BBC rebukes its Middle East correspondent Jeremy Bowen for anti-Israel comments (1 Viewer)

Jul 2, 2006
19,431
#1
The BBC's Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen faced calls to quit tonight after he was criticised for breaching the broadcaster's rules on accuracy and impartiality in two reports about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

An inquiry found that a reference to 'Zionism's innate instinct to push out the frontier' in an article for the BBC's website breached guidelines.

In addition, a suggestion that Israel was 'in defiance of everyone's interpretation of international law except its own' was said to have been 'imprecise'.

A separate radio broadcast by Bowen also led to a complaint and was criticised by the trust.

The initial claims by Bowen were made in a website report entitled 'How 1967 Defined the Middle East'. It sparked two complaints.

Bowen's online article, published last year, put the present-day Israeli-Palestinian conflict in context by explaining the events of the 1967 Six Day War.

But the committee said he should have done more to make clear that there were other views on the matter.

Ruling that the article had breached the rules on impartiality, the committee said: 'Readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war.'

'It was not necessary for equal space to be given to the other arguments, but ... the existence of alternative theses should have been more clearly signposted.'

Bowen's radio report, for Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent, said the US government considered Har Homa, an Israeli settlement near Jerusalem, to be illegal.

This was based on information from an 'authoritative source', the committee said, but there was no evidence the view was official US policy.

BBC bosses have faced repeated claims that reporting of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been skewed towards the Palestinian cause.

One controversial incident involved Middle East correspondent Barbara Plett revealing that she had cried as Yasser Arafat neared death in 2004.

The BBC has also been criticised for spending tens of thousands of pounds in licence fee cash in a court battle to block publication of an internal report into its alleged bias in covering the region.

Then earlier this year it incensed pro-Palestinian supporters after it refused to show a Gaza charity appeal for fear of risking its impartiality.

Jonathan Turner, who made one of the complaints, said he was pleased with the committee's findings.

But he said Bowen should leave his job as Middle East editor and called on the BBC to publish a correction prominently on its website.

'If he cannot get this right, it's difficult to see what else he can get right in relation to Israel,' Mr Turner said.

'You cannot understand what's happening today unless you have a proper understanding of what happened in '67.

'Clearly he doesn't have a proper understanding, so for that reason I think his position is untenable.'

Mr Turner, a barrister from London, said pursuing the complaint in his spare time had been an 'enormous burden'.

He described speed of the complaints process as 'outrageous'.

He made his original complaint about both the Six Day War article - published in July 2007 - and the From Our Own Correspondent broadcast in January 2008.

In today's report, the BBC Trust apologised for the 'exceptionally long time' taken over the complaint.

No disciplinary action is expected against Bowen, but the web article will be revised and a link added to the editorial standards committee's findings.

A spokesman for BBC News said: '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.

'Clearly there is no consensus view of history and it is self evident that there are others who have different analysis - which of course they are entitled to.'

The committee accepted that Bowen was using his professional judgment in the From Our Own Correspondent piece, the spokesman said, but should have sourced his comment.

'This has absolutely nothing to do with bias, and we of course note the findings,' the spokesman said.

'We would also point out that the committee accepted that the Middle East Editor had been informed that that was the American view by an authoritative source.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ondent-Jeremy-Bowen-anti-Israel-comments.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
bbc has surrendered to zionist lobby.But democracy,freedom of press,freedom of speech:blah: :analcanon: :analcanon:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
OP
Jul 2, 2006
19,431
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #2
    Robert Fisk: How can you trust the cowardly BBC?

    The BBC Trust's report on Jeremy Bowen's dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest.

    But I am mincing my words.

    The trust – how I love that word which so dishonours everything about the BBC – has collapsed, in the most shameful way, against the usual Israeli lobbyists who have claimed – against all the facts – that Bowen was wrong to tell the truth.

    Let's go step by step through this pitiful business. Zionism does indeed instinctively "push out" the frontier. The new Israeli wall – longer and taller than the Berlin Wall although the BBC management cowards still insist its reporters call it a "security barrier" (the translation of the East German phrase for the Berlin Wall) – has gobbled up another 10 per cent of the 22 per cent of "Palestine" that Arafat/Mahmoud Abbas were supposed to negotiate. Bowen's own brilliant book on the 1967 war, Six Days, makes this land-grab perfectly clear.

    Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs and take over Palestine. Why else are Zionists continuing to steal Arab land for Jews, and Jews only, against all international law? Who for a moment can contradict that this defies everyone's interpretation of international law except its own?

    Even when the International Court in The Hague stated that the Israeli wall was illegal – the BBC, at this point, was calling it a "fence"! – Israel simply claimed that the court was wrong.

    UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 called upon Israel to withdraw its forces from territories that it occupied in the 1967 war – and it refused to do so. The Americans stated for more than 30 years that Israel's actions were illegal – until the gutless George Bush accepted Israel had the right to keep these illegally held territories. Thus the BBC Trust – how cruel that word "trust" now becomes – has gone along with the Bush definition of Israel's new boundaries (inside Arab land, of course).

    The BBC's preposterous committee claims that Bowen's article "breached the rules [sic] on impartiality" because "readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war".

    Well, yes of course. Because I suppose the BBC believes that Israel's claim to own land which in fact belongs to other people is another "sensible" view of the war. The BBC Trust – and I now find this word nauseous each time I tap it on my laptop – says that Bowen didn't give evidence to prove the Jewish settlement at Har Homa was illegal. But the US authorities said so, right from the start. Our own late foreign secretary, Robin Cook – under screamed abuse from Zionists when he visited the settlement– said the same thing. The fact that the BBC Trust uses the Hebrew name for Har Homa – not the original Arab name, Jebel Abu Ghoneim – shows just how far it is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen.

    Haaretz gave considerable space to the BBC's findings yesterday. I'm not surprised. But why is it that Haaretz's top correspondents – Amira Hass and Gideon Levy – write so much more courageously about the human rights abuses of Israeli troops (and war crimes) than the BBC has ever dared to do? Whenever I'm asked by lecture audiences around the world if they should trust the BBC, I tell them to trust Amira and Gideon more than they should ever believe in the wretched broadcasting station. I'm afraid it's the same old story. If you allow yourself to bow down before those who wish you to deviate from the truth, you will stay on your knees forever.

    And this, remember, is the same institution which said that to broadcast an appeal for medicines for wounded Palestinians in Gaza might upset its "neutrality". Legless Palestinian children clearly don't count as much as the BBC's pompous executives.

    How do we solve this problem? Well I can certainly advise viewers to turn to Sky TV's infinitely tougher coverage of the Middle East and – I admit I contribute to this particular station – I can recommend the courage with which Al-Jazeera English covers Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian-Israeli war.

    I can well see how BBC executives will say that this article of mine today is "over the top". Jeremy Bowen may indeed think the same. But the First World War metaphor would be correct. For Bowen and his colleagues are truly lions led by BBC management donkeys.
     

    AngelaL

    Jinx Minx
    Aug 25, 2006
    10,215
    #4
    I do not give two hoots about the bbc. Democracy and free speech went out the beeb's windows, when the Government clamped down on them over that affair with Dr. David Kelly. Since then, they have never been impartial!
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,934
    #7
    As if this is anything to be surprised about. Of course the Western media will try to shut down opinions on the matter they don't like.
     

    mikhail

    Senior Member
    Jan 24, 2003
    9,576
    #8
    Just a quick mod warning: anything like a flame war here will earn widespread bans. Restrict comments to the subject matter.


    I tend to believe Fisk if he says this guy was in the right. It sounds to me like the Beeb management just aren't willing to let any judgements at all appear in articles on Israel - weasel words and bland generalities are preferred. It's more plausible to me that they're cowards unwilling to support their employees until proven wrong than that lobbying Jews have somehow brow beaten them.
     

    GordoDeCentral

    Diez
    Moderator
    Apr 14, 2005
    70,779
    #19
    eeeek, must i explain everything

    BBC cant walk around sating we re objective with acts like this let their reporting transmit that, it's a stunt any free thinker knows which outlets report what
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)