MEDIA ALERT
Media Lens Contributors' Special
December 6, 2001
MEDIA ALERT - MEDIA LENS CONTRIBUTORS'
SPECIAL
Mighty though the Media Lens team is - what with its three
part-time, unpaid staff! - there is only so much we can do. We are therefore
truly delighted when readers and subscribers support our efforts by writing
to journalists and editors, and by sending us their analysis, letters and
replies. We are particularly keen to receive letters that maintain a polite
tone - it is not at all our intention to insult, rile or attack
journalists.
Some of the contributions we've received have been so
excellent that we feel compelled to temporarily shelve our own paltry efforts
to make space for them. Below, please find the first (of many, we hope) Media
Lens Media Alert - Contributors' Special.
In a recent Guardian
article, Rod Liddle, editor of Radio 4's Today programme, wrote: "The general
level of intelligence is way higher in news than that demanded of it." Read
it and weep, Mr. Liddle...
The Editors - Media Lens
From:
Oliver Tickell, 5.12.01
Dear BBC,
I am getting really fed up with
all this talk of Israel "striking Palestinian targets". The very word
"targets" legitimises the actions of the Israeli military. After all, what
are "targets" there for other than to be hit?
These "targets" as we
know from past experience are schools, police stations, hospitals, people's
homes, political party offices and random civilians who get in the way. They
are no more legitimate than the targets chosen by the Real IRA on the British
mainland.
Does the BBC refer to the Real IRA striking "British targets"?
Does it speak of Palestinian suicide bombers as hitting "Israeli
targets"?
What is increasingly clear is that terrorism in
Israel/Palestine is a distinctly two-sided affair. On the one side, we have
desperate Palestinian men who are prepared to commit suicide as they bomb
Israeli buses and pizza parlours with their distinctly low-tech weaponry.
Terrorism? Certainly.
On the other side, we have one of the world's most
powerful military forces, equipped with the world's most advanced and deadly
machines of death, supported by the world's most ruthless and effective
security organisation, and backed to the hilt by the United States no matter
how outrageously criminal its actions. This formidable military and political
force is being used to murder children, assassinate political leaders, ravage
orchards and farmland, demolish homes and destroy the little that remains of
Palestine's already shattered infrastructure.
Let us add that the
state of Israel, to which I am referring, is in possession of large swathes
of Palestinian territory in clear violation of multiple UN resolutions. That
homes for Israelis continue to be built on these illegally occupied
terrritories. That the Israeli Government until recently (yes, when he was
assassinated) included a man who described Palestinans as "lice" who should
be expelled and "go to Mecca" (comparable in a British context to a position
way to the right of even the despicable National Front).
That it is
led by a man the BBC itself has held responsible for war crimes involving the
murders of hundreds of civilian refugees in the Lebanon. That in the current
phase of conflict 200 Israelis have been killed compared to 800 Palestinians.
And that, as revealed on the BBC's Newsnight (well done, Paxman), that
Israeli snipers deliberately shoot to kill children engaging in
demonstrations as shown by the statistical bias of bullet wounds to head and
chest.
Is Israel committing terrorism? Yes, on a truly grand scale! Both
"sides" are using the tactic of terrorism, but in this conflict Palestine is
David and Israel Goliath. Please, BBC, give us the even-handed and
objective coverage of this conflict to which we are entitled!
Oliver
Tickell
Answer from Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman received,
5.12.01
"Thanks for this. It's a good point about 'targets.' I'll do my
best... JP
From Matt Ward, 4.12.01
Daily Telegraph, Op Ed
piece "Arafat's deadly blunder", Tuesday December 4th.
"The bombings
were a clear signal to Washington that its mediation was not welcome and that
the only way of dealing with Israel was to drive it into the
sea."
This ignores the fact that the weekend's suicide attacks were very
likely conducted in response to the assassination of a leading figure in
Hamas last week, and the ongoing sense of injustice that Israel is allowed to
continue occupying Palestinian land, despite UN resolutions calling on them
to withdraw. Compare and contrast the treatment of Iraq after invading
Kuwait. There's more:
"But calling for peace talks in the present
circumstances is cant. Eventual reconciliation between the two sides is, of
course, desirable. It will not be achieved, however, by equating Palestinian
terrorist attacks with Israeli countermeasures, as Peter Hain, a junior
Foreign Office minister, did in October, nor by seeking to lessen Mr.
Arafat's responsibility for violence, as Ben Bradshaw, his colleague, did
over the weekend."
Note the use of the terms "Palestinian terrorist
attacks" and "Israeli countermeasures", which clearly portrays Israel as the
victim, despite the above-mentioned assassination, which was clearly highly
provocative to say the least. Strangely, the article puts the blame squarely
on Arafat's shoulders, despite the admission that he is in a no-win
situation, and has very little room to manoeuvre:
"In November, when
he arrested an Islamic Jihad commander in Jenin, more than 2,500 Palestinians
rioted. It is that confrontation magnified that he faces in any serious
attempt to crush the extremists."
