The British government today urged the BBC to drop its refusal to broadcast a humanitarian appeal for victims of the war in Gaza. The BBC said the appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), a coalition of 13 aid agencies, would compromise the impartiality of its coverage.
“The most important thing we can do for the people who are suffering is carrying on reporting it and we’ve done exemplary work in reporting the suffering of the people of Gaza,” Chief Operating Officer Caroline Thomson said. “If we lose the trust of the audience by appearing…to support one side rather than another, then we will have lost it for the charities themselves as well as everyone else.”
ITV and Channel 4 said they would show it, but satellite broadcaster Sky said it had yet to reach a formal decision. But most attention focussed on the stance of the BBC, which as the national public broadcaster is funded by a licence fee.
International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said the British public could distinguish between support for humanitarian aid and perceived partiality in a conflict. “I really struggle to see in the face of the immense human suffering of people in Gaza at the moment that this is in any way a credible argument,” he said.
The BBC has argued that aid access to Gaza is in any case restricted, but Alexander said supplies and personnel had managed to get through on Friday. “I do not think the fact that limited access is available at the moment is itself an adequate reason not to broadcast an appeal to try and address what is still a dire humanitarian situation,” Alexander told BBC radio.
Politicians and aid groups have written to the BBC to try to persuade it to reconsider its decision, while hundreds of people demonstrated outside one of the broadcaster’s London television centres. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed and more than 5,000 were injured during Israel’s 22-day offensive in the Gaza Strip, launched in an attempt to stop rocket attacks on its territory by Hamas militants. Thirteen Israelis died.
(Source: Reuters)
Andy Sennitt comments: I am astonished by the BBC’s stubborness over this issue. I watched a TV interview with Caroline Thomson last night, and she was totally unconvincing. The (BBC) interviewer pointed out that the Corporation has broadcast appeals for other humanitarian causes in the past, and asked why this one should be any different. He also pointed out that the BBC’s argument that it could be seen as support for Hamas was disingenous, given that refusal to air the appeal could equally be seen as support for Israel. Whatever the real reason behind the BBC’s position - and I am convinced it is not telling the whole truth about its refusal to air the appeal - I find the suggestion that the British public cannot tell the difference between news reporting and a purely humanitarian appeal patronising beyond belief.
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 18:20
I totally agree with you, Andy and I am disgusted.
Something is not right about this. The BBC is speaking as though the appeal is for the leaders of Hamas whilst they know that is not the case.
Even an idiot can see that helping a stricken people is non-political. The International Red Cross would not exist if they took the same attitude as the BBC.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 08:37
Could it be the BBC are being very clever, and by refusing to show the appeal are actually keeping it in the public profile more ? Question is, will they capitulate and eventually show it having given the item even more publicity, which it undoubtably has.
Henry
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 12:21
Just seen Martin Bell on BBC News channel. More great publicity. It appears that Sky News will not show it either, but they are both saying that ITV and Channel 4 will transmit the appeal - good advertising ploy ?
Henry
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 13:35
It’s entirely up to the Beeb whether or not they choose to broadcast it. The decision has been made.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 18:18
BBC World Service is funded by a grant-in-aid administered by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, with a total budget of approximately £265m for 2008/09. Over £15m a year are being spent on BBC Persian channel launched on 13 January 2009. On 19 January BBC’s Arabic television channel expanded its broadcasting time to 24 hours a day. This decision will raise the annual £19 million budget even higher. Such investments were aimed to make audiences in the Middle East look favourably at British foreign policy initiatives for that region.
The rigidity shown by BBC’s management has compromised its credibility among its existing and potential audiences. BBC should have instead spent its time and energy in setting example on how despite difficulties, high standards of credible and objective reporting can be established even in a tough terrain like the Middle East.
I hope FCO’s oversight bodies will instruct its worldwide offices to take a sample of prevailing opinions on how BBC has fared on account of its credibility since the recent conflict in Gaza. It is hoped that the results will help the FCO determine if its interests are better served by reallocating the responsibility of World Services to Channel 4 instead.
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 09:48
is it possible that the headline “BBC under fire” is slightly inappropriate for this story, since to be under fire means “to be shot at” and in this context, it’s not the BBC who are being shot at at all?
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 10:59
The headline was chosen by Reuters, not by me. BTW, the BBC’s Director-General Mark Thompson has given his reasons for the decision in The Editors blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/bbc_and_the_gaza_appeal.html
As of 1100 UTC on Monday there are over 1000 reactions, and the majority of them appear to be critical of the BBC’s stance.
Yes, the BBC can choose whether or not to broadcast the appeal, but as a public service broadcaster it should expect to receive criticism from those who sincerely believe its judgement is flawed.
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 11:13
my point was that I thought it was a bad headline, not that you wrote it. Are you somehow contractually prevented from changing headlines which Reuters provides you with?
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 13:38
But the BBC are under fire ( being shot at ) from politicians and members of the public alike, so it is a fitting headline.
It is they who are responsible for this disgraceful decision, and as a public service broadcaster with its royal charter, and members of the public forced to pay them or they can even end up in prison, they have every right to question their activities as thoroughly as they like. I seem to remember a BBC promotion, not too far back, saying something like “It’s your BBC”.
As for Sky, it’s up to them what they do. There own subscribers may have something to say, but that’s as far as that one goes.
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 14:04
No David, I am not “contractually prevented” from changing headlines. I frequently change headlines, but in this case I thought the headline perfectly fitted the story. In this case, “under fire” means ” exposed or subjected to critical attack or censure”, which is exactly what is happening. I see that the BBC Trust is now going to conduct its own investigation into the matter.
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 14:40
I just thought that since the appeal seems to be about people who were/are literally getting shot at, it might be more appropriate to use other language. If the BBC are “under fire”, which set of words appropriately describes what’s happening to the people who literally get shot at? Just a thought.
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 14:59
That’s what’s known as literalism, and it brings with it its own problems. The late Denis Norden once recounted how it could get you into a lot of trouble: on visiting the gents at the BBC, he read a notice that said “Out of order. Please use floor below.”
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 16:15
I guess what you call literalism, I call careful use of language.
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 16:24
and it depends on what you consider to be the context. If you think the context is “only this story”, I suppose there is no problem with it. If you think the context is “what has been happening in Gaza recently” I don’t suppose one use such a headline, in the same way you probably wouldn’t refer to the BBC being under fire in a story which also features someone getting shot. I guess there are arguments for both ways. Now I’ll go use the floor below and leave you alone.