Am I right?

The weather man was right. Sorry, I mean the weather man was correct.  I am sitting under a veil of cloud this morning while the rest of you are out frolicking in the sunshine.

Never mind, all the better to stay in and obsess about the usual stuff.

First, via a trail of links and clicks I alighted upon Adam Wishart’s Twitter.  Topmost Tweet was about Melanie Phillips’s article in the Jpost, more of which later, but first I must say Adam Wishart is starting to sound petulant. 

I know it must be tough getting bombarded with criticism, but that’s what you get when you make films about sensitive subjects, particularly if you decide to structure them in the way Adam did in his infamous film about the Jerusalem Light Rail for BBC1 Panorama.

Passive aggressive responses such as  “Did you speak to them?” “Have you been there?” “So I shouldn’t have reported it?” are emerging, and a lot less of the “I’m all ears” as per his initial responses to critical Tweets.  Of course if you hold debriefing sessions through the manacled medium of 140 characters you would get fed up.

The BBC said the Panorama had been watched by over a million and a half viewers.

“In its response (to Mr de Mesquita,) the BBC said it believed “the film was balanced and fair” and was “careful to represent the views of both Israelis and Palestinians living in Jerusalem”. 

It added: “The film was largely observational in style with Adam spending time with two main contributors, Rivka Shimon and Baha Nabata” — one Jewish, the other an Arab. 

It also noted that Mr Wishart was an experienced filmmaker and that the programme took care to explain his background as a British Jew and how his grandparents had campaigned for the establishment of Israel.”

So that’s okay then. It's not really though, eh?

A while ago someone complained about the photo Adam uses for Twitter, asking why he was looking so pleased with himself. He said it was taken at a wedding. At the time I thought that was a bit uncalled for. Now I must admit, the nastier it gets, the more incongruous gets Adam’s grinning avatar.

Now to the important stuff. Melanie’s piece in the JPost. 

Contrary to what you might have thought, it’s not all about Adam Wishart, though he does get a substantial mention.

It’s so pithy, punchy and concise that I’d like to reproduce it all, but you’re not supposed to do that so I’ll just take the bit that’s particularly relevant to this blog:

In Britain, there has been a total absence of any discussion of the Iran deal. Instead, there has been scandalized coverage of the terrible events in Israel last week, the murderous firebombing of the Arab Dawabsha family and the Jewish terror attack on the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade. 

There has been no coverage whatever of the dozens of terrorist attacks on Israeli Jews which have been going on now for months. Instead there was a BBC TV Panorama show devoted to the Jerusalem Light Rail system. 

This was an absolute travesty, composed of historical illiteracy, present-day distortions and wholly unrepresentative and selective interviewing. The light rail is a force for integration since it brings Israeli Arabs into central Jerusalem. Yet presenter Adam Wishart – himself a Jew – only looked in the opposite direction and portrayed it, entirely falsely, as a weapon of Israeli colonization of Arab land. 

The BBC dismissed complaints about the show.
But it is no use whatsoever complaining to the BBC about its anti-Israel animus. The most frightening aspect of this anti-Israel ideology is the way it takes over the mind so that those in its grip are intrinsically unable to recognize their own irrationality. 

Accordingly, the BBC really does think that its anti-Israel position and wider knee-jerk leftism represent the political center-ground. So those who actually occupy the center-ground and who uphold truth against lies are dismissed as extreme or “rightwing” – and so cannot ever have truth on their side. 

Since this mind-bending left-wing prism is the default position amongst the intelligentsia in Britain and the Democratic Party in the US, Israel and its supporters are in the nightmarish situation of being the only people telling the truth about what is happening – and yet being disbelieved or smeared simply because it is they who are saying it.”

“Israel and its supporters are in the nightmarish situation of being the only people telling the truth about what is happening – and yet being disbelieved or smeared simply because it is they who are saying it.”

I know Melanie Phillips is the ultimate sufferer from that Kafka-esque scenario, but I wholly concur. 

