One concern raised over the last few days about the way that the Israel-Hamas conflict has been reported is that broadcast media have at times appeared equivocal in the handling of things. This, perhaps out of a desire to be impartial has given the appearance at times that guests have been invited onto news programmes and allowed the freedom to rant, unchallenged whilst justifying and excusing Hamas. Secondly, that when Israeli spokespeople have appeared, in the immediate aftermath of a horrible, heartbreaking atrocity, presenters have seemed to lay in with the most aggressive of inquisitions, the kind we associate with Jeremy Paxman grilling unpopular Tory ministers. There has been a particular focus on the BBC and specifically on their refusal to use the words “Terrorism” and “terrorists” to describe Hamas and their actions.
On Wednesday, veteran reporter, John Simpson responded to these complaints, first in a twitter post and then in this article. His argument was that the BBC could not and should not use the word “terrorist” to describe Hamas because that would breach their commitment to impartiality. He then used the example of Second World War broadcasting instructions to laud the BBC’s longstanding commitment to this and particularly to reporting that is objective, reasonable and doesn’t descend into ranting.
I wish to make the following observations in response. First, I was deeply disappointed in the way John engaged. I hoped for better from a senior and respected correspondent. His further engagement on Twitter included this comment.
I am saddened that at a time when horrible atrocities are being committed and many people suffering, indeed including both Israeli and Palestinian civilians that John has in effect broken the first rule of reporting and made the story about himself. He is upset by some of the responses to him. Secondly, notice the focus on those responses he considers irrational. This paints the picture of the rational, reasonable, objective BBC and irrational, ranting members of the public. In fact, many people challenged him on his position and offered evidence based responses. Yet this doesn’t get a mention. There seems to be a tactic on social media of only engaging either those who support you or those who disagree badly.
Secondly, I want to challenge this conflation of BBC independence, impartiality, objectivity and reasonableness. Impartiality does not equal rationality and reasonableness. Nor is it irrational to pick a side. It is also not the case that people are asking the BBC to rant. Far from it.
Thirdly, I note that John is incorrect in his understanding of what BBC impartiality means and requires. Here are the editorial guidelines.
The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences. The term ‘due’ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation [1].
Due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. It does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law. We are committed to reflecting a wide range of subject matter and perspectives across our output as a whole and over an appropriate timeframe so that no significant strand of thought is under-represented or omitted.
In applying due impartiality to news, we give due weight to events, opinion and the main strands of argument. We may produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. [1]
We must always scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account with consistency and due impartiality.”
Note that the BBC explicitly state that impartiality does not require strict neutrality, indeed the qualify it as “due impartiality”. Note that this is particularly true on moral and legal matters.
Finally, John is incorrect factually because the BBC have very happily described plenty of organisations and people as “Terrorists”. Here is an example from an education resource. The BBC does use the term and so, it cannot claim that it has avoided it for the purpose of impartiality.
Why does all of this matter? Well, when we use the term we mean:
“the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. “
Note that whilst this includes a level of moral evaluation concerning the behaviours and actions itself, it is not to align an organisation on the political spectrum. Both left and right produce terrorists. Nor, does it evaluate the motives and aims of the those committing terrorism. It is possible to remain impartial on the causes of conflict in the Middle East, or the future of Northern Ireland whilst describing some organisations and people as terrorists.
A commitment to perceived impartiality therefore becomes unhelpful when it leads to imprecision and inaccuracy in reporting. If we cannot describe brutal violence including kidnap, rape and murder of civilians, intended to cause fear/terror as terrorism then we are unable to accurately report what is happening.
The result of this is in fact that we have in effect, by our appearance of impartiality acted partially. We have done so by given credence to the claims of one side when those claims lack credibility and we’ve at least questioned the claims of the other, especially when that side claims to be the victim. To give another example. Ukraine claims that Russia has launched an invasion. Russia states that this is not so, it’s a special military operation. If we refuse to call the act an invasion, then we are giving credence to Russia’s claims to be operating legally within what she regards as her own territory. We don’t stop referring to it as an invasion because that might mean taking sides against Russia.
Finally, moral indifference, the claim to be above the fray is not really neutrality at all. It is to choose your own moral position. That position is itself worthy of critique and challenge. I hope that the BBC will review its reporting and begin to report accurately on what is happening. I hope too that we don’t get caught in the trap of seeking to be neutral on matters when we cannot be.
[1] Section 4: Impartiality – Introduction – Editorial Guidelines (bbc.co.uk)
Faithroots 