Inaccuracies - accidental or deliberate

 

Fact-checking the BBC might become a new cottage industry. The BBC News website has a daily Covid-19 page. On Christmas Eve they reported on the third national lockdown in Israel and wrote, "The clampdown comes days after Israel began vaccinating the general population against the novel coronavirus." As Hadar at Camera UK notes, Israel has not begun vaccinating the general population, only healthcare workers and over-60s so far. Maybe the BBC should re-focus on getting the basic facts right first?

Of course, when it comes to Israel, inaccuracy isn't always accidental. For example, The Jerusalem Post reports today that Robert Beckford, presenting an edition of the BBC World Service religious affairs programme Heart and Soul called 'Black Jesus' (oh, yes!), repeatedly and anachronistically described Jesus as "a first-century Palestinian Jew", despite Jesus being a Galilean Jew. Mr Beckford was, of course, signalling  his 'radical' position there. 

'Severely depleted'

It took many, many hours, but finally the BBC deleted this tweet overnight:

The phrase "severely depleted" provoked consternation and anger.

In fairness to the BBC, the words of the tweet were a shortened version of words spoken in the programme - "It was spoken by more than 10 million people. This vast number of speakers was severely depleted after the Holocaust", so it was just a very clumsy tweet, and the programme itself is very interesting indeed.

Ugly baby contest

Rob Watson, BBC World Service UK Political Correspondent, tweets:

Final vote stats for General Election 2019 make clear it was more Labour that lost it than Conservatives who won it. Mr Johnson got just over 300,000 more votes than Mrs May in 2017 but Labour got 2.6 million fewer than they did in 2017. Ugly baby contest.

Hmm. Boris achieved the second highest party vote at a general election in history - just short of 14m. Only John Major in 1992 got slightly more (just 126,442 more).

Churnalism

Yolande Knell, BBC News, Tel Aviv

My favourite BBC Watch piece this past week featured BBC Middle East correspondent Yolande Knell.

It looked at a BBC World Service report  (6th June) which she then recycled for an edition of Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent (13th June).

And, by the looks of it, that wasn't the only bit of recycling she engaged in!

BBC Watch notes its remarkable similarity to an earlier Associated Press report (4th June).

Here's that AP report in full:

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Hundreds of Israelis have participated in a mass wedding in Tel Aviv to demand the right to same-sex marriage ahead of the country’s Gay Pride week. 

Tuesday’s event involved an unofficial wedding ceremony for 23 gay couples, who walked down the aisle, took vows and danced at a banquet, cheered by friends, family and supporters. 

The annual pride parade, set for June 14, draws flocks of foreign visitors to Israel, which flaunts itself as one of the world’s most gay-friendly tourist destinations. 

Yet political rights for Israel’s gay community lag behind increasingly widespread cultural acceptance. 

Jewish ultra-Orthodox parties, which wield significant influence in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government and have a monopoly over matters of religion and state, have rejected legislation that condones homosexuality, which they see as defying Jewish law. 

And here's Yolande's BBC report, via the BBC Watch transcript:

Beaming, Nikita stomps on a glass wrapped in foil to cries of muzl tov – congratulations. But this isn’t a traditional Jewish wedding: it’s a symbolic one. Nikita and his long-time partner Roy are in a row of 23 gay couples hugging and kissing. All walked down the aisle and took vows at an open-air mass ceremony in Tel Aviv.

But while same-sex marriages are increasingly recognised around the world, here in Israel they’re still not legal. The state doesn’t permit any civil marriages – only religious ones – and there’s no religious gay marriage option. ‘We participated so everyone would see us and know we exist’ Nikita says. ‘We love each other, we want to be married and have a normal life’.

Tel Aviv’s gay-friendly reputation – which it recently flaunted while hosting the Eurovision Song Contest – draws many same-sex Israeli couples to live here as well as lots of foreign visitors. Every year its pride parade along the beach has a carnival atmosphere. Young and old, gay and straight join the huge party, many dressed in flamboyant outfits or skimpy swimming costumes.

But in Israel rights for the gay community fall behind rising cultural acceptance in society.

In the Right-wing coalition governments of the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Jewish ultra-orthodox parties have had an influential role. They reject any proposed legislation which they see as condoning homosexuality, saying it defies Jewish law.

Hmm.

So here's a summary of the overlap:

1. "walked down the aisle"
2. "gay-friendly"
3. "flaunted"
4. "foreign visitors"
5. "fall behind rising cultural acceptance in society"
6. "reject any proposed legislation which they see as condoning homosexuality, saying it defies Jewish law"

So is the BBC's Yolande Knell a journalist or a churnalist? 

'BBC Trending' goes on the attack against ex-Muslims

Even by the BBC's standards this is an absolute shocker...

BBC Trending on the BBC World Service today discussed the use of the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause. As the programme's website put it:

Thousands explained why they left Islam online, using the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause, but some thought the discussion was badly timed, and labelled it ‘hateful’. We meet the woman behind the campaign, and ask if she intended to create such a pointed conversation.

