The Lancet Global Health Network Logo

Beta

January 27th 2009

There are many good reasons that the BBC could have given for saying No to a DEC appeal on Gaza

They could say no because they were unconvinced that the very strict criteria for launching such an appeal had been met by the 15 aid agencies asking for the appeal under the umbrella of the Disasters Emergency Committee. My memory from being involved in DEC appeals whilst Head of Press at CAFOD was that such appeals could only take place when the agencies could prove that the humanitarian need was huge, that there wasn’t enough money in their coffers to meet that need, and that they had strong evidence that the funds raised could translate into real aid delivered to the right people on the ground. The latter was one of the reasons initially given by Caroline Thomson and was bewildering to those of us who know the agencies would never have submitted a request for a televised appeal unless they could guarantee delivery on the ground. Bizarrely even this potentially good reason was promptly withdrawn.

Another good reason would have been that the Humanitarian aid sector is becoming increasingly political. While I was at CAFOD there was a battle afoot between those who wanted to stick with the traditional Red Cross model of neutral, humanitarian aid based on need and others who favoured a more political approach which linked relief to good governance, peace-keeping and other more political goals. My understanding however is that the unconditional humanitarian wing have triumphed so far and anyway this potentially good reason to say no wasn’t even mentioned by the BBC.

So no good reasons and lots of bad ones.

I agree with Mark Thompson that BBC news journalism must be impartial and I love the fact that reporters discuss and dissect every aspect of this at great length in news rooms. But this decision should never have had anything to do with journalistic impartiality. These DEC appeals are effectively free adverts for a charity appeal negotiated many years ago in a unique deal with newspapers and broadcasters for use only at times of exceptional humanitarian disaster. The fact that they are carried in newspapers or at the very end of the news does not make them journalism and to my knowledge no-one watching Stephen Fry or Fiona Shaw popping up in a clearly badged DEC appeal has ever mistook this for an extension of the news. The BBC news must be governed by journalistic rules about impartiality. DEC appeals are governed by an entirely different set of criteria and the two should never have been merged in the way they have this week. So the impartiality argument is a bad one

In an extension of the bad impartiality argument BBC bosses say that BBC can’t proceed because of controversy over the conflict which triggered the appeal. Well if that’s the case the BBC should be honest and announce a review of all humanitarian appeals which result from conflicts – ruling out many of the biggest DEC appeals of recent years.

And in one of the worst arguments of all, Thompson argued on the Today programme that impartiality applies to whole of the BBC’s output not just news, prompting my friend to say he looks forward to the dramatisation of Mein Kampf to balance the recent success of Anne Franks’s Diaries.

The other bad argument was that a BBC report recently criticised the corporation for undermining its independence by joining forces with today’s populist campaigns. If that means I don’t have to watch any more all day concerts interspersed with celebrities who have flown in from LA to tell us about their recycling habit I for one will rejoice. But again DEC appeal adverts which have taken the same format for many years have no link to such campaigning. And if you think I’m getting overly negative here – just don’t even get me started on the line that the Beeb may reconsider running the appeal some time down the line when the political conflict has died down!!!

The widespread anger at the BBC’s decision has allowed the bosses to retrospectively cast this as an example of the corporation taking a strong brave and principled stance on a tough issue. I can’t tell you how much I would love to believe that. I spend a large amount of my life with BBC journalists and the one thing they do not report in the post-Hutton and post Sachs-Gate BBC is a culture of bold and brave decision making. This decision was made by a defensive BBC management who have lost their way and are consumed by uncertainty and self doubt about how to deal with criticism of impartial reporting. There are many good reasons to say no to DEC appeals. I am still waiting to hear one from the BBC.

Fiona Fox

Director, Science Media Centre

Bookmark on delicious | Digg

3 Responses to “There are many good reasons that the BBC could have given for saying No to a DEC appeal on Gaza”

  1. Dr Reaz Vawda Says:

    Dear Fiona,
    Many thanks for you post ! I’m delighted that I’m not the only one who is angry at this. I wonder though whether this simply does not reflect and confirm a complete lack of impartiality in the BBC.

    Yours truly,

    Reaz.

  2. Terence Hale Says:

    Hi,
    There are many good reasons that the BBC could have given for saying No to a DEC appeal on Gaza. Human values most be considered the decision of the BBC is political.
    Regards Dr. Terence Hale

  3. Kazem Zarrabi Says:

    The Jewish Lobby is no ghost, it is real.

    Surely other people have their own experiences with the BBC. Therefore, I suppose their analysis of BBC’s refusal to broadcast humanitarian aid appeal for the Palestinian victims of Gaza can fit their experiences. I have my own viewpoint and therefore the components of my analysis are quite different.

    Darwinian evolution in general and human sociobiology (Wilson 1980) in particular teach us that there cannot be any so-called objective reporting because of the fact that we are already born with biases, which are later enforced during our biocultural development.

    In other words, human newborn’s mind is no tabula raza. We are all born with built-in preferences that will influence our developmental stages. Therefore, because of the complexity of human nature (Wilson 1978), it is more relevant to speak about the “Balanced Reporting (BR)” rather than objective reporting which is a myth.

    The BR means that the news items should equally and systematically involve and cover all interacting parties. For example, any report on the recent Israeli assault on Gaza should equally include both Hamas and Israeli viewpoints. The viewpoints of others should be regarded only as complementary and not essential.

    Unfortunately, in the recent war in Gaza most Western news networks openly or tacitly provided more coverage to Israel’s viewpoint rather than Hamas or Palestinians. The BBC was no exception. Let us not to forget that Israel also provided the Western media with a good pretext by not allowing them to enter Gaza.

    This is not the first time that the Western media has failed to provide BR. During the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US-Britain led coalition forces, most Western media including BBC openly were biased against Iraqi forces. Then the excuse was that the Western public opinion supported their invading troops!

    Indeed, what were the actual reasons for BBC’s refusal to air appeal for humanitarian aid that would benefit the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression especially injured men, women, and children? Indeed, BBC’s claim of impartiality is totally irrelevant, hypocritical, and inhuman.

    My answer is the hypertrophic influence of the Jewish lobby especially in the big Western news networks. I am not talking about myths or the conspiracy theories here. Sometimes the facts are too simple to be realized.

    The late Shah of Iran was a close alley of the US and Israel. Let us watch a short video of Mike Wallace’s interview with the late Shah of Iran in 1976 concerning the name of “Persian Gulf” and the hypertrophic influence of the “Jewish Lobby.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY&feature=related

    Dr. Kazem Zarrabi,
    Biomedical and Cultural Study and Research Centre (BMCSRC),
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    04.02.2009

    Wilson, E.O. (1978). On Human Nature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Wilson, E.O., 1980. Sociobiology. Cambridge, Mass.: London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Post a Comment

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free