BBC panel finds broadcaster breached guidelines on Israel

[shira]

In reporting about Israel, BBC's Middle East Editor has breached the corporation's guideline on accuracy and impartiality, an internal BBC complaints panel on Wednesday stated.

The Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland said that the findings show that the BBC has an anti-Israel "bias" and that the position of the editor, Jeremy Bowen, is "untenable." The corporation rejected these claims.

"The findings are extremely serious," Jonathan Hoffman, the Federation's co-vice chair, told Haaretz. "They demand urgent and visible action by the BBC to restore public confidence. The BBC should start by publishing the Balen Report, which it has spent five years and a reported £200,000 trying to keep under wraps."

The Balen Report from 2004 is an internal BBC document about alleged anti-Israel bias which the BBC, a public service based body and the world's largest broadcasting corporation - has been requested but refused to release.

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078501.html

[bemildred]

1. A BBC spokesperson reacted to this in saying:

"We completely refute the assertion made by the Federation's that we have 'biased coverage of Israel' - this is a single, partially-upheld finding related to one piece of output about events that took place over forty years ago and our Middle East Editor was simply exercising his professional judgment on history."

The spokesperson referred to the Thomas Report from April 2006 on the matter, which said: "Apart from individual lapses, there was little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias."

[shira]

2. CAMERA Press Release on Key BBC Ruling Against Mideast Editor Jeremy Bowen

BBC Trust Finds Bowen Violated Guideline Requiring Impartiality

In a significant ruling, the BBC's highest body has substantially upheld CAMERA's complaint that BBC News's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen violated the broadcaster's guidelines that require impartiality and accuracy. Below is CAMERA's press release on the breaking development.


CAMERA will soon be posting on its Web site a summary describing the details of the complaint and the BBC's often-disturbingly misleading early attempts to defend its biased report. Check back soon for that eye-opening piece.

The press release follows:

==================================================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

BBC Trust Rules Against Mideast Editor Jeremy Bowen

Boston, MA - The BBC has determined that its Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, had violated the broadcaster's ethical guidelines calling for impartiality and accuracy. The finding is likely to amplify concerns that BBC news coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is largely biased against Israel.

The March 31, 2009 decision by the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC), a unit of the BBC's top decision-making body, the BBC Trust, comes in response to a formal complaint filed by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), and a similar complaint filed independently by a member of the U.K.-based Zionist Federation.

CAMERA's complaint charged that Bowen's June 4, 2007 article about the Six-Day War and its aftermath was marred by "serious omissions, exaggerations and outright anti-Israel bias." The detailed complaint came before the ESC after the BBC News Web site and Editorial Complaints Unit defended Bowen's article.

In response to the ruling, CAMERA Senior Research Analyst Gilead Ini said that while ESC's willingness to openly fault unethical reporting by Bowen is important and encouraging, it is unclear that the BBC will draw appropriate conclusions from its findings and take concrete steps to combat the broadcaster's chronically biased reporting. "Acknowledging the glaring problems in this article is a good first step, but it's only a first step," he said. "The BBC also needs to consider the wider implications here. Not only did the senior BBC reporter in the Middle East show bias in his reporting, but he also made it clear, while defending his piece before the ESC, that he thinks it's reasonable to report from the Palestinian perspective and ignore other mainstream narratives."

Ini feels that the ESC findings and, especially, Bowen's "outrageously deceptive" attempts to defend his report, explain the journalist's past biased coverage and cast doubt on his suitability as a BBC reporter and editor. "There's good reason to be skeptical of Mr. Bowen's reporting," he said, "and by extension, the reporting of BBC reporters who are subordinate to him."

CAMERA is concerned that the ESC, despite having ruled that Bowen's reporting was not impartial, is apparently not calling on the reporter to be objective in future articles. Its ruling states that it is not necessary for Bowen to have given equal space to different views. "All that was required was a clear statement signposting that there were alternative theses subscribed to by respectable historians."

This assertion is inconsistent with the BBC's Editorial Guidelines, Ini argues. "If Jeremy Bowen consistently promotes only one point of view linked to a controversial subject and fails to relay in any real depth other prominent and reasonable views, the result is biased reporting," he said. "This is true regardless of whether or not Bowen throws in a sentence 'signposting' that other views exist."