Before coming to the programme itself, it goes without saying that many people 'lose their faith' or convert to another religion, and that we tend to think it's OK for them to do so, given our commitment to freedom of belief. 

As is well known, however, a lot of Muslims disagree. A sizeable number don't think that their fellow Muslims should be allowed to stop believing in Islam, and a fair proportion of those also believe in death for 'apostates'. Some 13 Muslim-majority countries still proscribe the death penalty for 'apostasy', here in 2015.

That being the case, the large-scale global use in recent days of the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause for people to explain and share their own reasons for leaving Islam is undeniably significant and brave, and you might think that the BBC would be interested in giving it a respectful hearing.

The BBC did not give it a respectful hearing here. Instead, this programme put its users in the dock and condemned them.

Presenter Anne-Marie Tomchak outlined the nature of the hashtag before saying that it had been strongly countered by people claiming it was "hateful". 

Her guest in the studio was Mobeen Azhar, a journalist and film maker for the BBC who you may have seen on Newsnight following the Paris attacks, and who was one of Ed Stourton's guests on Paris: Could It Happen Here? last week. 

Mobeen Azhar

He said that, for a time, #ExMuslimBecause was the top-rated tweet in the UK last week and that it aroused a strong response, including strong criticism that it was "Islamophobic...opportunistic...and shouldn't be happening right now".

Anne-Marie interrupted to say, "People were really upset about it as well because it's such a sensitive issue".  

"And I think a lot of this has to do with timing," replied Mobeen, before expanding on that:

You know, we're in a situation where Muslims, I think, feel slightly attacked and they feel that their lives and their beliefs are being constantly discussed. You know, they're on the front page of lots of newspapers constantly. And so for that reason I think a lot of people thought this was bad timing.

Anne-Marie Tomchak then introduced an individual from an organisation associated with the hashtag, the very brave Council of Ex-Muslims. Her introduction to the group sounded (to my ears) somewhat disdainful: 

It was actually started by this group, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

She then spoke to its spokeswoman, Maryam Namazie - though not before Mobeen had mocked her for winning the 'Secularist of the Year' award. "It's not the sexiest title!", he said, laughing, before adding that her opponents would say she's "quite opportunistic".

Here is a transcript of Anne-Marie Tomchak's interview with Maryam Namazie. 

Please keep an eye on both the ratcheting-up of the BBC presenter's questions - and the nature of those questions - and Maryam's answers, which repay close attention:

MN: One of our activists said that, "Being ex-Muslim is not being anti-Muslim. It's just criticising an idea that I don't agree with". And that's actually how it started. And we never expected it to trend in this way. We actually initially said that we were collecting statements from people for December 10th, which is International Human Rights Day, to show that leaving Islam, saying one is an ex-Muslim, is a basic right. But it just took off. And it shows just how much people needed to express themselves via this hashtag. 

A-MT: What kind of stories have you noticed people sharing around this hashtag online? 

Maryam Namazie

MN: Yeah. I think there are some really funny ones, of course, like, you know, "I'm #ExMuslimBecause I wanted to eat pork".,And then there are, of course, those that are saying, you know, "My father is a sheikh and he's forced me to marry", "My own mother told me I ought to die because I've left Islam". So there's a wide range of stories. A lot of the hashtags just said that they felt that they're not alone, because I think a lot of people do feel alone and isolated - which shows how much people need to know that they're not alone and that there are many of us out there. 

A-MT: Is there a risk that there are others out there who would look at a hashtag like this and might not necessarily be prepared for the kind of backlash that might lie in store for them? 

MN: Yeah. I don't think that anyone is encouraging anyone to take a risk because if anything we know the risks more than anyone else. For example, even though I don't have threats for my family I do have it from Islamists all the time. But again, you know, blaming us for speaking up for the death threats and the intimidation that Islamists impose is sort of blaming the victim in a way. You know, how else are we going to challenge this movement if we're not able to say that we think differently and we have a right to think differently.  

A-MT: One of the tweets that I noticed was saying that this hashtag was more or less giving people an opportunity to bash Muslims. What do you have to say in response to a statement like that? 

MN: Yeah, well I mean, you know, those who bash Muslims bash me as well because we all look the same to them. I've got a Muslim name. The minute I defend refugee rights they tell me to go back home. But we've been very clear from the start that we're ex-Muslims not because we want to be anti-Muslim but because we want to defend the rights of ex-Muslims. And there has to be a space for that.

A-MT: 'Can you speak?' is one thing'; 'when to speak' is another. And when you look at the recent news events - say, for example, what happened in Paris, the Paris attacks. Let's look at the refugee crisis around Europe. Did it occur to you that this was possibly not the right time to put out a hashtag like this? 

