of the BBC's reporting on Israel would suggest that this is certainly not the case.

Needless to say, the list of signatories reads like a who's who of Israel haters. For example:

• Professor Mona Baker: dismissed two Israeli scholars from a journal under her directorship as part of her campaign to boycott Israeli academics.
  
• Greta Berlin: co-founder and spokesperson for the Free Gaza movement responsible for the Gaza flotilla; a Hamas supporter.
  
• Dr. Susan Blackwell: prominent leader of the academic boycott of Israel campaign.
  
• Professor Haim Bresheeth: supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and a campaigner against Israeli "apartheid".
  
• Mike Cushman: one of the leaders of the boycott campaign in the University and College Union. In the past he has pushed anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. He has defended union members who passed material from David Duke's website around the union. He has rhetorically employed anti-Semitic stereotypes. He has been feted by the Iranian state propaganda machine. He has fawned over Hamas.
  
• Mark Elf: anti-Zionist who blogs and writes letters to the British press promoting hatred of Israel and its Jewish supporters.
  
• Deborah Fink: prominent member of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods; referred to Israel as a "Satanic" state; disrupted live performance of Jerusalem Quartet at London's Wigmore Hall. See Fink demonstrating at a pro-Israel rally before being taken away by the police.
  
• Tony Greenstein: "fantastic ignoramus" and "crank of the first order"; founding member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a member of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods and in his personal blog absurdly styles himself as a "Socialist, anti-Zionist, anti-racist". Unsurprisingly, his writings are virulently anti-Zionist espousing views that equate Nazism to Zionism and that the Jews have ethnically cleansed the Palestinians. For more on Mr. Greenstein see here.
  
• Abe Hayeem: director of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine; claimed on Comment is Free that Tel Aviv was built on colonialism and conquest, a city that ethnically cleansed itself of its Arab residents.
  
• Professor Moshe Machover: founder of International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network; extremist Marxist ideologue.
  
• Roland Rance: member of Jews Against Zionism; Trotskyite anti-Zionist who campaigns for the "dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel".
  
• Professor Hilary Rose: one of the original initiators of the academic boycott campaign.
  

Other signatories include members and supporters of various anti-Israel organizations such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the International Solidarity Movement and the Stop the War Coalition.

In short, this attack on the BBC is led not by concerned members of the BBC licence fee paying public but by a cadre of long-time anti-Israel activists and leaders of various campaigns to demonise Israel and to promote boycott campaigns.

[See this newly released document from the Reut Institute on how the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement promotes delegitimisation against Israel.]

This includes a number of Jews who use this part of their identity to justify their vitriol and serve as a fig leaf for the wider anti-Israel demonisation campaign. In reality they are but a tiny fringe that is wholly unrepresentative of mainstream Jewry or even mainstream political opinion.

Perhaps it is a sign of desperation that in the minds of this motley crew of Israel haters, even the BBC's reporting on the Gaza flotilla has not been sufficiently negative once the genuine Israeli case has been heard. Are these signatories really that frightened of Israel's efforts to present a compelling narrative?

[Teddy Bear]

Thanks for putting this in dj. I normally get mail updates from Honest Reporting, and generally insert anything relating to the BBC. Somehow this one 'got away'.

[djfearross]

LOL. Yes, I thought you missed it as i did search for it as not to duplicate content. Thanks for introducing us to this site it's very informative.

Amazing all the Israeli haters who seem obsessed with Israel. Of course, what is happening in Saudi Arabia is totally acceptable as they are Muslims and hence by default they must be the victim.

This is what happens when a country tries to be accountable for its actions, it's used against them.

[Teddy Bear]

You know dj, I try to understand the psychological make-up behind what makes those who choose to be suicide bombers or terrorists to support a backward and repressive society and belief system, as well as those within our own society who are willing not only to ignore their actions and practises, but even champion them - at least with lip service.

So far, to the best of my assessment, I think it's possible that the end motivation might not be so far apart. In the case of the former, they have no successful history to reflect on - certainly not in any way we would call 'building' or 'growing'. Not as individuals, or as a collective. The very fact that there were so many, nearly 2 billion, made this element even worse. They not only contributed relatively nothing to the advance of civilisation, their very precepts would be its antithesis.

