Turmoil at Broadcasting House in London affects what I hear in Cincinnati on BBC’s overnight World Service on WVXU-FM.
As it is with any news medium where neutrality is a goal, complaints increasingly focus on word choice and allegations of political correctness rather than overt story bias and slant. The latest BBC brouhaha arose from coverage of murders at Charlie Hebdo and the Parisian kosher market.
Ironically, Al Jazeera America, the Qatar-funded and ideologically driven satellite and Web network, ran into similar problems. But more on that later.
When BBC responds to complaints with an internal review, questions typically focus on whether reporters, commentators, editors and presenters applied its written guidelines (below) consistently and intelligently. Although BBC is by charter nonpartisan, it’s no surprise that the party in power sometimes complains the broadcaster’s reporting and commentaries are biased against it. That’s what happens anywhere when journalists report what governments wish remained hidden.
Some charges of bias also arise from World Service radio broadcasts to nations and cultures that don’t share BBC’s commitment to honest reporting. From what we know, when BBC finds screwups, discipline is reimposed and staff changes sometimes follow. Other times, BBC rebuffs critics who would be satisfied only with broadcasts that reflects their biases. This involves all of BBC’s journalists, whether on World Service or other programs.
Complaints that word choice reflects an institutional BBC bias also arise from increasingly articulate minorities living in what was long understood to be a homogeneous British society to and for whom BBC spoke with traditional plummy accents. That homogeneity hasn’t existed since West Indian immigration after World War II and the more recent arrival of Muslim Pakistanis. Anyone who still thinks it’s “Little England” hasn’t seen curry and kabob shops displace fish and chips or heard non-white Britons speaking with second and third generation local accents rather than immigrant inflections.
Given Britain’s increasingly complex society and growing Muslim population, it was no surprise that the latest dust-up involved BBC’s reporting of the massacre of staff and police at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and Jewish shoppers at a kosher market. The killers were French-born Muslims of North African descent. BBC news judgment was hammered from all sides.
After apparent confusion at Broadcasting House, BBC fell back on its guidelines in attempts to make sense of events that overtook on-air practices. Tarik Kafala, the chief of BBC Arabic service, kicked the hornets’ nest by urging colleagues to abstain from calling the three Parisian Islamist killers “terrorists.” Kafala said that word was too “loaded” and “value laden.”
He told London’s Independent, “We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’ . . . Terrorism is such a loaded word. We know what murder, bombings and shootings are, and we describe them. That’s much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like terrorist which people will see as value-laden.”
In practice, BBC reporters may call someone a “terrorist” but generally, the term is avoided unless someone is being quoted. Faced with an uproar, a BBC spokesman responded: “There is no BBC ban on the word ‘terrorist,’ as can be seen from our reporting of the terrorist attack in Paris, though we prefer a more precise description if possible. The head of BBC Arabic was simply reflecting BBC editorial guidelines and making a general point about the nuances of broadcasting internationally.”
This yes-no-maybe angered some domestic viewers and it must have complicated reactions to Arabic broadcasts heard in predominantly Muslim countries. Angering someone is inevitable, given the World Service’s radio broadcasts in some of its 27 languages to countries with wildly differing attitudes to independent journalism.
Among others outraged by Kafala’s word choice was Conservative party politicians Lord Tebbit. London’s Daily Mail quoted him as saying, “I think the BBC would be well advised to look at the Oxford English Dictionary or any other good dictionary’s definition of terrorism…I find it strange that the BBC should be trying to hide the nature of these people…They are as mad as rats, aren’t they?”
Tebbit’s reaction to Kafala’s word choice or political correctness goes beyond listening to the radio. Tebbit’s wife was paralyzed by an IRA terrorist bombing in the seaside city of Brighton 31 years ago. Here is what BBC guidelines said as recently as last month: “We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements.
“We try to avoid the use of the term ‘terrorist’ without attribution. When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
“The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber,’ ‘attacker,’ ‘gunman,’ ‘kidnapper,’ ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant.’
“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”
Coincidentally, Question Time star TV presenter David Dimbleby did his own pot-stirring when he told British viewers BBC policy was not to depict the prophet visually. The issue was BBC’s brief broadcast of a Charlie Hebdo cover featuring a cartoon of the Prophet after the murders. That fleeting image and Dimbleby’s remark outraged viewers who object to any image of Mohamed or object to that political correctness.
