Impartiality can be a form of censorship, says Jo Glanville
Like all good censorship rows, the fallout from the BBC’s decision not to transmit the DEC appeal for Gaza has generated more publicity than it would ever have otherwise received. Every news bulletin over the weekend reminded us of the appeal – and of the BBC’s embarrassment. Once again, as with the Ross-Brand debacle, there was the faintly surreal experience of hearing the BBC report on its own story – with cool impartiality of course.
The row has exposed the dangers of rigidly adhering to guidelines, however noble or ultimately sound they may be. If the BBC were to follow the logic of its decision, it would mean that it could only broadcast charity appeals for natural disasters. The requirement of impartiality, though essential for good reporting, can be a form of censorship when unimaginatively applied – and sometimes it becomes a nonsense, as demonstrated over the past few days.
Remember the furore when Barbara Plett dared to express emotion in her report on From Our Own Correspondent, as a dying Yasser Arafat was flown by helicopter to Paris from Ramallah? Although Plett was technically in breach of guidelines and far from impartial, her human response in the context felt entirely appropriate. In fact, one of the reasons why Alan Johnston was such a powerful reporter when he was based in Gaza was precisely because of the humanity in his reporting. While no one could accuse him of bias, there was a compassion in the narrative of his reports that lifted them above the usual detached style of BBC broadcasters.
But impartiality, a core principle for the BBC, becomes particularly critical when it comes to reporting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a former BBC producer, who made a number of programmes on the region, I was made painfully aware of the extreme over anxiety that accompanied the production of any programme that might be judged as partial.
No broadcaster or newspaper that reports on the conflict can ever escape criticism from one side or the other. Not attracting criticism might even be a measure of failure. I remember once being lambasted by a reader for a piece I wrote for the Guardian about the conflict, who criticised me for being too balanced. Strict adherence to impartiality can result in bland, meaningless reporting. In this case, it can also result in poor judgment.
4 Comments
Jo – I have a slight problem with the comparison between Barbara Plett and Alan Johnston.
Plett was cleared of delivering a tearful eulogy to Yasser Arafat, which was the basis of many of the formal complaints made to the BBC. But she was found guilty of breaching the guidelines on due impartiality for good reason. The emotional content of Plett’s report was unprofessional, and for many her behaviour was inappropriate as it distracted from the reporting, and needlessly irritated a lot of people.
With Johnston, there is indeed a powerful humanity in his reporting, but, from what I’ve seen of it, he has never overstepped any lines. On a political level I’ve disagreed with much of Johnston’s analysis of the situation in Palestine, but this hasn’t affected my admiration and respect for him as a professional journalist.
Plett has a long and distinguished career as an international correspondent, but it was right that she was censured for the Arafat incident.
I agree with your comments regarding over-strict adherence to editorial rules.
The BBC did not report on Gaza did it, it used the information it had from Israel or anyone with a mobile phone from Gaza. This has to be the first time that the BBC did what it was told and stayed out of Gaza, the reporters said we are not allowed into Gaza by Israel, what Gaza is now run by a tin pot government in Israel sad so sad.
The problem is that the people of Gaza are used as hostages by both sides. Hence aid becomes, with a quick hijack, welfare from Hamas. Pictures of suffering become reasons why Israel must be condemned, boycotted and forced to make concessions that will result in its eventual annihilation.
So the BBC is right to stay out of this.
But why should the UK govt used UK armed forces to distribute aid ? Then neither the use of suffering for propaganda would result ( and at the same time making generating that suffering less attractive ), and it would not strengthen Hamas. It would just help the suffering people.
The hypocrisy is Labour MPs putting down early day motions about charities, as a way of diverting attention from the lack of effective action from the UK govt and others.
Hilarious. Mark Thompson subjected himself to a two fingers up humiliation on BBC Breakfast this morning when the journalists showed him exactly what they thought by beaming the appeal up behind him whilst he was explaining exactly why the BBC would never show it. You can see it here: http://www.duckrabbit.info/blog