|
|
|

|
Text Size: |
|
A |
|
A |
|
|
The Dishonest Reporter 'Award' 2005
Our fifth annual recognition of the most skewed and biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,
Big
media was clearly on the defensive in 2005.
Dan Rather left the CBS News anchor desk under a heavy
cloud while other executives were fired in the wake of
Memogate. The use of anonymous sources put journalists
like
Judith Miller and the NY Times in an uncomfortable
spotlight.
Newsweek's erroneous report that US Marines desecrated a
Koran touched off a firestorm of deadly protests around the
world. CNN news chief
Eason Jordan was forced to resign over
comments at an international forum. And an
Al-Jazeera reporter was even convicted for his links to
Al-Qaida. In each controversy,
bloggers successfully pressured the news services for
accuracy and accountability.
Unfortunately, problematic coverage of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict continued.
We couldn't address all the news services or journalists who
were nominated by HonestReporting subscribers, but we thank
readers for sharing their thoughts about 2005 and for making
our fight for honest reporting your fight too. So without
further ado, we proceed with our Dishonest Reporter of the
Year Award. We begin with the runner-ups:
Reuters
Of all
the coverage we saw of the Gaza pullout, nothing stood out
more than this odious comment by
Reuters in the lead-up days:
The [Gaza] closure will give
about 8,500 settlers a taste of some of the military
restrictions and bureaucracy endured by Palestinians living
under occupation.
The
wire service also remained consistent to its warped
principles during the London terror attacks too, refusing to
describe the bombings as "terror."
To understand the logic behind Reuters' vocabulary
gymnastics, see
here.
Palestinian Stringers
Western
news services rely on Palestinian stringers for reporting,
photographs and video footage. They also rely on "fixers"
who provide all kinds of other support: arranging
interviews, navigating through difficult areas, translating
and more. But how reliable and objective are these
stringers? The
Jerusalem Post exposed a number of AP and AFP stringers
who were also on the
Palestinian Authority payroll, including
Majida al-Batsh, who was a
candidate for PA president. (Nobody protested the use of AFP
office supplies for her candidacy.) The revelations brought
to mind a related
special report on the influence of Palestinian
organizations on foreign news. But unlike a
similar scandal in the White House press corps, the
stringers' conflict of interest met deafening silence.
C-Span
C-Span executives took the idea of
"balanced coverage"
to an illogical extreme in March, deciding that a talk by
Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt needed to be balanced out
with a talk by Holocaust denier David Irving.
Lipstadt told HonestReporting:
The notion
that there are 'two sides to every story' is simplistic,
fuzzy thinking at best, and far more dangerous than that at
worst.
Now
jailed in Austria, where Holocaust denial is a crime,
Irving awaits a February trial.
The
Guardian
The Guardian found itself
red-faced by what became known as
Sassygate: As exposed by blogger
Scott Burgess, the paper hired trainee
journalist Dilpazier Aslam, whose coverage of July's London
terror attacks included a
commentary sympathizing with the bombers. It turned out
that Aslam was a member of
Hizb Ut Tahrir, an Islamist organization which calls for
the destruction of Israel and the rule of a world-wide
caliphate. When the dust settled, Aslam was fired and the
paper's executive editor for news, Albert Scardino resigned.
Aslam is now
suing The Guardian for "racial and religious
discrimination."
Eric Margolis
The
February assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri shocked even the most cynical Mideast experts.
Syrian propaganda, predictably blaming Israel, was
echoed by the North American syndicated columnist
Eric Margolis. Ironically, the same week that the
Mehlis report to the UN on Hariri's murder was released,
Margolis gave a soapbox to unsubstantiated claims that
Israel had a hand in the 1988 plane crash that killed
Pakistani dictator
Zia Ul-Haq.
* * *
But one
news service's skewed coverage stood out the most, "winning"
the award in a landslide. From the first day votes came in,
it wasn't close, which may explain the dearth of nominations
for perennial runner-ups like the NY Times, Associated Press
and The Independent. The 2005 Dishonest Reporter of the Year
Award goes to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The impact of BBC coverage
cannot be understated. A
Google study found that for breaking news, internet
users around the world were more likely to turn to the BBC
than CNN. More than 270 million TV viewers around the world
watch
BBC World. Even more people listen to
BBC World Service, which broadcasts in 42 languages.
