Interviewing as an art form

I’m not sure if the BBC deliberately assigns anything to do with the Middle East to Mishal Husain, and if so, whether it’s despite or because of her infamous “Homemade contraptions / How many Israelis” interview. 

(I know Sarah Montague sometimes tackles this topic too.) 

How many Israelis have died?

It’s obvious that very few people in the mainstream media are experts on the Israeli / Palestinian situation, but it’s quite clear that they take a view on it nevertheless. 

“I don’t know much about art but I know what I like” is a much mocked sentiment made about the naive by the intelligentsia, but it sums up the media’s approach to the Israeli /Palestinian conflict

The folks in the BBC’s complaints department aren’t the sharpest tools, but if they have one thing going for them, it’s self-confidence and the benefit of standard customer-services training. That’s two things, sorry. 

They’ve undoubtedly learned to express concern for the complainant’s feelings and regret for any offence caused before launching off on a painstaking explanation as to why the complaint was misguided. 

We wrote about the interview in question here, but I hid it in one of my ‘multiple topic’ contributions, perhaps to the detriment of its due exposure.

Let’s remind ourselves.

“Although the BBC mentioned it on their website, (in the above running order) Mishal Husain didn’t make much of the fact that Zoabi is an Israeli Arab and an MP in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. She certainly didn’t tell listeners that Zoabi is opposed to the ‘two state solution’ (she wants a one-state (Arab) solution) and that she opposes Israel being recognised as a Jewish state. Despite the fact that as an MP she is hugely benefiting from its democratic system, she is ideologically opposed to Israel’s existence. How mad is that?[…]Haneen Zoabi was given plenty of space to express herself without let or hindrance. “What will happen if Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem? Mishal asked hopefully. “Will it be a red line?” 

Mishal did interrupt a particularly long rant to ask Zoabi what she thought about settlements being “not the only issue”,  and citied other issues, which (she said)  ‘Israel sees’ as additional ‘obstacles to peace’, namely: The status of Jerusalem, refugees, Israel’s security.  

Issues effortlessly glossed over by Mishal, but hugely complex, contentious and nearly always misrepresented. 

“650 units is ‘a crime against humanity’ “ said Zoabi, “It’s a war crime”.
"If you want peace, you want justice, and you must make Israel accountable to its crime” she opined. Another lengthy rant unchallenged, including the customary Palestinian rewriting of history and imaginative interpretations of various wrongdoings of the state that so generously provides her with the opportunity to spread anti-Israel propaganda to those that hunger for such a thing, Palestinian intransigence, rejectionism, incitement, violence and visceral hatred of Jews didn't get a look-in.

BBCWatch also wrote about it here 

“In short, Haneen Zoabi was given a completely unfettered platform from which to spout her predictably one-sided propaganda (in which Palestinians are exclusively portrayed as victims and Arab belligerence and Palestinian terrorism are erased) in an obviously more sympathetic environment than was evident in the previous day’s interview. 

The fact that Mishal Husain failed to challenge even one of Zoabi’s many falsehoods means that the BBC cannot possibly claim that this interview was intended to meet its public purpose remit of enhancing “UK audiences’ awareness and understanding of international issues”.”

BBCWatch submitted a complaint about the interview, specifically stating that a number of Zoabi’s falsehoods remained unchallenged.

The BBC’s reply is reproduced here.

After the obligatory apology for the delay in ‘coming back’ and ‘understanding’ your hurt feelings, they proceed with the business of dismissing the complaint. 

• First, a reminder of the aim of the interview. It was primarily about Donald Trump (thus sidelining any inaccuracies and falsehoods to a position of secondary importance, or as incidental.)
• “The interviewee spoke quickly and passionately”  “In a fast-flowing interview situation, it may not always be possible for an interviewer to cross-check every statement and claim that is made by a guest….”  Interrupting passionate and fast-speaking Israeli spokespersons never seems to present much of a problem though.
• “A contrasting view,” should the listeners be in need of one, was provided the previous day, so “Listeners can judge for the different arguments for themselves.”

