In 2005, the BBC decided to undertake an impartiality review of its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such, it commissioned an independent panel, the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, and British-Israeli international lawyer Noam Lubell. The BBC also invited a number of organisations, including Arab Media Watch (which analysed a 1-month period in the form of a 47-page report), to submit their views.
An AMW delegation (including Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi, Victor Kattan, Muna Nashashibi and Maha Abdullahad) met with the independent panel in January 2006.
The findings of the panel, Loughborough and Lubell were published in April 2006, and corroborate extensively those of AMW. Following are comparative extracts from the panel's report and that of AMW, with the latter in bold:
There was little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives.
BBC coverage does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.
Among the findings from the quantitative content analysis which the researchers [from the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University] judge to be most important for the Panel are:
- some important themes were relatively overlooked in the coverage of the conflict, most notably in the recent period, the annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;
AMW recommends that the BBC…increase coverage of the conflict, and consider what it chooses to report. A substantial amount of important news during the [1-month] monitoring period was missed.
One important feature…is the failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation…it is so marked and important that coverage should succeed in this if nothing else.
…the two sides are not on equal terms…It is simply a matter of fact…
The asymmetry is most strikingly manifested in the fact of Occupation. One side is wholly under the occupation of the other and, however reluctantly, necessarily endures the indignities of dependence.
During the monitoring period, the only BBC outlets to mention the occupation were News 24 and Online…However, on News 24 it was only mentioned twice out of 10 days in which the conflict was reported, 1 of those times by an interviewee (Greg Philo), not by the BBC.
…the occupation is mentioned by the BBC in only 13.5% of Online news items and 27% of features.
…throughout the BBC outlets monitored, there was only 1 occasion in which it was made clear that the Israelis were militarily occupying Palestinian land…
There was no mention that the occupation is entering its 4th decade.
…imbalances in coverage (eg…on the implications of the Gaza disengagement for the Palestinians).
Israel’s Gaza withdrawal is portrayed almost unanimously as a positive step.
…there is a general failure to mention that Gaza is still technically occupied.
Four Online items claim incorrectly that the occupation of Gaza is now over, and of the 38 Online items regarding the withdrawal, only 5 (13%) refer to Israel’s continued control.
BBC optimism seems misplaced when one considers the economic implications of this continued control on Palestinians.
How can the BBC portray the withdrawal as positive when Ariel Sharon and others in his government have consistently said this will allow Israel to strengthen its hold on the West Bank and East Jerusalem? The only time this is mentioned during the monitoring period is in 1 Online item.
It is also never made clear that Gaza was not Israel’s to begin with.
Instead, audiences are told of the “controversy” surrounding the withdrawal. In fact, the BBC 1 6pm news and Radio 5 Live tell audiences nothing about the ongoing hardships in Gaza.
The term ‘terrorism’ should…be used in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological, including political or religious, objectives, whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies. While those immediately responsible for the actions might be described as terrorists, the BBC is right to avoid so labelling organisations, except in attributed remarks.
…it is a truism that many who have carried out terrorist acts have subsequently become respected politicians, even statesmen. (This is as true of those active in the Zionist movement before the foundation of the state of Israel as in others.) For similar reasoning, it would be a mistake to use the expression ‘terrorist’ in respect of organisations, even though the terrorist act was carried out at their instigation.
Terrorism is normally regarded as having three elements; its technique is the application of force or violence to cause death or injury; its target is civilians selected indiscriminately or randomly; and its objective is political or purportedly political. In evidence to the Panel, Israeli Government representatives acknowledged that a definition on these lines, which they commended, could apply when warranted to state actions.
This term has been used by the BBC regarding the Palestinians…One can argue that terrorism means the wanton killing of civilians, and in this case both sides are guilty (Israel on a much larger scale), but the BBC never accuses Israel of this.
…given that the BBC has more news airtime and resources than any other UK broadcaster and probably more than any other European broadcaster there were several deficiencies in the broadcast news output. These included an absence of historical background and deficiencies in the provision of…contexts…and insufficient analysis and interpretation of some important events and issues…
There are…gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective.
