BBC Watch has written two in-depth articles about the Bowen report we featured here recently.
I was struck by the difference between the audio and written versions, but as BBC Watch shows, Jeremy Bowen’s visibly pro-Palestinian approach to all his reporting isn’t acceptable.
Hadar calls it ‘framing’. It’s the way he gives credence to those extremely imaginative allegations by Palestinian interviewees, enhanced by dramatic voice-overs or interpreted by himself. The BBC always promotes the theory that all Palestinian violence against Israel is an understandable manifestation of Palestinian frustration at not having a state. This is sheer agenda-driven ignorance.
Mark Regev speaking at Oxford
In response to a listener’s complaint about the same report, someone from the complaints department named Hugh Dignan has responded in the BBC’s customarily dismissive way.
The listener has reproduced the letter in full in a btl comment, including the name with which she had signed her complaint. Mrs Goldberg. I can’t help wondering if Mr Dignan is related to Richard Ingrams.
"I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so," he announced, "I tend not to read it."
We have also reported on criticisms of the Palestinian leadership’s response to the attacks, in particular the Israeli government’s claim that President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are guilty of inciting violence in the West Bank.
ReplyDeleteThat's not a criticism, that's an example of "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" Reporting a criticism is when they quote a third party, like they do for criticisms of Israel.
We believe we have reported clearly on the threat of violence faced by Israelis on an increasingly regular basis and of the difficulties faced by security forces in stopping these attacks from taking place.
This doesn't answer the question about reporting on the motivations behind that violence. Until the BBC starts reporting honestly about who wants a two-state solution and who does not, they cannot claim to be covering this fairly.