the bbc and the flotilla

Submitted by antarchi on October 31, 2010 - 01:10

UPDATED

Complaint submitted through the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints)

I am writing to complain about the extreme distortion of your reporting today on the Israeli storming of the Gaza flotilla, and subsequent killing of around 20 people. In particular, I would like your response to the following issues:

1. Why is there no mention of the fact that boarding a foreign ship – carrying the flag of another nation – in international waters is an illegal act?

2. Why do you persist in giving considerably more airwave time and website space to Israeli spokespersons, than to those putting a different point of view? I carried out a brief review of the website coverage and found that the lack of balance was striking:

Then there are 4 separate audio / video links, as far as I can see:

Netanyahyu – 2.26 mins
Regev – 7 mins at peak time on Today programme
Danny Danon – 3.02 (separate link to a whole page at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10198873.stm)

And 'for' the flotilla: Hamas – 3.22 mins

In other words, there is no obvious audio or video interview with a spokesperson from the Free Gaza Movement, or parallel organisation. The Hamas recording is clearly not equivalent because most people associate Hamas, as the BBC has taught them to do, with a terrorist organisation.

3. Why were there no interviews or quotes from human rights organisations – eg Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch – both of which condemned the act1 and made clear that the use of lethal force was almost certainly disproportionate? The position as far as international law is concerned is clearly an important part of the story.

4. Why did you not obtain and publicise a list of items being carried on the ships, and make note of the fact that the Israeli 'offer' to deliver the goods themselves (reported numerous times on your airwaves without question) was disingenuous, because they were still refusing to pass on 'forbidden' items – which probably form the bulk of the cargo, for obvious reasons.

5. Why is there no mention of the fact that the Turkish authorities inspected and searched the ships, finding no firearms? A number of your reports accepted unquestioningly Israel's (initial) claims that the first shots were fired from the flotilla.

6. Why do you persist in repeating Israel's claims about the rocket attacks without raising the issue of how many deaths there have been on either side of the conflict, and how many rocket attacks, proportionate to Israeli attacks, there have been - for example, since the invasion of Gaza in January 2009? How many readers, I wonder, can be aware that there have been NO Israeli deaths from rocket attacks since January 2009, and that most of the rockets do not even cause damage? (This is not to excuse them: they are clearly a terrifying occurrence. But it is to put them in perspective). I do not have to hand the number of Palestinian deaths over the same period: normally the ratio is about 5 or 6 Palestinians to 1 Iraeli.

7. Finally, no-one can fail to be aware that Israel's stated justification for the (illegal) blockade is to stop rocket fire from the Gaza strip. This is mentioned in every report. But the humanitarian consequences, the impact on ordinary people's lives, of that blockade – the key reason behind the flotilla - have been barely touched upon in today's coverage. Where, for example, is the BBC's reporting of the FAO report issued on the 25th May – just 4 days before the ships were stormed – and which stated that 'Sixty-one percent of the Gaza population is food insecure'? Where could BBC readers learn that the WHO is concerned about rising malnutrition, stunting, wasting and anaemia among children in Gaza; that UNRWA notes that the number of refugees in Gaza unable to access basic items has tripled since the blockade began; that the FAO is concerned about the 'suffocation' of agriculture, polluted water supplies, and that Israel's restriction of electricity supplies has led to food supplies rotting?

I do not wish you to point me to your page devoted to the blockade: I mean that these facts, surely, are essential background to understanding why the flotilla set sail, and why the ships were determined to reach Gaza whatever the intentions of the Israeli government. The siege itself has been found to be a case of collective punishment – also illegal under international law. The flotilla aimed to put an end to what is an unendurable and inhumane existence for the people of Gaza. I very much doubt that visitors to your website trying to follow today's events would come away with this knowledge, if they were not aware of it already.

I know that the BBC feels it needs to tiptoe around the British government's position on all international issues. But you are supposed to be a reporting organisation, and you are answerable to the taxpayer, not to Government ministers, for the quality and objectivity of your reporting. Today's coverage was a shameful example of BBC timidity and bias. Had the aggressor been Iran, not Israel, I have no doubt at all that the story and the balance would have been reversed.

Yours
...

top

The BBC's non-reply

Dear ...