The ESC finding that "the article had breached the guideline on impartiality" came after an independent advisor commissioned by the BBC described Bowen's assessment of the Six-Day War as being "firmly of the 'New Historian' kind," and "unqualified by an acknowledgment that the opposite or 'mainstream' opinion might have some weight too."

The advisor had also consulted with mainstream historian Martin Gilbert and revisionist historian Avi Shlaim, who both agreed that aspects of Bowen's piece were not accurate.

CAMERA will soon be posting on its website key excerpts from the complaint and the BBC rulings.

============================================================


http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1655

[Ken Burch]

58. That's CAMERA, also known as the "Everyone Who Criticizes Israel Is An Antisemite Club"

They're the ones who still pretend there's an "unrelenting Arab crusade to destroy Israel".

REAL reputable source there, shira.

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

3. BBC Trust partly upholds Jeremy Bowen complaints

Three complaints about Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen's reporting upheld in full or in part by BBC Trust

The BBC Trust has upheld in full or in part three complaints about two reports on the Middle East by veteran correspondent Jeremy Bowen.

In a report published today, the trust's editorial standards committee ruled on the three complaints relating to an edition of Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent and a BBC News website report by Bowen, the BBC's Middle East editor.

The BBC Trust received one complaint about Bowen's January 2008 report for From Our Own Correspondent from the Israeli settlement of Har Homa, near Jerusalem, claiming that it was biased against Israelis and contained a number of inaccuracies.

Bowen's Har Homa report was cleared by the trust over impartiality. However, the BBC's regulatory and governance body partially upheld the complaint with regard to accuracy, saying that Bowen had not properly sourced his assertion that the settlement was considered illegal by the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/15/bbc-trust-jeremy-bowen-middle-east-editor-complaints

None of the complaints are in regard to OCL reporting the other 2 WRT a 2007 story about the 1967 war

[Violet_Crumble]

7. It's about three complaints? Shit, there were over 11,000 complaints about the Gaza Appeal...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/26/bbc-gaza-appeal-row-timeline

This Jonathon Hoffman sounds like a bit of a tool raving about bias and trying to get someone sacked. I've seen letters from him where he tries to suggest that a woman and her two children killed in Gaza were suicide bombers. What a fucking moron. Anyway, I wonder what his stance was on the BBC's refusal to air the Gaza Appeal? ;)

[shira]

11. Just 3 examples showing partiality and inaccuracy should be enough to suggest that

...this BBC editor is not keeping to the journalistic standards set by his bosses at the BBC.

A BBC internal committee made the ruling, not CAMERA or any other Jewish organization.

These 3 examples should be enough for any objective person to realize that ALL of this person's past journalistic work is now questionable.

Of course, maybe you don't have a problem with advocacy journalism and you prefer the BBC reads more like an OP-ED when it comes to I/P.

The Robert Fisk article below is a great example of an OP-ED, not journalism based on impartiality and accuracy. Or do you disagree?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. It suggests that some enoy making a mountain out of a molehill...

For anyone who's interested enough to read the BBC Trust's report, here's a link to it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2009/mar.pdf

Personally, who gives a flying fuck what CAMERA or the Zionist Federation or you say about it? I don't, that's for sure. Nowhere does the BBC Trust come to the conclusion that the journalist hates Israel or that his work is questionable. It's CAMERA and the rest who are saying all that.

And it's interesting to note that while there were three separate complaints, each was made up of a multitude of separate mini-complaints, and out of what came to 24 complaints, the BBBC Trust upheld only three of them. And that's why it's all making a mountain out of a molehill. Plus wasting British taxpayers money with this crap. 118 pages to deal with a complaint lodged by the very member of the Zionist Federation who's now baying for the neck of the journalist, and CAMERA, which isn't even a British organisation? And check out one of the complaints they lodged:

'the statement that “For Palestinians, the settlements are a catastrophe, made worse every day by the fact that they are expanding fast”;'

[shira]

62. oh yes, since the BBC finds the BBC not so guilty of bias - all is well

Where have we heard that meme before, hmm?

