The BBC and the DEC.
What do you think? Sky has declined to show the appeal, but other broadcasters will.
The BBC DG Mark Thompson has sent the following email to everyone in the BBC:
"Dear all
I am writing to you to explain some of the background to our decision not to broadcast an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee about the humanitarian problems in Gaza. It's a decision which is being widely debated outside the BBC and I know will be of interest to many of you as well.
When there is a major humanitarian crisis, the DEC - which is a group of major British charities - comes together and, if it believes various criteria are met and a major public appeal is justified, asks the BBC and other broadcasters to broadcast an appeal. We usually - though not always - accede to the DEC's request and as a result have broadcast many DEC appeals over the years.
A few days ago, the DEC approached us about an appeal for Gaza and, after very careful reflection and consultation inside and outside the BBC, we decided that in this case we should not broadcast the appeal. One reason was a concern about whether aid raised by the appeal could actually be delivered on the ground. You will understand that one of the factors we have to look at is the practicality of the aid, which the public are being asked to fund, getting through. In the case of the Burma cyclone, for instance, it was only when we judged that there was a good chance of the aid getting to the people who needed it most that we agreed to broadcast the appeal. Clearly, there have been considerable logistical difficulties in delivering aid into Gaza. However some progress has already been made and the situation could well improve in the coming days. If it does, this reason for declining to broadcast the appeal will no longer be relevant.
But there is a second more fundamental reason why we decided that we should not broadcast the appeal at present. This is because Gaza remains a major ongoing news story, in which humanitarian issues - the suffering and distress of civilians and combatants on both sides of the conflict, the debate about who is responsible for causing it and what should be done about it - are both at the heart of the story and contentious. We have and will continue to cover the human side of the conflict in Gaza extensively across our news services where we can place all of the issues in context in an objective and balanced way. After looking at all of the circumstances, and in particular after seeking advice from senior leaders in BBC Journalism, we concluded that we could not broadcast a free-standing appeal, no matter how carefully constructed, without running the risk of reducing public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in its wider coverage of the story. Inevitably an appeal would use pictures which are the same or similar to those we would be using in our news programmes but would do so with the objective of encouraging public donations. The danger for the BBC is that this could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story. When we have turned down DEC appeals in the past on impartiality grounds it has been because of this risk of giving the public the impression that the BBC was taking sides in an ongoing conflict.
However, BBC News and the BBC as a whole, takes its responsibility to report the human consequences of situations like Gaza very seriously and I believe our record in doing it with compassion as well as objectivity is unrivalled. Putting this decision aside, we also have a very strong track-record in supporting DEC appeals and more broadly, through BBC Children In Need, Comic Relief and our many other appeals, in using the BBC's airwaves to achieve positive humanitarian and charitable goals. This is an important part of what it is to be a public service broadcaster. It is sometimes not a comfortable place to be, but we have a duty to ensure that nothing risks undermining our impartiality. It is to protect that impartiality that we have made this difficult decision.
Finally, it is important to remember that our decision does not prevent the DEC continuing with their appeal for donations and people are able to contribute should they choose to."
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The BBC Director General finally has to go. He has presided over too many issues which have damaged the Corporation's hard-won reputation.
He had an opportunity this morning to properly explain the BBC's decision not to allow the Disasters Emergency Committee Appeal. Yet again, he has floundered, procrastinated and dithered.
Mr. Thompson, fall on your sword.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC are worried about their impartiality being compromised by showing the Gaza appeal, the thing for them to do is to dedicate some of it to the Israeli side too. To be completely fair, the amount of time given ought to be in proportion to the number of fatalities on each side. So I calculate that out of a 3 minute appeal, that will be 2 minutes 58 seconds for the 1330 Palestinians killed, and 1.6 seconds for the 12 Israelis killed (including 9 soldiers). Impartiality preserved; problem solved.
Complain about this comment
The second stated reason seems like utter nonsense to me. Whenever I've seen an appeal by DEC, the situation has been an ongoing news story and has used images similar to those shown on the news programmes, this situation is no different.
In a practical sense, this decision isn't a problem as the appeal has probably got more publicity than it would if there'd been a quiet appeal with no fanfare.
However, the principle behind this decision sets a very worrying precedent and, even if not actually an example of the very bias the DG claims to be trying to avoid, certainly opens the BBC to accusations of such bias.
Complain about this comment
Also, can the BBC confirm/deny the rumours circulating on the Interweb that Mark Thompson had a meeting some time ago with Ariel Sharon to discuss the the BBC's reporting on Israel, and clarify exactly what came out of that meeting...
Or of course, settle that the meeting never took place and put the rumours to rest.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is it not possible for the BBC to even put up the address for the DEC appeal at the end of its news broadcasts? - No footage, nothing beyond, perhaps, a few simple explanatory words?
Sorry, Mark Thompson, we are your shareholders, and we are not happy with your actions.
Complain about this comment
I still feel in my gut that this is the wrong decision. The BBC has shown other DEC appeals that relate to conflict areas rather than disaster areas and if all the clever people at the BBC can't come up with a way to make the appeal impartial when they're already supposed to be making all their reporting impartial, I'd be slightly worried.
I'd be interested to know which DEC appeals the BBC has previously declined to promote, if any.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, Mark Thompson. Thank you for the reassurance that you have a process in place to carefully consider what is broadcast.
Other people may not agree with the decision of the BBC, on this or other matters (e.g. Brand/Ross), put I am pleased that your decisions are thoughtful.
The situation in Gaza is unspeakable but I think the people aiming sentimental complaints at the BBC could more usefully lobby people who can bring international pressure to change, not support, the situation instead.
Complain about this comment
The BBC made the wrong decision at the start and is tying itself in knots in attempting to justify this mistake.
I suspect that this latest email to BBC staff comes as a direct result of Mark Thompson's abysmal performance on the Today programme this morning, when John Humphrys pretty well tore to shreds the reasoning behind the decision not to allow the DEC appeal.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry to go against the flow, but I think the DG has got a difficult decision right on this occasion.
The inescapable fact is that the causes of this humanitarian disaster are still unclear but are rooted in political conflict. Offering support to one side inevitably suggests a degree of partiality which is inappropriate for an independent news organisation.
That the BBC is being criticised for being both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine in its reporting suggests that it is achieving some measure of the balance that is seeks. It would be wrong to risk that impartiality.
Yes, I do appreciate that this means that the BBC appears hard-hearted to human suffering. I think, though, that in practical terms the controversy itself has raised the profile of the charities more than a single television appeal would have done.
Complain about this comment
This is SO controversial!
Is it really the BBC's 'public' who are going to lose confidence in them?
Complain about this comment
DickHobbs (10) There should definitely not be any support to either side of the political conflict in cases such as this. However, in previous occasions where there has been political conflicts that have led to DEC appeals in the past, the BBC has been able to broadcast the DEC appeals. Did broadcasting the appeal for the Tsunami victims in Burma offer support to the Burmese authorities? Did broadcasting the Darfur DEC appeal unfairly show bias towards one side of the conflict there?