It wasn’t a case of different arguments though, was it? It was a stream of falsehoods, which the BBC did not challenge or rectify.  
“Interviewing is an art form rather than a simple science,” is a patronising defence for the artists of the BBC complaints department to bring in, when surely facts are considerably more of a science than an art form. 

Complaining about 'PM' - A Cautionary Tale

Please brace yourselves for a very long post, but as we've been quiet for a few days (for various reasons)...


You may recall a post we did recently about an edition of Radio 4's PM (3 April) where UKIP appeared to be on the receiving end of an unusually high number of attacks (well, unusual for a single edition of a BBC current affairs programme during a general election that is.)

You may also recall Rod Liddle's take on the same programme at the Spectator:

I caught Radio 4 PM programme on the way home, on Friday. Its coverage of the debate consisted of taking three statements made during the debate and subjecting them to what they called statistical scrutiny. All three statements came from Nigel Farage and all three statements were deemed inaccurate by some supercilious bint. 

No other leader was subjected to similar scrutiny and even if the supercilious bint’s figures were correct, the points Farage made still pertained. (In other words, for example, while Farage said the vast majority of people obtaining new HIV treatment in the UK were health tourists, the supercilious bint pointed out this was only 54 per cent. And that some of those had every right to treatment etc, and might come from rich countries like the USA. Where of course they would have to pay for treatment, or have the requisite insurance, she failed to add.)

There was another dig at UKIP later in this execrable programme, during a piece of staggeringly unfunny “whimsy” about rail replacement bus services. I think I shall listen to PM each day until the election and monitor its commitment to fairness and impartiality. And then never, ever, listen to it again.

****

So, choosing the 'Bias' category [the one the BBC seems to like least], I put in the following complaint:

I wish to complain about the appalling level of anti-UKIP bias on PM on 3rd April.

Why did Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair's review of the use of statistics during the leaders' debate begin with Nigel Farage, continue with Nigel Farage and end with Nigel Farage? Why were all of his facts found to be faulty? There were a lot of dodgy statistics used by all the party leaders, so why just pick on Nigel Farage?

Also, why did Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down?

And why did Chris Mason's run-through of the spin from all the political parties in the debate omit UKIP's response?

And, finally, why was Guardian writer Gareth McLean's piece allowed to contain a negative assertion about the dangers of UKIP entering a coalition government?

This was on onslaught against UKIP and surely completely out-of-order during a general election. Please could this bias be dealt with as soon as possible and some redress given to UKIP.

****

The newly-arrived reply from the BBC Complaints department runs as follows:

Thank you for contacting us about ‘PM’ as broadcast on 3rd April 2015.

I understand you’re unhappy with the programme as you feel it was bias against UKIP on a number of occasions.

I appreciate your frustration with this and have reviewed the segment so as to provide further context with which to address your concerns however it should be noted PM is a very well known programme and it’s expected there will be political analysis and discussion on various aspects of the political arena.

I wish to stress BBC journalists are well aware of our commitment to impartial reporting and they are expected to put their own political views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC.

That said it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes and our editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.

More importantly the BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view and it seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.

In your correspondence you mention Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair’s discussion regarding political statistics and you feel it was bias to mention only Nigel Farage however I should note Eddie Mair did support Farage with the statement ‘Well maybe he was not far off the point. Does that mean 54% are health care tourists?’. Furthermore they both come to the conclusion that Nigel’s statistics that one house needs to be built every seven minutes to cope with immigration was relatively correct.

Eddie also points out that anyone in the public can get facts checked, on any party, through BBC More or Less via Twitter.

You have also stated ‘Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down’ however upon review Carolyn did not use the term ‘disgraced’.

