Philip Hensher: The BBC is too impartial to suffering
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
During the 22 days of the Israeli assaults on Gaza, around 1,300 Palestinians, according to both local and international sources, were killed. This included over 400 children under 18 and over 100 women. Israeli shells hit schools, heavily built-up areas and the UN Relief and Works Agency headquarters, killing many and knocking out food and medical supply warehouses. The UN, Red Cross and Israeli human rights agencies have complained that food aid, medics and rescue services have been prevented from reaching those in need.
In these circumstances, when the normal pattern of life has been violently disrupted, people in the West and around the world naturally want to do something about it. I doubt that many do so primarily because they hate Israel, or because they are secretly anti-Semitic. I would guess that for most people, the emotion of pity for innocent victims and for those who have no escape from the open-air prison of Gaza, shelled with phosphorus, is uppermost. Some people, if they thought about it, would blame Israel; some, more ingenious, would blame Hamas. You could wish to do something about it, whichever opinion you held.
Not, however, if you worked for the BBC. The Disasters Emergency Committee, which represents 13 of Britain's aid agencies, asked the BBC to broadcast an appeal for money to help the people of Gaza. The BBC turned them down, saying such an appeal would damage the BBC's reputation for editorial independence. And, they said, there was no guarantee the money raised would reach those in genuine need.
Caroline Thomson, the Chief Operating Officer of the BBC, on the Today Programme on Saturday said: "You have to ask yourself what the most important thing for the people who are suffering ... from the BBC's position, the most important thing is that we keep our reputation." Edward Stourton, quite rightly, could hardly contain his incredulity at Ms Thomson's idea that by giving airtime to a humanitarian appeal the BBC would be seen to be supporting one side or another. As for the idea that the money "wouldn't get through": the aid agencies believe it would, and the Government has some measure of confidence, too. The BBC hasn't a leg to stand on.
The news, no doubt, has a requirement to represent the justification of the attacks as well as their results. Perhaps it would be right to go on reporting frankly green-ink views that most of those killed were terrorists, that the buildings destroyed were weapons factories and not schools, that any children apparently carried dead through the streets were probably murdered by their parents, and other sickening productions of the fantasy factory.
If you believed those claims, it would probably be right not to broadcast an appeal for funds. You don't, however, need to believe more than that many people killed were innocent bystanders with nowhere to flee, including children, and that the destruction has made life very difficult, and that the attendance of aid agencies demonstrates only the presence of suffering.
The trouble is that the BBC's requirement for impartiality has enabled it, yet again, to do nothing. Yet that inactivity does not have a neutral result. It means an appeal is not heard; that some money is not raised; an instance of suffering is not alleviated; that another child dies. Just so Ms Thomson can rest in her bed, assured that she has not upset a correspondent who believes a hospital was really a bomb factory, that there was never any white phosphorus fired at civilians, and that dead toddler was really a suicide bomber. Never has impartiality seemed so very far from moral neutrality.
Chelsy, an unlikely victim of these tough times
I suppose we will miss Chelsy Davy. For five years, she has fascinated us with her bored, sulky features, pulling a face next to Prince Harry. She's probably perfectly ladylike, but she always looked, in features, as vulgar and broad as a seaside landlady. She had all the potential to be that generation's Sarah Ferguson next to the tedious graciousness of Kate Middleton's Princess Diana tribute.
Alas, the credit crunch did for that sort of Mahiki Princess, and I think we can all look forward to an end to photographs of royal hangers-on falling out of Kensington clubs. Chelsy got her timing wrong. For a truly vulgar and shameless royal wedding, I think we need a Big Bang, a Barber Boom, a Macmillan announcing that "you never had it so good". As we look forward to a three-day week and an economic slump, a Zimbabwean princess dripping with diamonds and fake tan would never be quite the thing.
An excellent introduction to the real world
David Miliband, it has been reported, caused some offence in India by calling the Indian Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, "Pranab". Mr Mukherjee called Miliband "your excellency". Seeking to export the Blair revolution, by which the prime minister of the day sought to be called "Tony" by his colleagues, was always going to lead to trouble.
But do any of us in Britain know how to address anyone any more? When I was at university, my tutors called me "Mr Hensher" and I called them "Professor X". Now, my students begin e-mails to me "Hey Phil". That, I don't mind so much, but I have to admit being irritated when the ticket-checker on South West Trains calls me "mate".
The trouble is that the person who you're on first-name terms with might very well still fail your essay, and being the "mate" of the mini-Hitler with the hole-puncher isn't going to count for much when he discovers that you've forgotten to buy a ticket.
As WH Auden said, the problem is that most people have forgotten the difference between their friends and complete strangers. If Mr Miliband hopes to progress in his career, he might like to discover that not everybody in the world has forgotten this important distinction.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
People are free to donate to aid charities without needing television to help them find the phone number.
