The BBC is afraid
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Next Palestine Action protest aims to sign up 1,000 people
The next mass protest in support of the banned group Palestine Action will aim to be twice the size of the last, organisers have said, as they increase pressure on the government to lift its proscription. Last Saturday's protest in Parliament Square was predicated on 500 people signing up but the next one, announced on Wednesday for 6 September, is conditional on 1,000 people agreeing to take part. Defend Our Juries, the pressure group behind the protests opposing the proscription of Palestine Action, said it believed a turnout of 1,000 would be enough to get the ban lifted. A total of 532 people were arrested at Saturday's demonstration, all but 10 under section 13 of the Terrorism Act for carrying placards saying: 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' The number of people arrested for peaceful protests, their age profile – half of those arrested were 60 or older – and the strain it is putting on the criminal justice system have led many to question the ban. A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'With all the real challenges facing the country, it's crazy that the Labour government has generated a political crisis over people quietly holding cardboard signs against genocide in Parliament Square. This won't be forgotten.' After the weekend's arrests, Downing Street and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said the protesters did not know about the group's violent tendencies. In response, Defend Our Juries and the Palestine Action co-founder, Huda Ammori, pointed to intelligence assessments released in Ammori's continuing legal battle fighting proscription that they said contradicted the claims. The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), a government body based within MI5, produced a report on 7 March that said the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. A separate assessment by the Proscription Review Group (PRG) said a ban would be 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property'. Nevertheless, the JTAC and PRG recommended proscription. References to violence by Downing Street and Cooper are understood to refer to an allegation of assault against a single person associated with Palestine Action, which they deny and relates to live proceedings so cannot be discussed fully because of the risk of contempt of court. The Defend Our Juries spokesperson suggested that even if the allegation were proved that would not make the whole organisation terrorist, adding: 'When the Labour MP, Mike Amesbury, assaulted his constituent, no one suggested that that made the Labour party a terrorist organisation.' They continued: 'The public response to our protests has been overwhelming. Despite (or because of) the legal risks, the government has turned an arrest for terrorism into a badge of honour for resistance to genocide. We have been inundated with offers of support from all quarters … The protest will go ahead as long as at least 1,000 people commit to taking part. That could well be enough for the ban to be lifted. If 5,000 people show up, we're certain the ban will be gone, and with it, most likely, Yvette Cooper.' The former cabinet minister, Peter Hain, has said the UK government is 'digging itself into a hole' over Palestine Action and that fellow Labour peers and MPs were regretting voting to ban the group. Lord Hain, who opposed proscription and was a leader of the anti-apartheid movement, said equating the likes of retired magistrates and serving doctors with al-Qaida was 'absolutely wrong' and would 'end in tears for the government'.
Daily Mirror
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Masterpiece' BBC period drama receives 10/10 reviews from fans left 'in tears'
The BBC period drama has been widely praised by fans online who have been binge-watching the series on repeat BBC' s beloved period drama, The Crimson Field, has fans glued to their screens, watching it on repeat. Inspired by Lyn Macdonald's 1980 book, The Roses of No Man's Land, this World War I series is a hit among history buffs. Available on Amazon Prime, the historical drama takes viewers back to northern France, following the lives of volunteer nurses and medical staff. Viewers witness the team dealing with the horrors of war, healing the wounded, and overcoming personal challenges and societal expectations. With staff numbers dwindling, the volunteers are desperately needed, but some view these women as threats rather than lifesavers, making their daily struggle to keep the war machine running even more challenging. For nurses Kitty Trevelyan (played by Oona Chaplin), Flora Marshall (Alice St. Clair) and Rosalie Berwick (Marianne Oldham), the battlefield's carnage is something no training could have prepared them for. However, the hospital soon welcomes Sister Joan Livesey (Suranne Jones), a spirited nurse with a mischievous streak, bringing a breath of fresh air, reports the Express. The war drama was filmed in London's heart, transforming the Historic Dockyard Chatham and HMS Gannet into the Port of Boulogne, France. Dyrham Park also appeared throughout the six-episode series as a French hotel ahead of the centenary special. The creator of the BBC series Sarah Phelps expressed her delight about her TV programme before filming commenced. She enthused: "I am bouncing off the walls with excitement at having such an extraordinary talented cast, bouncing off the walls." Regrettably, the programme was axed after one series due to the disappointing critical reception as well as budget constraints affecting other BBC productions despite Phelps planning four additional series based on it. Despite its premature end, the series and the book have received widespread acclaim from fans online, with one viewer commenting: "Makes WW1 come alive. Each episodes deals with a different problem at a field hospital. It's humanism is extraordinary." Another enthused: "The Crimson Field has been such a beautiful series, at times reducing me to tears, all the actors have done a brilliant job in bringing the story alive." A third agreed: "Sarah Phelps has written a new perspective on WWI that is intelligent, humorous, compassionate and poignant. While it is from the point of view of nurses and VAD's in WWI, the experiences of the soldiers who are their patients and that of the other men on staff, are given equal attention." Meanwhile, some viewers were swift to criticise the broadcaster for cancelling the war series after it was promised a fourth series. One user wrote: "Moving, unflinching drama, The Crimson Field brought forth the best - and the worst - of those dedicated to saving the lives of the British fallen and shattered of World War I. "A brilliant series with a standout cast and a potential for worldwide viewer impact, the BBC made a huge mistake in cancelling this masterpiece." Another fan enthused: "Watching it for a 2nd time. Wonderful acting, great storylines. So much better than some of the other rubbish people watch. So sad no 2nd series. Bad decision BBC." A fourth added: "I am absolutely gutted that there isn't a series 2 and 3. I thoroughly enjoyed this series. The acting was great. People's feelings came out, I was hooked." Crimson Field is currently available to stream on BBC iPlayer and Amazon Prime.
