It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| August | 15 |
| 2006 |
This piece of mine appears in today's Jerusalem Post.
Switch on the BBC News and, other than the fact that it is in English, you might think that you had tuned in by mistake to al-Manar, Hizbullah's own TV station. The BBC almost always ignores any case Israel might have for taking action against terrorism and concentrates on what it calls, relentlessly, Israel's "disproportionate response" in Lebanon. Israeli spokesmen and women are interviewed, but are quizzed as if they are propagandists for war crimes.
So it's understandable that there have been calls for Israeli officials and politicians to boycott the BBC. Understandable, but wrong.
The basis of the MFA's complaint is entirely correct. When Col. (res.) Miri Eisen, (soon to be Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman) called the BBC "the only international English-speaking news outlet that is downright hostile to Israel on every level" she was spot on. One could fill this entire newspaper with examples of the blatant bias, the sloppy reporting, the mischievous "context" which the BBC gives to events and the sheer Hizbullah propaganda which the organization churns out. Suffice it for now, however, to give two pertinent examples.
A BBC reporter in Israel, Nick Thorpe, had this say last month: "The Kassams mostly needle the Israelis, like pinpricks in the ankles of a giant, taunting him to stamp back with his big, US-issue army boots. The Katyushas are like poisoned arrows. They drive him mad."
Ignore the factual errors (the boots are Israeli-made). The sheer, dripping, contemptuous hatred pours forth from every syllable.
Then there's the now infamous Sunday AM, which the BBC calls its "most prestigious" political program. In the last edition of the summer, it invited four guests on to discuss Israeli action: a Member of the European Parliament, Glenys Kinnock, who is well known for her campaigning against Israeli policy; a journalist, Matthew Parris, who had written days before his appearance that "the past 40 years" - presumably of Israeli policies since 1967 - have been a catastrophe "for world Jewry"; the Lebanese minister, Nayla Mouawad; and the pathologically anti-Israel leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Sir Menzies Campbell.
The BBC did not consider it necessary to invite anyone who might mention that there might be a legitimate reason for Israel to defend its citizens from terror.
All in all, it's a strange interpretation of the BBC's governing charter's requirement of balance.
There's no doubt that the BBC has an ingrained anti-Israel bias. The question is what to do about it.
It's important to be realistic. Like it or not, the BBC is one of world's biggest sources of news. Its programs, via the World Service on radio and BBC World on TV are heard across the planet.
But the idea that the BBC's bias would change if it was denied access to press conferences and Israeli officials is risible. The BBC's bias is the result of a pervasive contemporary left-liberal mindset, which holds that Israel is at best a bully and at worst illegitimate as a nation.
Indeed, far from altering the BBC's behavior, quite the opposite would happen. The BBC would then have no choice but to be biased, at least in the guests it chose to interview. Take the program I mentioned above. Imagine if a boycott was already in place when it was broadcast. The BBC would have had a perfect alibi for its bias: Israel refused to provide a spokesman.
Boycotts do not work against organizations such as the BBC, whose existence and funding are guaranteed by British law and which are driven by a conviction in their inherent superiority.
We know this from the MFA's boycott in 2003. Did it make any difference? It made the problem worse, by removing any official Israeli viewpoint from the BBC's airwaves. It ended only when the BBC set up a committee to look into the bias. To the surprise of no one in the UK who knows how the BBC whitewashes its behavior, the committee gave its coverage of the Middle East a clean bill of health.
A leaked internal BBC document which I was sent by an employee ashamed of its reporting shows that the BBC still believes that its coverage is perfect. Its Global News Editorial Forum (dated 7th August) says this: "[O]ur coverage stands out from our competitors because we continually give context." The "context" that the BBC gives, of course, is that Israel is the aggressor fighting disproportionately against Lebanon.
It carries on: "The lowering of the Qana death toll last week was a reminder of the need always to attribute fatality figures. We were right to report the revised figure..."
That last sentence shows the warping of editorial values at the heart of the bias - as if there was any choice to be made in continuing to use an entirely inaccurate Hizbullah figure, or to start using the actual number of deaths.
Remove what little exposure is given to Israel's case, through interviews - however hostile they may be - with such excellent spokesmen as Mark Regev, and the chances of the BBC's viewers understanding the case for Israel's actions would be all but removed.
MessageSpace
i read that on the jpost. very well done, well thought out, i agree with the content, thanks for that.
