Opinion - News Analysis   

BBC's coverage comes under fire

Hasan Suroor

FOR YEARS, the British Broadcasting Corporation has been accused by the Israeli Government, its diplomats in Britain, and by Jewish groups of displaying an anti-Israeli "bias" in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the height of the Palestinian intifada, the BBC's then Middle East Correspondent, Orla Guerin, was routinely attacked by Israelis for her reporting, and there were even calls for her to be recalled. The paranoia reached such a pitch that when one BBC reporter appeared to break down while reporting Yasser Arafat's death last year it was portrayed as yet another example of its journalists' sympathies for Palestinians.

But an independent review, commissioned by BBC governors in response to these allegations, tells a different story. Its report, released last week, not only rejects accusations of an anti-Israeli bias but suggests that, on the contrary, it is the Palestinians who could do with a fairer ride in "important respects" as they are the weaker side in the conflict.

Indeed, the review questions the very notion of absolute impartiality in reporting a situation where the parties involved do not enjoy an equal playing field, as in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. It says that there is an "asymmetry" in the situation which the BBC often tends to overlook in its bid to be impartial and objective: while one side to the conflict is "wholly under the occupation of the other and ... endures the indignities of dependence," the other is a fully functioning state with a "highly effective diplomatic, defence, and intelligence capability." And therefore the two sides are "not on equal terms."

"This is not a question of the respective merits of the two sides. It is simply a matter of fact that Israel is a functioning state with established democratic institutions, an advanced economy and a highly effective diplomatic, defence and intelligence capability," the report says. Translated into plain language, this means that the actions of a stone-throwing Palestinian mob cannot be treated on a par with those of a well-equipped and often allegedly trigger-happy army.

Such a situation is seen as "challenge" to a media organisation such as the BBC "committed" to fairness, impartiality, and balance. The report argues that while fairness and impartiality are legal requirements, "balance" is a concept adopted by the BBC to give effect to those objectives. But when it is applied to an "asymmetrical" situation, the result is often misleading.

"These objectives, especially balance, work most naturally where the parties to a dispute are on an equal footing. Indeed, without care, a formulaic application of these doctrines, produce coverage which misleads from the outset," it concludes.

The panel found that this asymmetry of power between the two sides was reflected in a number of ways and had an impact on reporting. For example, it is easier for journalists to gain access to Israeli officials than to their Palestinian counterparts as the Israeli authorities "may be in a position to grant or deny permits to access Palestinian areas and spokespeople." In these circumstances, the BBC's concern with "balance" gives an impression of equality between the two sides which, according to the report, is "fundamentally, if unintentionally, misleading."

Palestinians' plight

Another weakness in the BBC's coverage, it points out, is that there is "little reporting" of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives. While the Palestinian terror attacks, because of their dramatic nature, rightly constitute a "newsworthy event" the less dramatic suffering of the Palestinians is not considered newsworthy enough.

"In recent years many more Palestinians have been killed but usually in circumstances that are less dramatic and give rise to less striking images Moreover, leaving aside death and injury much of the Palestinian suffering arises from the situation of displacement and occupation which does not lend itself to the newsworthy events," the review says.

It concludes that while there is no evidence of a systematic or deliberate bias in the BBC's coverage of the conflict there are "identifiable shortcomings" including a failure to provide the context and perspective — and convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience. For all its impartiality, the BBC's output fails to consistently "constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture."

The review panel, chaired by Sir Quentin Thomas, president of the British Board of Film Classification, reached its conclusions after examining at length the BBC's output from the region over a period of time, and considering both oral and written "evidence" from interested individuals and organisations and hearing witnesses. It visited Jerusalem and interviewed BBC correspondents besides consulting research by Loughborough University and Opinion Leader Research.

Sir Quentin said what the BBC did was "good for most part" but it could and should do more to meet the "gold standard" it had set for itself. The panel has made a series of recommendations that are being studied by the BBC and its response is expected next month, but there are indications that some of the changes suggested by the panel have not gone down too well with senior news bosses.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

U.S. joins India's Moon mission
In the grip of a heatwave
Employment guarantee — signs of transformation
Blairism's failure: private delivery of public goods
Corrections and Clarifications
Justice for Dalits still a dream
BBC's coverage comes under fire
Different depictions of Robert Mugabe
Unconcerned move
Exit poll
Undernourished society
Unconvincing

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu