BBC News executive says it ‘failed' to ask right questions on Gaza documentary
It comes after a report looking into the documentary, which was removed from BBC iPlayer in February after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of a Hamas official, found that it breached BBC editorial guidelines on accuracy.
The review, published on Monday, was conducted by Peter Johnston, the director of editorial complaints and reviews which is independent of BBC News, and found that the programme was in breach of accuracy for 'failing to disclose information about the child narrator's father's position within the Hamas-run government'.
It did not, however, find any other breaches of editorial guidelines, including breaches of impartiality, and also found no evidence that 'outside interests' 'inappropriately impacted on the programme'.
Speaking on BBC's Radio 4 World At One programme, Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News said: 'Our current affairs teams, day in, day out, week in, week out, are creating and pushing out incredibly controversial, difficult, complex documentaries.
'We have really good, best in class systems in place, but in this we failed, and we must put in place new processes which will enable us to continue with our courageous journalism with confidence.'
She also added: 'It's about accountability. And I think what you can see today is that the BBC has taken this incredibly seriously. We have led a full and thorough investigation, which we are publishing full and transparently.
'Everything is out there, and we share the action plan that we're now putting into place to prevent this kind of mistake happening again.
'We are responsible for everything that we publish and everything we broadcast. We take it incredibly seriously, and we didn't run those questions to ground.'
Ms Turness also addressed a second Gaza documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, which was originally commissioned by the broadcaster from an independent production company called Basement Films.
However, the corporation delayed airing it until the review into Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone was released.
The documentary, which includes witness accounts from frontline Palestinian health workers in Gaza and documents attacks on hospitals and clinics, was later pulled entirely and aired on Channel 4 earlier this month.
Ms Turness said: 'We want to tell the stories of Gaza. We are telling the stories of Gaza.
'We've got long form projects in the pipeline. We are covering Gaza, and we're covering it with courage and without fear or favour.
'During that production, the BBC raised concerns around the social media activity of one of the journalists. Obviously, we are incredibly protective and conscious of our impartiality and our very high standards of impartiality, and we were concerned about the activity of the journalist concerned.
'We decided, in the light of those concerns, that we would pause broadcast of that documentary while waiting to see what the Peter Johnston report would bring us.
'The film company weren't happy with that pause, and they wanted the journalism to air sooner. So we were trying to find a way around that, trying to find a way without airing the documentary, to put the journalism and the voice of the doctors on our platforms.
'And then came a moment where the lead journalist went on the Today programme to talk about Israel's attacks on Iran and used language around Israel that was really not compatible with the BBC standards of impartiality and made it impossible for us to continue with the project.
'It was very difficult to imagine that it could meet the BBC standards of impartiality, and that it would have created at least a perception of partiality, had we aired it.
'And the right thing to do at that time was to walk away, because no BBC journalist could have said what that journalist said on air, and therefore we have to apply some of the same standards to those who work with us from the outside.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Benn says ‘no choice' but to repeal NI legacy act as veterans stage protest
Hilary Benn has said that 'only one soldier' has been convicted over a Troubles-related death since 1998 as he sought to justify Labour plans to repeal the Northern Ireland Legacy and Reconciliation Act. The Northern Ireland secretary, speaking at a debate in Westminster Hall, argued that of the 250,000 British military veterans who had served in the country, 'the number being prosecuted for offences has been very, very small'. Benn said he recognised 'the very real fears that many veterans have' and that the government took 'those concerns very seriously' – but he said Labour had no choice but to repeal and rewrite the legislation because it had been deemed incompatible with human rights law. Citing research by the Centre for Military Justice, Benn said the law firm 'records that only one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement' – a case in which a veteran received a suspended sentence for manslaughter. Benn was responding to a general debate brought after more than 176,000 people signed a petition demanding Labour not make any changes to the law. Before it began, a couple of hundred veterans staged a noisy protest at the Cenotaph in Whitehall and in Parliament Square with the support of the Conservatives, who passed the legislation in 2023. Veterans at the protest said they believed a