If you're so worried about wasting British taxpayer money, what do you think about the $200,000 euro spent on suppressing the Balen report?

[azurnoir]

52. what I found unbelievable was the amount of time and

money put in to this "investigation" to "restore" the public trust, I'd say the public trust could most likely use some restoration but I would question if its in Jeremy Bowen

[Violet_Crumble]

8. self-delete...bit of a posting hiccup...

[shira]

4. Robert Fisk blows a gasket

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-how-can-you-trust-the-cowardly-bbcb-1669281.html

It's not pretty.

Fisk should opine for rags like Al-Manar or Iranian PRESS TV.

[EFerrari]

5. Robert Fisk is one of our best working journalists and you're right,

the spineless BBC doesn't deserve him.

[shira]

12. you misunderstood my post

In Fisk's rant, he makes no less than three outrageous claims about Israel and shows just how hostile he is towards the Jewish state. If you want opinion, have at it, but if you expect Fisk to be an impartial and unbiased reporter on all that is I/P, that's just wishful thinking.

[EFerrari]

23. No, I didn't misunderstand your post in any way.

Robert Fisk's assessments have been validated internationally for over thirty years. He certainly doesn't need your recommendation and I don't want it, thanks.

[shira]

28. but you do know the difference between OP-ED and impartial reporting, right?

[EFerrari]

47. Do you? I've written both and know the difference intimately.

How about yourself? Judging from your posts to this forum, I'd guess NOT.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Now you are parroting the CAMERA propaganda line on Robert Fisk

He is on CAMERA's enemies list, and George Mitchell, Rahm Emmanuel and President Obama will soon join Fisk on that illustrious list.

[shira]

51. I don't have to read anything by CAMERA on Fisk

I cited his latest on the BBC/Bowen case. It reads more like a poor OP-ED than impartial journalism. The factual errors in it are quite glaring. Would you like to discuss it a little more in detail?

[Ken Burch]

59. Nobody's criticism of Israeli policy has EVER been about Israel being "Jewish"

The criticism is legitimate and based on the unjust treatment meted out to Palestinians, including collective punishment, a tactic that is rejected by all other states on the planet, who reserve their punishment for the individuals who actually deserve it.

[cali]

he's done some good reporting, but that rant isn't so hot.

and the accusation that this is the result of the Israel Lobby is weak. This isn't the U.S.. It's Great Britain.

[Tripmann]

6. So basically,

A zionist organisation and an organisation whose sole purpose is to hammer any reporting that makes Israel out to be anything less than the victim of the I/P conflict is commenting on bias. The irony is laughable.

Really? Has this really been posted as a serious topic?

The BBC is one of my main news sources and is famous for its straight, impartial reporting. This sort of crap is blatant stifling and bullying by the same type of opressive scum who scream 'anti-semite' every time israels actions are questioned.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Consider the source.

Enough said.

[shira]

13. a BBC internal panel found that this ME editor breached BBC journalist ethics

It was an internal BBC investigation.

You should also do a little research on the "Balen Report", which is based on another BBC internal investigation. The BBC has spent taxpayer money trying to keep the results of this report from the public.

Do you think Robert Fisk is impartial, honest, and accurate in his reporting on I/P?

[Jefferson23]

10. Another pathetic attempt at smearing honest journalism.

Waaaa nobody likes me screaming bullshit machine.

[shira]

14. honest journalism? LOL. Read about the Balen Report when you have some time.

And you think the IDF shouldn't be trusted for internal investigations? The BBC took 2 years to finally admit these recent findings, and in their own reports on the subject, the BBC is trying to whitewash the charges. A little "BBC finds BBC innocent". You know how it goes.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1329

Check that out WRT Bowen's piece on the 1967 war. Journalistic integrity would normally prevent an ethical reporter from presenting Arab propagandist talking points like that. That's pretty blatant.

[Jefferson23]

15. Anyone who relies on the National Review, CAMERA, and Dershowitz

as you do, is not to be taken seriously, and you're not.

[shira]

16. I never read the national review

but if what I quote from them - due to some google search - is accurate, do you have a problem with that? I don't even recall quoting from the National Review.

ps
No substantive reply on the actual topic? Just ad hominems? That's the best you've got?