Among the findings from the quantitative content analysis which the researchers [from the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University] judge to be most important for the Panel are:
- BBC journalists generally did not provide historical context in their reporting of the conflict;
This study corroborates others that find a lack of context in coverage of core issues.
…lack of vital background knowledge on [settlements]…
Apart from 1 Online news item (out of 7 relevant news items) and 1 feature (out of 6), there was no background detail on Palestinian refugees, such as why they are dispossessed, how long for, how many there are [and] the conditions in which they live.
No mention…of the serious economic and humanitarian hardships [Israel’s barrier] is imposing on Palestinians. No mention that the appropriation of Palestinian land is a fact, not an opinion.
Zionism is mentioned numerous times…with no mention of what it is.
[The 1967 and 1973] wars are mentioned Online without any background information.
Hamas is described as still formally committed to Israel’s destruction. There is no mention, however, that it accepted the Arab peace proposal.
[The Oslo Accords] are portrayed exclusively as a good thing. There is no detail of its fundamental drawbacks. The Accords are also said to be “based on a ‘land for peace’ principle,” without mentioning the fact that the land in question is Palestinian, not Israeli.
The “intifada”, as well as the Palestinian “struggle” and “cause,” are mentioned…with no explanation as to what this is.
The BBC should continue to draw on international law and the United Nations Security Council in the choices it must inevitably make about the use of language and then be consistent in its use across its output….certain usages (such as “occupied territories”) are well established.
…if the BBC used a framework of international law and British Foreign and Commonwealth Office positions, applying this equally to both parties, then this would be impartial.
The BBC has…consistently failed to describe…extrajudicial executions and assassinations as being contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law.
There was no mention that…international law and UN Security Council resolutions call on Israel to end [the occupation].
AMW recommends that the BBC…consistently stress [settlements’] illegality because they are built on occupied territory.
…there was no background detail on [Palestinian refugees’] legal rights to repatriation, restitution and compensation which are anchored in 4 separate bodies of international law: the law of nationality as applied upon state succession; humanitarian law; human rights law; and refugee law…[T]he only mention of their right to return to their homes, villages, towns and cities is in an Online item talking of Israelis being “fearful” of this.
…the only BBC outlet to mention the barrier was Online, with just 2 news items. However, even these made no mention of the International Court of Justice’s opinion that it is illegal, should be torn down, and compensation should be paid to affected Palestinians.
AMW recommends that the BBC…stress when mentioning the Gaza withdrawal that under international law, it remains occupied territory and thus Israel continues to be responsible for its inhabitants’ welfare. It is…never made clear that…withdrawing from it is not a concession but a legal obligation.
There are 4 occasions in which Online allows Israeli sources to misrepresent the status of Jerusalem.
It is easier to gain access to Israeli spokespeople, and the Israeli authorities may be in a position to grant or deny permits to access Palestinian areas and spokespeople…some witnesses expressed anxiety that, given this asymmetry, the BBC’s concern with balance gave an impression of equality between the two sides which was fundamentally, if unintentionally, misleading.
The BBC should consider the case for basing a correspondent in the West Bank to facilitate access, particularly once the barrier is complete.
The vast majority of BBC correspondents covering the conflict are based in West Jerusalem…[T]here are no correspondents in the West Bank.
…there should be more BBC correspondents spread throughout the West Bank and Gaza than in Israel because, for the most part, this is where the story is.
How can a correspondent truly appreciate the hardships Palestinians face under occupation, when they do not experience it themselves?
…correspondents live among and like Israelis, and may well relate to them more and feel detached from what is happening in the occupied territories.
…the Israelis are necessarily in the position of authority, while the Palestinians are frequently in the position of challenger.
The BBC tends to portray Israel as a peace-seeking victim of and responder to Palestinian, Arab and Muslim aggression.
Online mainly portrayed Israel as responding to Palestinian aggression, ignoring serious Israeli provocations leading up to Palestinian attacks.
News 24 portrayed Israel as responding to Palestinian aggression 18 times. Palestinians were described as responding just twice.
