Anything has to be better than the last couple of miserable efforts (even by their low standards) from HonestReporting.
This time we are treated to a “long-term analysis”. I’m almost excited.
It doesn’t start too well. HR sets the scene by telling us that the BBC is at its “lowest ebb” and gives a series of horrifying examples; a commenter on a Radio Five blog says that the Talmud permits Jews to lie to non-Jews, a phone-in competition was not above board, and the Queen was unfairly edited. I don’t know about you, but my trust in journalism has just hit rock-bottom.
And HR sum it up perfectly,If the organization [BBC] is capable of showing such little respect for the British monarch ………….. is it any surprise that it consistently treats
Indeed!
This is HRs overall point,What we saw was a clear pattern of showcasing the Palestinian perspective, at the expense of Israeli voices.
Ok, let’s put aside their history of outrageous dishonesty and strident pro-Israel partisanship and give HR a chance to show that they have done some serious media analysis.
“Headlines and Grammatical Style in "Hard News" Articles”Finding: BBC headlines and text tend to use a style that describes Palestinian violence ambiguously (only naming the aggressor 15% of the time) while being much more direct in cases where the Israeli military is involved (
We aren’t given the whole sample so there is no way of checking their 15% figure. But we can look at the examples they provide. First, it’s a story about an Israeli airstrike (“Israeli Airstrike Hits North Gaza”) in
But, as HR ask “Is there consistency”?
Rather than a headline similar to the one from May 7, the BBC employed a softer approach….
Oh, really? HR are referring to this story “Eight killed in ‘ambush by Hamas’”. Well, that’s the “hard”, “active” headline – Hamas kill eight. Bizarrely, HR try to argue that this is “softer” than the first example!
In isolation, the use of the active tense does not indicate any sort of bias….
Well, I gave them a chance, but it’s the same old distortions and lies.
HR goes on to claim that stories on Palestinian violence are “either written without naming the aggressor at all, or written in the passive tense” and gives 4 links as examples, 25% of which (ie 1) HR manage to get completely wrong. In the story titled “Fresh Violence hits the
As you can see, HR make some rather convenient ‘errors’ in constructing their media “analysis”, which is why it’s best to take HR’s claims with a very large dose of salt.
“Selection of Perspectives in "Soft" News”
HR think they are on to something,Finding: The BBC consistently highlights Palestinian perspectives at the expense of Israeli voices. In twenty-three articles containing pictures and interviews of random subject, nineteen were of Palestinians.
HR have conveniently short memories. Last May the BBC released its’ report of the review of it’s Israel-Palestine coverage, a review that groups like HR had long demanded. HR were quick to note this part of the report,In summary, the finding is that 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.
But completely ignored the detail of the finding as to which “important aspects” where missing,
- there was little reporting of the difficulties faced by Palestinians in their daily lives…
- 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…
So, HR is right that it there has been a greater number of Palestinian voices in this “soft news” category, but this is in response to an identified problem in BBC reporting.
More Palestinians being able to speak for themselves. No wonder HR don’t like it.
|