[Jefferson23]

17. I wonder if you read what you post sometimes.

First you claim you don't read the National Review, is that b/c you don't trust them as a source? If so, it is peculiar at best that you would rely on them and presume the information is accurate, since you claim you don't read the National Review in the first place. Your definition of accurate is highly questionable through the National Review, CAMERA and Dershowitz, odd for someone on a progressive political forum.

[oberliner]

18. Dershowitz is a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton and then Obama

This is a political forum for Democrats and other like-minded individuals is it not?

[Jefferson23]

19. Dershowitz defends torture, he is no progressive, he also lied

and smeared Norman Finkelstein. He voted Obama makes him credible to you, fine, but he is no progressive. What percentage of members here approve of Dershowitz, and on what topic do you believe they share agreement on?

[oberliner]

20. I believe they agreed with Dershowitz that Obama should be President and not McCain

He supports pretty much everything most Democrats in Congress support.

Norman Finkelstein, on the other hand, referred to Obama as "a clever politician coasting on a wave of change that he didn't work to create." and has supported candidates who have run against Democrats from other parties.

[Jefferson23]

24. And you just confirmed what I stated, Dershowitz is no progressive

and defends what progressives fight against, and Obama is not a candidate that ran as a progressive did he? There are numerous threads that speak to the many concerns that DU members have about the decisions the Obama's administration are taking on civil liberties. That Dershowitz voted for Obama lends no credence to his use of slander on Finkelstein, and Norman has said nothing controversial about Obama, quite the contrary, he is consistent with his political views.
Dershowitz on the other hand has discredited himself on the I/P conflict and it is an odd source to use on DU.

To group the National Review, CAMERA, and Dershowitz together as reliable sources, as this poster in question has, is not taken seriously by me, maybe by you but that is your prerogative.

[oberliner]

30. He disagrees with the left on some issues and agrees with others

I've seen American Conservative cited here by those who claimed to be progressive.

I find that strange as well.

[Jefferson23]

39. On some key issues he disagrees which define a progressive, that is my point.

[shira]

41. is it progressive to deny &suppress evidence of Hizbullah abuse of the Lebanese civilian population?

if so, being liberal beats the hell out of being progressive.

[shira]

31. Amnesty Int'l has similar views to NationalRev, CAMERA, and Dershowitz WRT Hizbullah human shields

Or, it appears NationalReview, CAMERA, and Dershowitz all concur with AI. How do you explain AI's conclusions on Hizbullah use of human shields?

Some observations.

1. It appears you have some knee-jerk incredulity at the possibility that major news agencies might have been and still are fooled — by Arab photographers and stringers.

2. It seems you cannot tolerate someone of another political persuasion catching something that someone of our political persuasion did not.

3. It appears you're under the impression that by discrediting sources in any willy-nilly manner, that this is some substitute for argumentation. If you claim the source is in any way questionable for any silly reason without providing some basis for your belief, then your argument appears to be that no one should have to go read what it says.

This is just smug, juvenille hostility.

How do you truly know what's going on in the ME? It appears that when your selected sources tell you what you want to read and hear, you believe it. My question is, why is this what you want to read and hear?

[Jefferson23]

44. Again you poorly characterize agreements to suit your own interpretation.

OUR political persuasion? Nice try shira. What is tolerable amounts to what is true, and if you don't read the National Review, then it is peculiar to reference it as a credible source as you do.

No willy nilly manner by me, the Lamb article for the hundrenth time is sourced to Harretz news stories, not opinion and anyone who takes the time to read it would see that.

The BBC's reputation for accuracy is not compromised by what you posted about them, it was a poorly executed attempt at slander.

How do I know what goes on in the ME? I don't search for opinion pieces from CAMERA, nor the National Review and Dershowitz. Selected sources I rely on are confirmed reports, and or analysis that may be offered and its credibility is based in part to the information complied in the article/report, meaning links or direct source references that support their claims as well as a long standing reputation for accuracy.

Evidently you use a different criteria, your choice.

[shira]

50. you're not answering questions. Why?

[shira]

21. again, all ad-hominem, nothing substantive

let me know when you're ready to talk about the OP.

