Thank you for your e-mail and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. The first map is not intended to be an accurate geographic or political representation but to show the location of Gaza and where this particular incident happened. Had Egypt been involved in any way in this story, the map would have included Egypt.
The same applies to the second map, which illustrates a story about Israel and Lebanon. This map also does not name Saudi Arabia, which is also not mentioned in the report. In a story about England we might show an appropriate map, but it might not be necessary to name Scotland and Wales if they were not relevant to that particular report.
May we also take the opportunity to address your other complaint concerning this report:
Firstly, we are not quoting the IDF, but using a comment from "Israeli military sources". Secondly, there is a difference between a direct quote and a paraphrase, and it will always be our decision about which we prefer to use.
BBC News website
I am not satisfied with the map answer and have sent this response:
Thank you for your response but I am sorry I do not, as they say, buy it.
'Nota Sheep to NewsOnline 21:48
The first map shows the borders of Gaza just to the point where Gaza ends. If the map went any further south then it would have to show the border between Israel and Egypt. Contrary to your claim in your email ' the map would have included Egypt' - the map does include Egypt, it is just that you choose not to denote that country. This is important as the BBC do often seem to try to spread the narrative that Israel controls entry to and exit from Gaza when in fact there is a long land border between Gaza and Egypt, the very border that you chose not to show on that map.
Your comparison with the omission of Saudi Arabia from the second map is a red herring as that country is more than one border away from the scene of the story.
Two maps; both not mentioning Egypt, a country that borders Gaza; not that someone relying on the BBC for their facts would see that.
Re the second point, I am not sure you have answered my question. I will remind you of my complaint:
' In the above linked article the BBC says: 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in central Gaza' Israeli military sources said the army had targeted militants who were trying to fire rockets into Israel. ' However the IDF actually said - http://idfspokesperson.com/
2011/07/05/israeli-air-force- thwarts-rocket-launching- attempt/ - 'Israeli Air Force Thwarts Rocket Launching Attempt A short while ago, a squad of terrorists preparing to launch rockets at Israeli territory from the central Gaza Strip were identified by an (Israeli Air Force) IAF aircraft that thwarted the attempt by firing at them. A hit was confirmed. ' So the IDF called them 'terrorists' but you quoted them as saying 'militants'. Leaving aside the question of 'what is a terrorist?' or the point that 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter', you are the BBC and in you r editorial guidelines the BBC says this: 'As such, we should not change the word "terrorist" when quoting someone else, but we should avoid using it ourselves.' The comment from the IDF was was presented as a quotation and therefore the word 'terrorist' should have been used; is that not correct? This piece seems to be yet another example of the BBC being in breach of BBC Guidelines; what will you do to ensure that this does not happen again?'
You say that 'we are not quoting the IDF, but using a comment from "Israeli military sources".If you are not quoting from the IDF's statement could you let me know which other source you are using as a comment? I am not aware of any other Israeli military source's comments on this incident.
You go on to say that 'Secondly, there is a difference between a direct quote and a paraphrase, and it will always be our decision about which we prefer to use.' Indeed there is a difference but between a 'direct quote' and a 'paraphrase' but I am interested as to why you chose to paraphrase the IDF's statement rather than quote it direct. Once again I remind you of the BBC's own editorial guidelines 'As such, we should not change the word "terrorist" when quoting someone else, but we should avoid using it ourselves.'
I await your response and you addressing these points.
PS: I am not Mr Goat, I am Mr MaybeaGoat'
Let us see how the BBC respond to this. Something tells me that this complaint will end up with the Head of Editorial Standards just like this one. I wonder how they will react to the BBC disregarding one of the BBC's own editorial guidelines...