To be fair, the BBC (as with all broadcasters) is trying to bend over backwards to make sure that they can't be accused of anti-semitism. It seems (maybe unfairly) that any organisation or individual who harshly criticises the actions of the Israeli government nowadays is liable to be called anti-semitic as a matter of course....
Complain about this comment
QL (9) - I suspect you're correct. Mark Thompson's performance was poor this morning. Oddly enough, he has taken over the Today programme's Editor's blog this morning..........
Complain about this comment
Sorry - correction, that should read the BBC News Editors' Blog
Complain about this comment
I know I'm excitable, but REALLY!
Do the BBC count governments as their 'public'?
I thought licence payers and UK citizens were its ultimate responsibility.
Can you think of any governments who have lost confidence in the BBC?
Don't we then have to ask whether they did so because the BBC was doing something they didn't like but which the BBC was right to do?
When the BBC were right and a government thinks it in the wrong and so loses confidence in it, there will have been reasons why that particular government had reacted as it did.
In THIS case, if it IS foreign governments the BBC is worried about and deems part of its public, the views of those governments are what we should be discussing.
Complain about this comment
DH@10
I agree.
The DG and Trustees had a difficult decision (emotionally) to make, of that I have no doubt.
But, their decision is correct as is that of "Sky".
Complain about this comment
Has he got hte whole world in his hands or is he saying that he is just not listening?
Complain about this comment
I disagree, Charlie and Dick Hobbs. I fully believe that there is a way of allowing this appeal to be broadcast while maintaining political neutrality. The need is for the victims - and I, for one, am quite happy for Israeli victims to be included in this.
A question to which I have yet to see an answer: Has the Israeli government been asked about this? Do they have a strongly held view on the matter? I cannot see that they should have any objection to relief being given to innocent civilians, particularly since they have been so adamant that they did not intend them to be victims in the first place. Equally, as I've said, aid should be available to Israeli victims of Hamas' actions.
Complain about this comment
Sis,
As you no doubt know, they obviously instructed the Moderators to instantly expunge any posts on any BBC blogs which attempted to provide a link to DEC...Pretty "impartial", eh?
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Mr Hobbs (well named?), "The inescapable fact is that the causes of this humanitarian disaster are still unclear..." Yeah! Right!
Complain about this comment
It gets to something when impartiality starts to take the form of partiality, doesn't i?
Complain about this comment
Vern1961, you write
"people aiming sentimental complaints at the BBC could more usefully lobby people who can bring international pressure to change, not support, the situation instead. "
How do you know that they are not doing both?
It is possible, after all, for someone to do two things at the same time, or one after another.
The use of the word "sentimental" in this post is interesting. I feel quite strongly that sentiment *ought* to inform reaction to and action about such suffering as there is in Gaza: should we not have any sentiment (which means feeling) about people being bombed in their homes, maimed, rendered homeless, without food and clean water and shelter? Should we view this without sentiment, coldly, as if it were a matter of statistics only rather than of human beings in pain, fear and loss?
Complain about this comment
Vern1961: Do I take it from your comment that you are not in favour of providing aid to innocent people who are in sore need of support? This sounds horribly like the lack of help that was offered to those facing the perils of the Holocaust. I feel a shiver down my spine.
Complain about this comment
Ed I @ 19, might the form "impartiality at the ISP", or a website put in words, get through? I don't happen to have it (donations can be made by a number of other means), but I am sure you do. One wouldn't be able simply to click on a link, but one might copy-and-paste and then correct for internet usage.
Complain about this comment
The BBC should have broadcast the appeal. It had an easy defence against accusations of partiality - that the DEC had determined that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was of sufficient gravity to justify a DEC appeal, and since the BBC always broadcasts such appeals (and I too, Perky, would like to know when it has not done so in the past) then it would do so in this case.
Now it has backed itself into a corner and cannot back down because in doing so it would be responding to political pressure.
Complain about this comment
Talking of partiality and impartiality, couldn't the other original objection to broadcasting the DEC appeal of "concern about whether aid raised by the appeal could actually be delivered on the ground" be legitimately interpreted as adopting a partial stance?
Complain about this comment
It is ridiculous for the BBC not to broadcast this appeal. It is an issue of COMPASSION, Mark Thompson, something we frequently accuse militant islamists of not having.
Can't you broadcast the appeal with a disclaimer saying it is on humanitarian grounds and does not compromise your position as an impartial broadcaster.
Complain about this comment
The furore arising from the BBC's decision not to show the DEC appeal has produced far more publicity, therefore more effective, than simply showing the appeal.
I wonder if "Sky" is getting as much grief for making the same decision?
Complain about this comment
Loon (26), Well observed!
Complain about this comment
Surely the longer this nonsense goes on, the better for the DEC. With the story leading every news bulletin, the DEC is getting more coverage than it would from a couple of broadcasts of the appeal. All editors need to do is (i) lead on the BBC/DEC story and (ii) follow with a (wholly impartial) news story from Gaza and everybody wins.
Complain about this comment
Of course be Refusing to air the Appeal DEC has now had three days extra publicity. We also know the appeal will be broadcast on Channel 4, ITV and "Five" just before the evening news (I think that's what Today Said) Whilst not airing the appeal, the appeal has had far more impact (in my opinion).
Complain about this comment
How many previous DEC appeals has the BBC refused to air?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The extensive discussions re the appeal, both on air and in newspapers, are a marketing mans dream. I'm willing to bet that more funds will now be raised than from any 'formal appeal'. I certainly hope so.
Complain about this comment
Folks, This is a completely partial decision. The choice of selecting some DEC appeals and rejecting others is simply a managerial choice.
Why then has absolutely nothing been said or heard about the politics around this decision. Is it because of the partiality of the BBC and Sky management personnel? What are the personal pressures on those individuals (none I supect are Palestinian but many of whom may be Isreali or Jewish).
It is patently clear from all news, and BBC news has some way to go before they reach the quality of journalism of Channel 4, that the conflict in Gaza is one that impartial broadcasting could not hope to truly reflect. It seems odd then that when it comes to raising money to help out an oppressed population that the choice not to assist is made. Maybe not so odd?
Constantly hedging round the real issue does the BBC no good whatsoever. I agree with John Tusa, it is extremely sad that the BBC has taken this route.
Intransigence and poor performance from the DG doesn't help either.
Complain about this comment
Some things are bigger than impartiality. Would anyone really have complained about this broadcast if it had gone ahead?
Complain about this comment
Im Sure The Dispossesed, Destitute And Horrifically Injured, Innocent Victims In Gaza Would Rather Forego Any Charity Once They Are Made Fully Aware Of The BBC's And Sky's Impartiality Rules (?)