FWIW, I don't recall ever using the National Review as a source. Can you provide a link? If I used them for anything, it was probably for something already well known in any mainstream source. You never did answer the question, however. If what the National Review reports on a particular subject is accurate, do you have a problem with that?

Update #1:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjI3MmUzNGQxYjhiYjVhNDc4NzU2NWE4MmMwYjdmM2M

Found it in my files. Allow me to review it again and I'll get back to you on it.

Update #2:
I found nothing controversial or "rightwing" in the article.

Also, the writer was a former NYT correspondent so it seems he has some "street cred". Do you ever read Glenn Greenwald on I/P? He writes for Pat Buchanon's publication, did you know that? Should that disqualify his writings here at DU?

[Jefferson23]

26. There is no ad-hominem, you didn't even answer my question.

All your sources collectively, on the thread, "Army's ethics chief: Israel fought fair in Gaza", post #57.

Glenn Greenwald posts at Salon. That you find no problem with the article is no surprise shira, it is where you find your information that is odd to me considering the type of forum we are on. The Lamb article you attempted to refute with those horseshit sources, if you had read it at the link, was fact checked and linked directly giving his sources within the article itself. Those sources were linked to Harretz news, not opinion.

As to this OP, you failed to address what so many here have already pointed out b/c you rely on sources like CAMERA to do so. Response #1, #3, #7, presented legitimate refute to your OP, and my first response here was in post #10, and after having reading through the information the other members here listed, I stand by what I said, which was,

"Another pathetic attempt at smearing honest journalism.

Waaaa nobody likes me screaming bullshit machine"

[shira]

27. it's all ad hom......and your question is pointless

Why don't I read National Review - because I don't trust them? For the same reason I don't read Pat Buchanon's rag, although Glenn Greenwald does post there on occassion:

http://www.amconmag.com/search.html?v&m=3&author=Glenn+Greenwald&start=0&end=25

Guess you missed that?

The Lamb article was not fact-checked at all. He denied Hizbullah human shield activity. Amnesty International never went that far.

Now I ask you; Do you personally believe Hizbullah deliberately exploited Lebanese civilians and used them as shields in their operations vs. Israel? You've seen the evidence. Please answer.

As for what you believe refuted the OP, have you - for example - had a chance yet to read Bowen's article on the 1967 war? If so, do you think it's an impartial, fair and accurate, professional assessment?

[Jefferson23]

29. You might want to check your link, it states:

"Articles by Glenn Greenwald

No Results Found"

You are not being truthful, as anyone who read the Lamb article would know his sources are in fact listed to Harretz reports.

So what you're saying is you don't read the National Review but you find them a credible source to post, that is interesting.

I answered you about the BBC story, what seems to escape you is there has been given an explanation, and when you consider the totality of the reputation of the BBC, you fail to make your case against them with a CAMERA refute.

[shira]

34. here's one article by Greenwald in Buchanon's rag

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/14/00013/

Simply click on Greenwald's name for more articles.

Now, should we discard Greenwald's articles that appear in Buchanon's magazine? If you don't find American Conservative a credible source, why cite Glenn Greenwald, ever?

And you didn't answer my questions. Why? Lamb denies evidence of Hizbullah human shield activity that Amnesty International reported on. You didn't give your impression on Hizbullah human shields either. You didn't comment on Jeremy Bowen's 1967 article.

And how am I "not truthful" WRT Lamb denying evidence of Hizbullah human shields? I could care less if he cites Haaretz. You've seen the evidence for yourself. So has Amnesty Int'l. Why are you sticking up for Lamb?

[Jefferson23]

46. Let me make this as simple as possible, regardless of the topic,

you defend Israel consistently with questionable unreliable sources. These sources you choose, one you even claim you "never read", are put forth as credible by you. That is your prerogative, why anyone would on such a forum as this is peculiar at best imo. If it were the exception and not the rule to your sources, I would not question it.

[shira]

49. It would be simpler if you answered my questions, which you have not

If you want an honest discussion, please answer my questions.

[Jefferson23]

53. They were addressed much earlier when I told you people can make up their

own mind about Lamb's article. And I don't accept your poor assessments of the matter and I have already explained why, re-read them again, your choice.