Rather she explained Andrew Michael was chosen after the previous candidate was deselected and he is well known for his appearance on Gogglebox and we feel this is an accurate and fair explanation of the latest addition to the political arena in Hastings and Rye.

It should be noted the report also commented extensively of the Conservative candidate Amber Rudd, who we heard comment from and Sarah Owen of the Labour Party and it is common place when discussing the political climate of a constituency to include comments from a number of political candidates as was done in this case.

In reference to the comments made by Gareth McLean regarding a Conservative-UKIP coalition, you feel they were unfair and unnecessary and I’m sorry if Gareth’s attempts at humour fell short of the mark.

Throughout the segment Gareth mentioned many pop culture references and many socially recognised faux pas or clichés in an attempt to report on rail replacement bus services with somewhat dry and loquacious humour.

I sorry the report did not meet your expectations and rest assured your feedback is very important to us. As such I have placed your concerns on an overnight report which is a document that is made available to senior staff, programme editors and news teams across the BBC. This means your comments can be seen quickly and can be consulted in future broadcasting and policy decisions.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints

****

The BBC clearly gave a reasonable amount of time and effort to answering my complaint, which is re-assuring, and some of it makes sense to me...

...however, I don't think their answers were entirely satisfactory. And I shall explain why here.

****

My complaint came in four parts.

****

Part One had an ABA structure. (In other words, I repeated myself somewhat!):

Why did Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair's review of the use of statistics during the leaders' debate begin with Nigel Farage, continue with Nigel Farage and end with Nigel Farage? Why were all of his facts found to be faulty? There were a lot of dodgy statistics used by all the party leaders, so why just pick on Nigel Farage? 

The BBC's answer, you will note, only tackled the 'B section' ("Why were all of his facts found to be faulty?") and didn't give an answer as to why, specifically, on the post-leaders' debate edition of PM, only UKIP' Nigel was picked on. 

The BBC respondent was right, however, to note that Eddie raised a counter-point over health tourism which appeared to offer Nigel some support...

...though he fails to mention that Ruth Alexander then subsequently poured several further buckets of cold water over it. 

Plus, the BBC respondent was also correct to note that Ruth's detailed and emphatic rubbishing of (around) four 'Farage facts' was then followed by one final stat which she found to be (as the BBC respondent puts it) 'relatively correct'...

...though the BBC respondent is simply wrong to claim that "both [Eddie and Ruth] come to the conclusion" about that being "relatively correct", as Eddie said absolutely nothing to back that statement up. [Please listen for yourselves to confirm that]. 

However, on the question of not answering my 'A section'...

Well, the (cookie-cutter) preliminary comments about the BBC's stance on impartiality...(more dots!)...

...[it's "not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes" & BBC editors are "charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area"]...

...were, probably, taken (by the BBC respondent) to sufficiently answer the "Why just pick on Nigel Farage?" question. 

Having heard a fair few of these More or Less spots on PM I'm aware that other parties are (of course) the targets for regular statistical debunking too, but I've noticed lots of light and shade and frequent features investigating stats from two or three parties at one sitting. This feature simply hammered away at one party, almost entirely to the disadvantage of that party (UKIP). 

My complaint should probably have established that context. 

And I should have made much clearer the point that this edition was somewhat different, context-wise. It was the post-leaders' debate edition. 

Given that event's (apparent) singular importance, it should surely have been incumbent on the BBC to focus on the dodgy stats from a range of party leaders, so, in that context, why only pick on Nigel?

****

Part Two asked a single question: 

Also, why did Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down? 

The BBC Complaints respondent enlightened me on the need to give different parties a platform during an election [well, blow me down with a feather! Who knew?!] and picked up on my misuse of the word "disgraced", correctly pointing out that it wasn't used by Carolyn Quinn. 

And the report did - as he says - merely use the word "deselected". 

Fair points.

He also told me that Carolyn's mentioning of the fact that the UKIP candidate appeared on Channel 4 reality show Gogglebox was fair because he's well-known for appearing on it. 