…the 1 Palestinian reported killed [on the Radio 4 6pm news] is said to be in retaliation for the suicide bombing. No Palestinian justification is given for any Israeli deaths or injuries.
…items selected by PM showed a pattern of Israeli victimhood or benevolence, and Muslim/Palestinian aggression.
The same is true of the BBC 1 6pm news.
Radio 5 Drive follows this trend of portrayals.
Both sides suffer death and injury, though in recent years the figures show it has fallen disproportionately on the Palestinians. But the victimhood of each side typically occurs in different ways. When the Israelis suffer it is usually from a terrorist attack - that is from the deliberate deployment in pursuit of a political objective of violence aimed indiscriminately at civilians or non-combatants - 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. Moreover, leaving aside death and injury, much of the Palestinian suffering arises from the situation of displacement and occupation, which does not generally lend itself to the newsworthy event. Given this asymmetry, providing a fair account of relative suffering is itself a challenge.
Among the findings from the quantitative content analysis which the researchers [from the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University] judge to be most important for the Panel are:
- BBC broadcast news reported Israeli and Palestinian fatalities differently in that Israeli fatalities generally receive greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities.
…it appears from the most commonly used data (provided by the Israeli Government and by the human rights group B’Tselem) that the death of an Israeli killed by the Palestinian side was more likely to be reported by the BBC than the death of a Palestinian killed by the Israeli side.
The researchers say: “…’targeted killings/assassinations’ of Palestinians by Israelis and Israeli air or ground raids were generally not reported on by national broadcast programmes…specific numbers of Palestinian fatalities were generally not reported by broadcast news programmes; and...a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by broadcast news.”
Israeli deaths (50-90%) and injuries (34–61%) are reported with more frequency by all the monitored BBC news outlets than Palestinian deaths (3-61%) and injuries (0-38%), even though there were almost 4 times as many Palestinian deaths.
The BBC 1 6pm news, the PM programme and Radio 4 6pm news failed to mention 97% of Palestinian deaths and 100% of the 53 injuries. The BBC 10pm news and Radio 5 Drive did only slightly better, with the former failing to mention 78% of Palestinian deaths and the latter 92%. Neither of them mentioned that any Palestinians had been injured.
Regarding Online, 18% of reported Palestinian deaths…[and] 25% of reported Palestinian injuries…were not the subject of the article in which they were mentioned.
As well as News 24 reporting 80% of Israeli deaths and 58% of Israeli injuries as opposed to 28% of Palestinian deaths and 28% of Palestinian injuries, it devoted almost 5 times more time to Israeli deaths and injuries (405 seconds, as opposed to 85 seconds for Palestinian deaths and injuries).
The same is true of the BBC 1 10pm news.
There was also considerably more emphasis on Israeli deaths and injuries than Palestinian on the Radio 4 6pm news…reporting 80% of Israeli deaths and “dozens” of injuries (as opposed to 3% of Palestinian deaths and no injuries or arrests).
The only Palestinian death reported by the PM programme was mentioned briefly days after it occurred, in a report that was mainly about the suicide bomb in Israel.
The same is true of the BBC 1 6pm news.
In the same week we had the anniversaries of the death of Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin…there was a considerable imbalance in the amount of coverage the BBC gave each event. For instance, the BBC 1 6pm news and News 24 reported Rabin’s anniversary (6 minutes on News 24) but not Arafat’s. BBC Online had 7 items on Rabin, but just 3 on Arafat. Likewise, the website devoted 2,763 words to Rabin, but 7 times fewer words (413) to Arafat.
…failure to achieve the ideal of a consistent exposure of both the Israeli and Palestinian view (the "dual narratives").
Among the findings from the quantitative content analysis which the researchers [from the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University] judge to be most important for the Panel are these:
- a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in the amount of talk time given to non-party political Israelis and Palestinians;
- a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in the amount of talk time given to Israelis and Palestinians;
- a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of non-party political Israeli and Palestinian actors;
- a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of Israeli and Palestinian actors;
Israeli sources are predominant over Palestinian sources in BBC coverage.