Complain about this comment
The BBC has looked at this appeal and decided that broadcasting it would compromise its impartiality; which is essential to its operation as a public service provider and which, in the past, has been brought into question by many different parties whenever they have felt like taking a swipe. Bearing this in mind, can the BBC hardly be blamed for trying to protect its reputation, even if the overall judgement may be seen as inappropriate? The decision was made with honourable intentions in mind and for this I think Mr. Thompson should be applauded.
In regards to Mr. Thompson's handling of the BBC's most controversial matters; it does not appear as though he acts quickly, decisively and with self-assurance; as was apparent during the furore surrounding the Andrew Sachs affair, when the BBC slamming seemed to have been rumbling on for about a week before anything was heard from him. During his interview with John Humphreys this morning it seemed as though he hadn't thought out his arguments properly.
Should he go? I think so.
Complain about this comment
'One reason was a concern about whether aid raised by the appeal could actually be delivered on the ground. You will understand that one of the factors we have to look at is the practicality of the aid, which the public are being asked to fund, getting through.'
I wonder who is better placed to judge this: the BBC or the well-established charities who set up the appeal?
Hubris is the only thing stopping the BBC's stance on this from being reversed. They don't want to appear weak in the face of overwhelming public opinion.
I agree it's a difficult decision. But I would sooner have seen them spend as much effort in justifying running the appeal rather than not.
Complain about this comment
This story came as surprise to me, as I have long considered the Beeb to have a contra-Israel bias.
Members of the DEC are usually good at getting aid into the parts other (e.g. political) bodies cannot reach.
Since I normally watch the ITV evening news and the BBC 10 o'clock news, I look forward to seeing this appeal.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Big Sister and Chris Ghoti
To the contrary, UNSPEAKABLE is a measure of the pain I feel for all people on all sides that they are feel so separate from other humans as to be able to inflict pain on, and sustain hatred towards, a single person.
Name a continent where there are no 'innocent people who are in sore need of support' or 'human beings in pain, fear and loss'. And then tell me how aid has caused the situation to end.
Pouring more spite and judgement into the world is only adding to it. 'Become the change you want to see.'
Complain about this comment
Ed, I'm not entirely clear what you mean.
The link is here.
http://www.dec.org.uk/item/200
Complain about this comment
Truly silly!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/bbc_and_the_gaza_appeal.html
Watch him squirm!
Complain about this comment
Interesting.
So many points-of-view:
"The charities are guilty, not the BBC
The Corporation is right not to run the Gaza appeal. Oxfam and others are clearly anti-Israel"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5586716.ece
Complain about this comment
Odd isn't it that even the mods don't know te difference between partial and impartial. I didn't see any reference to censorship in the rules. Perhaps some think its offensive to get to the nub of the issue?
Nice to see the change of heart now the links are live. Have most of us touched a few nerves?
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7849943.stm
Complain about this comment
Charlie (45) - The Times and Sky come to the same opinion - hmm - what a shock!
Complain about this comment
Your lordship,
I can't be bothered to note the number of posts I've made providing that link, only to see them removed post-haste by the paranoid Mods. The latest is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2009/01/gaza_appeal.html#comment8
We'll see how long yours lasts...
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Interestingly, several TV news broadcasts over the weekend either showed newspaper adverts for the appeal (including website & phone number) or the contact details part of previous DEC appeals.
Anyway, finding the DEC's website shouldn't be difficult, even if the direct links get modded off.
a) They're an organisation based in the UK - try the obvious URI.
b) Failing that, their website can be found from early "proper" links on well-known search engine searches for "DEC". I'm sure most people can distinguish them from Digital Equipment Corporation, December, Dell Inc, Bournemouth University's school of Design, Engineering & Computing, or even Dec from "Ant and Dec"...
Complain about this comment
In post #5 I referred to the detail of press articles which formed the basis of rumours mentioned in post #4 by Stainless Steel Cat.
In light of the accusation of defamation levelled at me by the moderators in response to post #5, I will simply state my personal opinion that Mark Thompson is not a fit and proper person to be in charge of a public corporation.
Complain about this comment
Qualified Loon (48)
Yes, I was temp blinded by the obvious that I failed to notice the all pervading Rupert influence. Silly me!
On that issue alone the Beeb should start to show some impartiality, or has he REALLY got a hold already?
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile I gritted my teeth, donned shades and had a peek to see what (if anything) the current bun said on the issue (being a stablemate of The Times and Sky) [1]. The article itself just reported on Sky's decision matter-of-factly, but the reader comments beneath had more robust opinions.
Unfortunately although a few commenters decried the decision, the majority thought it was the Gazans own fault for voting in Hamas [2], and the money would be better spent on homeless UK soldiers, life-extending cancer treatments, people whose homes have been repossessed as a result of the credit crunch, [3] etc. etc.
So it looks as though the readers of that tome that cared to comment live up to their ever-so-slightly negative stereotype...
[1] That was a challenge - hunting for the real news on that site in amongst the celebrity gossip and pictures...
[2] Completely ignoring other factors, such as the perception they're less corrupt than their rival party, and have an extensive social welfare network...
[3] I could postulate counter arguments, but (a) it would be off-topic, and (b) I have no desire to be dragged into a heated debate that may degenerate into a flamewar.
Complain about this comment
As someone who is generally on the side of the Palestinians - certainly in this instance with the poor ordinary people in Gaza, and who has already donated money to the appeal, I think the BBC have got this right. Even if the original decision was borderline, now that politicians have weighed in saying that they believe the appeal should be broadcast there is no way the DG can go back on his decision. He has to stick to his guns. I suspect that thanks to the hoo-haa the appeal has received more attention in the press than it would have otherwise.
Complain about this comment
Ed, 49, Fair point, although some of the stories, indeed the current bbc.co.uk 'front page' have a link to the DEC page, so I don't think this is being 'censored', although some of the BBC blogs may have their own policy about posting of links to 'external sites'.
I agree that impartiality is key for the BBC - people would just switch off, or tune to, say Sky or ITV if they thought the BBC was no different to other 'corporate owned' news media. And for all the stick it gets, many think it is one of the few fairly neutral sources of news.
But given that they already show 'Party Political Broadcasts' which are clearly very distinct from 'News' even though they may contain 'news footage', I think there should be some way through this impasse - especially when it could make a difference to people in need of humanitarian assistance.
Of course, if the BBC were to fall into the trap of being seen to fall down on one side or the other in this polarised debate, many many people, especially in the US, might not find out at all about the facts on the ground - which is surely making the problem ten times worse ??
Complain about this comment
At the risk of echoing myriad posters' sentiments, what's partisan about wanting to end suffering?
The argument it not, as far as I know, whether the suffering is a necessary evil or an unnecesary one – just that it's there. It exists. Of that there can be no doubt.
Worse still, could the BBC's decision be construed by some as validating the attacks? The DG has gone out of his way to take a course of action that may be perceived as giving credence to one party's actions. That is not balance.
