Read on Twitter
TURMOIL AT THE BBC:
BBC Beirut correspondent to the Director General of the BBC, Tim Davie:
"Dear Tim,
I am writing to raise the gravest possible concerns about the coverage of the BBC, especially on English outlets, of the current fighting between Israel and Palestinian factions.
It appears to me that information that is highly significant and relevant is either entirely missing or not being given due prominence in coverage.
This includes expert opinion that Israel’s actions could amount to genocide, evidence in support of that opinion, and historical context without which the public cannot form a basic understanding of the unfolding events.
There are also indications that the BBC is—implicitly at least—treating Israeli lives as more worthy than Palestinian lives, and reinforcing Israeli war propaganda.
What follows is a brief explanation of why I think so. I hope you consider it carefully and urgently.
1. Genocide
Even before the current round of fighting, experts have noted that the siege of Gaza may amount to "a prelude to genocide" or "a slow-motion genocide." [1]
Key here is the fact that the Genocide Convention of 1948 lists, among the elements of the crime of genocide, the act of "Deliberately inflicting on the (national, ethnical, racial or religious) group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." [2]
Also key is the fact that as early as 2014, UN officials who advise the UN Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide have warned of ‘the flagrant use of hate speech in the social media, particularly against the Palestinian population.[3]
The nature of the Israeli response to the attack by Hamas on October 7 has prompted ‘over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies’ to warn of ‘the possibility of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.[4]
They cited the "incessant and indiscriminate bombardment’ obliterating ‘huge swathes of neighborhoods and entire families," and the order, by the Israeli defense minister" of a "complete siege" of Gaza, terminology which, according to the experts, "indicates an intensification of an already illegal, potentially genocidal siege to an outright destructive assault."
They also cited the order issued for more than 1.1 million Palestinians in Gaza City and the northern Gaza Strip to flee to the south.[5] This order has also been said by Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council to ‘amount to the war crime of forcible transfer’ if unaccompanied by guarantees of safety or return.[6]
Furthermore, the scholars noted the statements of incitement by Israeli leaders against Palestinians.[7] They wrote of "evidence of incitement to genocide" and a "wider Israeli discourse showcasing the intent for elimination and genocide against the Palestinian people."
They also noted the "escalation of violence, arrests, expulsions, and destruction of whole Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem."
They said:
As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies, and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. We do not do so lightly, recognizing the weight of this crime, but the gravity of the current situation demands it.
I invite you to sift through our coverage, past and present, for any trace of the above; whether in explainers, or interviews, or features, or news analysis. Is it there at all, and if so, is it given the prominence it deserves? >>
BBC Beirut correspondent to the Director General of the BBC, Tim Davie:
"Dear Tim,
I am writing to raise the gravest possible concerns about the coverage of the BBC, especially on English outlets, of the current fighting between Israel and Palestinian factions.
It appears to me that information that is highly significant and relevant is either entirely missing or not being given due prominence in coverage.
This includes expert opinion that Israel’s actions could amount to genocide, evidence in support of that opinion, and historical context without which the public cannot form a basic understanding of the unfolding events.
There are also indications that the BBC is—implicitly at least—treating Israeli lives as more worthy than Palestinian lives, and reinforcing Israeli war propaganda.
What follows is a brief explanation of why I think so. I hope you consider it carefully and urgently.
1. Genocide
Even before the current round of fighting, experts have noted that the siege of Gaza may amount to "a prelude to genocide" or "a slow-motion genocide." [1]
Key here is the fact that the Genocide Convention of 1948 lists, among the elements of the crime of genocide, the act of "Deliberately inflicting on the (national, ethnical, racial or religious) group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." [2]
Also key is the fact that as early as 2014, UN officials who advise the UN Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide have warned of ‘the flagrant use of hate speech in the social media, particularly against the Palestinian population.[3]
The nature of the Israeli response to the attack by Hamas on October 7 has prompted ‘over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies’ to warn of ‘the possibility of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.[4]
They cited the "incessant and indiscriminate bombardment’ obliterating ‘huge swathes of neighborhoods and entire families," and the order, by the Israeli defense minister" of a "complete siege" of Gaza, terminology which, according to the experts, "indicates an intensification of an already illegal, potentially genocidal siege to an outright destructive assault."