MN: Yeah, but Paris is maybe your marker as someone in the West, but our marker has been bombings in Iraq, in Afghanistan, sharia law in Saudi Arabia, for decades. That is our marker. To see it only within the context of Paris doesn't see the humanity of all those people who are dying, day in and day out.

Anne-Marie Tomchak's questions there - and the tone she delivered them in - weren't sympathetic (unlike her questions to Mobeen Azhar). Maryam Namazie was being firmly challenged here. 

Maryam, in response, gave some very interesting answers, occasionally couched in language that you might expect would strongly appeal to the left-liberal instincts of a BBC reporter/presenter - if you didn't know how strangely such people react to anything that concerns Muslim sensibilities.

And here's the really shocking thing about this edition of BBC Trending. As soon as that interview with Maryam Namazie had finished, the BBC's Anne-Marie Tomchak said the following:

So quite a strident tone coming from Maryam Namazie.

That was truly a "WTF?" moment for me. And Mobeen Azhar gave it a clear 'hmm' of agreement.

There was nothing strident about Maryam Namazie's tone there. Or her comments. 

Anne-Marie Tomchak

And it got worse.

Anne-Marie then went on to explain what she meant:

So quite a strident tone coming from Maryam Namazie. And the way she uses the term "Islamists".

And, yes, Anne-Marie Tomchak paused before the word 'Islamists' in order to put it in inverted commas. 

Bear in mind that Maryam Namazie has received death threats from such people.

Mobeen Azhar agreed:

I mean, it's quite uncompromising. I think that one of the problems that might come from that 'Islamist' broadly refers to this idea of Islam the faith being used as a political ideology. Now the fact is, within that there are many shades of grey. And I think lumping these people together is not going to be the most helpful thing, and could be misconstrued, and could be quite problematic. 

Another "WTF?" moment. And bear in mind again that Maryam Namazie has received death threats from such people, and yet Mobeen Azhar is fretting about her comments being "problematic" towards Islamists.

And what did Anne-Marie Tomchak of the BBC say in response to Mobeen Azhar of the BBC's frankly jaw-dropping comments?

Did she respond with some kind of "WTF?" too? Of course she didn't:

But let's just talk about her tone again because you described it as 'uncompromising'. How do you think what she's saying is going to be interpreted by Muslims around the world?

Mobeen Azhar then replied: 

Well, you know, this really takes us back to this thing about Muslims feeling attacked because I think pretty much for 15 years now - you can say since 9/11 - a lot of the Muslim community around the world has felt that they are on the defensive. They feel that there's fingers being pointed at them. I think in terms of Maryam's tone, it might make Muslims feel attacked again. 

Unbelievable, isn't it?

And on it went. Here's what the BBC presenter said next:

Well, they have demonstrated that on social media. There has been quite a defensive tone, even a counter-hashtag #MuslimBecause, and then outlining the reasons why they are Muslim and defending the faith. Some people found the #ExMuslimBecause hashtag quite offensive. One tweet I saw said, "I find this campaign hateful. It paints all Muslims as bad. Almost 2 billion humans can't all be the same." And then they've used the hashtag, #NotoBigotry. Other practising Muslims tried to engage with the hashtag, which is interesting. And one of those is Rashid Dar. He works with a think tank over in Washington DC and he posted a tweet where he offered to meet ex-Muslims and have a coffee and have a chat. 

We duly heard from Rashid Dar, calling for both sides to "tone down the vitriol" and expressing his desire to talk about what his Muslim faith means to him in a positive way. 

No challenge came from Anne-Marie Tomchak (at least as BBC World Service listeners heard it). It was just a short statement. Instead, she asked Mobeen Azhar what he made of what Rashid said and they both laughed. Mobeen joked that "social media is not like a coffee shop".

And that was that.

I try to be as dispassionate as I can be on this blog, but this was an absolute disgrace.

Anne-Marie Tomchak and Mobeen Azhar's behaviour here was beyond belief - and very far from impartial. 

Worse, it was far from impartial in the most appalling way. Instead of sticking up for brave people like Maryam Namazie they put her in the dock and then pronounce a sentence of 'guilty' on her - and all in the interests of her critics, many of whom are Islamists. 

Thanks to Anne-Marie Tomchak and Mobeen Azhar, the last straw has broken the camel's back here. I've had enough of them.


Update: I see others have picked up on this too and Maryam has posted her own response.

I came across this edition of BBC Trending via a tweet from Nick Cohen and a Facebook posting from Atheist in a Headscarf that said "the BBC should really be ashamed of for further silencing us by promoting the idea that somehow, SIMPLY STATING we are Ex Muslim and why is tantamount to Islamophobia".

Maryam's blogpost states that Anne-Marie Tomchak interviewed her for 30 minutes. Only 3 minutes of that interview made it onto today's programme.