Complain about this comment
How much do you think we should give?
I gave what I was going to spend on seeing a film and having a meal afterwards.
I'm bored and hungry now. But happy.
Complain about this comment
Your Lordship,
Nobody is more appreciative of the BBC than I. It's just this silliness which half amuses me and half angers me. I'm also appreciative that the ensuing row has probably brought more attention to the cause than would have been imaginable without it. I hope the same is true of donations.
I, of course, am far from impartial on these matters, but I did start from an impartial position years ago - and then I read Exodus and became somewhat partial, but further reading took me 180 degrees in my "informed" partiality.
Peace to all (and a secure home)
ed
Complain about this comment
I bet the Labour spinmeisters are jumping up and down with glee over the way this story is burying the allegations that some of their peers have been taking backhanders.
I agree with annasmummy (54) that the BBC is unlikely to back down now that the government is putting pressure on them to show the appeal.
Bad as I think this decision is - and suspicious as I am about the motives behind it - I think it would be even worse if the BBC bowed to government pressure over this or any other editorial matter.
Complain about this comment
QL@48
If you're implying the editorial stances of these entities is effectively dictated by the owner, why not say so?
And perhaps produce some evidence..?
Complain about this comment
I feel that this decision will be of major consequnce to the reputation of the BBC across the wider world. Broadcasting the appeal is of humanitarian imperative regardless of the comments made by the DG or any other political issue. As a licence payer I am outraged at this decision!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Sky is owned by Fox, a known right-wing Israel-supporting US organisation whose news reporting is always suspect. Good company Thompson is keeping.
I think he is inadequate for the job and should be sacked. He clearly made the wrong decision in haste, perhaps from Israeli pressure or maybe some Israel-supporting Jewish friends 'advised' him, and is now backed into a corner. His mouthpiece, the astonishingly arrogant Caroline Thomson [quote: 'I don't care how isolated we are'] is utterly objectionable and insulting [another quote: 'those complaining are members of a lobby group']. I'm not a member of a lobby group, organised or not.
I think the BBC has lost its way, has employed people in the top jobs who aren't up to them, and is running scared of any criticism, which it refuses ever to acknowledge. A government minister put in charge would at least be answerable to parliament and thus the electorate, and could not get away with saying 'I don't care how isolated we are'.
Have the mods here been given extra instructions over and above those outlined in the guidelines? Giving the DEC URL doesn't strike me as being insulting, causing upset or using bad language. How can they justify stopping links?
My, the Israelis must be chortling over this. Having got away with murder, they are now, through Thompson, preventing their victims from receiving aid.
THIS IS BEING DONE IN OUR NAMES
Complain about this comment
Regarding the press, it's always a good idea to remember that they target a specific audience with their style and content. It's fairly well known that the Times will regularly come down against the BBC, whatever the issue, as does The Currant Bun. The Guardian will generally side with the Beeb, unless the Beeb is not earnest enough in it's reporters' pieces to camera, etc. I realise it's slightly light-hearted for this topic of conversation, but it does bring to mind this exchange from Yes Prime Minister that is as true today as it was back then:
Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.
Complain about this comment
A resignation at the Beeb seems likely according to my pretty friend on the inside.
Complain about this comment
Fearless @ 63
Thanks for the 'Yes prime Minister" piece.
I'd quite forgotten that.
Complain about this comment
Funnily, I'm now of the persuasion that it would be a mistake (now) for the BBC to back down....
But Americans don't understand irony
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Charlie (60) - I implied nothing, but please feel free to infer.
Complain about this comment
62 petepassword
You appear to have jumped to a number of conclusions based on your own opinions rather than fact and you've produced a fair bit of innuendo again, unsupported.
The there's this:
"THIS IS BEING DONE IN OUR NAMES"
Which, is not correct.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC's bias towards Israel is on the menu tonight Eddie...........please don't roll over easily. However it might be dropped completely from the news as Gaza suddenly was when Prince Hewitt gave us all a very newswothy focus instead of childrens death.
What could replace the BEEBs mess tonight? Maybe another piece about how people are buying Primark clothing and never wearing it. That had me rushing to my MP.
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, is there now free reporting in Gaza? Is everyone who wants to be in there and sending back reports now there?
Complain about this comment
Stoat_Leader (68) - The BBC is a Public Service Broadcaster and according to its charter, supposed to "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners".
I'd say petepassword is perfectly correct in stating:
"THIS IS BEING DONE IN OUR NAMES"
Complain about this comment
And, taking up Big Sister's question from #18, I also would like to hear from Mark Regev regarding the Israeli government's position on the DEC appeal and whether it supports the BBC's stance on the matter.
Complain about this comment
Dear BBC Blog contributor,
Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we've had to remove your content below
Postings to BBC blogs will be removed if they advertise products or services for profit or gain.
Posts to the BBC blogs should not contain advertising or promotion of any kind. This may include links to personal websites or forums, surveys and questionnaires, or details of charity or fund-raising events that fall outside the BBC's Editorial Guidelines.
....Regards,
The BBC Blog Team...
Subject:
The BBC and the DEC.
Posting:
Impartiality or Paranoia?
I see the Mods are still expunging any links involving the unnameable charity...sad, isn't it?
http colon slash slash home2 slash btconnect dot com slash tipiglen slash blankweb dot html to them!
Or just plain silly!
downright stupid!
Complain about this comment
Ed I - Look at post 43
Complain about this comment
EdI, I think the issue is that you're not pointing directly to the DEC website. Instead, you're pointing towards a page on your own site instead. If you posted the link for the DEC, it would surely get through....
Complain about this comment
Interesting. I'm another one who's always suspected the BBC of being anti-Israeli. Could this be a bluff? Or a double bluff?
Whatever.
MPs should not try and bully the BBC on a specific issue of policy. That's opportunistic playing to the gallery and just plain wrong.
Complain about this comment
EI 58, I assume you mean the book by Uris, not the book by God.
Complain about this comment
Stoat_Leader (68)
Do you visit this country or are you posting from Israel on OUR BBC's boards?
Everything here is the poster's opinion. The clue is where the sentence starts with 'I think', gottit?
When a statement is not preceded by 'I think' such as 'Sky is owned by Fox, a known right-wing Israel-supporting US organisation' it's fact, unless you have proof otherwise?
My quotes were accurate, I heard it with my own ears. I implied nothing.
I surmised a few things such as Thompson may be influenced by several factors, as a means of finding an explanation for this aberrant decision, and 'the Israelis must be chortling over this. Having got away with murder, they are now, through Thompson, preventing their victims from receiving aid.' Is that what twisted your nickers?
Complain about this comment
73,Ed, you can't beat the AuntieBots.
Among their weapons are...
Complain about this comment
F 35, It was explained which DEC appeals the BBC accepts and which they don't. Nation vs nation in war, no. Natural disaster, yes. Civil unrest within a nation, yes. Wheter you like it or not is your problem.
