The BBC brush-off - help needed

I have finally received a response to my long-standing complaint of BBC bias re anti-Israel reporting which I had attempted to take to the BBC Trust. Even I was surprised at the response I have received, they just don't get it, do they?

My apologies for the odd formatting but the reply was sent as a pdf which does not respond happily to copying and pasteing into Blogger. I hope the document is still legible.

'notasheepmaybeagoat@googlemail.com
Our Ref: 928738
15 September 2011
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am responding to your appeal of 7 July 2011 to the Editorial Standards Committee
(ESC) regarding alleged anti-Israeli bias on the BBC News website, specifically the
coverage given to the comments of a particular “Israeli firebrand” compared with the
failure to report on the numerous extremist statements made by leading Palestinian
figures.
Firstly, I should explain that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is
brought to it, and part of the role of the Head of Editorial Standards is to check that
appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees)
under the Complaints Framework. You can find full details of the Complaints
Framework and Trust appeals procedure’s here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how_we_govern/protocols_policy/compliance_ov
ersight.shtml
I am therefore writing this response on behalf of Fran O’Brien, the BBC Trust’s Head of
Editorial Standards, who has read your correspondence and given me her decision.
The Head of Editorial Standards has read the relevant correspondence and does not
consider that your appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to
the ESC. I would like to explain why.
The Trust's Editorial Appeals procedure states that:
Your appeal must raise a matter of substance – in particular, that, in the opinion
of the Trust, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the appeal has a
reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to
answer. Consideration will also be given to whether it is appropriate,
proportionate and cost effective for the Trust to address an appeal.
Before giving the reasons for the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, I have
summarised your complaint and the BBC Executive’s response.
Stage 1
You contacted the BBC on 30 August 2010 complaining about news bulletins which
reported on an Israeli rabbi’s provocative comments, asking why these had been given
airtime while equally provocative and offensive statements from numerous Palestinian
figures had not been covered. You asked, in particular, whether the BBC had ever
broadcast specific inflammatory comments (which you cited) made by Hamas cleric
Ziyad Abu al-Haj and Dr Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah.
2
Having had no reply, you contacted the BBC again on 15 September 2010 saying you
thought two weeks should have been sufficient time for the BBC to have responded.
You reiterated your complaint of “blatant anti-Israel bias” in the decision to broadcast a
rabbi’s inflammatory comments but to have ignored equally, or more offensive remarks
by Palestinian leaders. You asked, for example, whether the BBC had broadcast the
words of a particular leading Palestinian cleric who had said “The Jews are the
Jews…they are all liars…they are all terrorists…it is necessary to slaughter them and
murder them.”
You wrote again to the BBC on 5 October 2010 saying you had still not received a reply
to either of your letters, pointing out that the BBC promised to respond to complaints
within 10 working days whereas you were still awaiting a response after 35 days.
The Middle East desk of the BBC News website replied on 26 October 2010 saying they
did not report every inflammatory comment by Israelis or Palestinians but that Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef’s comments were considered significant as he was an influential figure
speaking out on the eve of new peace talks – and that his comments had been widely
criticised by US and Israeli leaders.
You replied to the BBC on 28 October 2010 saying that it had not responded to your
specific complaint. You accepted that it was impossible to broadcast every “genocidal
statement” made by Hamas figures but questioned why none of the extreme
comments you had cited appeared to have been reported on. Had the BBC even
checked, you asked, to see if any of the comments you referred to had been given
airtime? If not, how could they be sure of their commitment to providing equality of
coverage? You also asked the BBC to check if they had covered the speech by Yasser
Arafat in 1993 when he had talked of working towards “delivering the final blow
against Israel”.
You wrote to the BBC on 13 November 2010 and again on 16 November chasing up a
reply.
The BBC News website’s Middle East editor Tarik Kafala replied on 16 November 2010.