The ability of a foreign power such as Israel to exert pressure on the BBC and influence its programming in this way should be of grave concern to every free-thinking Briton, and should be fully investigated as a matter of urgency.
Lebanon is partially controlled by hezbollah. Gaza is completely controlled by Hamas. Perhaps the BBC, quite correctly, doesn't want to devote air time to raise money that MAY wind up in the wrong hands.
Anyway, the BBC is a news service.
If you are passionate, go and donate money. No one is stopping you. But I hope you look and see who you are donating to and make sure it'll really go to helping people in need, not to crazy islamic terrorist groups.
They are supposed to be impartial. They are a news gathering organization, not a mouthpiece for a particular viewpoint. You are a twit.
No, because you are a pro-Zionist forum troll who only emerges from his cave when Megaphone alerts you.
For those who aren't aware of megaphone, google GIYUS (Give Israel Your United Support) - if you've ever wondered how all our British comment sites get overwhelmed by pro-Zionist support, now you know....
Anyone who has been to the central office complexes of the BBC knows about the gradually increasing amount of people that appear to have no job, no role, asking questions, making suggestions continually.
A representative from both security services is always part of the vetting process at the BBC, from middle management and above, they are present at various stages of the job selection process (the MI6 man usually sits to the far right)
This means HM Government has a direct say in who gets to work in the BBC... and who don't.
Bearing in mind that from Gordon Brown downwards are all involved with the Friends of Israel group, it doesn't take much imagination at who is giving orders here and what the Israeli's fear is the BBC doing a global run on the DEC appeal where it will be shown worldwide but more specifically uncensored in the US via BBC America.
BBC America is immensely popular, the Israeli's must be fair dropping blue bricks at large swathes of Americans being exposed to images of Israeli war crimes and atrocity, it would be the beginning of a lot of questions and a huge loss of blind support for the Israeli cause.
And please remember that the BBC is not owned by Brown, Miliband, the Americans or Israel, it is owned by the licence fee payers, the taxpayers, the people of Britain OWN the BBC and if the public consensus is that the bloody corporation run this appeal then it is NOT up to the government, Thompson or anyone else to go in the face of public will especially as we own the damned thing...
When is he goig to be sacked. He has a distinguished future at the EBC. Go.
They have never delivered "impartial" news either come to that.
"eco-exec"- Israel should consider stopping its war crimes and terrorism too.You are very one sided and blinkered
"The BBC is often accused of an anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Middle East, and recently censured reporter Barbara Plett for saying she "started to cry" when Yasser Arafat left Palestine shortly before his death.
Fascinating, then, to learn that its director general, Mark Thompson, has recently returned from Jerusalem, where he held a face-to-face meeting with the hardine Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Although the diplomatic visit was not publicised on these shores, it has been seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country's political class.
Sources at the Beeb also suspect that it heralds a "softening" to the corporation's unofficial editorial line on the Middle East.
"This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it's clearly a significant development," I'm told.
"Not many people know this, but Mark is actually a deeply religious man. He's a Catholic, but his wife is Jewish, and he has a far greater regard for the Israeli cause than some of his predecessors."
Understandably, an official BBC spokesman was anxious to downplay talk of an exclusively pro-Israeli charm offensive."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl
Where was the BBC's intransigence in the face of government influence during the dodgy dossier affair?
The BBC - hypocrites, jobsworths, and now the defenders of murderers of children.
Shame on you.
Pope
The BBC site has been flooded with GIYUS trolls for ages but the BBC staff are too Luddite to realize.
The DG is partial on this matter having met the arch murderer Sharon for tea an cakes and having family ties that limit his potential for partiality.
The BBC should be run in the interests of the British not the Israelis - many of whose political elite were and still are associated with Zionist terrorists who murdered British people
A serious miscalculation on the BBC's behalf
As our viewpoint is continually ridden roughshod over by lobby groups, whom the BBC are too scared of to disagree.
Do they have something on Thompson perhaps?
Some pictures?
The issue here is not to do with religion but with money and politics. By not broadcasting the appeal on the grounds of impartiality, BBC and SKY have proven the exact opposite, that they are indeed biased and their bias is 100% pro Israel. Nobody had any doubts about Sky, we know that Murdoch is a zionist and supporter of Israel. But why do I have to pay my TV license to BBC which holds an unequivocal pro-Israel stance in its repoting? How can Ms Thompson say that the suffering is equal on both sides? And how can we put politics in front of a humanitarian disaster such as the one happening in Gaza? Ms Thompson think of all the unecessary suffering that your decision could alleviate.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is more like the Nazi's actions in the Warsaw Ghetto.
They seem to be just another AIPAC PsyOP machine.
Thanks for the laugh.