Excellent article Stephen. I have written to the BBC many times over the last 5 years over anti-Israel bias, and it's clear they don't listen or care. I've tried to challenge them through my MP, Tim Boswell, but didn't get very far. I think we have to face the fact that we live in an anti-semitic country. Our state media, Civil Service, Academic Institutions, and religious establishments are largely anti-Israel. I've been comforted recently though with the thought that as the UK is now such a 3rd rate nation, it really dosesn't matter to Israel what the UK thinks. I'm sure that readers of the Guardian, The Independent, Channel 4 fans, and liberal Bishops will not enjoy their current freedom of speech under the Caliphate in 10 years time
I believe its also interesting that the Islamic forces out to destroy Israel are also waging a very effective campaign against the UK. 1.6M muslims seem to possess a much louder voice than the 75M Christians, but then Political Correctness elevates the minority view over that of the majority. Melanie Phillip's excellent book "Londistan" shows how deep this goes
Gloomy as all this seems, I don't depair however! History shows that whenever Israel has been attacked since 1948, it creates an opportunity to retake the territory that it possessed through 3000 years of history
I hope too that Israeli readers of this blog will appreciate that the BBC doesn't speak for all British people. We try hard to support Israel in its fight, because we see that we face the same enemies as you
"I've been comforted recently though with the thought that as the UK is now such a 3rd rate nation, it really dosesn't matter to Israel what the UK thinks."
While I think that much of the UK's current prosperity is a complete illusion (rather like America's), it's silly to write off the UK as an unimportant country in terms of her economy or her influence. Thus, for example, the City is the world's number one international financial centre and the BBC is listened to and watched by many millions around the world and possesses probably the most trusted news service around.
The UK is anti-Semitic in the same way much of Europe was anti-Semitic in the late 1920s. At the same time, it is also very influential which makes the anti-Semitism that much more dangerous.
But our host is wrong about boycotting the BBC. Let them be shunned both by Israel and the wider Jewish world. BBC journalists wouldn't dare say about Arab nations what they say about Israel. Let them feel a little of the same sense of fear and discomfiture in Israel and elsewhere. They'll never respect us, so let them fear us.
As an aside, nothing better demonstrates the truth about the UK's current wave of anti-Semitism than the insouciance with which the country greeted the anti-Semitic outbursts of London's mayor.
I read this article with interest; until now, I thought I was the only one who thought this about the BBC! i find it almost impossible to watch BBC news these days. There are not many other 'serious' options, Sky News is about the only alternative. The real problem is Radio 4, & in particular The morning news programmes. A broadcast with this much 'gravitas' surely should not be biased to this extent.
It is particularly strange that the BBC should consistantly take sides, particularly when the apeased party is hell bent on destroying most of our Western values, both in Israel & here in Britain. I am neither Jewish nor Israeli; however, I have lived & worked in Israel & other parts of the Middle East, & can assure your readers that the people of Israel are MUCH closer to us in Britain & the West in terms of moral & democratic values & outlook than any other peoples of the region. Remember, Israel is the only Middle East nation to be democratic, to play football in the European Cup, & to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest!!
It's the long-sffering British licence payer who should be doing the boycotting. A mass non-payment campaign might finally rouse the BBC from its smug complacency.
A very good article, Stephen. However, you are not correct when you say that the BBC gave itself a clean bill of health. No, the Governors' report found clear evidence of bias, as reported by the Times back in May:
"THE BBC’S coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict implicitly favours the Israeli side, a study for the BBC Governors has concluded.
Deaths of Israelis received greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities, while Israelis received more airtime on news and current affairs programmes. The references to “identifiable shortcomings†surprised BBC News executives, who are more used to accusations that their coverage is routinely anti-Israel.
Only “a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by BBC Newsâ€, the analysis, published yesterday, noted, while “the killing of more than one Israeli by Palestinians either by gun or bomb was reported on national broadcast programmesâ€.
At the same time, there was “little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives†and a “failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other side lives under occupationâ€. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2162459,00.html
That's correct: they think they're being too pro-Israeli...
Not directly relevant to the post but re Independent's headline today "Israel's verdict: We lost the war".
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1219280.ece
Here's a different view from Phlip Greenspun
"The Lebanese/Israeli conflict (when Jew hatred stops being fun)"
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/
Although I supported Israel's boycott of the BBC in 2003, I now agree with you that another boycott would be counterproductive. What Israel needs to do is to have spokesmen on the BBC who agressively counter attack the biased reporting and questioning that the BBC is notorious for.
I find it strange that nobody commented on Andrew Marr's interview with Hanan Ashrawi which took place the week before the
Sunday AM programe Stephen mentioned in his article. During the 'interview' Andrew did not ask any questions; the only comments he made were 'sure' and 'indeed'. This so-called interview followed an interview with Shimon Peres during which Shimon was grilled in the usual, sympathetic, manner. I know this is just one more example, but is one which I found particularly shocking.