Further update: Alan at Biased BBC recalls that this isn't the first time that Mrs Namazie has been given the 'BBC treatment'. As she wrote on her blog five years ago:

BBC Sunday Morning Live invited me to join its debate on whether ‘it is right to condemn Iran for stoning’ on 5 September 2010 via webcam. During the debate, the programme allowed only two interventions via webcam (that of Suhaib Hassan of the Islamic Sharia Council and Mohammad Morandi of Tehran University – both of whom were in support of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s stoning and/or execution). I (who had presumably been invited to defend Ms Ashtiani and oppose stoning in the debate) was never given the opportunity to speak. 

Another update: Intriguingly, Rashid Dar is also concerned that the BBC omitted most of his interview with Anne-Marie Tomchak. And the parts he says were omitted appear particularly telling, and damning. He says the BBC chose not to air his criticisms of the Muslim community:

The BBC's war against Israel

Sleeping fitfully last night while  waiting for the moon to go red I heard Kevin Connolly on the BBC World Service delivering the audio version of  this piece, sparked off, he says,  by a new book named “An Improbable Friendship” by Anthony David.

The introduction he was intoning woke me up sharp. I can’t remember Connolly’s exact words, but this paragraph from the article sums it up:

“You may be familiar with the history of the 1967 Middle East War - a short, sharp conflict in which, Israel captured land from Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a series of lightning operations.” 

I’m not sure that he actually said “You may be familiar with the history of the 1967 Middle East War”, but no matter, Connolly wasn’t going to be of any help to those of you who are not familiar with it. This may or may not have been entirely a bad thing, for whatever Kevin Connolly’s version of the history of the six day war seems likely to be - and I dread to think what it is -  I’d take a bet that we’re far better off without it.

So, it was “a short, sharp conflict in which, Israel captured land from Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a series of lightning operations.”

No reason, no rhyme, just a topsy-like event; there it was - it ‘grew’.

Let’s be clear, as pre-Corbyn politicians used to say. The six day war was a war of intended annihilation.  It was initiated by the Arabs with the intention of annihilating Israel. How cunning, how devious of Connolly to miss out the fact that Israel was fighting a defensive war.

I wasn’t too keen on this misleading,  emotive insinuation either:

“So Israel remains in control of the Golan Heights with its apple orchards and rolling pastures.”

Before the six-day war, Syria’s tanks and artillery were placed high on the Golan, 'apple orchards, rolling pastures' and all. The guns were pointing at, and visible from, kibbutzim below, posing a constant and ever present threat to the civilians living and working peacefully beside the Sea of Galilee. Make no mistake. In the spring of 67 there was a sudden, fierce escalation and a barrage of shellfire landed on Kibbutz Ein Gev.   Israel now controls the Golan for very good reasons. To protect Israelis and allow them to stay alive.

“And the West Bank of the River Jordan, with its huge Palestinian population and its growing number of Jewish settlers, is still under Israeli military occupation.”

Kevin Connolly might not know this. He might not know that the six day war was an intended war of annihilation against Israel, started by the Arabs. He might not know that most of the territory that was captured by Israel was returned (to Egypt) supposedly in return for peace.

If he doesn’t know why the occupation came about, he should damn well go and find out. He seems to think it’s because of unreasonable and unjustified warmongering by Israel, when the exact opposite is the case. 

Of course he does know all this really. He chooses to leave it out. How should I describe the BBC’s war against Israel and what is their intention?

I am mildly curious about one thing. Not for personal reasons, just to clarify something that bothers some of us. Does Kevin Connolly think Israel "has the right to exist?" Does he think it has any legitimacy whatsoever? 

Not that I care what Kevin Connolly thinks, but I am quite interested in whether he and his colleagues who report from the region actually have the authority - the BBC's blessing -  to represent the BBC by reporting everything that happens, and anything that takes their fancy -  solely from the Palestinian viewpoint. 

I suspect that despite the ‘impartiality obligations‘ that the BBC is supposed to espouse, there is an inherent Arabist default position which nothing will budge. No matter how cognitively dissonant  this becomes, what with the ever increasing turmoil in the Arab Muslim world. Muslims fighting, killing each other; followers of Islam changing the face of Europe and making their presence felt in Western democratic countries that they live in, but dislike. How long can this go on and how far can it go?  I say that rhetorically.  Propagandising and emoting against Israel is all the BBC wants to do.

Anyway, this “improbable friendship” theme is interesting. It’s between 98 (and a half) year old Ruth, the divorced widow of  Moshe Dayan and a deceptively youthful looking Raymonda Tawil, the mother-in-law of Yasser Arafat and mother of the fragrant Suha. 

Oddly, that portrait has found its way into the room and it looks as if it’s on the exact same easel as Suha's easel. Not so much a case of the eyes following you round the room, in this case the whole bloody picture follows you halfway round the world.   Is it a BBC prop? How bloody ridiculous. 

Like daughter

Like mother

Now, it’s all well and good that Kevin Connolly has this idea to make a film for the BBC about a heartwarming story of friends across the divide, based on a new book.  But it’s more than a coincidence that as far as I can tell this tale is seen (sigh) from the anti-Israel perspective. If I’m told that the book is less partisan that Kevin’s film, I’ll be delighted to hear it, but I’m doubtful.