He said that the BBC had, of course, reported statements by Hamas and other
Palestinian figures, and that its website profile of Hamas spelt out Hamas’ commitment
to the ultimate destruction of Israel. He confirmed that the specific statement by
Ahmed Yassin had not been covered by the BBC website, while the website itself had
been launched in 1997, three years after the Yasser Arafat comment.
You replied to the BBC on 30 November 2010 with three separate letters. You
reiterated your original complaint about the coverage given to one rabbi’s controversial
comments compared with the lack of coverage afforded the many equally or more
incendiary statements made by various Palestinian figures. You were still waiting for an
answer as to why the BBC made this decision. “Why are the words of one Israeli cleric,
however vile, newsworthy, whereas those of Palestinian clerics and politicians are
not?”
3
You also queried a recent item which began “Israeli orthodox rabbi stirs up racism
debate.” You said you did not recall similar coverage given to Mahmoud Abbas’s
statement that he would never allow a single Israeli to live on Palestinian land. Why is
one considered news but not the other, you asked?
BBC Audience Services replied to your email on 13 December 2010 saying that your
complaint was being dealt with by BBC News’ own dedicated team and that they were
responsible for replying. The letter also said that as you had variously referred to BBC
Online and Radio 5 Live when writing, it might be helpful if you clarified the specific
source of your complaint in each letter.
BBC News website’s Middle Editor Tarik Kafala responded on 21 December 2010,
apologising for the delay in replying. He said that he had previously explained why he
felt it was justified to report Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments, and that you appeared to
accept that this was reasonable, so he would concentrate on the issue of why the
Palestinian comments you referred to may not have been given coverage.
He said that the various Palestinian organisations including Hamas said different things
at different times to different audiences and reporting shrill and extremist statements
from Hamas firebrands could give a misleading view of the organisation’s true position.
In this context, the BBC had not reported the specific comments from Ziyad Abu al-Haj
and Dr Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, which you cited, but he did believe that the BBC’s
overall coverage was fair and accurate and reflected Hamas’s position on the key
issues.
You sent two replies on 24 December 2010, expressing your dissatisfaction with the
latest response from the BBC. You questioned why the BBC’s profile of Hamas offered
such a nuanced description of the organisation when, in reality, its hatred of all Jews
and commitment to the destruction of Israel was transparent and unquestioned. You
took issue with Tarik Kafala’s claim to know the true position of Hamas, and the
assumption that the truth must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle of two sets of
opinions. You asked why it was misleading, and therefore inappropriate, to report
extreme comments from Palestinian firebrands but seemingly acceptable to cover the
speech by one Israeli firebrand. You also asked again why the specific inflammatory
comments by two Palestinian clerics had been ignored by the BBC in its coverage, and
you did not accept that the words quoted in Yasser Arafat’s obituary reflected the true
extent of his frequent pronouncements on Israel or the Jewish people. In conclusion
you believed that the failure to report the “often genocidal comments made by
Palestinian leaders” was deliberately skewing opinion against Israel and was manifestly
evidence of BBC bias.
You responded further on 11 January 2011. You repeated your central allegations and
said that you believed the BBC had still not responded adequately to your detailed
points.
4
BBC News website’s Middle East editor Tarik Kafala replied on 11 February 2011 saying
that he had responded to your specific questions as well as he could and that if you
wished to pursue your complaint you should now write to the BBC’s Editorial
Complaints Unit (ECU), and supplied the relevant details. You received a similar
response from BBC Audience Services to whom one of your earlier letters had been
sent.
You replied on 11 January 2011 saying that you wanted a response to one specific
point. You asked why was it acceptable for the BBC to report the views of one Israeli
firebrand but apparently “misleading” to do so in the case of various Palestinian
firebrands.
Stage 2
The BBC ECU wrote to you on 31 January 2011 saying that you had been wrongly
advised about how to pursue your complaint further as it was only responsible for
issues relating to possible breaches of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and not to
judgements relating to the content of news bulletins and online content. In this context
your complaint had been forwarded to BBC News management who would respond in
due course.