So there you have it. I always wondered why I was deemed right wing when I’m nothing of the kind. At least not in the stereotypical bowler hat and handlebar mustache, bring back hanging, unprogressive way. 

It amused me to see this definition of Left-wing beliefs which was probably written by a lefty (yes, she admits that ) and it will be interesting to see if her definition holds when (if) 70s throwback Jeremy Corbyn gets to be dear leader.

Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality.

Image from here: 

You learn something new every day

(h/t Deegee)

Back briefly to that documentary, The Train that Divides Jerusalem, and a piece by Jerry Lewis in the Jerusalem Post about the controversy it caused headlined BBC under fire for documentary on Jerusalem Light Rail. 

It gives an interesting insight into the BBC complaints process:

The program, which had its first broadcast last Monday evening, pulled in an estimated 1.7 million viewers, which a BBC representative told The Jerusalem Post is an average audience for such broadcasts. 

What was also disclosed later the following day was that the BBC had received 24 complaints. 

Fair enough? Well, after such a controversial examination of the conflict over Jerusalem, it would be inevitable that many more complained. 

However, the BBC has a strict policy in dealing with such complaints, triggered in part by the constant (and in this journalist’s view, often unjustified) barrage of criticisms aimed at the BBC virtually every time Israel is in the news, by so called pro-Israel lobbyists, who urge followers to flood the BBC with complaints. 

This has led the BBC to decline to give out complaints figures “when there has been evidence of lobbying or where media coverage has influenced the number” and it is known from internal leaks within the corporation that far less concern is taken after such organized campaigns.

Did you know that? 

So, if a 'BBC bias' story appears in a newspaper and lots of people independently complain to the BBC on the back of it, the BBC might very well refuse to give out accurate complaints figures. 

And, similarly, if lots of social media outlets (including blogs like this) are judged to be part of some 'lobbying' process encouraging people like you to complain to the BBC - even if we bloggers are also acting entirely off our own bats (as we are) - then the BBC might again very well refuse to give out accurate complaints figures (as appears to be the case here)....

I suspect that means that anyone (outside the BBC) wanting to know how many people complained about any high-profile, biased piece of BBC reporting regarding Israel will never be able to find out.

The long and short of it

From the Jerusalem Post today:

UN's Ban arrives, says no country would allow rockets to rain down on its cities 

No country would accept rockets raining down on its civilians, and all countries and parties have an international obligation to protect civilians, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.

Ban, who arrived in Israel as part of his effort – together with US Secretary of State John Kerry – to broker a cease-fire, said at a press conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the UN position was clear: “We condemn strongly the rocket attacks, and these must stop immediately.”

Ban did not say anything during his brief comments to the press about the status of efforts to forge a cease-fire.

The Secretary-General said his message to both Israelis and Palestinians was the same: “Stop fighting, start talking, and take on the root causes of the conflict so we are not back in the same situation in another six months or a year.”

He defined those issues as including “mutual recognition, occupation, despair and denial of dignity.”

Ban said that he “fully shares” and appreciates Israel's legitimate concern and the right to defend itself. He also urged to Israel to “exercise maximum restraint.”

Ban praised the Israeli people, saying that “even in the darkest hour the people of this country have such a tremendous capacity for generosity and good.” He then urged Israelis not to despair of the peace process, saying “there is no viable alternative to a two-state solution. No closure, no barrier will separate Israelis and Palestinians from a fundamental truth: you share one future.”

From the BBC News website today: 

Gaza conflict: UN chief Ban urges end to fighting

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged Israel and the Palestinians to "stop fighting" and "start talking" to end the conflict in Gaza.

He was speaking in Israel as diplomatic efforts intensified.

More than 600 Palestinians and 30 Israelis have been killed in the past 14 days of fighting, officials say.

'Maximum restraint'

At a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr Ban urged Israel to exercise "maximum restraint", adding that "military action will not increase Israeli security in the longer term".

He called on the Palestinians to pursue a policy of "no violence, recognition of Israel and respect for previous agreements".

