BBC Gaza documentary: how an editorial blame game overshadowed an important film and destroyed trust

Yahoo

17-03-2025

The war in Gaza has been a notoriously controversial and difficult story to cover as a journalist. The Israeli government banned international journalists from the territory. At least 171 journalists and media workers in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank have been killed since the war began.
The BBC has faced relentless accusations of bias from all sides. You would think, then, that when it commissioned the film Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, billed as a 'vivid and unflinching view of life' in Gaza seen through the eyes of children, it would have been meticulous in its commissioning and oversight.
Yet almost as soon as the programme was broadcast on February 17, a journalist outside the BBC revealed that one of the children featured in the film, 13-year-old Abdullah, who also acted as its narrator, was the son of a Hamas official. His father, Ayman Al-Yazouri, is a deputy minister of agriculture and therefore, as Hamas runs the government of Gaza, a Hamas official.
No major investigation was required to find out who this man was – an expert on wastewater treatment, in particular on the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater, who received degrees from UK universities. No evidence has emerged that he is linked to Hamas's militant operations. But getting someone with any link to what is classified as a terrorist organisation by western governments to narrate the film was inevitably going to be criticised – especially because the link wasn't explained to viewers.
The BBC pulled the film four days after its premiere and said it would investigate the matter. Where it really went wrong was that, for 12 days, the BBC tried to pin the blame elsewhere. It dumped on the production company, Hoyo Films, stating: 'The production team had full editorial control of filming with Abdullah.' T
I argue this is a weak defence. A broadcaster can't blame someone else when a mistake appears in a film.
Under Ofcom regulations, the broadcaster has full editorial responsibility, regardless of whether a freelance or independent crew carried out filming. Any mistake is the BBC's mistake.
I was head of news and current affairs at Channel 4 for 17 years. We sometimes made mistakes. It happens. But the key is not to make things worse by trying to wriggle out of blame.
As it happens, Channel 4 also featured this child in some of its news coverage without initially disclosing his father's role. 'As international media access is restricted, Abdullah was sourced through an established journalist who has also worked for other major global media outlets,' Channel 4 News said in a statement.
The BBC's second excuse was even weaker. It said that filmmakers were asked in writing a number of times whether this child had any connection with Hamas.
Here is a journalistic tip for the BBC's news bosses: if you ask someone a question and they don't answer, you don't just keep asking. You demand answers or you go and get the answer yourself. As a former news boss myself, I would have demanded to see the boy's entire family tree.
Finally, after 12 days, the BBC took responsibility and issued an apology. BBC chair Samir Shah told MPs that people 'weren't doing their job' when it came to oversight of the production. Shah described it as 'a dagger to the heart of the BBC claim to be impartial and to be trustworthy'.
A child of 13 should arguably not have narrated the film at all. He was not narrating his own words but a script written by the programme makers, which included facts about the history and geopolitics of Gaza. I would point the BBC to Ofcom guidance that children under 16 should not be asked for views on matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer properly without the consent of a responsible adult.
On a subject like this, I would not have had a child narrate a film – especially not when one of the responsible adults in his life was a Hamas official.
This was a powerful and beautifully shot film. It's hard to see how any of its content could be described as pro-Hamas propaganda. The strongest moment was when a child said he hated Hamas because they had caused the war and all the misery being suffered now. But it's almost certainly politically impossible for an amended version of the documentary to now be shown, which is a great loss.
This debacle even resulted in a bizarre decision by the Royal Television Society to drop an award recognising the brave and brilliant work of journalists in Gaza (it has since reversed this after backlash from journalists). We have relied on journalists in Gaza to show us what is happening.
They have continued filming when their own families have been killed. Their reports have been powerful and moving and true. Why should they be punished for a BBC cock-up?
I have never worked for the BBC, but I have always admired it for two things. First, for the brilliance of its journalists. Second, for its ability to turn a mistake into a PR catastrophe.
The film contained editorial errors, but in my view the outrage built over days, resulting in calls not just for a public inquiry, but even a police inquiry, because the BBC wouldn't take the rap. My journalistic heart went out to the great people who work at the BBC.
This ghastly incident sits alongside other (quite different) recent scandals about the BBC: the bad behaviour (whether alleged or proven) of powerful presenters and figures Huw Edwards, Russell Brand, Tim Westwood and Gregg Wallace. In each case, it turned out that BBC bigwigs had received complaints over long periods of time before the stories went public.
For many reasons beyond the BBC's control, trust in the broadcaster is falling. It is constantly being attacked by the right-wing press, and undermined by conspiracy theorists who say you can't trust the so-called mainstream media and that there is no such thing as truth.
In a 2023 YouGov survey on trust in media, only 44% of Britons said they trust BBC journalists to tell the truth. That was nearly half the level of trust in the BBC 20 years earlier, yet it still made the BBC the most trusted media outlet in the UK. Other surveys by Ofcom of people who actually watch TV news put trust in its accuracy much higher – something like 70%.
There is a general fall in trust in all institutions in the UK. The politicians and tabloids who attack the BBC are trusted far less than BBC journalists. But their unfair assaults make it all the more essential that the BBC avoids errors like this, and is transparent when those errors are revealed.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dorothy Byrne was formerly Head of News and Current Affairs at Channel Four, and Editor at Large at Channel Four.