So they have to make being against civilisation their sworn 'purpose in life, in order to consider themselves as successes. This I believe is the underlying element that spawns this negative ideology. Even those raised and relatively 'successful' within our society could have it in the back of their minds that they are taught whatever talents and virtues they might possess by 'superior' beings, those responsible for the development and advancement of this society.

These are the fodder for the Imams, persuading them that their real nature is to destroy and overcome those of other faiths and beliefs, and at times of pressure or doubt, they become the prey of the Islamic movement.

Exacerbating this is the reality that less than 15 million Jews have been so prominent in contributing to Western society. Notwithstanding that probably this was a survival mechanism to being accepted and 'taken in' by another society precisely because they are a tiny minority. The ironic thing is how this 'success' is actually working against them. But what a thorn in the side that must be to the Muslim soul who must deem him or herself a relative failure that can create so little. Better to destroy - by any means - in this they can succeed.

Then we have those moral cowards within and from our society who would conceal their ignorance and lack of logical depth, as well as the fear of Islamists, under the pretence of being the caring liberal, and justifying their appeasement for those who will end up killing them despite any reason to the contrary. The ostriches that can reject truth in favour of a vocal majority where numbers make it right - regardless of real merit. I suspect too that they feel an inferiority complex for the achievement both of Israel and Jews, and in this regard they are similar to the Islamists,

[djfearross]

Here's my rather simplistic point of view which also summarises very breifly what you have pointed out. It maybe totally wrong but it's my humble opinion from personal experiences with MANY Muslims.

As we all know with the drug addicts within our society many refuse to admit they have a problem. Many of them have twisted views, blaming everything on family, friends etc, the very people that have helped them and supported them. Their fellow drug addicts don't help because they are in the same boat, they often supply each other with drugs, which over time become harder and harder and together they all become withdrawn from soceity. It's not their fault though, it's the drugs, they are trapped.

When/if the day comes that they finally look at themselves in the mirror and admit THEY have the problem, it becomes a big step on their road to recovery. Finally they can seek help, join support groups, get medical attention and finally (God willing) one day come off the drugs. Because now they admit that the problem is with them THEY can come up with a solution and at least try to improve to their lives rather than living in denial. But, they have to admit that THEY have the problem.

[Teddy Bear]

It obviously doesn't help matters when our Western media and governments mostly seeks to appease these forces by doing their best to present them in a benign and positive light that is completely fallacious. 'Religion of Peace' for one thing, and so long as their are so many benefiting personally from this sham, the 'addicts' are hardly likely to renounce their ways.

[djfearross]

Of course, giving them drugs may keep them happy but it doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse.

It's not just western governments and media, it's the people. (my wife included!) The people believe what they want to believe. Muslims are united in their hatred of us, but we're divided in our opinions of them, so they will always be stronger. But mark my words, when Europe errupts into a civil war these organisations will be held accountable. It's just a matter of time. Think about it, Muslims in the UK only represent about 2.5% percent of the population but are responsible for single largest act of terrorism, in the UK. What will happen when the population hits 5,10,15%?

Slowly people are waking up.... trust me.

[benshi]

I was born and brought up in Israel where the BBC used to be held in high regard and was associated with high quality programmes and broadcasting. it was not until I met my life partner who brought to my attention how biased BBC reporting actually is and how pro Islam and anti Israel it is, that I have come to realize how flawed and one sided it's reporting is. For many years I believed that being tolerant and "good" will pave the way for more people to become like us. I have come to see, to my disappointment, that this only enables and empowers the aggressors who are not interested in peace, only taking over out way of life. Reading your comments here is an eye opener for me and the more people you reach the better the chance of more eyes being opened and increasing awareness. Keep up the good work guys

[Teddy Bear]

Welcome and thanks benshi. Feel free too to share your perceptions of BBC bias as they apply.

[thehighlandrebel]

Once again Honest Reporting steps in where our media refuse to tread.

honestreporting.com/the-bbc-in-its-own-words-we-made-a-mistake/

[thehighlandrebel]

Our old friend 'Flat Fatima' has made it on to You tube