You wrote to the BBC on 16 February 2011 asking who the complaint had been passed
on to as you had yet to receive a reply. You wrote again on 30 March 2011 saying you
had yet to receive any communication about escalating your complaint.
The BBC ECU wrote to you on 27 June 2011and said that the Head of Accountability
for BBC News would be responding within 20 working days.
You wrote back to the BBC on 30 June 2011 seeking assurance that the person
responsible would address two key questions. You asked why the BBC covered the
inflammatory views of one rabbi when it consistently ignored the many inflammatory
and extremist statements by Palestinian figures, and why, according to the BBC’s Tarik
Kafal, it was ‘misleading’ to reports the words of ‘Hamas firebrands’ but not those of an
Israeli firebrand.
BBC News’ Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability Stephanie Harris wrote to
you on 15 July 2011. She that she had received your letter of 30 June 2011 in which
you had summarised the crux of your complaint and had reviewed the correspondence
including all the replies you had received to date. She said she believed the responses
from Tarik Kafal had been comprehensive and that she endorsed them.
She said that BBC journalists had to make judgements about what was newsworthy,
and that there were many examples where violent denunciations of Israel had been
widely covered on the BBC and she provided the links to six examples. She also
supplied the details on how to take your complaint to the BBC Trust, the final stage in
the complaints process.
5
Your appeal
You wrote to the BBC Trust on 7 August 2011 saying you had been seeking, for almost
a year, to get an apology from the BBC for its bias in reporting on one aspect of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Namely, that the BBC had given coverage to one rabbi’s
extremist views but had ignored numerous extremist statements by Palestinian figures
who expressed genocidal views about Israel and its people. You were also extremely
unhappy with the BBC’s response in which it was suggested that it would have been
misleading to give coverage to various extremist statements from Hamas leaders, while
at the same time having no such qualms about airing the views of one Israeli
firebrand.
The Head of Editorial Standards’ decision
The Head of Editorial Standards has reviewed all the correspondence in your case. She
considers that the BBC did answer your specific question about why it chose to give
coverage to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments but did not automatically air every
incendiary statement, of which they were many, made by Palestinian or Israeli figures,
and therefore did not cover the ones you cited. Its explanation was that its journalists
were required to make a judgement about what was most newsworthy and significant.
In response to your broader point about anti-Israeli bias, the BBC said it was
committed to fair and accurate coverage of the Middle East conflict and provided six
examples of where it had reported violent anti-Israeli sentiment. The Head of Editorial
Standards therefore does not believe you have made a case to answer in terms of
breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines here.
I should also explain that the responsibility for editorial judgement rests with the BBC
and not the BBC Trust as the paragraph below sets out.
The Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State
and the BBC draw a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC
Executive Board, led by the Director-General. “The direction of the BBC’s editorial and
creative output” is specifically defined in the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (b)) as a duty
that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not
get involved unless, for example, it relates to a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards.
Overall the Head of Editorial Standards does not consider that there is a reasonable
prospect of success for your appeal and does not propose to put your appeal to the
ESC.
If you wish the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, and wish
them to do so at their October meeting, please reply with your reasons by 5pm on
Tuesday 27 September 2011 to Lucy Tristram, Complaints Advisor, at the above
address or trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk.If you wish to reply by Thursday 29
September, they will consider your request at their November meeting. If
exceptionally you need more time please write giving your reasons as soon as possible.
6
If you do ask the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision I will
then place your letter, this letter, the Stage 2 decision and your previous
correspondence to the Trust before the ESC. Their decision following their October
meeting is likely to be ratified at their November meeting and you will be given their
decision shortly afterwards.
If the Trustees consider that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then
your case will close. If the Trustees disagree with the Head of Editorial Standards’ view
then your case will be given to an Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate and we
will contact you with an updated time line.
Yours sincerely
Natalie Rose
Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, Trust Unit'

I am considering my response but somehow I doubt that whatever I say will be successful. Any suggestions as to how to take this forward?