Tweet, tweet

What people tweet on a personal basis is entirely their own business. It no business of anyone else to go prying into what they are saying (unless they are engaged in criminal activities, that is!) Some people, however, use Twitter as part of their job. More and more BBC reporters are taking to the medium and using it as an important means of spreading the news - and the good name of 'BBC News' - far and wide. It's getting to be as important for some journalists as their online articles or reports/interviews for the radio or television. It can reach many millions of people at the mere click on a button. 

Man of the moment Jon Donnison, the BBC's "Gaza and West Bank correspondent", is one of the corporation leading tweeters. His reporting on Twitter is no sideline of his. It's an essential part of his work as a BBC reporter.

Jon Donnison

@JonDonnison

BBC Gaza and West Bank Correspondent. Cyclist. Views mine. Rewteets, #Tags not endorsements.

West Bank + Gaza · http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/

Jon began tweeting on 28 February 2010 and has sent 2,924 tweets since then, all for the public eye. His tweets during Operation Pillar of Cloud late last year were, along with those of other colleagues, key to the BBC's reporting of the conflict. Some of those BBC tweets have been highly controversial, as readers of this blog and BBC Watch will know.

And talking of BBC Watch, there was an interesting exchange there between the BBC's Jonathan Marcus and commentator TrueToo. What especially caught my eye was this from TrueToo:

Unfortunately the Ha’aretz article is subscription only so I can’t access it but it’s a great pity that the BBC habitually gravitates towards the left of the Israeli political spectrum to glean info for articles on the Israel-Arab conflict. Have a look at how often the BBC quotes Ha’aretz as opposed, for example, to the centre-right Jerusalem Post if you want to understand this aspect of the problem many people have with the BBC.

There is a newish online paper, The Times of Israel, which appears to take the middle ground. It’s far prefarable to Ha'aretz, which is filled to the brim with alleged journalists jostling for position to see who can write the most subversive article attacking the status quo in Israel.

If that's true then the BBC's Middle East reporters should be citing, quoting and linking to Ha'aretz (Israel's leading left-leaning newspaper) more than they do to, say, the right-leaning Jerusalem Post. If they do, that would be tangible evidence that the BBC does indeed gravitate towards the left of the Israeli political spectrum to glean news about the country.

This can be tracked. Loading all 2,924 of Jon Donnison's tweets, then searched for Ha'aretz (using the "etz" bit to avoid variants with and without apostrophes) and then for the Jerusalem Post (using variants such as "em post" and "jpost") yields the following results: Jon has cited, quoted or linked to Ha'aretz 117 times over that period but only 32 times to the Jerusalem Post.

Re-tweets and #tags may not be endorsements but they are telling nonetheless, especially in this kind of example. Jon Donnison cites, quotes and links to Ha'aretz over 3 times more often - it's slightly closer to 4 times more often in fact - than he does to the Jerusalem Post.

To break those figures down by year:

Ha'aretz 

2013: 25

2012: 33

2011: 58

2010: 1

Jerusalem Post

2013: 7

2012: 12

2011: 13

2010: 0

There have, to take up TrueToo's point about The Times of Israel, been just 3 mentions in tweets by Jon Donnison since its launch in February 2012.

Those more familiar with the British scene - and the often-made charge that the BBC is "the broadcast wing of the Guardian" - the comparison might be with a leading BBC political reporter who uses his or her Twitter feed for reporting purposes and then cites the Guardian nearly four times as often as the Daily Telegraph. That's the sort of thing that leads to accusations of left-wing bias.

Incidentally, how does Jon Donnison stack up on the Guardian v Telegraph issue? Well, out of those 2,924 tweets, 15 cite, quote or link to the Daily Telegraph and 51 cite, quote or link to the Guardian.

Telegraph: 

2013: 0

2012: 4

2011: 11

2010: 0

Guardian:

2013: 8

2012: 23

2011: 20

2010: 0

I wonder if Jon himself is aware of these imbalances, and would he find them troubling, impartiality-wise?