Dimbleby said BBC’s editorial guidelines say that “The prophet Mohamed must not be represented in any shape or form.”
Not quite, a BBC spokesman responded; there is no formal BBC ban on images of Mohamed: “This guidance is old, out of date and does not reflect the BBC’s long-standing position that program makers have freedom to exercise their editorial judgment with the Editorial Policy team available to provide advice around sensitive issues on a case by case basis. The guidance is currently being revised.”
Meanwhile, the Parisian killings revealed vocabulary problems at Al Jazeera, where unapologetic biases have put the multilingual satellite/Internet network at odds with some neighboring Muslim states and American audiences. I follow Al Jazeera America and Al Jazeera English online.
Funded by the Sunni Muslim ruling family of Qatar, Al Jazeera says it embraces American journalism ethics but it really makes no pretense of BBC-like neutrality. Al Jazeera rules governing coverage of Muslims/Arabs became clearer from an email obtained by National Review Online. It reported that Al Jazeera executive Carlos van Meek told journalists in New York and Washington newsrooms to avoid “terrorist,” “militant,” “Islamist,” “extremist” and “jihad.”
He told them to “Avoid characterizing people…Often their actions do the work for the viewer.” Instead of “terrorists,” van Meek said to use the terms “fighters” and “militants.”
The conservative National Review Online said van Meek used this illustration in his email: “For example, we can use the term [militant] to describe Norwegian mass-killer Andres Behring Breivik or Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.” (Breivik murdered 77 unarmed youngsters and adults at a Norwegian island camp and McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma federal building, killing 168 mostly civilian employees and visitors.)
Or as van Meek put it, hauling out the tired cliche to buttress his admonitions, “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”
CURMUDGEON NOTES:
• My first trip to Europe as a photojournalist included Auschwitz. Fifteen years after liberation by the Red Army, Auschwitz/Birkenau was a memorial but not yet a tourist destination. I took few photos. Even then, my interest was photographing the living and none was there.
• Our government convicted whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling without forcing NYTimes reporter James Risen to identify Sterling as his confidential source or face prison for contempt. Prosecutors said Sterling gave Risen classified information about a CIA plot to disrupt Iranian nuclear development. Risen’s years of steadfast refusal to name his confidential source(s) frustrated prosecutors; they quit asking. It was abject surrender by an administration that made Risen Target No. 1 for Obama/Holder attempts to intimidate journalists and their sources.
• The first paragraph of the NYTimes story about the whistleblower-reporter connection (above) was an exercise in nuance: “WASHINGTON — Jeffrey A. Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, was convicted of espionage Monday on charges that he told a reporter for The New York Times about a secret operation to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.”
Note how carefully the Times avoided saying “for telling” James Risen anything. Only that Sterling was convicted on charges “that he told.” The Times wasn’t going to admit anything that Risen had refused to confirm.
• For months, Al Jazeera websites have called on the Egyptian military government to free three of its journalists, jailed apparently for including opposition voices in their stories. It might also have something to do with Al Jazeera supporting the Muslim Brotherhood president deposed by the army in its coup. Well, last week BBC and others reported that one of the three, Australian Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste, is being freed and deported. I checked two English-language Al Jazeera websites. BBC beat them on their own story.
• Kent State journalism professor Karl Idsvoog used his blog to wonder why local reporters ignored a key, repeated point in a recent Kent State speech by civil rights leader Julian Bond. It was, “Republicans don’t want black people to vote.”
Here’s what Idsvoog said: “In the Akron Beacon Journal, the Record Courier and on Kent State University’s student news website KentWired.com, there is no mention of the most newsworthy statement made by a man who has spent his life fighting for civil rights. Republicans are now in power in Congress, and Julian Bond the former head of the NAACP does not hedge his words. He speaks directly. He speaks forcefully. He states over and over again: ‘Republicans don’t want black people to vote.’ “
• The following was written days before meteorologists predicted the blizzard of the century for New York City. In it, the Washington Post weather team offered “five common myths” about forecasting that are all the more important given the failure of that blizzard to meet worst-case predictions:
1. “Weather forecasters are usually wrong. Predictions are generally quite good. In his 2012 essay ‘The Weatherman Is Not a Moron,’ statistician Nate Silver pointed to weather forecasting as ‘the one area in which our predictions are making extraordinary progress.’ A one-day temperature forecast is now typically accurate within about two to 2.5 degrees, according to National Weather Service data. In other words, when you see a forecast high of 82, most of the time the actual high will be between 80 and 85. Predicting the location and intensity of thunderstorms is like peering into a pot of boiling water and trying to figure out where a bubble will pop and how big it will be. Still, the most accurate forecasts — by the likes of AccuWeather, the National Weather Service and the Weather Channel — correctly predicted if there would be precipitation the next day 82 percent of the time in 2013, according to weather watchdog Forecast Advisor.”