simple repeal of the legacy act would lead to a reopening of investigations and prosecutions against them, in a gradual process that would take several years. David Holmes, an RAF veteran who did two tours in Northern Ireland, said that 'what's being proposed would be a return to inquests, that would lead to prosecutions, vexatious prosecutions that would be long, drawn-out'. Holmes, one of the leaders of the protest, said that although 'the chances of getting a prosecution are very slim, the veteran who is under prosecution will be punished for five to seven years' while the investigation took place. Dennis Hutchings died in 2021, aged 80, before he could be put on trial for attempting to murder John Pat Cunningham, who was shot in the back and killed as he ran from an army patrol in 1974. The prosecution had been begun six years earlier, in 2015. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Mick Curtis, 76, who served with the Royal Horse Artillery in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1971, said he believed 'the rules were being changed in retrospect' and that ordinary soldiers who were given rules of engagement that permitted opening fire in certain circumstances were no longer considered to have acted legitimately. The Legacy Act halted all but the most serious investigations into Troubles-related killings by soldiers and paramilitary groups – a compromise that also meant that inquiries into the deaths of 202 soldiers and 23 veterans were among those halted last year when the law took effect. Labour said it would repeal the act because it was opposed by many victims' families and Northern Ireland's political parties, as well as having been deemed by a court to be incompatible with human rights legislation. It has not yet decided exactly what to replace it with. The shadow defence minister, Mark Francois, one of those supporting the protest, said 'we think the government are beginning to hesitate now that the anger of veterans is becoming apparent'. A repeal of the law would open up former soldiers to 're-investigation endlessly', he said.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
King Charles and Prince Harry aides 'peace summit' part of 'charm offensive by the Sussexes to turn around their negative public image'
A meeting between King Charles and Prince Harry 's senior aides came amid a charm offensive by the Sussexes to turn around their negative public image, the Mail understands. Harry and Meghan's new chief of communications, Meredith Maines, met with Tobyn Andreae, the King's communications secretary, at the Royal Over-Seas League (ROSL) a three-minute walk from Clarence House, the monarch's London residence on Wednesday. Also present was Liam Maguire, who runs the Sussexes' PR team in the UK. Images of the rendezvous raised hopes of a reconciliation between Harry, 40, and his father, 76. The extraordinary summit came after Ms Maines, who is head of Harry's household in Montecito, California, flew to the UK earlier in the week for a series of meetings alongside Mr Maguire, their new 'UK and Europe communications manager'. These included British business and charitable partners, as well as a host of London-based press and television journalists. Their itinerary suggests that the couple - Harry in particular - are launching a new charm offensive on the UK in a bid to turn around their negative public image. The Mail understands it was subsequently suggested that a meeting with Buckingham Palace's director of communications, Mr Andreae, might be possible while Ms Maines was in the UK. This is not as surprising as it might initially seem. The extraordinary summit came after Ms Maines, who is head of Harry's household in Montecito, California, flew to the UK earlier in the week for a series of meetings alongside Mr Maguire, their new 'UK and Europe communications manager (pictured) Even after the Sussexes' acrimonious departure from the Royal family, tentative 'lines of communication' were kept open between the palace press office and the duke and duchess' PR team on occasional matters of importance. However in recent years these have all but dwindled out in the wake of Harry's repeated and increasingly vitriolic attacks on his family, as well as the institution of the monarchy. His latest, with the BBC, in which he blamed his recent decisive defeat in the British courts over his ongoing security in the UK on an 'establishment stitch-up' and insensitively raised the issue of how long his father has to live, went down extremely badly in royal circles. While understandably wary, it is understood that the palace believed a tentative meeting was sensible in the circumstances - if only to re-open those channels once again with yet another new Sussex PR team, following another series of enforced departures both in California and the UK. There was 'considerable surprise' and a 'weary resignation' amongst senior courtiers to see details and pictures of Wednesday's meeting, which was such a closely-guarded secret, published in the media at the weekend. Senior officials on all sides have repeatedly declined to say whether Prince William's team at Kensington Palace were aware that the meeting was going ahead, even if they were not represented. One source stressed to the Mail that the relationship between father and son was 'inevitably different' to that of the siblings. It has also been noted that while angry and not wishing at present to make any sort