[shira]

54. then show me where you addressed this one question that I've asked several times

and if you haven't answered it yet, please do:

Do you agree with AI that Hizbullah deliberated exploited Lebanese civilians in 2006 as human shields?

[shira]

55. once again, you're not answering questions and you claim you are. Not very truthful.

[Jefferson23]

56. Keep up your game of talking to yourself, that is your choice, or you

can re-read my answers, another choice. Why you think I'm obligated to reiterate for you that to which I have already answered, is your problem, not mine.

[shira]

57. you're the one playing games.....if not, prove it......where did you ever answer that one question?

And why spend time searching for it when you can simply answer it in one short sentence now?

Meanwhile, I've answered all your questions. I have nothing to hide. But apparently you do. You ever think of why that's so?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. If you actually look up the details, it looks as though Bowen hasn't really done much wrong.

This Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/15/bbc-trust-jeremy-bowen-middle-east-editor-complaints (thanks to azurnoir above for the link) has the details of what the actual complaints were over.

If you read them through, it looks as though probably all Bowen has been guilty of it failing to bow and scrape to the pro-Israel lobby enough. The BBC is generally fairly paranoid about allegations of left-wing bias.

[Jefferson23]

25. Exactly, but if you don't want to see what actually took place, you'll

try and use this to discredit the journalist.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. This crap should be ignored. nt

[bemildred]

33. That was my take.

People want to go skiing on molehills.

[shira]

35. Bemildred, did you read Jeremy Bowen's article on the 1967 war?

Also, do you think suppression of the Balen report is nothing but a 'molehill'?

[bemildred]

36. Is this some sort of test? nt

[shira]

37. just asking

[bemildred]

38. The article is clear enough.

They have a few instances of this guy being guilty of presenting the Palestinian point of view on something. Big deal. He should go to work for Haaretz, then he'd be fine.

[shira]

40. next time just answer "no", okay?

If you're not interested in discussing his 1967 article, just say so. No hard feelings.

[bemildred]

42. I thought I was clear enough.

Edit: FWIW, I've had lots of discussion here about 1967, and I found it to be largely a fruitless activity.

[bemildred]

43. WRT Balen report:

I can't say, I would be "biased" in favor of it's release, but I would tend to consider it a molehill, pending more information as to what the fuss is about. One wonders why those who want it out want it out, and one wonders why the BBC thinks it's important to "suppress" it.

[bemildred]

45. BBC trust raps Bowen over Israel reports

Jeremy Bowen, the BBC's veteran Middle East editor, is buttoning up his flak jacket this morning following damning criticism of his news reports about Israel by the BBC Trust.

In a report published on Wednesday, the Trust claimed that Bowen (pictured) had breached the Beeb's guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, citing in particular a piece which he wrote for the BBC website last June under the headline 'Six Days that Changed the Middle East', in which he referred to "Zionism's innate instinct to push out the frontier".

While no disciplinary action will be taken, the decision to censure Bowen has whipped up a storm among old hands at BBC news, some of whom believe the trust, which oversees the corporation, is undermining the credibility of its news by attacking Bowen.

"There's no love lost between staff and the BBC Trust. We see them as a hostile body and they seem to be in competition with Ofcom to see who can kick us the hardest," a senior BBC journalist told the Independent. "The trust is in a position where it has to be seen to be critical and tough because of the dual regulatory system we have been saddled with, which doesn't work. It doesn't waste any opportunities to kick us if it can do."

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/people,2187,jeremy-bowen-under-fire-from-bbc-trust-over-israel-reports,82260

[Violet_Crumble]

61. What did Jeremy Bowen do wrong?

Despite some gleeful reactions suggesting the contrary, the BBC report does not say its Middle East editor is biased against Israel

Critics who claim the BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, is biased against Israel are delighted with the news that, as the Times put it, he "breached BBC impartiality rules in Middle East coverage". Or if you prefer the Jerusalem Post headline: "Complaints of BBC bias partially upheld". Some of these critics are now baying for his blood. The Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland (ZF) said Bowen's "position is untenable".