Incidentally, another story about friendship and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians didn’t catch the BBC’s imagination at all. Kevin Connolly didn’t choose to make a film about it, which seems a shame, as it involves another of the country’s favourite topics, football. I bet a film based on that would generate as much interest  - and do more good for the ‘peace process’ than, If I may say so,  this indulgent bit of flim-flam.

Ruth Dayan is indeed a sweet old lady, and no doubt she had a tough time being married to a man she said she should have divorced “ten years ago’” (I assume she meant ten years before she did divorce him) “for political reasons”. Kevin Connolly was keen to tease that out.

Moshe Dayan may have been a difficult man. He may have been a terrible husband. But let’s not forget that if it weren’t for Moshe Dayan and his brave brothers-in-arms, Israel would have been overrun by the enemies that surrounded it then (and still do) and Mrs Ruth Dayan may not have lived till 98 and a half to enjoy a friendship with Raymonda, the mother-in-law of that corrupt old rogue Yasser Arafat. 

I had a little look, just to be sure. Just to make sure that Anthony David is as impartial as Kevin Connolly and the BBC would have us believe. 

I went to Google, as you do, and saw that prof. Anthony David collaborated with Palestinian activist Sari Nusseibeh to produce an earlier, autobiographical  book “Once Upon A Country”

A review by Jeffry Goldberg is generous, but clearly states where the author is coming from.

“Once upon a country “ by Sari Nusseibeh with Anthony David.
“This is a rare book, one written by a partisan in the struggle over Palestine who nevertheless recognizes — and bravely records — the moral and political failures of his own people. This is not to say that Nusseibeh is a Zionist. For one thing, Zionists aren’t in the habit of quoting — approvingly — Noam Chomsky, and Nusseibeh catalogs, sometimes at unwarranted length and in exaggerated form, the sins of Israel, particularly the sins of occupation and settlement. And the narrative he presents in this book is undeniably the one devised by Arab, and pro-Arab, historians. There is no doubt that the 1948 war, which erupted upon the establishment of the state of Israel, did not end the way his family hoped it would, and Nusseibeh unpersuasively argues that the Jews were the Goliath in the fight, rather than the David. “

The new book "An Improbable Friendship" hasn’t been reviewed yet, and who knows, it might be full of surprises. But Kevin Connolly’s film tells a decidedly partisan tale, demonising Moshe Dayan, over sentimentalising or infantilising  his ex-wife Ruth just because she’s an old, old lady, omitting the context and background of the six-day war, giving undue respect to the Arafat family.

On the BBC World Service the continuity announcer thought it was sweet that she insisted on including the 'and a half' in that 98 years old, just like children do. Somehow, that says a lot.

"Nobody in Iran has threatened you for a very long time"

Honest Reporting reports another 'BBC shocker' today.

Danny Danon, Israel’s Minister of Science, appeared on the BBC World Service's Newshour earlier. In a remarkably loud voice, the BBC presenter challenged him in the following fashion:

But you’re not under threat by Iran. Nobody in Iran has threatened you for a very long time. You’re harking back to a time when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Israel directly.

As Honest Reporting points out - with some graphic examples - this statement is simply untrue. 

Within the past year, Ayatollah Khamenei has unambiguously repeated his calls for the destruction of Israel, and with the past few days, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani has also expressed his hope that Israel will be wiped off the map.

Was this extreme ignorance or bias from the BBC presenter? 

P.S. The loud-voiced BBC presenter, if you were wondering, was Razia Iqbal. No BBC novice she.

I.S. in Gaza and the inevitable problems of self policing

A recent series of reports by Yolande Knell concerning the presence of Islamic State in Gaza, (a filmed report, a web article and an extended audio report on BBC World Service Newshour) made me curious. 

BBC Watch deconstructed one of them a few days ago. “BBC News gets round to mentioning some of the missile fire from the Gaza Strip”  Yolande’s report seems to pose various questions:

• Is Hamas too weak to restrain I.S. from a) attacking Israel and b) attacking Hamas?
• Is I.S. a new phenomenon in Gaza?
• Can Israel really hold Hamas responsible for all acts of aggression that emanate from Gaza, no matter who initiated them?
• Could I.S. ‘shatter’ a ‘fragile’ ceasefire between Hamas and Israel?

BBC Watch says:

• The ceasefire is not actually in place. It has already been ‘shattered’ it’s just that the BBC hasn’t reported the recent rocket-fire from Hamas.
• Yolande Knell has upped her evaluation of Hamas ‘on the ideological scale’ - from ‘conservative’ to ‘ultra conservative.’ (Knell also compares Hamas with what she calls the ‘more moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood) 
• Salafists have had a presence in Gaza for several years. 
• Hamas agreed to a ceasefire deal that stipulated:  “All Palestinian factions in Gaza will stop all attacks against Israel” and Knell herself has clearly stated that Hamas is in control in Gaza.“So far, Hamas, which has its ideological roots in the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, has been largely able to contain them.”

