BBC Not to Air TV Fund-Raising Appeal for Gaza

[Nik]

Getting OT, but I have a reply to the comment about Irkud and Jewish Nationalists' terrorism back in ~1948.

IIRC, they captured and hung one of my Dad's colleagues who was there on UK National Service, trying to keep the peace.

Only the UK Gov's enduring guilt that they really, really had not done enough to avert the Holocaust's atrocities prevented a bloody house-cleaning...

[dustinzgirl]

What Israel is doing to Pakistan is about as close to the Holocaust as they can get without being called into world court. I've been watching a lot on the world news channel (the free satellite feed) and its just atrocious. I could care less about the politics and religions, there are people suffering there who need humanitarian aid.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

What Israel is doing to Pakistan is about as close to the Holocaust as they can get without being called into world court. I've been watching a lot on the world news channel (the free satellite feed) and its just atrocious. I could care less about the politics and religions, there are people suffering there who need humanitarian aid.

I'm stupid and I meant Palestine. I was thinking Palestine. I think that countries should be forbidden to have similar sounding names.

[Foxbat]

Just to bring the subject back to the BBC. It was pointed out that they broadcast appeals on other conflicts but not this one. Why? Could it be that they are actually hypocritical cowards? Scared of upsetting one side or the other in this particular situation?

And as for impartiality - well, they are not as impartial as they seem to think as they lounge in their ivory towers. They are reliant on us, the licence payer, to fund them!

Perhaps it's time that we pushed our MPs to remove that funding.
Let's see how impartial they can be without our cash!

[pyan]

Well, it would appear that quite a few MPs don't like the decision..



MPs call on BBC to air Gaza film

[Bel_Azad]

Well - I need to think really carefully about this one - being a huge fan of the BBC and the service it provides.

I should also declare I am a Muslim.

I think it's amazing and hugely encouraging that after this last decade an organisation such as Christian Aid can work with others to provide aid and relief to the Palestinian people.

All that talk about clash of civilisations etc - it just shows that good people everywhere will help others that are suffering - no matter their religious beliefs.

Why do I mention Christian Aid? Some people who support the BBC decision to not show the appeal have said it has taken sides.

"Christian Aid, for example, called this month on Gordon Brown to "push for the EU to suspend its talks with Israel on upgrading relations": because Israel was "in breach of international humanitarian law in targeting civilians in Gaza, Christian Aid holds that these talks must be suspended." The only effect of this intervention was to demonstrate that Christian Aid has taken sides in the conflict between Israel and Hamas (it is in fact the latter which actually "targets civilians")." - from this link in today's Independent by D Lawson

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-when-charities-turn-political-the-bbc-is-right-to-tread-warily-1516810.html

We have had some of the reps from DEC on TV stating that they only provide food and things - not money - so that there is no chance of Hamas financially benefiting from the donations.

This question of being impartial is quite interesting - obviously we do not want any funds or support going to terrorist organisations - but the fact that many countries of the world already provide arms and goods to Israel suggest people have already taken sides.

We can arm Israel with tanks, helicopters, bombs etc but we cant show an appeal for the Palestinian people as that would not be impartial?

One of the newest things to come out of this situation is another saying - said by people on this conflict - old ones are:

Hamas targets civilians when the Israel army takes care
They deserve it as they voted for Hamas - a terrorist organisation
Hamas use their own people as shields

He new one is

The best thing the BBC ever did for the appeal was not to show it - as that has promoted the campaign no end
Hopefully the BBC can apply the same logic to its Children In Need appeal and to any forthcoming appeals.

On a final note - it turns out that the BBC Director General has taking the sole responsibility for the decision - infact by making his decision he influenced the other tv channels who have now changed their minds.

It seems it's probably impossible for anyone not to take sides -

I am a Muslim
D Lawson is a prominent British Jew
M Thompson is married to a pro Israel American Jew

As I said - its hard not to take sides

[Ursa major]

Let me return to the difficulty that the BBC has with reporting a complex conflict while at the same time allowing an appeal for the victims on one side (in this case, the side that has the most need that is otherwise not being met) by the DEC.

The BBC allowed the DEC to broadcast on behalf of the victims in Darfur. Far from being a simple affair, the conflict in Darfur is also very complicated. I quote Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_Conflict):

The War in Darfur is a conflict that is in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Unlike the Second Sudanese Civil War, the current lines of conflict are seen by some American reporters (such as those with USA Today and Slate magazine) to be ethnic and tribal, rather than religious.[6] However, a United Nations report[7] states that the various tribes under attack (chiefly the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes) do not appear to have a distinct ethnicity from their attackers.

One side of the armed conflicts is composed mainly of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, a Sudanese militia group recruited mostly from the Arab Abbala tribes of the northern Rizeigat region in Sudan. They are mainly camel-herding nomads. The other side comprises a variety of rebel groups, notably the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, recruited primarily from the land-tilling non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit ethnic groups. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided money and assistance to the militia and has participated in joint attacks targeting the tribes from which the rebels draw support. The conflict began in February 2003.