Reference 112700

Thanks for your e-mail.

I understand that you’ve been disappointed by our reporting on the Israeli armed forces attack on the Gaza 'Freedom Flotilla'. I note your particular concerns with the attack taking place in international waters.

Account needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time; perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion while overall it is a more achievable goal.

You may wish to view some of our articles from BBC News online which address this issue, including Radio 4’s flagship news programme ‘Today’:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10203726.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10196351.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8717000/8717207.stm

I realise you may continue to have concerns with how we’ve reported on this. Therefore, let me assure you I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

All feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always appreciated.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.

Kind Regards

Stefan Curran

top

My reply

Dear Stefan Curran

Thank you for your reply, almost 3 weeks after I submitted my complaint. I am disappointed to see that although I made 7 specific points in that complaint, you have failed to answer any of them. I would like a response to the specific questions and charges, please. Or would it be better to submit 7 different complaints, each containing just one question?

You note that I should be aware of other articles and other channels of the BBC. My complaint addressed the coverage within 24 hours of the attack, and took into account all the (obvious) web pages relating to that attack which were up at the time. I have made a separate complaint about the Today programme.

Surely every one of the BBC's outputs needs to reflect the impartiality and objectivity on which you pride yourselves? It cannot be the case that in order to appreciated the BBC's impartiality, one needs to have listened to, read and watched all programmes, interviews, websites, podcasts, online videos...

I note also that despite having put up - instantly - the video coverage of the event provided by the Israeli government, as far as I am aware, you have still not posted videos from members of the flotilla. I will be writing separately to complain about this.

I look forward to receiving a response from you in the immediate few days which responds to my specific charges.

Thank you
...

top

BBC Response(2)

26th August - a full 2 months and 25 days after my first complaint was submitted NB. Highlighting / emphasis mine

Dear ...

Beginning first with your complaint about our general news coverage of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla I’d first like to apologise for our first response, which only addressed the first point you made but not the subsequent six. This was as the result of an administrative error and I hope that the content of my response will address your ongoing concerns as set out in all seven points.

In relation to your question asking why there was there no mention of the fact that “boarding a foreign ship – carrying the flag of another nation – in international waters is an illegal act,” our previous response provided links which highlighted some examples from our coverage where we did address this issue, most notably on BBC online and the ‘Today’ programme.

I note that you responded to these links by indicating how your complaint “addressed the coverage within 24 hours of the attack, and took into account all the (obvious) web pages relating to that attack which were up at the time. I have made a separate complaint about the Today programme.”

I also note that you suggest that:

“Surely every one of the BBC's outputs needs to reflect the impartiality and objectivity on which you pride yourselves? It cannot be the case that in order to appreciated the BBC's impartiality, one needs to have listened to, read and watched all programmes, interviews, websites, podcasts, online videos.”

While I appreciate that you do not feel our output should be subject to collective judgement in terms of impartiality, it’s worth clarifying that the BBC’s Editorial guidelines set a requirement for us to “seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output.” With this in mind there’s little I can usefully add to our first response other than to reiterate that across the range of our coverage we have addressed this issue and the links provided in our previous response represent just one part of our coverage of this aspect of the story.

Turning to address your further points, I note that you also questioned why we, in your view, “persist in giving considerably more airwave time and website space to Israeli spokespersons, than to those putting a different point of view.” I also note that you went on to explain how you had conducted your own brief review of our website coverage and found that the “lack of balance was striking,” going on to outline your observations that you feel support this claim. 2

While I appreciate that this is your view, it’s worth pointing out that your analysis of our coverage appears to be something of a subjective judgement and impartiality is not an exact science. As stated above, we achieve impartiality over an appropriate timescale and across a range of our output and you may find it interesting to note that BBC News had given considerable coverage to the point of view of the activists on board the flotilla and that of Palestinians. For example, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Corrigan was interviewed from one of the ships in the flotilla as well as relatives of people on board the ships. The founder of the Free Gaza movement, Dr Eyad Sarraj and Claudio Cordone from Amnesty International have also featured in our output. We carried an interview with Hasan Noworah, a British citizen (originally from Ramallah) and chairman of the Justice for Palestine Centre in Glasgow. He was on one of the ships in the convoy and after he returned to the UK he told us of the moment his ship was confronted by Israeli officials in international waters.