Fair point too. 

However, to be equally fair, (a) I didn't complain about Gogglebox - except here at ITBB - so that's completely irrelevant! and (b) it still leaves totally unanswered the point I was trying to make (ineptly, as it turns out): that there was no obvious need to mention that the previous UKIP candidate had been either "disgraced" or "deselected". 

Still, that's a reminder to always quote correctly when complaining to the BBC. Any failure to do so will be picked up on and used in evidence against you (and rightly so). 

****

Part Three also posed a single question: 

And why did Chris Mason's run-through of the spin from all the political parties in the debate omit UKIP's comments? 

I should have spelled out the point that only UKIP and Plaid were not heard from in this package. All the other five parties were featured, all saying how great they'd done. Ergo, UKIP was hard done-by. QED. [Ignoring Plaid!]

You will have noticed though - regardless of the intrinsic quality of my complaint - that this question was completely ignored by the BBC Complaints department. They simply didn't answer it. 

A bit naughty?

****

And, finally, Part Four was no less of a single question: 

And, finally, why was Guardian writer Gareth McLean's piece allowed to contain a negative assertion about the dangers of UKIP entering a coalition government? 

The BBC respondent sympathised with me for not getting Gareth's humour and explained to me what his piece was trying to achieve. I'm grateful. [For any passing non-Brits, that's an example of British irony.]

Unfortunately, he didn't answer the question I actually asked.  

Now, you may think it was an unreasonable question anyhow - and, as Lord Dobbs would say, I couldn't possibly comment - but, still, the point was skirted here by the BBC Complaints department, wasn't it? 

****

Conclusions: This complaint got nowhere.

The BBC really doesn't like dealing with complaints about 'Bias' and, I'd say, selecting 'Bias' from the drop-down list on the Complaints website is a fairly sure-fire way to ensure your complaint will be looked at very unsympathetically by the BBC.

However, if you don't select 'Bias' the BBC's stats will show one less complaint about bias.

I wasn't wholly convinced by my own complaint anyhow - though it, hopefully, raised some important points. Enough people (at the Spectator and Biased BBC), however, were outraged enough by this edition of PM to make it an interesting exercise in testing out the BBC's response.

The BBC Complaints Department guy did the best he could here, I think. He made the general points about balancing things out over time (which I fully accept). He spotted my slip and made use of it against me. He didn't answer the parts that the BBC didn't want to answer.

However, there were some slips on his part too - and a certain slipperiness overall that, from my experience, is all part and parcel of the BBC Complaints process...

...though it shouldn't be.

Getting it wrong

Israel has apologised to Turkey in a deal brokered by Obama. Well, he had to come away with something. 

This leaves the BBC in a slightly uncomfortable position. But not to worry. They are reporting the apology as though, apart from one blot on their anti-Israel copybook, they were right all along. They are implying that the apology was an admission of guilt by Israel.

A once-in-a-lifetime piece of unbiased reporting broadcast by the BBC, based largely on IDF footage, came down firmly on the side of reason.  Jane Corbin, who normally conforms to the BBC anti-Israel attitude, did a remarkably fair job on her Mavi Marmara Panorama "Death on the Med."

 She showed that the violence by the activists on board the ship was deliberate and pre-planned, that the Israelis were acting legally in apprehending the ship, that there were sufficient warnings, that the other shipping in the flotilla came to no harm, that the Israeli soldiers had paint-guns and that the real shooting was initiated by the peace activists.  She was heavily criticised for pointing out these unpalatable things at the time too.

Of course the rest of the BBC stuck to their customary approach, continuing to describe  the flotilla as a 'peace convoy' and the Mavi Marmara as an ‘aid ship’ despite the fact that the “aid” was as non-existent as Saddam’s WMDs. 

Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s antisemitic ravings were played down, as well as the filmed ‘suicide videos’ of the activists and the rousing ‘into battle’ speeches at the flotilla send-off.