In the filmed report and the audio version on BBC World service Newshour, we hear   Yolande’s emotive touches more clearly. 

I’m often struck by a particular pronunciation that seems rife in BBC presenters of a certain age, which I have a theory about. I think it stems from watching too much ‘Neighbours‘ on the TV when they were at an impressionable age. It’s the Australian way of leaving off the final ‘r‘ in words like ‘here’, which comes out “hee” . If you listen carefully you’ll see Yolande isn’t alone. Jon Donnison does it too, and he did so before he was sent down under.  Yolande has also gone native when she uses words like Ram-ul-lah and ‘Moham-mud’. Quaint, really.   I digress.

After Yolande’s report in the Newshour programme, the presenter James Menendez adopted  a somewhat adversarial tone for his next interview with the IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner. 

Menendez repeated the questions posed by Knell.  

Is I.S. gaining a foothold in the Palestinian territory of Gaza? Are rockets fired at Israel jeopardizing peace? How worried is Israel?

Menendez suggested that a weaker Hamas lets a hardline group flourish. Is it fair to expect Hamas to control I.S.?  Lt. Col. Lerner said  Hamas can prevent attacks and we expect them to do so now.

The next speaker was Nathan Thrall. 

Menendez’s tone lightened, so I assumed that Thrall is a bit of a lefty whose sympathies tend to lean towards the Palestinian agenda.  A few hasty Google searches seem to confirm that, but I’m open to offers. Thrall says Israel has a fair assessment of I.S.’s threat in Gaza, and Hamas has been fighting them for a number of years. He says Israel wants to keep Hamas weak, so it can’t police the radicals so Israel can retaliate against both.

A weaker Hamas lets a hardline group flourish, says Menendez again.

This brings me to something else, which is the real reason I started this post.

My comments on #IslamicState in #Hamas' #Gaza @bbcnewshour @YolandeKnell & @NathanThrall http://t.co/RzhRXXTrU1

— Peter Lerner (@LTCPeterLerner) June 12, 2015

Following various links from Twitter I saw that Lt.Col. Peter Lerner has posted on Facebook an account of the IDF’s findings from the inquiry into the tragic deaths of the four young boys who were hit by an Israeli strike on Gaza beach.

Now, there’s always going to be a big problem with self policing, whoever does it.  Especially the police, and of course the BBC. But with Israel, we know that no outside body is ready willing or able to investigate, evaluate or otherwise sound off about contentious Israel-related issues in a truly impartial manner.

What we do know is that Israel is at least as scrupulous as possible in the manner in which it goes about its investigations, and doesn’t rely on hearsay or evidence compromised by threats of intimidation.  Nevertheless in the current climate, when Israel carries out an enquiry into an incident like this everyone knows it will be met with huge outcries of cynicism and opprobrium. And so it was. 

Several things stand out from Peter Lerner’s article. 

“I believe it is one of the most covered incidents that was reported on by the media, it was the incident of an air force strike on Gaza beach that resulted in the tragic death of four boys, Ahed Atef Bakr, Zakariya Ahed Bakr, Mohammad Ramiz Bakr, and Ismail Mahmoud Bakr.”

 “... the incident took place in an area that had long been known as a compound belonging to Hamas's Naval Police and Naval Force (including naval commandos), and which was utilized exclusively by militants. The compound in question spans the length of the breakwater of the Gaza City seashore, closed off by a fence and clearly separated from the beach serving the civilian population. It further found in the course of the investigation (including from the affidavits provided by Palestinian witnesses), that the compound was known to the residents of the Gaza Strip as a compound which was used exclusively by Hamas's Naval Police.”

“On 16 July, aerial surveillance identified a number of figures entering the compound at a running pace. These figures entered a shed adjoining the container which had been attacked the day prior. Against the backdrop of the aforementioned intelligence assessment, these were believed to be militants from Hamas's Naval Forces, who had arrived at the compound in order to prepare to execute the aforementioned military activity against the IDF. It should be stressed that the figures were not identified at any point during the incident, as children.”

Of course none of that could ever satisfy Israel’s detractors. “Israel exonerates itself” goes the headline. Well, what a surprise.

“Although the attack was witnessed by a Guardian reporter, no attempt was made by the Israeli military investigators to seek a statement.” says the Guardian, disputing Israel’s findings. (But the same article states that they attended in the immediate aftermath - so did they actually witness the attack?)

“The Israeli claims appear at odds in several details with what journalists were able to see at the time.The breakwater is both easily accessible from a side lane and also is located on one of the busiest parts of the public beach in Gaza port and accessible not only to the fishermen who use it, but local Palestinians who come to sunbathe and swim within feet of it.The container described in the Israeli finding also appeared to contain no military equipment.”
“What is not clear from the Israeli report is why Israeli targeters had failed to identify that children had been playing on the beach prior to the attack.”