Readers
provided a full laundry list of complaints and we found the
most effective way to condense the biggest offenses was in a
simple list form. The examples of bias from the year past
indicates a pattern of naivete, dishonesty, forcing facts
conform to a narrow worldview and, arguably, a desire to
inappropriately influence events - all paid for by British
television viewers through the
TV License Fee, which costs the typical household
126.50
GB Pounds per year.
Here
are the top 10 reasons (listed in chronological order) why
the BBC is HonestReporting's Dishonest Reporter of the Year.

10. In
January, Palestinian presidential candidate
Dr. Mustafa Barghouti (not to be confused with his
better-known distant relative, Marwan) tried to use Israel
and the Western media to get some free publicity for his
campaign by getting himself arrested at the Temple Mount.
The Independent's Donald Macintyre saw straight through Barghouti's ploy, but the BBC's
Martin Asser proved more gullible:
A large crowd of journalists
has gathered at an East Jerusalem hotel to hear him, and
there is some excitement because a rumour is going round he
will go to the al-Aqsa mosque later for Friday prayers...
It is meant to be the
photo-opportunity highlight of the day - but the Israeli
security services have other ideas...
In truth, Mr Barghouti's
programme was not unduly affected by the detention, because
his next engagement was not scheduled until 1330.
I could be wrong, but that -
rather conveniently - left ample time for his
headline-grabbing brush with the Israelis before moving on
to meet the voters.
9. Every
morning, listeners can tune into BBC for an uplifting
"Thought
of the Day." One February morning, Rev. Dr. John Bell
used the feature to describe an Arab-Israeli acquaintance
only identified as "Adam." According to Rev. Dr. Bell, this
acquaintance was "conscripted" into the Israeli army, where
"he was also imprisoned for refusing to shoot unarmed
schoolchildren." See the
full transcript here.
After
HonestReporting pointed out that Israeli-Arabs aren't
required to serve in the IDF and that the allegations that
soldiers have orders to shoot unarmed kids are wholly
unfounded, the BBC
apologized
- but only for not fact-checking Adam's age and
the issue of conscription. We still await a retraction about
the non-existent orders to shoot kids.
 8. In March,
the BBC
apologized to Israel for reporter Simon Wilson's
handling of an interview with Mordechai Vanunu. A former
technician at the Dimona nuclear plant, Vanunu is prohibited
from talking to foreign reporters, but Wilson, in 2004, was
caught trying to smuggle tapes of his interview out of the
country. Although the apology - which paved the way for Wilson
to return to Israel - was supposed to remain confidential, it
was inexplicably posted on the BBC's own web site for
several hours. The BBC once intended to rent out a
luxury apartment for Vanunu paid for by British
television viewers.
 7. He
retired from the BBC, but former Mideast correspondent
Tim Llewellyn (now an executive member of the
Council for the Advancement of Arab British Understanding)
makes this list for an interview he gave to
Electronic Intifada. We are concerned Llewellyn's views
are shared by colleagues within the BBC:
[BBC] are adopting what they
see as an even handed attitude. To me this is a cowardly
attitude, it is an attitude which confuses occupier with
occupied...
 6. In May,
BBC correspondent
Orla Guerin reported that construction linking Maale
Adumim to Jerusalem would split the West Bank in two,
destroying any possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
HonestReporting noted that construction in the area
known as E-1 doesn't take away territorial contiguity. A map
produced by our colleagues at
CAMERA highlights how the Palestinians would have
continuous territory, which, at its narrowest, would be nine
miles (or 15 km) wide - which also happens to be the width of
Israel's "waistline" between the Green Line and the
Mediterranean.
5. When
members of the British
Association of University Teachers considered a
boycott of Israel's Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities, BBC
radio tried to influence the vote with a report by
correspondent John Reynolds from the College of Judea and
Samaria. As
Melanie Phillips wrote in May:
Not a word about the fact
that more than 300 students at this college are Arabs, and
that the Arab mayors of local towns have enthusiastically
welcomed the opportunities it gives their students...
The BBC might as well have
had a block vote at today's AUT conference. So much for its
supposed objectivity, which once again stands exposed as a
charade.
4. When
terrorists linked to Al-Qaida struck the London
transportation system in July, many thought the BBC would
finally use the word "terror" to describe the wanton attacks
on civilians. To their credit, a small handful of initial
reports did. But appearances of the "t-word" in initial
coverage were soon
removed from the BBC's web site (but not before
Tom Gross documented the inconsistencies). Yet Roger
Mosey, the head of BBC's television news, contradicted
BBC policy when he wrote in
The Guardian that there was no ban in the first place!
Then there has been a
controversy about our use of language - particularly the
question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist".
