Latest news with #AymanAl-Yazouri
Spectator
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
The BBC Gaza documentary report is a cover-up
The BBC's long-awaited editorial review of its documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone was published today. It reads not like a rigorous investigation into serious journalistic failures, but like a desperate institutional whitewash. The report bends over backwards to defend the indefensible, trying to sanitise a catastrophic editorial misjudgment as little more than 'a significant oversight by the Production Company.' At the heart of the scandal lies the BBC's failure to disclose that the documentary's narrator, a Palestinian boy named Abdullah Al-Yazouri, is the son of Ayman Al-Yazouri, a senior official in the Hamas-run government in Gaza. This, the report acknowledges, was 'wrong' and constituted a breach of guideline 3.3.17 on accuracy, specifically the obligation to avoid 'misleading audiences by failing to provide important context.' Yet this is the only breach the report concedes, despite a litany of other egregious failures. According to the BBC, the production company hired to make the film was 'consistently transparent' in believing that the narrator's father held 'a civilian or technocratic position' and 'made a mistake' by not informing the BBC. This is absurd. The director, co-director, and one Gaza-based crew member were all aware of the father's identity. In my opinion, the notion that anyone could mistake a deputy minister in the Hamas government for a non-political figure is either wilful blindness or calculated deceit. Even more damning is the revelation that the production company met directly with both the narrator and his father in August 2024. And yet, the report states with astonishing credulity: 'I have been told by the Production Company that there was no discussion of the father's position at this meeting.' Somehow, though, the report's author considers this not to be evidence of concealment, but merely an unfortunate omission. The BBC claimed contributors' social media had been checked, yet it took just one independent journalist a single evening after broadcast to uncover everything they missed, and they still aired it again two days later. The narrator's family was paid around £1,817 in goods and cash. The report assures us that sanctions checks were performed and 'no positive results returned'. One wonders how the family of a senior Hamas official could possibly escape UK sanctions, given that Hamas is a fully proscribed terrorist organisation under British law, but then again the money was paid to the narrator's sister, intended for his mother. Even more startling is the admission that the BBC 'was only made aware of the disturbance fee paid for the Narrator after the broadcast of the Programme.' Aside from the Hamas minister's son, perhaps the most brazen deception in the film was also swept under the rug in just two short paragraphs of the BBC's report; its use of non-sequential editing in a sequence portraying a supposed mass-casualty incident. The programme presents us with a child volunteer paramedic (an entirely unbelievable notion anyway) responding to an Israeli airstrike. It opens with a graphic reading '245 days of war' signalling to viewers that the events depicted occurred on a single, specific date. The narration references a particular airstrike and location, accompanied by a map pinpointing the area, further reinforcing the impression that this is a chronological slice of a real event. And yet, the child appears in multiple shots wearing different shoes and with visibly different hair lengths. He looks freshly shorn in one scene and noticeably untrimmed in another. The only constant is a T-shirt, which the BBC admits created an illusion of continuity. The report concedes the sequence 'included scenes shot on different days', and that the impression of a continuous event was 'reinforced by the fact that the child was wearing the same clothes throughout'. Despite this orchestrated consistency, the report ludicrously claims: '[The sequence] did not make any assertions as to how what was shown fitted into the broader chronology of the Israel-Gaza war.' This seems to me to be indefensible. The film used date-stamped graphics, mapped coordinates, location-specific narration, and a carefully coordinated wardrobe, all designed to give the appearance of a single, continuous event. Yet the BBC insists that audiences were not materially misled, and that no editorial breach occurred. It is a blatant exercise in gaslighting, and an affront to even the most basic principles of journalistic integrity. The mistranslation of the Arabic word Yahud, 'Jew', as 'Israelis' is another glaring deception. The report flatly states: 'I do not find there to have been any editorial breaches in respect of the Programme's translation.' Instead, it claims: 'The translations in this Programme did not risk misleading audiences on what the people speaking meant.' This is not merely wrong, it is a conscious sanitisation of genocidal anti-Semitic rhetoric. The fact that Palestinians might use the word 'Jew' and 'Israeli' interchangeably is rather the point. The reason for their animosity towards Israel is precisely because it is the Jewish homeland and the world's only Jewish state. Why else would they use that word? The refusal to translate the word accurately distorts the ideological nature of the conflict. The BBC had ample opportunity to catch these failures. According to the BBC's own investigation, the narrator was identified in the early development stage having previously featured on Channel 4 News. Internal emails from December and January show that multiple BBC staff raised concerns about social media vetting, Hamas affiliations, and whether narration was being scripted for propaganda purposes. Yet these warnings were ignored or brushed aside. Incredibly, a mere footnote reveals: 'There was a reference in the Programme's Commissioning Specification to the Production Company understanding their obligations under the Terrorism Act, which it was stated they would get briefed on. I understand that they were not in fact briefed on these obligations.' Another footnote discussing the Hamas affiliation of the narrator's father mentions a post-broadcast phone call in which the production team allegedly said they 'had not told [the BBC] earlier because they did not want to scare [them].' The production company denies this, but the report admits 'the balance of evidence… supports the conclusion that a comment of this nature was made', but still insists it cannot be read as intentional deception. Despite all this, the BBC concludes smugly: 'I find that the correct formal mechanisms for an independent commission were followed'. This is an insult to the intelligence of every viewer, every Briton and every Jew. If this is what editorial compliance looks like, then those mechanisms are unfit for purpose, and the BBC is a sham organisation. This travesty is not an isolated error. It follows years of documented bias, mistranslation, double standards, and selective outrage. What the BBC has now produced is not an act of accountability, it is an act of institutional self-preservation. A cover-up of a cover-up. A report written not to confront failure, but to excuse it. And in doing so, the BBC has confirmed precisely what so many critics already feared: that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the BBC is no longer a broadcaster, it is a partisan actor.