See the Facebook piece in full over the page: 

Recommendations

Sometimes here on “Is the BBC Biased?” Craig and I recommend that readers might like to progress onwards and upwards to BBC Watch for a more in-depth version of a topic we’ve blogged. Let’s call ours ‘the beginner’s version’ whereas Hadar’s is ‘advanced’. 

Sometimes we have to wait a day or two, but today BBC Watch has posted part one of a detailed exposition of Avi Shlaim’s contribution to this programme, and I have to say it was worth waiting for.

I devoted but a single paragraph to prof. Shlaim, but now,  please go to BBC Watch and read the full Monty.

*******

There was a special live version of “the Listening Project” this morning. Fi Glover trailed it on the Today programme. They did mention the problem of eliminating people who merely wanted to  rant about some pet grievance, and I couldn’t help recalling this. 

*******

This morning Today featured an item called something like  “What is it like living under Islamic State?”  (in preparation for the future?) 

 The website has selected a particularly  profound quote from the piece. 

'Media is the most important weapon' (At least the BBC has noted this.)

Kick it out

I switched on the radio in the night, as you sometimes do when you can’t sleep. It was a documentary called “The Documentary” and the episode was a story about the Tibetan Women’s Football team, the “Snow Lionesses”.

It seems a motley crew of aspirational  young Tibetan women football players had travelled from afar to a training camp, where they were to be coached with the aim of playing a match in Delhi in the hope of Tibetan women’s footie being recognised by FIFA.

You know that amusing (to us) habit people have in certain countries, mainly Africa, of naming children after strange things or famous people? I heard of a family from Malawi who called their offspring “First Gear,” “Second Gear”, “Third Gear”, and the youngest “Reverse.”  Well, the Tibetan women’s team had mostly Tibetan sounding names, bar one named “Michaeljackson”.

The documentary featured tales of hardship and strife in the name of recognition by FIFA. I wasn’t sure what the message was, especially in the light of the recent troubles surrounding FIFA. 

The motive is political - to show Tibet is not part of China, but in the middle of the programme, one team member said:

“We are playing football, we are not playing politics...(FIFA )would recognise our Tibetan women’s team” [..] “they recognised some other non-sovereign counties, like Palestine.”

Then the presenter, whose name I didn’t catch, said:

“Weeks before the camp began, Palestine played a friendly international with the People’s Republic of China.” 

Oh noes, I thought. What has Palestine got to do with this? Is there a Palestinian women’s team? I think not.

A hoarse voice began:

“We think that such a gesture has its deep dimension. It’s a wake-up message to the Palestinian people that we are still committed to just cause”.

Then the BBC presenter said:

 “Head of the Palestinian football association general Jibril Rajoub speaking to the BBC world service before the match.”

What? What did that rogue Rajoub who had just failed to get Israel expelled from FIFA have to do with the Tibetan women’s football team?? 

This article “Could Israel get Booted Out of Soccer?” explains why the BBC shouldn’t be airing the wisdoms of Jibril Rajoub without clarifying that his aggressive politicising of the game of football is a million miles away from the apolitical image that FIFA is keen to project.

“One of FIFA’s only saving graces over the past few years has been that it has done a decent job at staying neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while successfully working to develop soccer in both countries”

“Following 15 years in prison for throwing a grenade at Israeli soldiers, Rajoub was freed in 1985 along with 1,149 other prisoners in exchange for three Israelis taken hostage by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Rajoub threw away his newfound freedom by resuming (and being repeatedly arrested for) militant activities in the ensuing two years. He eventually became an aide to Yasser Arafat, serving as the head of the Palestinian Authority’s Preventive Security Force after Arafat’s post-Oslo return to the West Bank. As security chief, Rajoub was frequently accused of facilitating the torture of prisoners and political opponents. In addition to the PFA, he also heads the Palestinian Olympic Committee, which he has used as a perch to demand Israel’s expulsion from the global sports movement. Unlike most sports administrators, who believe in (or at least talk publicly about) the capacity for sports to unite people of different backgrounds, Rajoub has promoted no such pretense—he has said that Palestinian sports are “one of the methods of resistance” against Israel, and has emphasized that Palestinian youth—over whom he holds a good deal of influence as the PA’s sports czar—have a key role in creating a “permanent state of confrontation.”

You can’t switch on anything these days without hearing some Palestinian grievance or other.

Jibril’s husky tones continued:

“Recognising the vey existence of the Palestinians sport entity means recognising a Palestinian political entity for us, a peaceful means for use as a tool to expose our cause, even  our suffering, for all those who are using sport, the values of sport in order to expose their national aspiration.”

...........which is the best transcription I could muster. 

So much for pleasant listening. Not conducive to being lulled back to sleep.

