The BBC operated with political impunity in Gaza
Last week, I blogged an article by Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal about kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston. Stephens accused the BBC of operating with 'political impunity' in Gaza, and generally accused the BBC's reporters - including Johnston - of wearing their sympathies for the 'Palestinian' cause on their sleeves.On Sunday, the BBC's Fran Unsworth, writing on the BBC's editors' blog, accused Stephens of publishing a 'scurrilous piece of journalism.'
But the article goes on to propose that our reasons for this complacency were as a result of our institutional pro-Palestinian views which meant we felt able to operate in the Palestinian authority with “political impunity”. He would appear to be suggesting that Alan was a Palestinian sympathiser and therefore we felt he would be protected by that. The author throws in the few other BBC correspondent names to stack up his case – saying Barbara Plett and Orla Guerin had also made their views known to the public.Today, Tom Gross returns the issue back to where it belongs: the BBC's Middle East coverage. And he also introduces an interesting new theory as to why Johnston may have been grabbed:
He alleges we believed this stance gave us “institutional advantages in terms of access and protection” and that is why “we felt comfortable posting Alan in a place no other news agency dared to go”.
Aside from the lack of sympathy shown by the Wall Street Journal, who must have asked themselves a few questions over the appalling tragedy of Daniel Pearl, it also happens to be totally unfounded. I would have thought the writer would have attempted to establish some facts before committing to the page. Had he put a call into the BBC he might have discovered that we had been by no means complacent about Alan’s safety.
Stephens’s view, however, is widely accepted among reporters covering the Middle East, including myself. It is common knowledge that Johnston, who was abducted in Gaza on March 12, was one of the most pro-Palestinian reporters in the region. However, sources tell me that some in Hamas may have felt that his reporting had become too pro-Fatah, which is one possible factor in his abduction by a Hamas-connected group, and also a possible reason why (despite the BBC’s repeated claims that the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority is doing everything in its power to secure Johnston’s release) in fact the Palestinian Authority has been doing next to nothing to help release the kidnapped BBC man.Unfortunately, if the BBC has not realized it until now, I don't think they're going to realize it any time soon. And even if they do realize it in other parts of the world, that won't apply to Israel. Israel has a special place in the BBC's gallery of enemies and it's not going to change anytime soon.
When will the BBC realize that pandering to terrorism just doesn’t work?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:29 PM
1 Comments:
Maybe I'll blog about this later, but why take the word of BBC critics? Take the word of the BBC itself.
The BBC Governors' Programme Complaints Committee upheld part of the appeal.
The committee rejected the assertion by the person who appealed that the report was a "tearful eulogy" and a "flagrant violation" of editorial guidelines.
It said Ms Plett's report was balanced by references to Mr Arafat's "obvious failings".
But the governors concluded that the reference to crying did breach the guidelines on due impartiality.
The BBC's director of news, Helen Boaden has apologised for what she described as an "editorial misjudgement".
She said it appeared Plett "unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause".
Post a Comment
<< Home