Not upheld

For those wanting a break from British general election-related matters...

The latest batch of rulings from the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee  (focusing, as ever, on escalated complaints and appeals to the BBC Trust) are out, and some of them make for interesting (if frustrating) reading. 

The committee's Brucie-like catchphrase is 'Not upheld'...

...(as in 'Nice to see you, to see you...Not upheld!' or 'Oh Anthea, that's lovely. Come on, give us a 'not upheld'!' or 'You get nothing a 'not upheld' for a pair!' or 'What do points make? A complaint the BBC can say is 'not upheld'!')...

The complaints are many and various, ranging from Top Gear in Patagonia to Panorama on Nigel Farage, Strictly Come Dancing, BBC Scotland's reporting of the SNP and Countryfile on the badger cull. All were 'not upheld'.

By far the most common escalated complaints and appeals, however, concern the BBC's reporting of Israel. 

(Search for the word 'Israel' in the BBC report and it comes up 305 times).  

A couple of the escalated complaints come from people accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias (pp.10 and 101), seven from people accusing the BBC of anti-Israel bias (pp.33, 38, 61, 83, 91, 107 and 122). All were rejected by the BBC, except for part of one of the appeals by the anti-Israeli pair - and that was only 'upheld' in part because the BBC was judged to be dragging its heels over the complaints process.

The one on p.33 relates to a report on BBC Breakfast from Bethany Bell during last year's Israel-Hamas war. The complainant argued that the report about a new ceasefire gave the audience the false impression that it was Israel, rather than Hamas, who had broken the previous ceasefires.

The one on p.38 concerns a Today interview with Jeremy Bowen, just after the killings of the four teenagers preceding last year's war. The complainant said Jeremy Bowen had made four “totally misleading” statements.

The one on p.61 concerns a Today discussion during the Israel-Hamas conflict of 2014 between two British Jews. The complainant claimed that the trails for the item misled people into assuming that they were going to hear a representative sample of the views of British Jews. The complainant also claimed that one of the participants made unsubstantiated accusations designed to incite racial hatred against Jews who support Israel.

The one on p.83 relates to a report on the News at Ten (BBC One) which used third party footage purporting to show a Palestinian civilian being shot by an Israeli sniper as he searched bombed out streets for his family. The complainant alleged that the footage was not genuine. This complaint also challenged the reporter’s assertion that there was no evidence that Hamas were using their own civilians as human shields, saying there was abundant evidence of that.

The one on p.99 concerns a BBC News Channel broadcast with the complainant felt inaccurately stated that Israel imposed tight controls on exports from Gaza and restricted similarly what goes into the territory.

The one on p.107 concerns a BBC News Channel broadcast that the complainant felt was misleading because it emphasised the closure of border crossings between Gaza and Israel rather than explaining beforehand that the closure was a response to a rocket attack from Gaza.

The one on p.122 relates to the BBC's failure to label Hamas as "terrorists", merely as "militants".

All of them got nowhere with the BBC. All were 'not upheld'.

If your blood-pressure and patience can stand it, you might want to give some of them a read - and maybe even a fisking.

Getting it wrong

“We get complaints from both sides. Ergo we must be getting it about right.” says the BBC.

Well. It looks as though they certainly do get complaints from both sides, but that’s not quite the same as getting it about right.

This pdf sets out decisions made by the BBC Editorial Standards Committee. A complaint from Hilary Aked about Jonathan Sacerdoti being “misleadingly introduced” as  “director of the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy,” “in a way that “gave no clue as to his orientation”  was partially upheld because it “may indeed have contributed to an impression of impartiality”  The appeal upheld one out of two points raised.

According to the website 'Electronic Intifada' Hilary Aked is a “London-based freelance writer and researcher, an NCTJ-qualified journalist and a PhD student at the University of Bath researching the pro-Israel lobby in the UK. She has worked in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and also writes for Spinwatch, Ceasefire and Huffington Post.” Does that give a clue as to her orientation? or may it contribute to an impression of impartiality?  Fee fi fo fum; I sense irony. 

Nestling almost side by side with this spurious objection to Jonathan Sacerdoti’s intro (in the light of the countless times fanatical anti-Israel campaigners such as Abdel Bari Atwan are introduced as “Middle East experts”) is a complaint from the other side of the divide. It concerns a report we’ve mentioned here before,   when Claudia Hammond introduced a report on BBC World service about Gaza on a programme Health Check that included several inaccuracies and misleading statements.

The initial adjudication resulted in a mixed bag of “partially uphelds”  “not uphelds” “uphelds”  and a final “upheld with regard to impartiality as a whole”

On appeal - (page  15) it was found that the appropriate amendments to the article had not been made and that the website continues to give a misleading impression.

BBCWatch sets out the situation more fully here.

The anti-Israel lobby’s hair-trigger reaction when anything less than defamatory about Israel slips through the net is beginning to look desperate. I don’t know, but I think things are beginning to stack up against them. Like the behaviour of Hamas, for example. The Times has:(£)

Apollo

“The discovery of an ancient bronze statue of Apollo should be a cause for celebration among archaeologists and represent a windfall for its finder worth millions of pounds, but there is just one snag: the sculpture, one of a handful to survive from antiquity, cannot be sold, inspected or even exhibited, because it was found in the Gaza Strip
Experts who have seen the 6ft statue called it a “major discovery”and believe that it was forged at some point between the 5th century BC and the second century AD. Unusually the feet are intact and it has retained one of its eyes.It could fetch up to £17 million if sold at auction but the political situation is so fraught it may never be allowed to leave Gaza. It is also unlikely to go on display because Hamas, the political authority holding it regards the anatomically correct nude as both obscene and an idol.

[…] Among the crowd that quickly gathered were members of the al-Qassam Brigades, the militant wing of Hamas who took it away. They were obliged to give it up when the Hamas police force arrived, leading to an armed stand-off that only ended when police officers came to negotiate. The statue is being held in an office run by the Hamas interior ministry at a secret location in Gaza.

[…] Thomas Bauzou, a professor of ancient history at the University of Orleans, France believes that the statue is a major discovery but doubts that it was found in the sea. “The story has been fabricated to hide the real place where the statue was found so they can continue digging,” he said.

[…] He [Muhhamad Ismael Khillah] also suggested that it could be displayed in Gaza. “We will have to cover it in certain places” he said.

Ha ha. You’d have to have a heart of stone etc etc.

You’d think stories like this  and this would have a cumulative effect. And that the outrageous death threats over those cartoons would add up to something.  Someone will put two and two together one of these days. Surely?