Interviews with Palestinians have included the Palestinian human rights lawyer, Diana Buttu, the adviser to the Palestinian President ,Sabri Saidam; presidential aide Nabil Sha'ath; the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council and senior member of Hamas, Aziz Duwaik; and Palestinian Legislative Council members Hanan Ashwarai and Mustafa Barghouti.

On your third point concerning why were there no interviews or quotes from human rights organisations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch and the position in international law, we always pointed out the criticism wherever it came from3. There were a number of stories to that effect which could be found online, one example of which is below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10284340

Regarding your fourth point on why we did not obtain and publicise a list of items being carried on the ships, and make note of the fact that the Israeli offer to deliver the goods themselves was disingenuous, we made it clear in our reporting that it had material that Israel ‘banned’ and we reported a lot on how shortage of that material in Gaza was being discussed 4

On your fifth point when you ask why there was no mention of the fact that the Turkish authorities inspected and searched the ships, finding no firearms, I would reiterate that reporting events in the Middle East is a challenge and we take great care in reporting all angles of the story. In this instance our Middle East Editor reported from Turkey during the crisis where he specifically talked about how Turkey rejects the Israel’s version of events 5

On your sixth point I note that you ask why we “persist in repeating Israel's claims about the rocket attacks without raising the issue of how many deaths there have been on either side of the conflict, and how many rocket attacks, proportionate to Israeli attacks, there have been - for example, since the invasion of Gaza in January 2009.”

In fact we’ve done a number of reports on the casualties from Operation Cast Lead and other Israeli military offensives. When there have been rocket attacks we’ve reported them, along with the overall position on rocket attacks over the years and we report Israel’s claims because it’s an international dispute and impartiality involves considering the views on both sides. It’s also worth noting that your reference to the term “Proportionate to Israeli attacks” is also something of a subjective judgement. 6. As previously stated, when attacks take place on either side we report them, but it’s also unrealistic to expect each of these reports to carry all the information about attacks committed by the other side of the dispute unless they have a clear relevance, due to the inevitable time constraints in reporting the news. In a long-running and complicated political story such as this we report all the facts as they happen and allow our viewers and listeners to make up their own minds.

Looking at your final point in this complaint, you state how “no-one can fail to be aware that Israel's stated justification for the (illegal) blockade is to stop rocket fire from the Gaza strip. This is mentioned in every report. But the humanitarian consequences, the impact on ordinary people's lives, of that blockade – the key reason behind the flotilla - have been barely touched upon in today's coverage.”

Again and over time we’ve covered the humanitarian aspect of the blockade, notably in reports on ‘Today’ and online reports such as those from Katya Adler examining Gaza schools:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8303532.stm

We’ve also taken an overview of the blockade generally at the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm

And in the BBC’s Panorama programme ‘Gaza: Out of the Ruins,’ the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen travelled throughout Gaza to ask how Operation Cast Lead left the future of the region:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hk9p7

It’s also worth remembering that the main focus and thus context of our reporting involved the people killed on the flotilla and not the Gaza blockade or the Middle East generally. It’s true that they form the wider backdrop to the Freedom Flotilla story and it’s also true that they have featured consistently in our coverage.

Therefore should you now wish to proceed to the second stage of the complaints process regarding this complaint, it's now open to you to write to the Director of BBC News:

HelenBoadenComplaints@bbc.co.uk

Helen Boaden
Director
BBC News
Room 5601
Television Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ

top

  • 1. Amnesty here, and HRW here. Notable in both is the absence of any reference to the illegal boarding of the ships in international waters
  • 2. It is not my 'view': it was based on a mini-analysis (statistical) of the web pages available at the time when most people were probably consulting them for information - ie, as the event was unfolding.
  • 3. Isn't it your job to think about which organisations might have something relevant to say, and approach them for information? Wouldn't the opinion of human rights organisations and experts on international law be thought to be 'relevant' to such a story?
  • 4. !?! discussed? Anyway - that was hardly the point I was making (see my original letter
  • 5. That is a completely different point, and sidesteps my question
  • 6. Hardly. And again you sidestep the main question: that the rocket attacks are in the vast majority of cases non-fatal