The Israelis had one thing to apologise for, namely that they were woefully unprepared for the hostility and violence that awaited them. That really was a regrettable mistake. Perhaps somehow there might have been fewer deaths if they knew in advance that there was going to be a running battle on board ship. They might not have used a helicopter.  Perhaps they would have disabled the ship or something. Who knows.

Has the BBC disowned the one Panorama that told the truth? It looks that way.

Joke.

Someone has organised a petition asking the BBC to hold a public enquiry into the BBC’s bias towards Israel. "That’s a laugh," says the Commentator. The thing is, it’s not really very amusing. For one thing, the Balen report was kept away from the public, at great cost to the publicly funded BBC. The secrecy led everyone to assume that it contained damning information which confirmed the BBC’s anti-Israel bias. What else could one think?

If this is indeed the case, it seems probable that a *public* enquiry would only be set before the public if the desired outcome was obtained. Since the BBC allegedly receives as many complaints about pro-Israel bias as anti, the likelihood that this proposition will get the go-ahead is not as ridiculous as it might at first appear. 

I have often wondered what constitutes the substance of any of these ‘pro-Israel bias’ complaints.

There is plenty of substance to the anti-Israel ones, which are set out in considerable detail by the dedicated pro-Israel blog BBC Watch, and in a variety of more generally focused blogs such as the Commentator, Melanie Phillips, Biased-BBC and the redoubtable Harry’s Place which is *down* at present. 

The ‘pro’ complaints seem to consist mainly of indignant outrage at the first sight of any Israeli spokesperson that happens to appear on T.V. The consensus at the BBC is such, that what Mark Mardell calls ‘the centre of gravity’ is set well over to the Palestinian side, and BBCers don’t actually seem aware that they are breeching their impartiality obligations in doing what they do.  Until they get a full handle on the antisemitism that prevails in the Muslim world, they won’t change. Even Mehdi Hasan has noticed, though I can’t find it in my heart to trust a man who openly preaches to other Muslims that we infidels are cattle.

Misunderstanding.

Here’s the BBC Complaints department’s answer to the listener who sent in a complaint during Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense November 2012. It’s the BBC’s attempt to justify what they erroneously assumed was a complaint about pro-Israel bias, but in defending themselves against this accusation they play into the hands of the ‘antis’ by making a sincere attempt to prove their anti-Israel credentials. 

“We understand you feel our coverage has shown bias in favour of Israel’s actions in Gaza. We have received a wide range of feedback about our coverage of this upsurge in violence. Bearing in mind the pressure on resources, the response below strives to address the majority of concerns raised but we apologise in advance if not all of the specific points you have mentioned have been answered in the manner you prefer.”

Obviously in this case whoever looked at the original complaint hadn’t managed to comprehend the contents at all. 

“BBC News strives to report in an impartial, accurate and fair manner and we believe this has been the case with our coverage of the recent violence in Gaza and Israel.”“ Since Israel launched ‘Operation Pillar of Defense’ on November 14 2012, our correspondents on the ground in Gaza – Jon Donnison, Wyre Davies and Chief of the BBC News Jerusalem Bureau Paul Danahar, have detailed the level of destruction caused by Israeli strikes from air and sea on the area. Our main news bulletins on BBC One and Radio 4 have focused on the loss of life in Gaza.”

 This illustrates the BBC’s willful gullibility in relaying the Palestinians’ cynical exploitation of civilian casualties by parading them in front of the cameras. The BBC proudly admit that they *focus* on the loss of life in Gaza. Why should an impartial body do such a thing?  Specially as it replaces serious analysis of this state of affairs, and seems to be a substitute for giving viewers a full explanation of the underlying reasons for it. They proceed to give an elaborate illustration:

 “For example, the first story during the BBC One bulletin at 2200 on 18 November read as follows: “International pressure for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is mounting after the deadliest day of violence in the region so far. Reports say 26 people were killed in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes – and more rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel – including two shot down over Tel Aviv by Israel’s “iron dome” defence system.” Reports from Gaza have also explained the level of Palestinian civilian casualties, in particular the deaths of women and children. Jon Donnison’s report during the News at Ten on 14 November explained that: “For the people of Gaza tonight it looked like war. And as in most wars, civilians, caught up in the violence.”“Gaza’s hospitals are expected to face a busy night, with more casualties this evening, among them children and at least one baby.”

