The BBC claims impartiality over Gaza but there is a conflict of interest at its heart

Independent

16 hours ago

The BBC struggles to get anything right about Gaza. Last week, it decided not to broadcast a searing documentary about Palestinian doctors under attack, citing vague concerns about ' a perception of partiality '. This week, it's the coverage of Glastonbury and why no one was alert enough to press the mute button on a rap-punk duo called Bob Vylan.
Though it has garnered less outrage the former smacks of either editorial naivety or institutional cowardice.. But, fortunately, the top brass at Channel 4 appear to have more backbone and the film, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, will be shown tonight. People can judge for themselves.
It seems to me to be exactly the sort of documentary which the BBC should broadcast. The film graphically shows the horrors of working in Gaza hospitals these past 21 months in an unflinching and quietly devastating light. It documents a litany of death, violence, cruelty, suffering and inhumanity. There are allegations of the targeting, abduction, torture and effective murder of doctors and nurses, along with denials by the Israeli army [the IDF] that they have been involved in any such things.
No Western media organisation has been allowed free access to Gaza, which makes it doubly complicated to tell the whole truth about what has been happening in a war in which 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced, at least 56,156 Palestinians have been killed and 132,239 have been injured. And, yes, these are Gaza Ministry of Health figures, and the Ministry of Health is controlled by Hamas. But that's all we have.
There is quite a collective of organisations and individuals who monitor the media round the clock for any whisper of anti-Israeli 'bias'. And we can confidently expect the Gaza medics film to be attacked within hours of broadcast. I would expect there to be criticism of the social media feed of the highly-experienced freelance reporter, Ramita Navai, who has described Israel as a 'rogue state that's committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass-murdering Palestinians'.
I would not be surprised if a diligent researcher finds that one or more of the medics who appear in the programme has a second cousin once removed in Hamas. Or personnel who even belonged to Hamas. My own judgement is that, if they do emerge, such claims should not discredit or undermine the overall impact or importance of the documentary.
This film was, I'm told, cleared by the compliance squad at the BBC. The corporation has not advanced any credible reason why it was subsequently suppressed beyond its statement around 'a perception of partiality'. If the documentary leads to heated debate about the issues, and whether they have been fairly represented, that's well and good. That is partly the role of public service broadcasting.
But these are not the only mistakes the BBC has made over Gaza. A previous, unrelated, BBC documentary was withdrawn when it was revealed that a boy narrator was related to a middle-ranking Hamas official. BBC chair Samir Shah told MPs it was a 'dagger to the heart' of the BBC's claims to trust. The BBC Board promptly announced an inquiry. That was on 27 February, and we're now in July. It's evidently what Sherlock Holmes would call a three-pipe problem.
Holmes would have quickly divined why it was such a ticklish matter: because it could end up calling into question the judgment of the ultimate editor-in-chief of the BBC, the director general, Tim Davie. The Telegraph has reported that Deborah Turness, the BBC's chief executive of news and current affairs, watched the documentary before it was broadcast, but failed to question it.
Heads must roll? But this is where the curious governance arrangements of the BBC kick in. And where we are forced to confront other 'perceptions of partiality.' The BBC has a board of directors, but most of them have no experience in journalism or broadcasting. The crucial BBC committee is the five-strong editorial guidelines and standards committee. Shah leads it and it includes both Davie and Turness. So if these particular heads are to roll, some turkeys are going to have to vote for Christmas.
The only other person with editorial experience on this committee has, until recently, been Sir Robbie Gibb [the fifth member was former Tate boss Nicholas Serota and, since 3 April, Dame Caroline Thompson]. Forgive the recap, but you may remember Sir Robbie as the former No 10 spin doctor imposed on the BBC by Boris Johnson's government and then re-appointed last year by Rishi Sunak. He has described himself as a 'proper Thatcherite Conservative'. His career has zigzagged between right-wing politics and journalism. There is not even a perception of impartiality about his political beliefs.
But when it comes to his judgments on the Middle East it is even more complicated. You may recall the curious episode which resulted in Sir Robbie becoming the apparent sole owner of The Jewish Chronicle (The JC). In April 2020 he led a consortium to rescue the title from bankruptcy – while refusing to reveal who actually put the money up. He appointed Jake Wallis Simons as editor. And it was Wallis Simons who ran a vigorous campaign for a parliamentary inquiry into the BBC's coverage of Jews and Israel. He was not a fan.
The Gibbs/JWS era at the JC was not a happy one, with the press regulator twice forced to consider an investigation into standards; with five leading columnists quitting and with a fellow member of his own original consortium saying that the editor was 'behaving like a political activist, not a journalist…. it does a disservice to the Jewish community because it consolidates this idea that the Jewish community abroad is in some way sort of complicit by their silence with the excesses of the IDF.'
Gibb resigned as a director just before the editorial calamity which saw The JC publish a fabricated story. Israel newspapers suggested they had been placed in the European media to support Benjamin's Netanyahu's negotiating position over Gaza. There is an ongoing inquiry into the matter: the Israeli security service, Shin Bet arrested Eli Feldstein, a spokesperson for Netanyahu, who had previously worked for the far-right security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
The long-standing JC columnist, Jonathan Freedland, said, 'The latest scandal brings great disgrace on the paper – publishing fabricated stories and showing only the thinnest form of contrition – but it is only the latest. Too often, The JC reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgments political rather than journalistic.' Wallis Simons parted company with The JC soon afterwards.
So, yes, Sir Robbie Gibb – who presided over much of this – has been, until recently, the only external figure with journalistic experience to sit on the crucial BBC editorial committee. The minutes for two meetings this year show the committee has discussed BBC coverage of the Middle East. In January the committee discussed the timing, scope and methodology for a review of the BBC's coverage. In March they discussed it as an 'emerging editorial risk.'
For an organisation obsessed with 'perceptions of partiality', it seems odd, on the face of it, to have had the very partial Sir Robbie Gibb in such a role. That perception has certainly alarmed more than 400 media figures who have urged the BBC board to remove Gibb. They include no fewer than 111 BBC journalists. So I contacted the BBC to ask if he had, in fact, recused himself from any discussions about the BBC's coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict. The answer came back: No, he hadn't.
I asked a further question: did Sir Robbie have any conversations about the Doctors Under Attack documentary, including with the director general or chair? The response was somewhat cryptic: 'I can confirm that [Sir Robbie] had no formal role in any of the discussions or decisions about whether the BBC should run the film – I'm afraid I have no way of knowing whether BBC board members have had discussions about various live issues affecting the BBC but as I've said before, the decisions about the film were taken by BBC News.'
It is reasonable to assume, I think, that Sir Robbie may have had informal discussions. All this makes one wonder about the judgement of the newish chair, Samir Shah. He came into the job knowing about Gibb's journalistic track record, along with his obsessive desire to keep secret who is bankrolling The JC. A strong chair, interested in trust and impartiality, would surely have asked him to step out of the room when the BBC's coverage of the Middle East came up. But, no.
So this is where we seem to be. The BBC junked a film because of 'perceptions of partiality'. But the key decisions – including the futures of Davie and Turness – are strongly influenced by Sir Robbie Gibb, who has shown no evidence of impartiality when it comes to the Middle East. It sounds like a two-tier system to me.
Meanwhile, our attention is absorbed by the far less salient question of whether some hapless producer failed to press the mute button for Bob Vylan. I think it's called deadcatting.