Complain about this comment
Does the BBC take complaints seriously? With thousands upon thousands of complaints about the BBC's decision not to broadcast an urgent humanitarian appeal, and Mark Thompson's inadequacy in justifying it, he is single-handedly undermining the whole organisation, and bringing it into disrepute. He should resign.
Complain about this comment
Why does no one answer my questions? See 32.
Complain about this comment
Nice necktie, scruffy face.
Complain about this comment
80. David_McNickle wrote:
Nation vs nation in war, no. Natural disaster, yes. Civil unrest within a nation, yes. Wheter you like it or not is your problem.
How about Lebanon?
I would say that was more nation-nation than Israel brutalising a non-nation like Gaza. As there is not as yet a Palestinian state, your superbly thought out and argued point falls flat.
Whether YOU like that or not, is YOUR problem.
Complain about this comment
ib 82, I believe a couple were mentioned on TWAO, but I don't remember what they were.
Complain about this comment
lb, PS You're no more important than anybody else here and hardly anybody refers to the links I put here. Most people just want to hear themselves talk.
Complain about this comment
FFred,
Why do you think I put up that page yesterday? Simply because every attempt to post a link to the DEC press release about the appeal was removed forthwith - without even the usual "referral" period. Straight into "broke the house rules" (which now seem to have been edited to include, "details of charity or fund-raising events that fall outside the BBC's Editorial Guidelines."....Holes and digging come to mind
Dave, Yes, Uris, not Himself
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Eddie, I have an idea. Why don't you ask Mark Thompson, as Editor-in-Chief of the BBC, if he would like to go to Gaza and report on the humanitarian situation first hand? It would be interesting to see if he still thinks he made the right decision when he gets back? Mike Lloyd, Islington
Complain about this comment
pp 84, I heard it on TWAO, so it must be right. Nothing to do with me. I don't remember what the person said about Lebanon and really don't care. Don't twist my words to suit yourself.
Complain about this comment
The death of the BBC as a credible news medium! Imagine a scenario where Hamas fighters managed to launch a devestating missile strike into the heart of Tel Aviv resulting in the same damage Gaza has just endured. Would the BBC refuse to promote help on the grounds of impartiality? Would Eddie Mair put it to an outraged Israeli that " bad things happen in war"?
Any fair minded observer of recent events as reported by the worlds media will know that Mr Thompsons assertion that the Beebs coverage has been compassionate and objective is a load of nonsense. It has been muted, limited and selective at best and totally devoid of any serious and factual analysis. The conclusion of many is that something is not right about how this stupid decision was reached as well as the tone of the coverage generally. Mr Thompson, how about a thorough and impartial investigation into how exactly this decision was reached, who it was who reached it and why so many otherwise newsworthy incidents in this conflict have been so under reported. Otherwise the suspicion will always be that the BBC has been " got to" somehow by vested interests. Come on BBC what has happened to you?
Complain about this comment
When my head goes up my you know what in the way that Mark Thompson's has, I turn to poetry. Hope the line breaks work. This is by Pastor Niemoeller
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me -
and there was no-one left
to speak out for me.
Complain about this comment
Mark Thompson is also saying that the 18 month blockade of Gaza of essential things like water, electricity, medical supplies to civilians is not an impartial matter. The DEC speciffically state that this appeal is in order not only to address the immediate crisis but also the damage experienced by these sanctions. It is not just about the now! SHAME ON YOU THOMPSON!
CHEQUES PAYABLE TO DEC GAZA CRISIS AND POST TO DEC GAZA CRISIS PO BOX 999 LONDON EC3A 3AA OR GO TO ANY POST OFFICE QUOTING FREEPAY NUMBER 1210
Complain about this comment
I don't understand the argument. The BBC says that it does not want to get involved in a contentious debate. What is the debate here? Are there any sides arguing that there is not a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and that there are not people in need for aid? I would guess not (although I would not put it past the Israelis). Therefore, the advert should be shown. Sky’s decision should equally be reversed, however, as they are Fox TV and pro-Israeli, I doubt that it will happen. The BBC has a duty to truth and justice. The truth is that there is an urgent need for aid, justice is served by standing up for the oppressed.
Complain about this comment
2008 and the start of 2009
I have never felt so helpless and let down by my leaders and the BBC.
Time for a bar of chocolate.
Complain about this comment
Mark Thompson's argument falls on two points. Firstly you can't be impartial between life and death. Secondly, if you sit oon the fence in a dispute between a weak side and a strong side you are ipso facto supporting the strong side - in this case Israel.
That said, the resulting furore has generated much more publicity for the DEC appeal than just transmitting it would have done.
Complain about this comment
I can't help feeling that Sky's decision not to broadcast the appeal proves that the BBC is wrong ...
Complain about this comment
If this decision was supposed to prove BBC impartiality, it has achieved the opposite. The BBC has taken sides: against the suffering Palestinian children. Mark Thompson should go.
Complain about this comment
Sid,
Seconded!
Complain about this comment
The interesting thing is how often the BBC is accused of having a pro-Israel bias, whilst here on the blog we are so often accused of having an anti-Israel bias and this having the support of the BBC.
I have a horrid feeling that this may mean they are getting it about right.
But I do agree with Sid @ 96. If I don't know which side I am on in any given case, I look to see which side I am *not* on, just to avoid supping with the Devil when I don't have my long spoon with me...
Complain about this comment
As a lifelong supporter of the BBC, I never thought I'd see the day when I was ashamed to be associated with it in any way - but the attitude of Mark Thomson has done what I thought was impossible.
My licence fee is due fairly soon - as of now, the money will go to the DEC instead.
Complain about this comment
Sid
Thirded
FunnyJD @ 92 - thanks. This is what I was looking for.
Complain about this comment
A man would be forgiven for thinking that the name "Mark" at the BBC means someone who defends decisions that simply bonkers. At least Thompson appeared on the radio to explain his reasoning, but Mark Damazer is a different Gefilte of fish altogether!
Complain about this comment
"Finally, it is important to remember that our decision does not prevent the DEC continuing with their appeal for donations and people are able to contribute should they choose to."
Is it just me, or does this convey some kind of extreme arrogance, that they suggest that they actually have that kind of power? Thank you, Mr Thompson, for deigning to allow the DEC to go about their humble work...
Complain about this comment
On the world service news hour over the weekend a senior Labour politician being interviewed by Lise Ducett said: "This is the nastiest Israelie embassy I've known and I've know them for forty years." He was slapped down for using the word nasty. But the interviewer didn't ask, where is your proof. We are left to assume, some Israelie diplomats have pressured some BBC employees.
If he has evidence, he should be made to present that evidence. If he has no evidence, he should be asked to apologise.