This is the BBC, defending themselves against what they believe to be an accusation of pro-Israel bias. Their proud boast is that they show children and at least one baby, to show the viewers, what?  That Israel is brutal and heartless, killing babies a great deal, willy nilly. Is that anti-Israel enough for you dear Mr. Complainant?

 “We have seen reports which looked at Israel’s tactic of deploying strikes in a heavily overpopulated urban setting, Wyre Davies’ report for the News at Six on 19 November said: “This was a clear message from Israel that anything or anyone associated with the militants is a legitimate target. Israel has, though, struggled to explain this huge bombing yesterday. Military sources told an Israeli newspaper the house was hit by mistake. Israel now says the bombing was deliberate, but their target, a senior Hamas commander, may not have been there, but at least ten people, including four children, were there and were killed. Israel justifies these attacks in urban areas because it says the militants hide among civilian populations, and the problem with such a policy is that civilians are always at risk.” 

Wyre Davies has interpreted Israel’s *clear message*. “Anyone or anything associated with the militants is a legitimate target.” he says. But is that really Israel’s message? 
Even if it were, where does the BBC interpret the *clear message* that comes from Gaza in the form of random rockets aimed deliberately at Israelis? Or the even clearer message embedded in the Hamas charter and proclaimed from the rooftops in front of anyone who cares to listen; not, obviously anyone from the BBC.    

 “Our main news bulletins have also heard live accounts from presenters Lyse Doucet, with further analysis from Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen. Such analysis has looked at the wider political context of the conflict, including the impending election in Israel, the relationship with a new Egypt and the effects of Israel’s blockade on Gaza. “

The BBC’s predictions and analyses of the impending elections were way off the mark, and the effects of the blockade have indeed been looked at by the BBC to an extraordinary degree while at the same time the effects of racketeering and corruption by Hamas, and the daily delivery of materials from Israel have been largely unreported.

“We have continued to follow diplomatic efforts to reach a truce, featuring live press conferences on the BBC News Channel from interlocutors such as the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt and the Arab League. We have also heard from a wide range of Palestinian and Arab commentators on the BBC News Channel and during flagship programmes such as radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme. This has included Jihad Haddad, adviser to President Morsi, Abdel al-Bari Atwan, the editor in chief of Al-Quds Al Arabi, Adel Darwish -commentator on Middle East affairs and Dr Omar Ashour from the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, Exeter University. In hearing from these voices and from our own correspondents, we believe we have explored the political, military and humanitarian aspects of this recent conflict. We will continue to strive to report on the story in an impartial manner.” 

What on earth makes the BBC think that any of these people can explore any of the things above in an impartial manner? They’re all polemicists with political axes to grind, and they’re paraded before UK audiences relentlessly, usually without the truthful, contextual introduction that true impartiality would require. If anything they are simply labeled ‘Middle East experts.” 
Do we hear spokespersons from the opposite political position as often? On the rare occasions someone like Mark Regev is given air time, are they treated in the reverential manner that, say, Gavin Esler treats Abdel Bari Atwan, the person who says he would be delighted if a nuclear bomb fell on Tel Aviv? No they are not. They are spoken to with disdain and audible sneers.

 “We’d also like to assure you we’ve registered your complaint on our audience log.  This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff.  This includes all news editors and reporters, along with our staff.  and senior management.  It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are considered across the BBC.”

Let’s hope they’ve registered this one in the correct pile.