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘I don't want to be Gary': Kelly Cates on Sky, Match of the Day and social media
Kelly Cates is about to begin the busiest year of her career. That, to be fair, is an estimate, because the football presenter and broadcaster has always been a grafter. From Setanta Sports to Channel 5 there are few places she has not applied her blend of deep knowledge and emotional warmth, and as of this weekend she will be the face of the BBC's and Sky's coverage of the Premier League. The action gets under way at a second home, Anfield, from where Cates will host Sky's Friday Night Football coverage of Liverpool v Bournemouth. This follows two preview shows for the BBC, and precedes her first shift on Match of the Day. Asked whether her schedule might be daunting, Cates appears almost bemused. 'I've just got busy weekends, but I work in sports so I expect to have busy weekends,' she says. 'It's not as complicated as you think – there's a very fast train to Manchester.' Cates, speaking at Sky's HQ, says she doesn't want to sound cliched but 'it's good to keep doing new things'. Her new roles are a chance to 'keep things fresh'. Having worked in the industry for 27 years, starting with a presenting role on the opening morning of Sky Sports News, 'to get a chance to do something new and still have the live football and have so many live games, it's just really lovely to have that balance'. For many years Cates had to endure questions that her colleagues don't; from being a woman in a man's world to being the daughter of a football legend, Sir Kenny Dalglish. She has long since carved out her own place in sports broadcasting however, so when she was approached for the role of Match of the Day host, alongside Mark Chapman and Gabby Logan, Sky immediately brokered a deal that would keep her on its roster too. While her male colleagues may get more attention, usually adjacent to some controversy, Cates's less combative approach has also helped shape contemporary coverage of football on TV (and radio). Her more approachable and conversational style is suited to the age of podcasting and long-form interviews. 'I think that the tone generally has changed to become more conversational on air, and I think that's probably because that's come from digital,' she says. 'A lot of that was fan-led and a lot of it was just people starting up on their own at the beginning. But I think you can have a conversational tone without having a conversation, and you can still interview somebody while having a conversational tone.' Cates offers another distinction from many of her peers; she is not an avid user of social media. She has no account on X and tends to use Instagram to promote her work rather than share her worldview. 'I haven't ever really used my social media for that, so it isn't something that I'm going to have to change,' she says. 'I think that in a lot of cases, I'm not the best-placed person to talk about some of those issues. And I think there's a tendency to believe that if somebody isn't talking about something they don't care about it. I think it's perfectly possible to care about something and keep quiet and let experts talk about it, which I think is a lot of the time better. I always feel like if I couldn't cope well with being challenged heavily on it, then I shouldn't be putting my opinion out publicly.' That she should be asked about her posting reflects the Gary Lineker-shaped presence in the room. Cates, Chapman and Logan are being asked by the BBC to team up to replace a broadcasting legend, with all the public scrutiny that entails. Cates says she has not spoken to Lineker about the job, but defends his reputation despite his being a 'controversial' figure. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion 'He hasn't got in touch and I haven't got in touch with him, but not because we're avoiding each other,' she says. 'We just don't know each other that well. I think [Chapman] was saying that Gary said, 'Why would I tell three broadcasters how to do their job?' Which is very lovely of him because he was brilliant at the job. And as much as he was a controversial character at times, any focus group that researched these things would tell you how much he was adored in that role.' On how she will approach following in the footsteps of yet another football legend, Cates is matter of fact. 'I don't want to be Gary,' she says. 'I think there's a temptation to try and be someone else, and I think that you get a job because of yourself. If then you try to be someone else, it can all just get a bit confused. I don't need another thing to think about. I don't need to be sitting there thinking: 'What would Gary do?'' Cates has enough talent and experience to help her adapt to her new prominence. Britons will see a lot more of her on their screens and she will be watching even more football. Is there any possibility that more could become too much? 'If it was going to happen, it would have kicked in by now,' she says with a smile.