Best
Matt Ward
From:
Eddie D'Sa, 9.10.01
To: BBC Ceefax
Subject: When is the term 'mob'
used?
Dear Editor (Ceefax),
In today's Ceefax (page 101), there is
one item about a "mob at US embassy (in Indonesia)".
The choice of
word 'mob' suggests you disapprove of their stand against an ally and
therefore depict them as an unthinking mass. This can influence your viewers
unfairly.
Why not use the neutral word 'protestors'?
Would you
say: "British mob gathers at Zimbabwe embassy"? I doubt it.
Please resist
using terms that reflect the BBC's particular political affiliations and
loyalties.
I'd welcome your comments.
Eddie
From: Iain
Rodger Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 1:31 PM Subject: RE: When is the
term 'mob' used?
Thank you for your e-mail. I do not agree that the use
of "mob" to describe a group of violent protesters suggests that the BBC
disapproves of their stand. A mob typically is a disorderly crowd but, in
fact, it is not necessarily unruly and might just as well be autograph
hunters surrounding David Beckham as the sinister gathering you suggest.
However, I can confirm that it is our policy to use neutral language, in line
with the BBC's deserved reputation for neutrality, and I would accept it was
possible that some people might assume from the headline that the protests
had been more violent than they were. For that reason we have changed
it.
Thank you again for contacting us - we do value the contributions of
our readers. I must emphasise, however, that no "political affiliations
and loyalties" are reflected in BBC news.
Regards,
Iain
Rodger
Deputy Editor, Ceefax
From: Eddie D'Sa, 7.10.01
To:
NewsOnline
Subject: What's a terrorist to the BBC?
Dear
BBC,
The word 'terrorist' has been overworked but curiously no clear
definition is provided. What's the position of the BBC?
According to
NBC News executive Bill Wheatley, the label applies to "A group of people
commandeered airliners and used them as guided missiles against thousands of
people."
Wall Street Journal tells its staff that the word terrorist
"should be used carefully, and specifically, to describe those people and
nongovernmental organizations that plan and execute acts of violence against
civilian or noncombatant targets."
Note that this definition rules out
'state terrorism' which countries like the US have indulged in for
years.
In sharp contrast, Reuters has been fairer:
"As part of a
policy to avoid the use of emotive words," the global news service says, "we
do not use terms like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' unless they are in a
direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a third party. We do not
characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions,
identity and background so that readers can make their own decisions based on
the facts."
Unless we ignore "state terrorism", the restricted use of the
term by U.S. media makes no sense. US backed interventions have killed
millions of civilians throughout the world. During the 1980s, news accounts
would have routinely referred to the Nicaraguan contra guerrillas -- in
addition to the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments -- as U.S.-backed
"terrorists." Today, for instance, such a standard would require the term
'terrorism' to apply to Israeli assaults with bullets and missiles that take
the lives of Palestinian children and other civilians.
Evenhanded use
of the "terrorist" label would mean affixing it directly on the U.S.
government. During the past decade, from Iraq to Sudan to Yugoslavia, the
Pentagon's missiles have destroyed the lives of civilians just as innocent as
those who perished on Sept. 11. Since then, by continuing to impose sanctions
on Iraq, the U.S. government has killed hundreds of thousands more
children.
The US & UK have been bombing Iraq for years - without UN
sanction. Many civilians have been killed and infrastructure damaged. Is this
state terrorism for the BBC or not? Can the West and Israel ever commit
terrorist acts or are they the sole preserve of the uncivilised non-West?
How precisely does the BBC view this term? Kindly clarify.
E
D'Sa
Reply from BBC Information, 28.10.01
Dear
Eddie
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the term 'terrorism'. I
apologise for the delay in our reply. We know our correspondents appreciate a
quick response, and it is a matter of regret to us that you have had
to wait for so long on this occasion.
The language and terminology
used in our news reports is an important consideration. The reporting of
terrorist attacks is not as straightforward as may first appear and each
instance is considered individually. The way we describe particular
organisations depends on many things, including the context in which we are
reporting; what may be a fair description of one group may not be true of
another. In respect of BBC policy, our Producers' Guidelines
states:
'Reporting terrorist violence is an area which particularly tests
our international services. Our credibility is severely undermined
if international audiences detect a bias for or against any of those
involved. Neutral language is key: even the word 'terrorist' can appear
judgmental in parts of the world where there is no clear consensus about the
legitimacy of militant political groups.'
Thank you again for
contacting the BBC.
Regards
Colin Cumming
BBC
Information
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Copy your letters to editor@medialens.org
Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts (alerts@medialens.org).
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.MediaLens.org