There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some
contexts on our international services, hence the
recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have
used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism
and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from
Thursday.
Not
surprisingly,
subsequent coverage of the London bombings and their
aftermath remained "terror free." At the end of the year,
however,
The Guardian reported that BBC journalists received new
"guidance" discouraging - but not banning - the "t-word." Time
will tell if this will have a positive impact in 2006.
3. Following
the London terror attacks, the BBC admitted
loading the studio audience with a disproportionate
number of Muslims for
Questions of Security: A BBC News Special. (See
Biased BBC for links to video of the show.) Among the
complaints, one viewer wrote angrily:
I do not pay my license fee
to watch an unrepresentative Muslim audience like this.
The
BBC's response?
In order to ensure a range
of voices on these issues, the studio audience contained a
higher proportion of Muslims in the audience than in the
population as a whole - around 15% of the audience as
opposed to 2.7% of the country as a whole...
This
isn't the first time the BBC got in hot water for loading
the audience. In 2001, anti-American invective from a
Question Time audience discussing the 9/11 attacks got
so out of hand that news director Greg Dyke had to apologize
to US ambassador Philip Lader, who participated in the show.
Can
anyone imagine a BBC program on Israel loaded with Israelis
and Jews?
2. Within
hours after Israel completed its pull-out from the Gaza
Strip, Palestinians wasted no time desecrating synagogues
and looting greenhouses. BBC's
Orla Guerin was one of
several journalists who actually justified the sad,
senseless destruction:
Palestinians
came streaming to the settlements that caused them so much
pain, to sightsee and to loot. Israel stole thirty-eight
years from them; today, many were ready to take back
anything they could.
1. Whatever
happened to
Malcolm Balen, who was appointed to help improve the
BBC's Mideast reporting? Back in November, 2003, the BBC
hired him as a "senior editorial advisor," or, as some put
it, "a Middle East policeman." Some HonestReporting readers
were hopeful when
Haaretz reported that Balen was supposed to present a
"conclusive and comprehensive report" to BBC executives. Balen even told Haaretz:
What I do
is a long-term editorial review, and by definition, the
review is retrospective, rather than a look at day-to-day
output. The truth is, in any editorial job, you are so tied
up with your program and deadline, that you simply do not
have the time to stand back and look at the coverage as a
whole," says Balen.
"Nobody has the time in a journalistic job
to trace the course of a single story in an organization as
large as the BBC, which is what I was appointed to do. I can
concentrate on a single story and look at all sorts of
angles and aspects. I can join the dots together,
[determine] what the coverage feels like, what the tone is
like - crucially, what the content is like, what the balance
is like."
Yet
with all the resources of the BBC at his disposal, Balen, to
our knowledge, has not presented any report. In contrast,
Trevor Asserson, a British lawyer working on his own
initiative, put together several
exhaustive critiques. HonestReporting readers, who also
chose the BBC as Dishonest Reporter of the Year in
2001, connected the dots.
Has
Balen?
* * *
By
October, the deteriorating coverage reached a point where
the
Board of Governors requested Sir Quentin Thomas to lead
an
independent panel to investigate its Mideast reporting.
(See
here for more details.) The panel is supposed to release
its findings in the spring. When the Board of Governors
released its
Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors, the
forward by the chairman of the complaints committee noted
that the majority of the complaints (20 out of 27 in fact)
dealt with Mideast coverage. Only one - against
Barbara Plett
- was upheld.
Yet
even in December, former director-general
Greg Dyke, a casualty of the
Hutton Report, insists that the network's Mideast
reporting continues to be fair:
We investigated many of the
complaints and most of the time found our reporting had been
totally fair. Of course the pro-Israeli lobby didn't accept
that but then they had a different agenda.
The
stakes are certainly high. News services skewing reports
from the Mideast are just as capable of warping other
important areas of coverage. For the BBC, that's most
notably
Iraq. The BBC's
royal charter expires at the end of 2006 - one year from
now -- and officials must explain how it spends income from
the
TV License Fee. In 2003, this TV tax brought the BBC
nearly
2.4 billion
GB Pounds in income. Simply put, the British public
is subsidizing lousy news.
As far
as we're concerned, the excuses and apologies have worn
thin. The BBC must be held accountable.
We appreciate you, our readers for writing the media,
alerting us to questionable reports and sharing your
insights with us.
HonestReporting covered a lot of ground in 2005 and we'll
continue monitoring the media in the coming year. We hope
2006 proves to be a better year of honest reporting.
Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle
against media bias.

HonestReporting
|