Too Serious for Just an Apology part 2: BBC’s Bias Exposed

On 06.02.09 I sent a complaint to the BBC about an interview of Sarah Montague and Mark Regev on BBC radio 4 on 06.02.09. What I find more alarming is Robert’s Wright (BBC complaints) response on 17.02.09 to my initial complaint, to which I responded again on 18.02.09. Here is all the correspondence. It is long but it is worth reading:


My initial complaint submitted to the BBC on 06.02.09:

I was listening to the morning news show on Friday, 06.02.09 on BBC radio 4 at about 8:40am. An interview was held with Mark Regev, the Israeli spokesman and Sarah Montague. As a listener I was horrified to hear the hate and the revolt in Sarah Montague's voice toward mark Regev. She blatantly rejected his claim that Hamas was responsible to the collapse of the ceasefire, by saying “this is simply not true” this is a blunt and unprofessional statement of a journalist who do not accept the turns of events in Israel and tries to vilify the Israelis for the their reaction to Hamas terror attacks. I do not recall any journalists interviewing Hamas terrorists on BBC rejecting any of Hamas claims whether they hateful or fabricated, however, Sarah Montague did not have a problem claiming that Mark Regev was simply lying. Furthermore, this journalist had a silence too long in a sentence when she was trying to find her words to describe Hamas militants, this was almost to imply that she was trying avoiding calling Hamas as freedom fighters. She had to think hard until she was able to pronounce “Hamas militants”. I have grave concern of this horrible journalistic misconduct to show a biased and a blatant hate toward an interviewee, and I call for her resignation. This is too serious for just an apology.


Robert Wright's (BBC Complaints) response on 17.02.09:

Dear XXXX (Nature)

Thank you for your e-mail regarding Radio 4.

I was sorry to learn that you feel the BBC reports of the conflict in Gaza aren't impartial.

The BBC is committed to due impartiality and across our programming we have tried to explain how the current situation in the Middle East started and has since developed. We have also given air-time to representatives from across the political spectrum and our correspondents are equally vigorous in their questioning of interviewees regardless of whether they are Israeli or Palestinian.

While the BBC agrees that political figures and others in positions of responsibility should be given the opportunity both to explain their thinking on matters of public concern and answer criticisms of it, the job of interviewers is to put the questions likely to be in the minds of listeners and to look for answers. Our interviewers' intention is always to ensure that their contributions are kept as relevant and useful as possible. The interviewer's job is to put the questions likely to be in the minds of viewers and to look for answers. Many interviewees and politicians in particular, are very adept at evading questions and following their own agenda when replying. It is part of a professional interviewer's role to ensure that they are reminded, when appropriate, of the original question or pressed on points that are of particular public interest.

We have reported the casualty figures from both sides: the fact is, however, that there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli. We have also explained clearly and frequently that Israel sees this conflict as a necessary defensive action because of the rocket attacks it has faced for many years. It is for the audience, not the BBC, to judge whether, in its view, the action is justified.

The aim of our news reports is to provide the information across our programming in order to enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the reality of a situation and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. We are satisfied that this has been the case in respect of our reporting of the Middle East.

Nevertheless, I recognise you may continue to hold a different opinion about the BBC's impartiality. Please be assured that all of your comments have been registered on our daily feedback log, this is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

Thank you for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Robert Wright

BBC Complaints

____________________________
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints


My new response to Robert Wright (BBC Complaints) on 18.02.09:

Dear Robert Wright

Thank you for taking the time to response to my initial complaint about the integrity of the interview Sarah Montague conducted with Mark Regev on 06.02.09, which was only partially answered. Your response did not explain however why as an “impartial” interviewer Sarah Montague had a clear revolt and anger in her voice toward Mark Regev. This incident was not only picked by myself but was largely discussed on the Biased BBC website, as well.

I however would like to point out to a much more disturbing claim presented in your reply. You write: “We have reported the casualty figures from both sides: the fact is, however, that there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli”. I find this statement to be particularly disturbing as it implies that the BBC disputes the classification of Hamas as terror organisation (by the EU, Israel and the USA). As it now has come to light, one third of deaths were of Hamas terrorists, one third were of Arab Palestinians affiliated with Hamas terrorists, and unfortunately one third were indeed Arab Palestinian civilians who paid the price of being used as human shield by Hamas. By writing “there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli” you do not distinguish between the two thirds of the deaths to be attributed to terrorists who are in fact a legitimate target. The journalistic coverage of the death of Hamas terrorists should be equalled to the coverage on BBC of Al Qaeda terrorists deaths when is then considered to be a success and a positive progress. However, when you write “Palestinian deaths” without the specification of who actually were the dead it signifies the fact that the BBC defies the classification of Hamas as terror organisation- it actually implies that the BBC is masking Hamas terrorist deaths as Arab Palestinian civilian deaths. This clearly demonstrates that the BBC has its own political agenda, in breach of partiality, which is most alarming.

I will finish with another quote from your response “The aim of our news reports is to provide the information across our programming in order to enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds” if this was the case, why is then the BBC paid £200,000 from the tax payer money in 2007 to suppress the release of Balen report damming the BBC coverage of the Israeli - Arab Palestinian conflict as a constitutionally biased against Israel?