But even though the "judgment" has been handed down by the BBC Trust, after the publication of a 118-page report (pdf) by its editorial standards committee, the critics are not satisfied. The ZF said their report "fails to offer correctional steps" and "the committee's performance was lackadaisical in processing complaints". Jonathan Turner, a member of the ZF who lodged the complaint together with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (Camera), said "it is very difficult to see how he can be trusted to get anything else right in relation to Israel". Referring to Bowen's "chronically biased reporting", Camera said "There's good reason to be sceptical of" what it called Bowen's "chronically biased reporting", "and by extension, the reporting of BBC reporters who are subordinate to him".

All this sounds pretty heinous. So what did Bowen do wrong? According to the ESC, he breached accuracy regulations by not properly sourcing an assertion he made in a report for Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent that the settlement of Har Homa, near Jerusalem, was considered illegal by the US. Of two other complaints – about historical interpretations he made when describing the legacy of the 1967 war for a BBC online news report – one was partially upheld on the grounds of impartiality and inaccuracy, the other was upheld with regard to impartiality and partially upheld with regard to accuracy. Still with me?

You might reasonably ask: why 118 pages to rule on three complaints? Well, certainly not in order to reach the conclusion of "bias". Nowhere in the ESC's report is there any admission that Bowen is biased against Israel. (It seems this minor fact escaped the Jerusalem Post's headline writer.) The report runs to so many pages because, first, contrary to the impression given in most news reports, there were not three single complaints: each complaint consisted of a number of items. The Har Homa complaint consisted of four items. The first online report complaint consisted of 11 items, and the second of nine items. The ESC "guilty" findings referred to three of these 24 items. The second reason for the report's length is because of the incredibly detailed scrutiny to which every single one of the items is subjected. A doctoral thesis would not have been given this much attention. And remember, we're talking about an online report of 1,500 words and a radio "essay" of no more than that.

Step back for a minute and think of just how many words Jeremy Bowen has to produce over any four-week period, and especially during a four-week war; and also frankly note that no journalist is immune from occasional inaccuracies and less than perfect interpretive historical comments – and you'd be forgiven for reading the ESC report as an exoneration of Bowen and utterly removed from the wholesale damnation of him that the partisan media monitor complainants believe it licences.

No one reading the ESC report could reasonably complain that the BBC failed to take the complaints seriously. They acted according to their published guidelines and deserve credit for that. Yet there's something faintly distasteful about the whole exercise. Let such partisan organisations express their views in whatever way they like, but one wonders whether people behaving like vexatious litigants should really be given such credence.

There are plenty of absurd claims in the itemised complaints, but for me, there's one nugget in the report that Camera and the ZF use as ultimate proof of the rightness of their charges, but which only reveals the bankruptcy of their approach. One of the expert academic historians consulted to assess Bowen's historical prowess was Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations at Oxford. On one item Professor Shlaim agreed that when Bowen wrote that "the Israeli generals ... had been training to finish the unfinished business of Israel's independence war of 1948 war", it was "not accurate and is a bit misleading". Jonathan Hoffman, co vice-chair of the ZF was clearly pleased at Professor Shlaim's verdict. Professor Shlaim, widely regarded as an internationally respected historical authority on contemporary Middle Eastern history, is, however, vilified by the likes of Camera and ZF supporters for his alleged anti-Israel positions. Suddenly, all his past transgressions and distortions are forgotten, and his judgment is kosher. Hypocritical? Judge for yourself.

And as if we need reminding that such partisan media monitors always have other axes to grind, the complainant Jonathan Turner, in criticising the BBC for taking so long to deal with the complaints, said this allowed "Mr Bowen and his colleagues to continue their biased coverage of Israel, which I believe has been a significant factor in the recent serious rise in antisemitic attacks in the UK." This unfounded slur is sadly typical of many whose undifferentiated support for Israel leads them to lash out so indiscriminately at perceived enemies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/jeremy-bowen-bbc-middle-east

[shira]

63. yawn, BBC finds BBC not really so biased...just mistaken a few times

Okay then, let's settle it. Out with the Balen report!

Violet,
If you haven't already, read Bowen's 1967 war report. Look at Fisk's rant on this decision from days ago. Let me know if those articles represent impartial and unbiased, accurate and objective reporting to you, okay?