The Irish Sun
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Irish Sun
BBC admits it breached editorial guidelines by failing to reveal Gaza doc narrator was son of Hamas official
The BBC has admitted to breaching its editorial guidelines by failing to reveal the narrator of a Gaza documentary was the son of a Hamas official. An independent probe into 4 The broadcaster spent £400,000 of licence payers' cash making the doc Credit: BBC 4 The 13-year-old narrator was Abdulla Eliyazour - the son of senior Hamas official Dr Ayman Al-Yazouri Credit: BBC The broadcaster spent £400,000 of licence payers' cash making the doc, which was branded a propaganda show for the evil terror group Hamas, In a shocking revelation, the main narrator of the heart-tugging, supposedly factual exposé - 13-year-old Abdulla Eliyazour - was the son of senior Hamas official Dr Ayman Al-Yazouri. Investigative journalist David Collier, who exposed the identities of those involved, said: 'How did the BBC let a son of a Hamas minister walk around looking for sympathy and demonising Israel for an hour in a documentary? 'The BBC is publishing Hamas propaganda. Read More 'The current hierarchy at the BBC has turned a once respected state broadcaster into a propaganda outlet for a radical Islamic terror group.' The review has now found the Beeb breached editorial guideline 3.3.17, on accuracy, by failing to disclose to audiences the "critical information" of the role the 13-year-old's father had within the Hamas-run government. The report found nobody at the BBC knew of the father's position when the documentary first aired on February 17. But three people at Hoyo Films, the independent production company which produced the film, were aware, it concluded. Most read in News TV It added the report does not find the production company misled the corporation, but does find the firm bears most of the responsibility for the failure. The review found no other breaches of the guidelines. This comes after Anger grew after Beeb bosses initially tried to defend the programme, and blamed London-based production company Hoyo Films for not revealing the boy's link. But the contract between the BBC and Hoyo suggested the corporation had direct and regular involvement - and shows action should have taken action. One section of the contract read: "We will address editorial compliance issues as they arise by having regular updates and phone calls with the commissioning editor." The documentary was made by the BBC's Current Affair TV arm which paid award-winning Hoyo Films to craft the production. But it was still unclear why the boy's appearance was allowed by the department's commissioning editor Gian Quaglieni. Ex-boss Danny Cohen - former director of BBC television - demanded clarity as to who was responsible and whether Hamas were given licence cash. Mr Cohen said: "The BBC needs to account for every penny spent on this documentary - £400,000 is a lot of licence-fee payers money. "They should be transparently told where their money went and whether any of it reached the hands of Hamas. "The BBC must also launch a wider investigation into systemic bias against Israel after repeated editorial failures since the October 7 massacres." And, in her letter to Director General of the BBC, Tim Davie , Mrs Kemi Badenoch said: "It is now clear to me that you should commission a full independent inquiry to consider this and wider allegations of systemic BBC bias against Israel . "It is well known that inside Gaza the influence of the proscribed terrorist organisation Hamas is pervasive. "How could any programme from there be commissioned, without comprehensive work by the BBC to ensure that presenters or participants were - as far as possible - not linked to that appalling regime? "Would the BBC be this naive if it was commissioning content from North Korea or the Islamic Republic of Mrs Badenoch added that it was "profoundly troubling" that the BBC initially defended the documentary insisting it "remains a powerful child's eye view of the devastating consequences of the war". She said: "Surely it should have been immediately apparent that the programme was fundamentally flawed? "An investigation must consider allegations of potential collusion with Hamas' and the possibility of payment to Hamas officials. "These are not isolated incidents." Left-wing bias is alleged to have tainted BBC coverage of the Gaza War ever since October 7 and has sparked numerous calls for a crackdown. And a BBC reporter who triggered one of the first bias rows of the war was yesterday revealed to have sparked more fury with an inflammatory online post. On October 17 - ten days after Hamas massacred 1,200 people and grabbed 251 hostages - Jon Donnison told viewers it appeared "an Israeli air strike or several air strikes" had blitzed Gaza's Al-Ahli Hospital. It later emerged that a miss-fired Hamas rocket hit the medical centre in an attack reported to have claimed 500 lives. But Mr Donnison was slammed on X for posting on Saturday: "The propaganda efforts by both Hamas and Israel over the hostage releases are pretty nauseating." He took down the post and apologised yesterday after his comment triggered fury. David Collier raged: "He sees Hamas abusing and torturing Israeli hostages on TV. "Then he sees Israeli families indescribable happiness as their loved ones return. "And he thinks they are the same - we should not be paying his salary." Sarah Deech posted: "BBC The BBC said previously: "Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone features important stories we think should be told - those of the experiences of children in Gaza. "There have been continuing questions raised about the programme and in the light of these, we are conducting further due diligence with the production company. "The programme will not be available on iPlayer while this is taking place." 4 Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone was pulled from iPlayer amid investigations Credit: BBC 4 BBC director-general Tim Davie Credit: PA
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
BBC Gaza documentary: how an editorial blame game overshadowed an important film and destroyed trust
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.