This seems to be another journalistic minefield, and yet the BBC allowed the DEC appeal to go ahead.

The only difference I can see is the BBC is worried that there are far more numerous and vocal supporters of the various sides in the recent dispute than there are in the case of Sudan. (I wouldn't argue with this proposition: one hardly ever hears anyone talking about Sudan or Darfur except in the context of them being interviewed by a reporter.) But guessing that there will be a reaction is one thing; allowing yourself to crumble before there is an adverse and partial reaction is another. This is why I used the adjective, craven, in an earlier post. The BBC thought it would rather face the mild anger of the ordinary UK citizen than face an assumed reaction from those with an agenda**.

And the BBC is being more than craven: it is showing that it will change its output if it feels under pressure. What price can one put on the impartiality of an organisation that folds before it's criticised? Not a high one.



** - I must stress that the BBC's action seems to be based on a presumption: before the BBC's decision, I didn't hear anyone voice any opposition to a possible DEC appeal on behalf of Gazan civilians; one might even say that the BBC is traducing the supporters of one side in the conflict in Gaza, assuming that they would kick up a fuss, when they might well take a humanitarian view little or no different to that of others.

[Bel_Azad]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Let me return to the difficulty that the BBC has with reporting a complex conflict while at the same time allowing an appeal for the victims on one side (in this case, the side that has the most need that is otherwise not being met) by the DEC.

This could be one of the problems - some would argue that the victims are not on anyones side - but are innocent victims of the war between Hamas and Israel (if we can describe it in those terms)

The DEC are also describing their efforts in those terms - innocent victims, collateral damage if you will - the vast majority of victims and injured are not Hamas fighters -

The problem is - as the Palestinian people voted for Hamas - some people will equate that fact with all Palestinian people being supporters of Hamas - and they only have themselves to blame sort of mentality.

In the rest of the worlds democracies, we accept that the winning party did not receive 100% of all the votes cast - look at Obama's win in the US (just above 50%) and indeed in the UK where a party can win the majority and form a govenment with maybe 45% of the votes.

The BBC leadership cannot seem to distinguish this fact and has therefore decided to stay impartial between the warring factions - not recognising that this appeal is for people caught in the crossfire.

Hamas is a political party - maybe even a terrorist organisation - but I would think young children and women are not members of that group.

[Ursa major]

Sorry, Bel Azad; but in mitigation, I was using a physical rather than a philosophical meaning of the word "side".

(While we may be persuaded to think that today's weapons can be - though often are not - "smart", they still work by being aimed at a physical target and then activating at or near that target.)

[Bel_Azad]

An interesting read for some with time on their hands

THE BBC REFUSES TO BROADCAST GAZA CHARITY APPEAL

AN EYE FOR AN EYELASH: THE GAZA MASSACRE

People can read and make up their own minds - no point restricitng your access to information from only one source.

Hopefully the BBC will change it's mind and apparently senior journos and the BBC unions are meeting to discuss.

[Ursa major]

I'm afraid that the BBC often acts like those people who would rather continue doing something they'd rather not do than lose face; and so I don't think we'll see the DEC appeal on the BBC.


I hope I'm wrong.

[Precision Grace]

Well, the Corporation is not new at this game and I would be tempted to suggest that Director General knew what he was doing when he decided to hold up the broadcast. However, they have demonstrated a ridiculous lack of foresight on several issues recently and now I'm wondering whether he is not hoping for a call to resignation.

One unknown issue remains - we don't know what was in that film (I'm still naively trying to think that it wasn't taking of sides that took place), however if there were issues with the film, they could have spoken to DEC and requested changes. Maybe there was no time for changes? I'm really reaching here.

I just don't understand why there needs to be agreement between all the broadcasters before an appeal can be broadcast. Why would that be?

[Ursa major]

To answer your last question, PG, I'd imagine that the DEC wouldn't want to put out different appeals through different channels and so there has to be some co-ordination. Beyond that - and given that the DEC is a child of the mid-60s - it'll be how things were done then and tradition has set it all in stone.


Although I haven't managed to catch it yet, the "film", if by that you mean the appeal, has been on the TV (ITV, Channel Four, Five). I saw a staement yesterday that along the lines of "ITV was editing the film". Whether this was to address their concerns or merely because they were lending their expertise, I don't know. If it was the former, then perhaps the BBC could have addressed its concerns to the DEC, and thereby got things changed, rather than throwing a wobbly.



(By the way, does anyone know whether the appeal shown on commercial terrestrial TV in the UK is available on line? Or know when it'll be shown again on the TV?)

[Tillane]

Here you go, Ursa. This is the appeal shown on ITV: it is, as you can imagine, harrowing stuff.

[Ursa major]

Cheers, Till.


(I think....)