What exactly have the Palestinian children done wrong? They have been bombed; melted with white phos' (The Americans call it "shake and bake" - the "shake" being provided by the liberal use of HE); machine-gunned; made homeless in the winter; starved and made orphans. What did they do wrong? They have been treated like vermin.
And the BBC? They have a pseudo-intellectual position to defend.
During the 1st WW, the Belgians were starving. Hoover fed them. Which is why in Leueven there is a "Hooverplein".
You will find compassion and charity in your dictionary Sir - either side of cobb;;rs.
Complain about this comment
Test
Complain about this comment
Test test
Complain about this comment
Vern 1961 (42): Firstly, let me say that I certainly didn't intend my comment to be spiteful, either towards you or the other person I mentioned.
Secondly, yes, I appreciate what you are saying, but personally feel very strongly that it is imperative to do something immediately to help these poor people, to direct energy towards that end in the first place, and then, once we have done what we can to help, to try to change the minds of those who created this mess.
Complain about this comment
Formal Charity giving is a political choice. By giving to Charity one is approving of the funding of the particular cause through Charity as opposed to the political alternate of funding through progressive taxation.
By promoting any formal Charity the BBC is being politically partial. Will the BBC now stop the promotion of all Charity on the grounds of impartiality?
Complain about this comment
The decision of the BBC not to broadcast the DEC appeal for humanitarian aid for the Gazan population not only defies comprehension, it is also totally lacking in compassion.
Caroline Thomson attempted to justify this awful decision during an interview on the 5pm News, Saturday 24 January. She said that it was doubtful whether the audience would be able to distinguish between news images of the carnage (assumed to be impartial and therefore acceptable) and images supporting the appeal (assumed to be partisan and therefore unacceptable). What absolute nonsense (a) in being any sort of justification for the decision not to broadcast, and (b) in treating listeners with unbelievable contempt.
This morning, on Today, Mark Thompson joined the fray and repeated the mantra that the BBC must not involve itself in politics. It is clear, however, that the only political aspect to this appeal is the BBC's refusal to air it.
There are just two conditions that give rise to the need for humanitarian intervention. First, to respond to natural disasters, and second, to respond to man-made disasters. Gaza is a product of the second, just like many other emergencies where the BBC has displayed no apparent reluctance in publicising appeals on behalf of the aid agencies. The BBC's attempts to defend their decision are utterly spurious.
Why on earth is the BBC setting itself up as arbiter of what is humanitarian and what isn't, what is impartial and what isn't, what is acceptable and what isn't? Apparently one of the circumstances being taken into consideration by the BBC is whether aid would be delivered to those who need it. How is this the responsibility of the BBC? Through the DEC the aid agencies have decided that an appeal is appropriate, needed and timely. Who is the BBC to decide otherwise?
I pay my licence fee for the delivery of quality public service programming, not to enable BBC managers to vent ill-founded political correctness on hapless war victims of middle-eastern conflict.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict in Gaza there are many people there who are desperate for relief. The BBC has no right at all to hamper the relief effort. Failing to publicise the appeal is an unnecessary obstacle to the relief process. This error must be put right without delay.
Complain about this comment
It was worth noting that Mr. Miliband, in his interview with Eddie tonight, made a point of saying that the DEC details are on the No. 10 website.
So - does that make our Government 'impartial'?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, my no. 110 - I meant, of course, 'partial'!
Complain about this comment
I would have thought that there are two possible simple ways to resolve this problem.
1. Invite a Jewish charity to appeal on the BBC for funds for Israel or:
2. Ask the charities who have organised the appeal to be less partisan and include Israel as a beneficiary. Israel may not have suffered quite as much as Gaza but it has been subjected to an eight year long rocket attack which has no doubt left many severely traumatised and caused considerable damage to the infrastructure.
Of course the whole idea of countries throughout the world contributing money is ridiculous. All that will happen is that Hamas will be relieved of the responsibility of footing the bill for re-construction and restoration of essential services which will leave them in a position to spend their own considerable resources on yet more arms and rockets.
Complain about this comment
71 QL
You are mistaken. The Corporation does not speak for "us". Being answerable, is another matter entirely.
"I'd say petepassword is perfectly correct in stating:
"THIS IS BEING DONE IN OUR NAMES"
"...and answer only to its viewers and listeners"
Complain about this comment
I am a strong BBC supporter and user, but I was dismayed at the news coverage of the Gaza conflict. Bulletin after bulletin was put out with the viewpoint from an Israeli spokesperson, but no opposing view from Hamas or Palestinian spokesperson. Instead the BBC resorted to using United Nations personnel on the ground to give the 'other side'.
The United Nations viewpoint of course was valid and required but should not have been used as the official opposition to the Israeli propoganda machine, the Hamas propoganda machine should have had equal airtime.
There did appear to be more deference to Hamas in some of the later news coverage - a day or so before the ceasefire - rather too late.
After this less than impartial coverage, it seems hypocritical for Mark Thomson to trumpet the BBC's impartiality towards the DEC request by refusing airtime.
Complain about this comment
The bbc are absolutely correct in their stance on the Gaza appeal. If they had aired it they would have been under ferocious attack from some of those now criticising them for not showing it, including the poisoners at the Mail, and of course the Murdoch empire, who suspiciously wouldn`t declare their position yesterday. There is also of course the extremely powerful and well organised jewish lobby, who have such disproportionate influence in Britain, and who would have no doubt used the broadcast as yet another stick with whichto beat the bbc.
Complain about this comment
The decision on the DEC appeal was a classic example of over-compensation for the one-sided coverage during the previous weeks. BBC journalists are only allowed access to those parts of Gaza which Hamas wants them to see. I may be wrong, but I do not remember this fact being mentioned during any of the recent broadcasts. Regardless of your feelings about Israel, Hamas is an organisation committed to the destruction of a sovererign state by use of violence.
Complain about this comment
I was watching the BBC News a few days ago at 1 am and this subject was reported. I was astonished to see the illustrative film of the Gaza conflict suddenly overlaid with the web address and telephone number of DEC. It was there for 10-15 seconds. No mention was made of the appeal otherwise. Was this the work of a (rightly) disaffected BBC person?
John Humphrys did a fine interview with Mark Thompson in the Today programme this morning. Calm and more forensic than usual, he revealed the weaknesses in Mark Thompson's case. Having argued on his main point, Humphrys mentioned Darfur, which appeared to contradict Thompson's principles and Thompson then said each case had to be decided on its merits. Value judgements, not rigorous logic, appeared to be decisive. The x-factor here is Israel. Thompson does not care if the Burmese generals or the elite of Sudan think they are being given a bad press. I believe the BBC has been attacked for lack of impartiality by the Israelis before. An academic study was commissioned to see if the BBC's reporting was biased or not. It was given the thumbs up but imagine the Beeb's jangling nerves to have felt such a course necessary. Would Palestinian objections have resulted in a similar course?