2. “The polar vortex is a new, menacing weather phenomenon. Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that it was an invention of the left, part of an effort to manipulate the global warming debate. Poorly worded scientific explanations — such as one from (a) City College of New York physicist who likened the vortex to a ‘tornado of cold air’ added to the alarm and confusion… (T)he vortex isn’t anything like a tornado. It isn’t a new phenomenon, either — it’s been referred to and studied by meteorologists for decades. The vortex simply describes a meandering circulation around the North (and South) Pole that typically contains the planet’s coldest air.”
3. “Whenever the forecast calls for record lows, it undermines the case for global warming. Climate change is measured by examining long-term trends in weather statistics over large areas, like hemispheres, or the entire planet, not events happening over a few days or even a few months in a small region.”
4. “It’s possible to accurately predict the weather weeks or months in advance. We have never seen an independent, peer-reviewed analysis supporting the ability to provide a skillful forecast at such long ranges. By skillful, we mean that the forecast offers an improvement over simply looking at the average weather for a given location at a given time.”
5. “Local weather forecasters copy the National Weather Service. One might easily assume that it’s the source of forecasts on local news outlets. However, many local meteorologists have impressive credentials and take great pride in their own hand-crafted forecasts.”
• Sports Illustrated laid off its last six staff photographers but said it hopes they’ll freelance for the magazine. That’s as crazy as the Cincinnati Enquirer asking some fired folks to come back as temps when it pushed too many people out the door. Jimromenesko.com quoted SI as saying “Our commitment to photography is as strong as ever and we will continue to create the best original content possible.” Translation: possible=cheaply.
• New York Review (of Books) reminds me of how invulnerable Fox media zillionaire Rupert Murdoch remains after lackeys were convicted in phone-hacking scandals. Murdoch’s people bribed London cops, prison officials and military for scandal stories. They weren’t rogues. It was part of their work for Murdoch and his News Corp.
The prosecutions were in England but their roots are here where U.S. laws forbid foreign bribery. And so we have this delicious irony: Obama/Holder pursue journalists who embarrass them while Justice Department prosecutors ignore potential criminal hacking liability of Murdoch’s American-based News Corp.
So enjoy Fox Everything. Watching feeds ratings which feed ad revenues which support Murdoch’s beyond-cynical view of what news should be and what his audiences are. Or as the Sage of Baltimore famously said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
• Update: London’s Guardian reported on Monday that Murdoch’s American News Corp. and Twenty-First Century Fox will escape U.S. prosecution over phone hacking and payments to public officials by News of the World journalists in London. The Guardian quoted a company regulatory filing which said “News Corporation was notified by the United States Department of Justice that it has completed its investigation of voicemail interception and payments to public officials in London and is declining to prosecute the Company or Twenty-First Century Fox.” The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bans U.S. companies from attempting to bribe foreign officials. The Guardian said the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.
• Weekly Standard’s charm arises largely from the neo-conservative prism through which it views everything. Recently, however, Weekly Standard’s lead column, “The Scrapbook”, went beyond partisanship into unsubstantiated smear. It attacked John Doar’s Washington Post obit for making too little of the Democrat insider’s role as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Here’s part of what The Scrapbook’s columnist wrote:
“(T)hat dramatic episode rates only six brief sentences in an otherwise voluminous, six-column, full-page article, and includes this intriguing detail: ‘One of the lawyers working for him at the time was Hillary Rodham Clinton.’ Here, The Scrapbook pauses for breath, imagining the editors at the Washington Post pondering that one. Presumably they were aware of the fact that an urban legend exists (not hard to find on the Internet) to the effect that young Hillary Rodham somehow ran afoul of another committee staffer and was ‘fired’ for unspecified ‘unethical’ behavior. There is no evidence that any of this is true.”
Why bring this up if it’s an “urban legend” on the Internet and “there is no evidence that any of this is true?” And if The Scrapbook really hoped to damage Clinton’s presidential aspirations, why didn’t The Scrapbook check it out?
This article appears in Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2015.
