BBC is criticised for misleading coverage of Middle East

The BBC have been criticised for their coverage of the Israeli/Palestine dispute, although the report concedes that there is "no deliberate or systematic bias."

However, the real suprise for Mr. Angry of Golders Green is that the BBC is felt to be presenting the Middle East in a way that favours Israel.

The complaint is that the BBC does not give enough historical context to their reports:

"There was little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives".

It then complains that too often the BBC goes with a story because they have dramatic pictures to accompany it. This is more likely to happen in Israel rather than in Gaza or the West Bank, where the BBC do not even have a correspondent:

"When the Israelis suffer it is usually from a terrorist attack... which necessarily constitutes a newsworthy event... In recent years, many more Palestinians have been killed but usually in circumstances which are less dramatic and give rise to less striking images," the report said.

Its international influence means the BBC and its coverage are "important prizes" in a conflict where "the media themselves are part of the contest ground", the report added.

Whilst I think this complaint against the BBC is fair, she is by no means the worst offender.

Newpapers often talk of suicide bombings occurring "after a period of relative calm". When one reviews the Arab press one often finds that dozens of Palestinians have been killed during this "calm" period.

Likewise, the Israelis have been very successful in promoting Hasbara. For instance, when did the Occupied Territories become the Disputed Territories? When did the West Bank become Judea and Samaria? When did illegal settlements start being referred to as "Jewish neighbourhoods?" When did the cold blooded murder of people who have never been tried before any court of law become "targetted assasinations"?

The list is endless. However, newspaper and TV coverage - although undeniably important - matter much less than the US governments decision to only see events in the Middle East through an Israeli prism.

I was struck by this description of the relationship from Dov Weisglass talking about how he and Condaleeza Rice usually react when Israel mistakenly kills innocent Palestinians whilst attempting a targetted assasination.

If something happens - an unusual military operation, a hitch, a targeted assassination that succeeded or one that didn't succeed - before it becomes an imbroglio, she calls me and says, `We saw so-and-so on CNN. What's going on?' And I say, `Condy, the usual 10 minutes?' She laughs and we hang up.

Yes, you read that correctly. Before they've even finished scraping the innocent bodies from the street, Condi has "laughed and hung up".

Ten minutes later, after I find out what happened, I get back to her and tell her the whole truth. The whole truth. I tell her and she takes it down: this is what we intended, this is how it came out. She doesn't get worked up. She believes us. The continuation is damage control."

You'll notice that Condi takes Israel at their word every time. "She believes us."

What possible chance is there of the US acting as "honest brokers" when they are so blatantly on one side of this dispute?

Tags: BBC, Israel, Palestine. complaint, report, bias, unfair, historical context,