They also cited the order issued for more than 1.1 million Palestinians in Gaza City and the northern Gaza Strip to flee to the south.[5] This order has also been said by Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council to ‘amount to the war crime of forcible transfer’ if unaccompanied by guarantees of safety or return.[6]
Furthermore, the scholars noted the statements of incitement by Israeli leaders against Palestinians.[7] They wrote of "evidence of incitement to genocide" and a "wider Israeli discourse showcasing the intent for elimination and genocide against the Palestinian people."
They also noted the "escalation of violence, arrests, expulsions, and destruction of whole Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem."
They said:
As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies, and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. We do not do so lightly, recognizing the weight of this crime, but the gravity of the current situation demands it.
I invite you to sift through our coverage, past and present, for any trace of the above; whether in explainers, or interviews, or features, or news analysis. Is it there at all, and if so, is it given the prominence it deserves? >>
"2. Selective Use of Language
Words like ‘massacre’, ‘slaughter’, and ‘atrocities’ are being used—prominently—in reference to actions by Hamas, but hardly, if at all, in reference to actions by Israel.
When the BBC uses such language selectively, with the standard of selection being the identity of the perpetrators/victims, the BBC is making a statement—albeit implicit. It implies that the lives of one group of people are more valuable than the lives of another.
This would be scandalous under any conditions. How much more so in light of the fact that hate speech and incitement against Palestinians have been flooding the airwaves, the internet, and social media, coming from the top (Israeli officials and their Western backers) and echoing all over the information ecosystem, in the context of what experts believe could be a prelude to genocide?
The power of emotive coverage and repetition is well understood. The selective application of emotive repetition is sure to have an impact on audiences, and it is exactly the kind of impact Israeli propagandists are aiming for as they dehumanize Palestinians and set the stage for the mass murder they have pledged—and begun—to carry out.
Does this not raise the question of the possible complicity of the BBC in incitement, dehumanization, and war propaganda? How would the BBC respond to this?"
Words like ‘massacre’, ‘slaughter’, and ‘atrocities’ are being used—prominently—in reference to actions by Hamas, but hardly, if at all, in reference to actions by Israel.
When the BBC uses such language selectively, with the standard of selection being the identity of the perpetrators/victims, the BBC is making a statement—albeit implicit. It implies that the lives of one group of people are more valuable than the lives of another.
This would be scandalous under any conditions. How much more so in light of the fact that hate speech and incitement against Palestinians have been flooding the airwaves, the internet, and social media, coming from the top (Israeli officials and their Western backers) and echoing all over the information ecosystem, in the context of what experts believe could be a prelude to genocide?
The power of emotive coverage and repetition is well understood. The selective application of emotive repetition is sure to have an impact on audiences, and it is exactly the kind of impact Israeli propagandists are aiming for as they dehumanize Palestinians and set the stage for the mass murder they have pledged—and begun—to carry out.
Does this not raise the question of the possible complicity of the BBC in incitement, dehumanization, and war propaganda? How would the BBC respond to this?"
"3. Interviewing Officials
In light of all the above, interviews with Israeli officials and their Western backers—as well as with Israeli propagandists—cannot possibly be friendly affairs, with presenters not only refraining from presenting them with evidence of the above, but also giving them comfortable airtime as they justify it. This is happening all too often, and as far as I know, the expert opinion above and the evidence that backs it have not been presented to Israeli or Western officials on air.
The question of finding exceptions (if there are any) is not enough. Rigorous and challenging interviews should not be the exception, they should be the rule."
In light of all the above, interviews with Israeli officials and their Western backers—as well as with Israeli propagandists—cannot possibly be friendly affairs, with presenters not only refraining from presenting them with evidence of the above, but also giving them comfortable airtime as they justify it. This is happening all too often, and as far as I know, the expert opinion above and the evidence that backs it have not been presented to Israeli or Western officials on air.
The question of finding exceptions (if there are any) is not enough. Rigorous and challenging interviews should not be the exception, they should be the rule."
"5. Historical Context
Our current coverage kicked off following the Hamas attack. Doubtless, it is major news. But that doesn’t mean history started on October 7. We should incorporate into our coverage an accurate, balanced, fair, and truthful representation of the reality leading up to that moment.
I won’t go into detail, but simply remind you of three terms: apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and settler-colonialism.
