BBC biased coverage on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict

I was prompted to write this article by two events; one was the BBC TV news coverage of George Bush's first visit to Israel as US President, the second was an email I received today. The BBC's coverage was interesting as it linked George Bush's visit to an Israeli attack on Gaza, without any explanation as to why the Israeli's might have taken this action. Unusually I was at home and whilst flicking through the Sky news channels I came across Al Jazeerah's English language service which used the same narrative of an unprovoked Israeli attack timed to coincide with George Bush's visit. Of course there was some context that both Islamic terrorist mouthpieces chose to omit and that was that "Israeli troops entered central Gaza after militants fired a rocket last Thursday into southern Israel." that's was from The Guardian hardly a pro-Israel newspaper. Associated Press reported that "Two rockets fired from Lebanon struck northern Israel overnight, the military said Tuesday, expanding the violence that has erupted on Israel's other borders ahead of President Bush's visit to the region." A shame that the BBC could not bring themselves to do anything other than cast slurs upon Israel.


The email I received was from a contact who subscribes to Honest Reporting's mailings, my subscription seems to cease by itself. Honest Reporting have just completed their analysis for the second six months of 2007 of the BBC news coverage; the analysis of the first six months of 2007 by itself can be found here. The latest report has some fascinating analysis and I suggest you go and read the whole document at the above link, however here are some of the findings...

"BBC Reporting During 2007 - Summary of Findings:


The BBC virtually ceased reporting on Palestinian rocket attacks while detailing numerous Israeli military operations against Gaza. In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours. The BBC chose to publish only six articles focused on the attacks during the entire year. During the same period, fifty-six articles concerning Israeli military operations against Gaza were published.

The BBC's headline selection for stories focused on combat and terrorist attacks was inconsistent and favored the Palestinian side. This trend continued and even worsened. Stories about Palestinian attacks never directly named the aggressors. Instead, headlines such as "Rocket injures dozens in Israel" were used. On the other hand, in 63% of articles addressing Israeli military operations, the headline was much more clear and direct, regardless of whether the action was a responsive or defensive measure. (e.g.: "Israel strikes kill six in Gaza").


Images accompanying articles of combat or terrorist attacks were heavily sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective by a ratio of three to one. Images of Israelis tended to be of soldiers and attacking armored units. Images of Palestinians were mostly wounded civilians, funerals, or debris from an Israeli strike."


"Balance

In the second half of 2007, the BBC published only two articles in direct response to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza making a total of only six stories on this subject over the entire year. This, despite the fact that the IDF recorded almost 1,500 separate rocket and mortar attacks for the year (30% more than in 2006)....


Headline Style

Editors often create extremely succinct headlines to refer to complicated stories. The headline can take a variety of styles:

An "attack" can name the attacker, the victim, or both;

The headline can utilize a strong, active verb such as "attacks", "kills", "shoots", etc.

The headline can be more subtle i.e.: "man dies after attack."
Six months ago we asked if the BBC's style was consistent. We found that it was not. During the first half of 2007, 60% of articles about Israeli operations named Israel or the IDF directly as the perpetrator while only 15% of stories about Palestinian violence named the perpetrators.

In the second half of 2007, this trend intensified. With a reduction in Israeli military actions and the failure of the BBC to give appropriate coverage to Palestinian attacks, there were only nineteen articles devoted to an attack by one side or the other (as opposed to twenty-six in the first half of the year). In 63% of the stories about Israeli operations, Israel or the IDF were named directly. Typical headlines were: "Israelis kill militants in Gaza" (The "militants" had been firing rockets into Israel), "Children killed in Israeli strike" (the children were playing next to a rocket launcher), and "Israeli strike kills four in Gaza."

On the other hand, of the seven stories concerning Palestinian attacks, none were written in the same style. The headlines took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated them. Rockets, explosions,and clashes became the culprits in typical headlines such as: "Rocket injures dozens in Israel," "Gaza explosion kills two children" (compare with headline above), "Two killed in clash in Gaza Strip," and "West Bank clash leaves three dead." (This one was extremely egregious since it was describing the ambush and murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian terrorists. Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren't they named in the headline?)


Selection of Images

During the second half of 2007, we found that images accompanying articles about attacks were three times as likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinian side. In 23 photos, 17 either portrayed the Palestinians as victims or the IDF as the aggressors. Only 6 images could be described in any way as slightly sympathetic to the Israeli perspective. (Note: These statistics do not include a 6 image exhibit showing the aftermath of a Palestinian rocket attack on an IDF base. While this free standing "in pictures" segment should not be included in an analysis of photos which accompanying news stories, it should also not be dismissed.)


Conclusions

In 2007, the BBC showed a greater interest in covering attacks in which Palestinians were the victims than in attacks targeting Israelis. The fact that only six articles were published about specific rocket terror attacks, despite the fact that the number of attacks increased dramatically in 2007, is a glaring omission.


The BBC is hesitant to use headlines that treat Palestinian attacks the same as those from the Israeli Defense Forces. This, despite the fact that Palestinian attacks can clearly be defined as terror attacks against civilians, and the IDF actions are clearly targeting terrorists. There is a great difference between "Israeli Planes Strike Gaza Strip" and "Rocket Injures Dozens in Israel."


Anyone whose knowledge of the Israeli Palestinian conflict was limited to images on the BBC website would come away with the impression that Israel was almost always the aggressor and the Palestinians the victims.
As one of the world's top new sources, the BBC has a tremendous responsibility to report accurately and fairly. The fact that it receives public financing should make it even more accountable for its coverage. Yet every year, the BBC elicits more complaints of bias from our readers than any other news organization. Please contact the BBC here and demand more balanced reporting."



Of course complaining will make no difference as the BBC have their "narrative" of bad Israelis and persecuted Palestinians and nothing will move them from that viewpoint. On Biased BBC a regular contributor on the comments board, who goes by the handle of "John Reith", has defended many times the BBC's refusal to release the Balen Report, the report commissioned by the BBC into "alleged anti-Israel bias in the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". The fact that the BBC have seen fit to spend around £200,000 on legal fees in order to prevent its publication, does seem to indicate that Malcolm Balen's findings do not fit the BBC's standard defence of impartiality. I think it safe to assume that if the Malcolm Balen's report had concluded that there was no anti-Israeli bias then the report would have been published with a great fanfare and cries of "told you so".



Do not forget that it was the BBC who in September 2007 were reported to have advertised for a "“Project Director, Palestinian Territories” to advise Palestinian journalists...“The Project Director will be responsible for managing and co-ordinating delivery of the Trust’s EIDHR-Dutch co-funded project in Palestine titled: ‘Support for the Palestinian Media Sector with Focus on Building Sustainable Mechanisms for Professional Development of Journalists and Media Professionals’. The project aims to increase the level of networking and dialogue between media professionals in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”"