The BBC is afraid

New Statesman​

3 days ago

Photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images
Since 27 May, Israel has killed and wounded hundreds of unarmed Palestinians at aid distribution sites – the latest in 21 months of continuous Israeli violations of international law. Here in the UK, the government's support for Israel has resulted in increasing state repression of those who support Palestine. A South Asian woman was tried and acquitted over a coconut placard at a Palestine protest. The group Palestine Action will soon be proscribed as a terror organisation. Meanwhile, Kneecap and the rap duo Bob Vylan are under police investigation for their Glastonbury sets. Well-worn methods of protest – direct action, placards, and chants – have all drawn a heavy-handed response from the state. In such a climate, we need our fourth estate to stand firm while focusing on accurately and bravely covering what's happening on the ground in Gaza.
Instead, our public broadcaster is afraid. The past six months have been a sorry saga for the BBC. In February, the broadcaster apologised for 'serious flaws' in the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, because its child narrator was the son of a Hamas civil minister. In March, it apologised 'unreservedly' to the Israeli embassy in London after a BBC producer asked someone at the embassy for an anti-Netanyahu voice to interview. In June, it shelved a documentary it had commissioned but not yet aired, Gaza: Doctors Under Fire, after months of delay without adequately explaining why to the filmmakers. This week, it has expressed 'regret' at airing Bob Vylan's Glastonbury set live, after the lead singer chanted 'death to the IDF' onstage.
Apology after apology. But nowhere has it apologised for failing to communicate the disproportionality, illegality, and gravity of Israel's actions in Gaza across the past 21 months. This includes a clear disparity in emotive language between Israelis and Palestinians, and the omission of context that should be regularly mentioned, like the International Court of Justice ruling in January 2024 or the International Criminal Court arrest warrant out for Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. These are a few of many examples cited in a new Centre for Media Monitoring report on how the BBC's Gaza coverage has failed.
Taken together, these apologies and obfuscations depict a BBC that caves to complaints from only 'one side' – a BBC that's compromised and enfeebled, unable to safeguard its own independence. The bad faith critics demanding these apologies aren't interested in either the BBC's independence or the quality of its journalism. Their aim is to establish more oversight and to ensure that the BBC stays editorially anxious, unwilling to take risks and commission the sort of ground-breaking journalism that fearlessly follows the evidence to its conclusion. This is already happening: Gaza: Doctors Under Fire, the documentary the BBC shelved, will now be aired by Channel 4.
We need an editorially brave BBC, willing to battle against external pressure and back its best journalists. More than a hundred BBC journalists have just signed a letter calling the board's decision not to air Gaza: Doctors Under Fire a 'political decision', that doesn't reflect the quality of journalism in the film. The job of the board and the executive should be to protect the conditions under which good journalism can happen – journalists shouldn't have to be concerned that they'll be trolled when they cover Gaza, or that their painstaking work will be delayed and canned without adequate editorial justification. A meeting between BBC board members and the Culture Secretary should not be a reason for journalists to panic. Working at the BBC on Gaza over many months, I watched many journalists make crucial decisions within this culture of fear. The BBC felt more exposed than independent, and many colleagues were concerned about complaint campaigns on social media or getting told off by bosses. I watched too many gently dislocate from the critical journalistic burden of speaking truth to power, or burn themselves out fighting to get good quality work published.
We also need a BBC that stands firm around the core freedoms this government is eroding – like free speech, and freedom to protest. 'Impartiality', reads the BBC's own guidelines, 'does not mean detachment from fundamental democratic values, including freedom of expression, the right to vote, the rule of law and freedom from discrimination.' The BBC isn't expected to be detached when human rights and basic freedoms are under threat, whether this is the human rights of Palestinians or the basic freedoms of the British public. So why isn't it ready to act in accordance with this line of its own policy?
While the BBC claims it's independent, the public increasingly believes otherwise. Many of us saw a palpable shift in tone around its Gaza coverage at the end of May, when the UK joined France and Canada in calling on the Israeli government to 'stop its military operations' and 'immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza'. Instead of standing as a lighthouse in a growing storm – the collapse of international law, the erosion of democratic freedoms – the BBC sways with the prevailing wind.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
As state repression grows, we have no evidence that the BBC will act as part of a robust fourth estate – challenging and resisting government influence. My issue is not that the BBC makes decisions I disagree with. My issue is that it makes panicked decisions while its independence is under threat. To the bosses at the top of the BBC, I say: amid all the apologies and prevarications, audiences are losing trust in their public broadcaster and government ministers are talking about a 'leadership' problem at the organisation. Was it all worth it?
[See also: Stop taking Glastonbury so seriously]
Related