These are terms used by many experts and highly respected organizations to which the BBC usually defers. They are used to describe the nature of Israeli rule over Palestinians as well as the methods used by Israel to oppress generation after generation of Palestinians. They are based on extensive evidence.
To what extent is this reflected in our coverage? Without such context, can we claim to have adequately informed the public? Or are we withholding highly relevant and significant information without which the basics of the conflict cannot possibly be understood?
Just a few days ago, Francesca Albanese, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, had this to say:
There is a grave danger that what we are witnessing may be a repeat of the 1948 Nakba, and the 1967 Naksa, yet on a larger scale….Israel has already carried out mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the fog of war... Again, in the name of self-defense, Israel is seeking to justify what would amount to ethnic cleansing.[12]
Once again, I invite you to sift through our coverage, past and present, for any trace of the above; whether in explainers, or interviews, or features, or news analysis. Is it there at all, and if so, is it given the prominence it is due?"
Our current coverage kicked off following the Hamas attack. Doubtless, it is major news. But that doesn’t mean history started on October 7. We should incorporate into our coverage an accurate, balanced, fair, and truthful representation of the reality leading up to that moment.
I won’t go into detail, but simply remind you of three terms: apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and settler-colonialism.
These are terms used by many experts and highly respected organizations to which the BBC usually defers. They are used to describe the nature of Israeli rule over Palestinians as well as the methods used by Israel to oppress generation after generation of Palestinians. They are based on extensive evidence.
To what extent is this reflected in our coverage? Without such context, can we claim to have adequately informed the public? Or are we withholding highly relevant and significant information without which the basics of the conflict cannot possibly be understood?
Just a few days ago, Francesca Albanese, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, had this to say:
There is a grave danger that what we are witnessing may be a repeat of the 1948 Nakba, and the 1967 Naksa, yet on a larger scale….Israel has already carried out mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the fog of war... Again, in the name of self-defense, Israel is seeking to justify what would amount to ethnic cleansing.[12]
Once again, I invite you to sift through our coverage, past and present, for any trace of the above; whether in explainers, or interviews, or features, or news analysis. Is it there at all, and if so, is it given the prominence it is due?"
"6. Conclusion
In conclusion, it appears that the BBC is keeping a lot of highly significant and relevant information, including extensive evidence, expert opinion, and historical context, from the public. Members of the public cannot possibly form an informed opinion or a basic understanding of the unfolding events without access to such information.
It also appears the BBC could be reinforcing Israeli propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians.
There is a lot more to be said, but these are the broad headlines. This is not about mistakes here and there, or even about systemic bias in favor of Israel. The question now is a question of complicity.
It is a matter of public interest to rectify this with the utmost urgency.
Best,
Rami Ruhayem"
[This email was copied to many other BBC staff, and represents – in its specific criticisms and its direct challenge to the BBC’s highest authority – a deepening of the internal rejection of BBC coverage, and a reflection of the same among its audiences. If shared widely, it has the potential to increase the pressure on the institution significantly, exposing as it does the contradictions between its claims of accuracy and rigor and its differential treatment of Palestinian and Israeli lives and deaths.
The question remains how, and indeed whether, the BBC will respond, and if there will be any meaningful investigations, or change, both of BBC editorial guidelines on this issue, and of its relations with its staff.]
In conclusion, it appears that the BBC is keeping a lot of highly significant and relevant information, including extensive evidence, expert opinion, and historical context, from the public. Members of the public cannot possibly form an informed opinion or a basic understanding of the unfolding events without access to such information.
It also appears the BBC could be reinforcing Israeli propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians.
There is a lot more to be said, but these are the broad headlines. This is not about mistakes here and there, or even about systemic bias in favor of Israel. The question now is a question of complicity.
It is a matter of public interest to rectify this with the utmost urgency.
Best,
Rami Ruhayem"
[This email was copied to many other BBC staff, and represents – in its specific criticisms and its direct challenge to the BBC’s highest authority – a deepening of the internal rejection of BBC coverage, and a reflection of the same among its audiences. If shared widely, it has the potential to increase the pressure on the institution significantly, exposing as it does the contradictions between its claims of accuracy and rigor and its differential treatment of Palestinian and Israeli lives and deaths.
The question remains how, and indeed whether, the BBC will respond, and if there will be any meaningful investigations, or change, both of BBC editorial guidelines on this issue, and of its relations with its staff.]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
