BBC’s Dogged Denial
June 21, 2011 11:38 by Simon PloskerWe held to account those international media outlets that published what turned out to be a false story concerning the sentencing of a dog to be stoned to death. Within hours of HonestReporting’s communique, the Daily Telegraph removed the story in its entirety from its website. Time had already published an update.
The BBC, however, published a separate follow up article.
Did the BBC issue a correction? No.
Did the BBC admit that it had published a story from the Israeli press without verifying or fact checking in a professional journalistic manner? Of course not.
Was the BBC concerned that it had published the story after Israeli paper Ma’ariv had issued an apology and retraction? Not on your life.
Instead, in typical BBC fashion, it responded by turning the denials of the story from the Jerusalem rabbinical court into a story in its own right.
When will the BBC be big enough to admit when it has committed an error instead of wriggling out of an outright retraction?
You can send your considered comments to the BBC Complaints website. For more on how to navigate the complaints process, click here for our guide on how to make a complaint to the BBC.
UPDATE – 23 JUNE: Since this blog post was published the following has been posted on the BBC News Editor’s blog:
You may have noticed a headline in our “most popular” module about a dog being condemned to stoning in Israel. It was followed a few days later by a denial: Jerusalem court denies dog condemned by stoning. The first story has now been taken down. This is not a step we often take so I wanted to explain why we have done so on this occasion. We based our article on sources we have used in the past: Ynet, a popular Israeli website, and the news agency AFP. What we did not know when we wrote the story was that the Israeli Hebrew-language newspaper Maariv had already published a retraction and an apology. We failed to make the right checks. We should never have written the article and apologise for any offence caused. We have kept the story carrying the denial in the interests of transparency.
Nathalie Malinarich is world editor of the BBC News website.
While the BBC’s acknowledgment that it failed to make the right checks is welcome, we still question the motivation behind the follow-up story as being “in the interests of transparency.”
In addition, while the original story topped the BBC’s most popular items, who is likely to see this blog post hidden away in the depths of the BBC website?
Nonetheless, credit is due to the many of you who made the effort to send a complaint to the BBC. This acknowledgement on the BBC’s part is a rare display of humility on the part of a media behemoth that has previously been virtually impervious to criticism.
This is a small step in the right direction and vindicates HonestReporting’s highlighting when the BBC gets it wrong.
DAILY TELEGRAPH ACKNOWLEDGES THE ERROR
Unlike the BBC, the Daily Telegraph at least took the issue seriously. One HonestReporting subscriber received the following after he submitted a complaint:
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us and to bring this to our attention. The article was first published in the Israeli newspaper Maariv and we suspended it as soon as we were alerted to the fact that they had taken it down. The article no longer appears online.
Today we published a further article highlighting Maariv’s retraction and the denials of the rabbinical court. I have attached a link below for your reference.
Please accept my apologies for any upset or distress this may have caused.
Steve Mann
11:55 am
Jun 21, 2011
The answer to your question is never- as long as it is responsible only to itself- As long as the Bulk of its Journalists, editors and producers come from the “Chattering Left Wing Elite”-
As long as it advertise`s in the Guardian newspaper for employment posts.
As long as it refuses to produce the Malcom Balin report!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
16 
0
BBC’s Dogged Denial «ScrollPost.com
3:25 pm
Jun 21, 2011
[...] Time had already published an update. The BBC, however, [...]Original article can be viewed at BBC’s Dogged Denial on HonestReporting. Source: Europe & OECD BlogsPublished: 21 June 2011Site: [...]
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Ros
7:33 pm
Jun 21, 2011
Did the Daily Mail retract their story? I haven’t seen it. There were literally hundreds of comments – most of which were negative and many downright hostile!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
6 
0
“Hundesteinigung“: BBC uneinsichtig und klar auf anti-israelischem Kurs « Medien BackSpin
8:28 pm
Jun 21, 2011
[...] HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 21. Juni 2011 [...]