One good thing. Michaeljackson scored a goal. Good for her!

Update. More on this today (3rd June 2015) at Elder of Ziyon.

Look out, the World Service is coming!

"Thanks for all your comments this week", said Steve Hewlett at the end of this week's Newswatch. 

That was a bit ironic given that there's only been one viewer's comment in the entire programme - far fewer than usual. 

The critical comments from viewers are one of the features which makes Newswatch work watching - alongside Samira Ahmed's interviews. Both occasionally have a bit of bite to them. It would be a shame if the programme was neutered and turned into another Feedback.

Today's edition certainly had more of a Feedback feel to it than usual. Though it featured an interesting interview with John Simpson, the latter half of it was given over to an interview with World Service presenter Ros Atkins and was, at heart, an extended plug for his Outside Source - which will be coming to the News Channel four times a week from next week as part of the Channel's revamp.

That revamp appears to amount to lots more sharing of programmes with the World Service...

...so those who say that the BBC World Service is even more riddled with bias than the UK wing of the BBC might soon get the chance to tell the rest of us, "See. Told you so!"

More of the same

I just watched last night's Newsnight. 

There were three major interviews, all fascinating. 

The first two - with (British) former U.S. military advisor Emma Sky on Obama's failure over Iraq and former David Cameron advisor Steve Hilton on his 'human revolution' - placed the views of the interviewee first, with the BBC interviewer mostly smiling on, all agog. 

Only the third interview, with 91-year-old former Israel prime minister and president Shimon Peres, looking at the recent history of Israel, saw the interviewer, Evan Davis (without being wildly hostile), move much more to centre stage, ask nothing but critical questions (about Israel), interrupt his guest a fair bit, and, generally, sit back and look quizzical and unsmiling throughout.  

I thought there was a marked difference between those interviews.

And as for the BBC World Service's Business Matters and the opening episode of its "week of coverage from Israel and the Palestinian territories", entitled Live from Gaza: Business Behind the Blockade,...

...well, just allow me to quote you a bit from presenter Roger Hearing's introduction, which seems to me to achieve the status of being truly 'beyond parody':

In this programme we're going to try and park the politics and look at how an economy under these circumstances functions at all.

One of the reasons Gaza's often described as 'the largest open air prison in the world'...

Bias at the BBC World Service

As a teenager (in the '80s) I used to listen to the BBC World Service quite regularly. 

(Come to think of it, I also used to listen to Radio Tirana from communist Albania for a laugh. Typical teenager, eh?) 

Oddly, I don't do now, and haven't done for years - even though, for most of that time, I helped pay for it.

I've often read on sites where people comment about BBC bias (from Biased BBC to the Telegraph and beyond) that the BBC World Service is actually the place, these days, to hear the BBC in full biased flow (largely our of earshot of British license fee payers).

That new blog favourite Steph Hegarty is a prominent BBC WS reporter and, as we recently discovered, believes that the BBC World Service is a missionary organisation designed to represent the interests of what she sees as "the displaced, the marginalised and the poor", perhaps such BBC critics may have a point.

Frankly, though, I've not monitored it so I can't say.

Still, via a Twitter link, I did listen to a BBC World Service programme today. Hot off the presses, it was their latest History Hour, leading with...as my deepest fears about the BBC WS expected...a classic BBC tale of Palestinian woe told from the side of the Palestinians (and a U.S. journalist) but, very noticeably, not including any input whatsoever from the Israeli side. 

The episode is headlined: Siege of The Church of the Nativity. 

The image on the programme's website is, I think you will agree, not helpful to Israel...

...and very obviously intended - even if you don't know (or can't remember) anything about the 2002 incident - to help place Israel in the role of the 'bad guy'.

Presenter Max Pearson teed the feature up with the following loaded words:

Ever since the creation of Israel after the Second World War, carved out of land previously inhabited by the Palestinians, there's been tension between Jews and Arabs. This tension is frequently expressed in violence.

The report (by a reporter whose name I just can't decipher) told the story of how Israeli troops entered Bethlehem, going into Manger Square. Their firing sent locals fleeing into the Church of the Nativity for safety. Some 'militants' (unspecified) also fled into the church and a long siege followed, eventually ending with exile of some of those 'militants' after a deal with Israel. Palestinians died, and the American journalist gave her memory cards to a Palestinian priest, suspecting that the nasty Israelis would interrogate her after she got out (having sneaked in with some 'peace activists'). 

I await BBC Watch's take on this with great interest, as I've no great expertise on this story - to put it mildly. But I've been googling around again and I'm reading Israeli accounts that paint a very different picture to this BBC account - a picture of Palestinian terrorists taking hostages as human shields (in a building many Christians revere as the birthplace of Jesus Christ) and Israel managing to keep casualties down to the barest minimum...

...which is a perspective I, as as listener, most definitely did not get to hear from the BBC World Service here. It was all very one-sided. 

Are such things typical of the BBC World Service?