63% of [Online] news items…had more Israeli sources. Just 25% of news items…had more Palestinian sources. A quarter of news items had no Palestinian sources, whereas all had Israeli sources.
58% of [Online] features…had more Israeli sources. Just 25% of features…had more Palestinian sources. Almost half the features…had no Palestinian sources, whereas only 1 had no Israeli sources.
78% of [Online] news items…and two-thirds of features…had Israeli sources more prominently placed.
Three-quarters of [Online] news items…had more words devoted to Israeli sources.
75% of [Online] features…devoted more words to Israeli sources.
There was also an imbalance in terms of [Online] pullout quotes, with…60% from Israelis or pro-Israelis, and…40% from Palestinians or pro-Palestinians.
There were 4 occasions [on the Radio 4 6pm news] in which Israeli sources were used, compared to just 1 occasion for a Palestinian source.
BBC coverage is replete with unchallenged claims, particularly Israeli claims with an unreported Palestinian viewpoint or version of events.
…there are 8 occasions where Online reports US and Israeli accusations of the Palestinian Authority not doing enough to stop violence…with no Palestinian viewpoint.
There are 9 occasions in which the Israeli version of events is used concerning the killing of Palestinians, while there is a differing Palestinian version of events which goes unreported.
...complaints do sometimes seem to be treated as a necessary nuisance and dealt with defensively.
…the BBC…should not respond to them defensively, rather seeing them as providing helpful evidence of how its product is being received by its customers. Where appropriate, the BBC should readily acknowledge any mistakes made without resisting every charge until the last ditch; and of course every complaint should be promptly acknowledged.
…one will take time to write a considered, rational, factual complaint, only to receive a generic response that does not actually deal with it.
AMW has been told by individuals of incidents where there is a small error in their initial complaint, so the BBC points out the error and does not answer the other parts of the complaint satisfactorily.
…when errors are corrected, they often reappear.
…when one makes a complaint brief (eg. about a particular part of a programme), we are told that the rest of it is fair. Likewise, when the complaint involves an entire programme, we are told that the wider picture is fair, or that other such programmes provide balance. When one writes with further information to support the original complaint, or to highlight wider bias, we are told the BBC cannot deal with long queries or in-depth studies because of its duty to the licence payer.
…currently the BBC seems to judge impartiality as trying not to offend either lobby. As the pro-Israel lobby is better organised and has more influence due to a variety of factors, they are in a better position to pressure the BBC.
There is also a failure to maintain consistently the BBC's own established editorial standards, including on language.
…accuracy, clarity and precision of the language used is crucial: both in avoiding bias, but also in providing comprehension.
There are shortcomings arising from the elusiveness of editorial planning, grip and oversight…
A large number of pro-Israel supporters emailed from the United States, often with the same complaint, on the same date and/or from the same state.
Not too much can be made of this, but more people thought the BBC was anti-Israel. However, if the emails and letters which could be identified as coming from abroad are excluded, the opposite is true: more people thought the BBC anti-Palestinian or pro-Israel.
…the BBC has incorporated ‘balance’ as part of the impartiality doctrine, although this is not a legal requirement like those for accuracy, fairness and due impartiality. While this is understandable, it can…produce misleading coverage when, as in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two sides do not enjoy ‘equality of arms’ (actually or figuratively).
Noam Lubell’s report…suggests that the best general term…is ‘barrier’…Equally the relevant parts of the barrier could accurately be described as a wall or a fence…he suggests that ‘occupied territories’ is appropriate and correct in law…he suggests that the settlements are correctly described as ‘illegal settlements’.
On each of these matters, Noam Lubell’s advice is consistent with the existing BBC guidance as expressed in their internal Key Points Guide for journalists. We support the BBC’s position on these points. (It is not always consistent, however, with BBC practice…) We also agree with the BBC position that the usage ‘Palestinian land’ to refer to the occupied territories is appropriate.
We did not find evidence that any increase in anti-Semitic behaviour could be attributed to BBC coverage.