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
menachemp
10:50 pm
Jun 21, 2011
Ynet has pulled the story
The error page saus Sorry in big letters an links you back to the home page.
Is that an apology?
Agree or Disagree:
3 
1
elzeide
4:13 pm
Jun 23, 2011
It was sad and very bad that Ynet kept the story published for so many days.
Of more then 200 comments on the Ynet site, many (although not the mayority) explained that it was a bogus history, even one put the link to the HonestReporting story.
But it took them 6 or 7 days to accept the mistake. The damage done to Israel and the Jewish people is immense.
This is not to accept western media bias, but YNet was also quite wrong.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
philip
3:43 am
Jun 23, 2011
I complained to BBC and this is the generic response I got about how the BBC chooses its news stories. No aknowledgement that the BBC turned lies into news.
Dear philip
Reference CAS-827940-97KV2P
Thank you for contacting us regarding ‘BBC News’.
I understand you’re unhappy with a news report about a Jewish religious court in Israel sentencing a dog to death.
The choice of stories to report in our news programmes can be difficult as editorial staff always have more reports than can be fitted into the time available. Their choice has to be selective and no matter how carefully such decisions are made, they’re always aware that some people may disagree with them.
I appreciate you feel quite strongly about this matter and I can assure you that I have registered your concerns on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers. The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content. The logs are also published on the BBC’s intranet site, so are available for all BBC staff to view.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Gemma McCartan
BBC Complaints
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Stephen Regal
6:00 pm
Jun 23, 2011
Once again the BBC have shown themselves to be the true descendents of Goebbels and Streicher in that if one repeats a lie often enough it becomes the truth.
Although most reporting and indeed Editorial is from the naïve left, the Nazi rhetoric is repeated time and time again. 2000 years of Christian persecution relieved only for the short post Holocaust period rises again and the so called intellectuals working for the BBC and for whom we pay their salaries maintain the lies that have lead to the Blood libels of the past.
The innate anti-Semitism of the British left and right will always out, when will people understand the phrase “I heard it on the BBC has now become an irony?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
6 
0
Sachs
7:34 pm
Jun 23, 2011
The true does never prevail but the people who are against it dy out.
Max Planck
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Abu Nudnik
12:08 am
Jun 24, 2011
“Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.” is the correct quote by Planck.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
David Winter
7:45 pm
Jun 23, 2011
Having reached the grand old age of 75 I no longer have to pay the exorbitant TV licence fee so I can watch and hear all the anti-semetic rhetoric for free. I repeat my accusation made in front of 200 witnesses several years ago “The BBC and David Dimbleby are anti-semetic” I’m still waiting for my summons!!!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
4 
0
Abu Nudnik
12:05 am
Jun 24, 2011
I’m glad they came around. I don’t see the problem of leaving the story up “in the interest of transparency.” One could argue this is a noble kind of honesty… as long as a long appears on that page or comment that the story was in error.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
seth
12:39 am
Jun 24, 2011
sue
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Sleeping Dogs Don’t Lie – But the Press Does | The Conservative Papers
4:34 am
Jun 27, 2011
[...] 2: The BBC’s response is simply unacceptable. Find out why here on our Backspin blog and take further [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Jack Kandy
3:28 am
Jul 01, 2011
It’s about time the BBC reporters were banned from Israel till they learn to report objectively.
Trust me if we ban them like the Arabs do they will walk the line.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Society: Dog sentenced to death by stoning - Page 5
9:59 pm
Jul 17, 2011
[...] a little bit about Judaism should have been skpetical reading the article. The story has been retracted; every news site has taken it down, but the BBC did so in a controversial way (highlighting the [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Society: Dog sentenced to death by stoning - Page 5
9:59 pm
Jul 17, 2011
[...] a little bit about Judaism should have been skpetical reading the article. The story has been retracted; every news site has taken it down, but the BBC did so in a controversial way (highlighting the [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0