For many years I have been a great admirer and supporter of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was incorporated under royal charter in 1926. I can think of no broadcasting company in Britain, or abroad, which has so many stars among its presenters and reporters.
It is funded mainly by an annual television license fee and it is run by the BBC governors. Many abroad fail to appreciate it is not under the control of the British government; indeed, it fights fiercely for its continued independence from government.
Under its charter it is charged with being impartial in its presentation of the news and current events. Having had discussions with some of its senior executives, I know it takes this responsibility most seriously and I would claim it is generally successful.
However, our world is desperately confused and complicated, full of propaganda and distortions, and from time to time the BBC does get it wrong.
Slightly to my surprise, for I keep a close eye on this subject, a study for the BBC’s governors reported on May 2 that the BBC’s coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict implicitly favors the Israeli side. The governors had appointed an independent study group, under the chairmanship of Sir Quentin Thomas, whose main job is being president of the British Board of Film Classification. The governors had called for an “impartiality study” following the large number of complaints they had received about the coverage — I suspect from both sides of the dispute.
The study focused on the period between August 2005 and January 2006. During it 98 Palestinians were killed and there were some 23 Israeli fatalities.
It found the deaths of Israelis received a greater coverage than those of the Palestinians, and Israelis received more airtime on news and current affairs programs. It reported “identifiable shortcomings”. It said only “a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by BBC News”, while “the killing of more than one Israeli by Palestinians either by gun or bomb was reported on national broadcasts.”
It concluded there was “little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives”, and a “failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other side lives under occupation”. Much of the covering of the conflict in the British media falls at this fence.
Loughborough University helped the study with research on the coverage of deaths on both sides. The study picked up a much debated point over the use of the word “terrorism”. It decided the BBC was being too cautious, as many of its critics in the right of center papers have suggested, over using the word. It believed “that is the most accurate expression for actions which involve violence against random selected civilians.”
The director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, Chris Doyle, who took over from me in 2002, quickly responded to this study with a statement:
“When research consistently shows that fatalities from one side of a conflict, the party that has by far the least number, are more frequently covered, then this must raise alarm bells.”
On reflection, the BBC comes out of all this rather well, and I expect many of its top staff, who face powerful and sustained criticism from the articulate pro-Israeli lobby, will feel this critical study gives them much useful ammunition. It is much to the credit of the BBC that it called for the study in the first place.
Apart from the criticisms mentioned, the report agreed that there was “little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias” in the coverage of this lengthy conflict.
“On the contrary, there was evidence of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial.” The BBC was told to concentrate on those news stories that would mention the “shifts in Palestinian society and politics” rather than always going for those events that could be accompanied by dramatic pictures on television. The report thought it would be sensible to appoint a senior editor to oversee the coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict as a whole, but that suggestion is unlikely to be adopted by Michael Grade, the chairman of the BBC.
The BBC will publish its reply to the report next month. It will take comfort from this comment by Sir Quentin Thomas:
“What the BBC does now is good for the most part; some of it very good. But it could and should do better to meet the gold standard it sets itself.”
I end with a word of praise for Oria Guerin, the BBC’s Middle East correspondent. She has reported on Sharon and suicide bombers, Jewish settlers and Hamas, in a calm, thoughtful, exemplary and impartial manner day after day. I also respect her coverage.