of personal overtures to his brother, William has on a number of occasions over the years made magnanimous gestures of kindness towards him, despite huge provocation, including inviting Harry and Meghan to meet mourners and collect flowers at Windsor Castle following the death of Queen Elizabeth. A source said the summit was only the 'first step towards reconciliation between Harry and his father, but at least it is a step in the right direction' Harry is next due back in the UK in September for the annual WellChild events, raising the prospect of meeting his father for the first time in 18 months. The 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham is another opportunity for a public reconciliation. The Duke is said to have sent email invitations to Buckingham Palace in the hope that it will give the King sufficient time to fit the event into his busy schedule. While the meeting was significant, it is understood it was largely to 'open a channel of communication' after Harry said in a BBC interview his father would not speak to him, and to discuss how to avoid media clashes and conflicts around calendar dates. Harry and Meghan are said to be frustrated after the meeting was caught on camera in pictures published by the Mail on Sunday. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex denied leaking details of the rendezvous.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Spade-like hands sent up a machine-gun clatter of applause from the public seats
Thirty old soldiers, many in berets, packed the public seats in Westminster Hall, the Commons off-shoot used for petition debates. MPs were discussing the prosecution – persecution – of Northern Ireland veterans. That can of maggots has been reopened by the Labour Government, thanks not least to Attorney General Lord Hermer KC, who once represented Gerry Adams. His lordship did not attend this debate. I have not seen Westminster Hall so full or funereal. Facing the Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn was a phalanx of black suits and grim expressions. Westminster debates are seldom like this, even when they deal in matters of life and death. There again, it is not often that a government proposes to make life a legal agony for soldiers who risked everything for the late Queen. 'The punishment,' as New Forest East's Julian Lewis (Con) put it, 'is the process.' Some legalistic types argued that hardly anyone was at risk of actually being found guilty. MPs sympathetic to the veterans struggled not to shout their anger. When you are a 70-year-old retired serviceman there is torment merely in the thought of some vexatious lawyer sauntering up your garden path with a letter of filthy proceedings. A 'sordid, backstairs deal' between the Starmer government and Dublin was to blame, thought Mark Francois, shadow minister. And yet IRA killers had been handed 'On The Run letters' by Tony Blair. 'Throwing veterans to the wolves while doing Gerry Adams a favour,' said an incredulous Mr Francois. Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Con, Chingford) spoke of his late friend Robert Nairac, an army hero who was tortured and murdered by the IRA. 'Talk about injustice, that's injustice!' roared Sir Iain. Sir David Davis (Con, Goole & Pocklington) argued that soldiers did more for human rights than any damn KC. Jesse Norman (Con, Hereford) simmered at a 'fundamentally dishonest' process that would chase ex-soldiers while leaving IRA killers undisturbed. Louise Jones (Lab, NE Derbys) felt there was 'scaremongering by people who don't understand' the new law. Stuart Anderson (Con, S Shropshire), in a Herefordshire burr, asked if she was implying the SAS and others were 'naive'. It certainly sounded so. Ms Jones twisted her fingers. Paul Foster (Lab, S Ribble), who had earlier been rolling his eyes while Sir David was describing IRA atrocities, alleged 'politicisation' of the issue by Conservative MPs. Mr Foster, in brown shoes, would not take interventions. That is never a good sign. You should have the courage to defend your argument. Douglas McAllister (Lab, W Dunbartonshire) also appeared to find some speeches amusing. A Whips' nark, possibly. He sloped off after a while. Once or twice, from the public seats, spade-like hands sent up a machine-gun clatter of applause. The veterans also snorted with derision at super-ambitious Ms Jones. Mr Benn, in his reply, cut a lean, silvery-topped figure, pinching the tips of his fingers and thumbs as he made clever points. He played niceties with the subtle difference between 'illegal' and 'unlawful'. He bounced on his toes as he spoke of the need for diligent worship of 'the rule of law'. Again came the line that the number of veterans prosecuted in the past was 'very small'. It was a sort of 'we don't really mean it, honest' argument you will sometimes hear in school playgrounds. I am afraid it lacked the heft, the moral and emotional gravity that this matter needed. Of the absent Lord Hermer it can no doubt be said, easily, that he is not a man with whom to enter the jungle, or more specifically the back streets of Newry. But what about thoughtful, moderate Hilary? Surely he's OK, isn't he? Alas, Mr Benn showed himself to be an attorney's lackey, twisting on Lord Hermer's rope, a senior minister more awed by our jot-and-tittle Attorney General than he is by mightier questions of political truth and our loyalty to fighting men who know this whole thing stinketh.