An Israeli professor at Oxford wrote an article in the Guardian recently. He characterised the Israeli approach to retaliation as "an eye for an eyelash". The Palestinians seem to get the rough end of the stick so often. The refusal to carry the DEC broadcast makes impartiality look like bias.
Complain about this comment
78 P
"When a statement is not preceded by 'I think' such as 'Sky is owned by Fox, a known right-wing Israel-supporting US organisation' it's fact, unless you have proof otherwise?
My quotes were accurate, I heard it with my own ears. I implied nothing."
P. If it's a fact, produce the evidence. You made the statement, no-one else.
I repeat:
You appear to have jumped to a number of conclusions based on your own opinions rather than fact and you've produced a fair bit of innuendo again, unsupported.
Complain about this comment
Oh. the over-riding power of the Murdoch Empire.
The question must be:
Is it pressure to effectively stifle funds going to Gaza or
Is it chip chip chipping away at the Beeb by the real power behind the press?
Who will back down and lose their job, their career, their loyalty?
None so far and I fear none will.
Ethics, principles and justice down the pan again BBC.
Oh yes and why is Jonathan Ross still on the payrole with my hard earned money?
The man is a disgrace to Broadcasting and the UK.
Now of to watch Channel 4 news.
Complain about this comment
Stoat_Leader (71) - If I could understand that I would reply.
Complain about this comment
Sid
Fourthed
Big Sister
Vern's way off beam....this sort of argument (resolve the worlds woes and injustice and suffering will become a thing of the past) is facile.
Don't apologize that he felt slighted. You've got the balance right,and he needs to get real (and off the supercilious soap box).
Complain about this comment
100 RI
If you mean what you say. I respect you and just hope, you still have the money to pay the Licence Fee - unless you are going to dump the TV.
Anyway, Good Luck.
"My licence fee is due fairly soon - as of now, the money will go to the DEC instead."
Complain about this comment
120 Ql
I imagine that would be the case.
Complain about this comment
A post from 5.14 pm (now 7.53 pm) is still awaiting moderation. Could I find out the moderators' working hours so the blog is worth while for us lot who are not yet trusted to behave ourselves?
Complain about this comment
89. At 5:15pm on 26 Jan 2009, David_McNickle wrote:
pp 84, I heard it on TWAO, so it must be right.
What's the Tibetan Women's Association of Toronto got to do with it. If I'd known you were quoting rather than using your own brain I wouldn't have bothered.
Complain about this comment
Instead of criticising the BBC, may I ask which Israeli news stations will be broadcasting the CET appeal? Given that The State of Israel is responsible for the food shortages and desperate situation, surely they have an equal responsibility for the reparation, in the same way that expect the Government of Gaza to bring those responsible for the attacks on Israel to account.
The Allies invested heavily in terms of food and aid in the Axis countries after WWII, in order to try and restore a more stable political climate. I do not believe that the Israeli Government can afford to fail to grasp the moment.
Complain about this comment
118. Stoat_Leader
'If it's a fact, produce the evidence. You made the statement, no-one else.
I repeat:
You appear to have jumped to a number of conclusions based on your own opinions rather than fact and you've produced a fair bit of innuendo again, unsupported.'
You appear to have repeated a claim without even itemising the separate parts of the plural - number of conclusions. I suggest you're jumping to conclusions. As for unsupported innuendo, ooow errrrrr, know what you mean, nudge nudge.
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News you might find the support there.
The Clue is Murdoch, he owns both, they're the same ethos, almost the same people.
The people they have on to 'review the papers' are illustrative; right-wing tabloid editors, other opinionated whiners against anything they can attribute [often wrongly] to political correctness - example John Gaunt, every pub's loud-mouthed critic of anything progressive.
And if you want to split hairs about Fox owns Sky, Murdoch owns both, go ahead, you're entitled to be as trivial as you like here, I sometimes suspect it's encouraged.
Complain about this comment
petepassword - Far be it from me to stick up for 'Stoat Leader', but he does have a point that what you are stating is simply not accurate. That is the difference between being RIGHT and being WRONG.
Mr Murdoch owns 'The Simpsons'. He also owns a stake in 'The Sun'. Therefore you would expect that the 'Currant Bun' is produced by 'almost the same people' as draw the Simpsons cartoons.
Here's a handy hint to help you on life's highway. When you use the phrase 'It's a fact..' it really helps if what follows is accurate, and factual.
Complain about this comment
I agree 100% with the BBC on this occassion.
I wonder how many Gaza appeals are being broadcast in Arab countries currently?
I wonder why the huge amount of aid that goes into Palestine, apparently per capita more than anywhere else in the world sort of goes missing?
I wonder how many street parties are going on in Iran and Syria at the scenes of this Government bending over backwards to exert pressure on the BBC over this matter when our domestic policy on poverty, housing, education, unemployment etc, is failing so badly.
My only critism of the BBC at the moment is that it sort of gives the impression in news bulletins and interviews that they speak for whole of the country, the whole of mankind, the whole of the universe on this particular issue. Clearly, it does not.
Complain about this comment
Bing,
Second only to the aid received by Israel....but we know where a lot of that goes - up in smoke, and down as rubble.Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
On the question of aid for example, when Yasser Arrafat died he left his wife 2 billion dollars!!!!!
Israel would not have had to respond to Hamas rocket attacks if Hamas had acted in the Gazan's interest and acknowledged Israel's right to exist and maintained the ceasefire.
No point in going back into history constantly, that doesn't help Gazan's now. However, the economy of the West Bank is growing. Israel and the Palestinian authority are working together in the interests of Palestinians. Shows what can be done with a bit of rational behaviour.
Complain about this comment
By the way, how many Israelis have actually been killed in rocket attacks...
ie to make the Israeli army "have to respond" (ie. to slaughter 1300 mainly civilians, injure countless more, and reduce their country...rebuilt with international aid...to rubble)?
Get real Bing
Complain about this comment
It was good to see the DEC appeal going out last night on channel 4.
Thanks to the 'Thom(p)son twins' performance I turn my back now on bbc news output in relation to US-rael activities.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how much money has been donated to the Gaza appeal by people on this blog who are complaining about the decision of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how much extra money will be donated to the Gaza appeal as a result of the outcry against the shameful BBC decision not to accede to the DEC request.
Complain about this comment
Dave,
More than you might think, I suspect. Mind you, I have only polled a very small sample of one.Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
In stating impartiality as a reason to suppress the DEC humanitarian aid appeal, the BBC effectively identifies the civilian population of Gaza as siding with Hamas and thereby being party to the recent conflict.
In doing so, the corporation's management aligns itself with a highly contentious political stance, which condones the punishment of civilian populations for the actions of their governments. Not only is this contrary to the principles laid down in the 4th Geneva Convention and the 1977 Protocols, it subscribes to the logic of terrorism.
For all the havoc they wrought in Gaza, at least the Israeli government had the wit to claim that they did not deliberately set out to harm civilians. Can the BBC now say the same?
