BBC to investigate its coverage

The BBC is to launch a full investigation into its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The move comes after both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian claim the BBC is anti their cause and pro the other.

Lead by the Sir Quentin Thomas, president of the British Board of Film Classification, the review of the BBC coverage will start later this month with a report going to BBC Governors in the spring of 2006.

The review will also invite members of the public to voice their comments about the way in which the BBC has covered the issue.

Sir Quentin Thomas said: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and sensitive subject. Because of its importance, and because the BBC's coverage often attracts comment and criticism from all sides, a review of its impartiality, carried out independently both of the BBC and of interest groups, is appropriate."

So is the BBC really as anti-Israeli and anti-Palestinian as some Israeli and Palestinian supporters make out?

Surely, it is far from biased given the equal amount of complaints both sides seem to deliver to the BBC on a regular basis of its reporting. The BBC has been critical of both sides when need be,  but it has also from time to time occasionally been sloppy in some of its coverage, but again, I don't think it is biased one way or the other.  When the reporting has been sloppy it gets pulled up on that and quite right too but I don't think it is due to bias, rather it is sloppy and sometimes lazy reporting.

The BBC is certainly not in the hands of one group over the other which both groups generally like to hint at.

The BBC is not releasing figures as to how much this report is going to cost, but its likley to be not less than a six figure sum.  Of course, money that may be better of in making programmes about the conflict rather than doing research into how people may think the BBC is covering the conflict.

There's even a dedicated website for more information on this. Click here.

What do you think?

Comments

[jamal]

On the Isreal/Palestine issue, I’d just like to point out that media coverage does tend to be quite biased. I agree there are many nutters in Palestine, but we never hear about the ones from Israel. I think i’ve only ever heard of TWO. The one who opened fire in the Gaza mosque and the one who open fired on the bus. Furthermore, the Palestinien fighters are usually declared "terrorists" while the isreali ones are declared "soldiers".

When Israel pulled out of Gaza it was widely reported as an act of good faith by Arial Sharon. However, we all know that Israel remains in strong control of the key and surrounding areas, and effectively the lives of Gazan's. Nevertheless, the media focused on Palestiniens destroying the Isreali buildings left behind even though this is effectively their right, while showing the emotional Isreali's "forced" to leave even though they recieved government compensation to do so, a money that no Palestinien ever received when they were forced out, abused at checkpoints, or segregated by a wall.

[Lior]

On the matter of the use of the term "terrorist", I am afraid, Jamal, I have to point out that the opposite is true. Much of the concern and protest of the pro-Israeli lobby (and that's different from a uniquely pro-Jewish lobby - as members of the Liberal Jewish synagogue, St Johns Wood, will no doubt confirm - it's a pity John Rayner isn't here to agree with you but he has been gathered unto his ancesters and is now pushing up daisies in the boneyard) is that the BBC will never, ever use the word "terrorist" with regard to Hamas and Fatah "operatives" and will persistently and deliberately refer to them as "militants". Yes, the BBC will use "terrorist" for home-grown suicide bombers, but for no other reason than bias, when it comes to Jewish victims of terror, the perpetrators cannot be called terrorists. It leaves the nasty impression that to the mandarines of Television Center and the Chairman of the BBC, Michael Grade (who also occasionally attends the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, St Johns Wood), Jewish life is somehow worth less than any other. This is a bone of contention too well-documented not to be true and for a full exposé of Jewish and Israeli concern on this particular point, perhaps you would like to go to the pages of the website www.honest-reporting.com which, whether you agree with what you will find there or not, will elucidate and enumerate Jewish and Israeli concerns about the BBC and media bias in general toward Israel that is now, unfortunatley, spilling over into outright anti-Semitism. That should be a concern to both our communities. With regard to the BBC use of "soldiers" to refer to the "soldiers" of the Israel Defense Forces, may I point out that (a) they are soldiers, in a duly constituted army of the only democratic state in the Middle East (b) have the legal and constitutional right to contest the orders given to them by their superior officers if they disagree with them and (c) some have been court martialed for disobeying orders repugnant to them, all three points clearly demonstrating that they hold a pattern of legal right and duty of obedience in common with all constituted armies of all legitimately recognized states throughout the world. This contrasts with Hamas, Fatah, Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, all of which the duly elected leadership of the Palestinian Authority has declared itself to be terrorist groups and all of which it seeks - officially - to stop. On the matter of compensation of Israelis forced to leave the Gaza, the buildings that were left and the destruction that followed was principally the work of the terrorist groups. Money was donated by Israel, the EU and the United States to enable the Arab population of Gaza to continue much of the business engaged in by Gazan Jews during the last 30 years. The terrorists destroyed that ecomonic potential. That Israelis destroyed some properties was intentional - in order for a considerable number of Arabs to have employment in rebuilding - furthermore AT ISRAELI EXPENSE - and to ensure their families' welfare. How do I know this? Because I watch other television reports than appear on the BBC and I would urge you to do the same to get a proper picture of what is really happening there.