Complain about this comment
I`m new to this, does the debate always turn away from the topic and into a point scoring exchange?
The bbc is one of the last good things left in Britain, and should be defended whenever possible, even when, as in this case, they may be morally wrong, but in practical terms right, in their action. I accept of course that right and wrong are absolute terms which shouldn`t be applied in this or any other debate.
If the debate is to be on the invasion then a point and a response to consider might be: that there were 430 road deaths in Israel in 2008, and they might do well to improve upon that if they are concerned about the lives of their citizens, and yes of course the economy on the west bank is growing, as are the number of illegal settlements which contribute to that growth.
Complain about this comment
On Holocaust Day, I couldn't find any BBC programmes putting forward the Nazi point of view. Partiality? Of course. 'Impartiality' is held up as a great virtue, but it is only appropriate where there is a level playing field. We know that in the 1930s and '40s the Jews of Europe were the powerless victims, and the Nazis were the war-criminals. Therefore we take the side of the Jews. In Gaza, we know from the BBC's own reports that Israel has committed war-crimes; we also know that Gaza is effectively a prison camp (nobody can leave); we know that, throughout this conflict (i.e. since 1948) scores of Palestinians have died for every one Israeli death; we know that Israel has one of the most powerful and highly mechanised armies in the world, whereas the Palestinians have a few rocket-launchers; we know that the citizens of Israel live in European comfort while the people of Gaza live at near-starvation levels, deprived of fuel and medical supplies. What more evidence do we need in order to take the side of the victims? Our grandparents didn't wait until decades later.
Complain about this comment
Giulio,
Contemptible as well as contentious. Well observed!Peace and a secure home for all
ed
Complain about this comment
Chris Boddington, Well said. Seconded.
Complain about this comment
So now Israel has closed its border with Gaza, preventing aid convoys from reaching those who need them, will the BBC and others continue to use a political reason (i.e. trying not to be political) not to support the humanitarian response.
Chris Boddington wrote:
'Impartiality' is held up as a great virtue, but it is only appropriate where there is a level playing field.
Exactly.
Complain about this comment
CB 139, And I only heard a tiny bit on the BBC about the Pope possibly making a way for the reinstatement of a 'Bishop' who is a holocaust denier. (Dodgy, conflicting, reports available on Google.)
Complain about this comment
EI 136, C'mon, don't be shy. I rarely give to charities. I buy things at charity shops.
Complain about this comment
mic 32, Yeah, lets compare numbers. Mine's bigger than yours.
Complain about this comment
pp 125, R-e-a-d t-h-i-s s-l-o-w-l-y....
I said TWAO, not Trans World Airlines Tea. That's you, that is.
Complain about this comment
Chris Boddington - as Ed I says, spot on.
Complain about this comment
ANT and DEC
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_03/antdecDM1810_468x414.jpg
Complain about this comment
So the BBC didn't show the DEC appeal but did show bits of ITV's broadcast - watching you, watching me. The images were powerful, in particular the beautiful, broken children were unbearably sad. The voice of the Israeli spin-doctor is remembered - "Hamas hide among the civilians - what else can we do?" [except blow them to kingdom come.
I was surprised the Greg Dyke agrees with Thompson (Newsnight, 26.1.09), as did Janet Daley of the Telegraph. I am not sure she was the best choice as she is Jewish and most Jews in this country are understandably pro-Israeli.
Complain about this comment
In the midst of all the shouting and turmoil a simple question occurs to me.
It is clearly in the interests of a child to have clean water to drink, food to eat, shelter to sleep in, and medical treatment if it is ill or injured.
In whose interests is it for a child *not* to have these things?
In other words, who would benefit from the children of Gaza being deprived of aid at this time? If all the benefit is on one side (the child) and none on any other, how is it right for the BBC to refuse to broadcast the appeal, since helping children surely won't compromise impartiality when there is nobody on the 'other' side?
Complain about this comment
I am fully, 100%, supportive of the BBC's decision in this instance and applaud the DG and his colleagues for making a brave call. The DG would have known the sort of reaction that this decision would cause, yet he has carefully weighed up the arguments and been prepared to take and then defend his decision. None of us should presume to suggest that the decision was an easy one or that it could have had only one obvious outcome.
I am persuaded that the conflict in Gaza and the resulting humanitarian need are sufficiently sensitive and different from a natural disaster to merit different treatment, indeed it is essential that the BBC journalists in Gaza and in Israel continue to be regarded as absolutely impartial observers and storytellers. To have broadcast an appeal for humanitarian aid in Gaza, using images shown in News coverage and while the conflict is suspended by a very fragile ceasefire, would risk independence and impartiality. The BBC does more good for the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East by ensuring that access continues to be secured to all areas and all sides and by reporting without fear or favour or the perception by one or other side of bias.
Complain about this comment
ChrisBoddington @139 I take your point, but at the time, in the 1930s and early 19402, there weren't too many on the side of the Jews, were there? That's probably one of the reasons why we hesitate to condemn Israel. The other being our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan currently. People in glass houses etc.
Complain about this comment
I read the email sent by Mr. Mark Thompson. I read it again and again to synchronize the BBC’s conclusion with the explanations given. I am software engineer and my job function is totally based on logical thinking. I thought from different perspectives but I failed to convince myself that these explanations are fair in any context. Infect it appears that these explanations are misleading to those who are not well aware of this issue.
First of all BBC should be fair to explain it to others that both sides are not suffering equally. One side is struggling to LIVE their life on their own land while other side is bombarding to forcefully kick out the innocent inhabitants to expand their occupation with the belief that this holy land belongs to them only and they have the right to snatch it from anyone.
Second thing is that please do the causalities comparison based on reality. More than a thousand are killed in Gaza that includes innocent children, women, and patients and these killings are done by violating the international laws. Many thousands injured and many more are homeless and on the other side how many? One can count on fingers even if you include the army men that are killed.
Who has made it difficult for this help or support to reach to people in Gaza? Who has blocked their ways? Who has destroyed their hospitals and air ports? Who had forced them not to use the sea? Yes the biggest terrorist and we all know who this terrorist is. By not helping these people in Gaza and by this decision of not broadcasting DEC appeal, BBC in a way has supported this terrorist. BBC has encouraged this terrorist. Mr. Mark BBC now has become more controversial by not broadcasting this appeal.
If BBC believes this is political issue than a human issue then who caused this issue? Who helped them to settle down in that area? These innocent people who are being killed were not responsible of the holocaust and it was not their decision to have a Jewish state in that area.
I strongly believe that BBC is a national channel and it should be fair to human beings and try to help to the people who are in trouble no matter how difficult or delicate the issue is. But I am sorry to say that in this particular issue BBC itself has damaged its repute and it would be better to review this decision as soon as possible.
At the end I would say that BBC should have the courage to speak and stand by the truth.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS