Tom Giles’ attempt – on The Spectator’s Coffee House
blog – to impugn CAMERA’s video documenting the BBC’s violations of its Editorial Guidelines is an example of the illogical and desperate flailing with which the BBC has
consistently approached reasoned arguments about Panorama’s “A Walk in the Park”, a flagrantly biased documentary about Jerusalem.
Mr. Giles’s complaint relies in part on his assertion, with ominous undertones, that CAMERA’s brief video “re-edited” the Panorama documentary and shows only excerpts from
the programme.
Of course, it’s obvious that a 15-minute video meant to draw attention to journalistic malpractice in a 30-minute documentary, and to highlight the BBC’s inadequate defence of its
programme, by necessity must rely on excerpts and montages. Indeed, the video also selectively excerpts examples from CAMERA’s complaint, omitting, for the sake of brevity, other instances of
the documentary’s violation of the Editorial Guidelines.
Readers should take note that, importantly, Mr. Giles does not directly refute even one of the points we made in the video, evidently seeking instead to distract readers with incoherent and
incongruous commentary. He says nothing about BBC’s out-of-context statistics. There is not a word of explanation for why the BBC twice relayed unsubstantiated and false accusations that
Jerusalem is being ethnically cleansed of Arabs when, in fact, the city’s Arab population is growing faster than its Jewish population. Nor does he attempt to explain why the BBC does not
refer to acts of Palestinian terrorism even while it charges Jews with acts of violence.
Instead, the Panorama editor wrongly claims that our video “gives a very different impression of the film than that broadcast”. On the contrary: the montages and clips in our video were
meant to provide viewers a cross-section of the programme’s highly partisan treatment of controversies in Jerusalem.
For example, the first edited montage in our video was an illustration of how Ms. Corbin presented her account entirely through the lens of Palestinian grievances, hectoring Israelis while
accepting Arab allegations without challenge and, at times, even underscoring their statements in her own words.
Our video neither stated nor implied that Israelis were not quoted in the programme. Therefore, Mr. Giles’ examples of Israelis answering Ms. Corbin’s aggressive questions are
completely irrelevant to CAMERA’s complaint and in no way refute the video’s clear point about Ms. Corbin’s inequitable approach toward Israelis versus her approach toward
Palestinians. Mr. Giles, clearly, can produce no counter-example of the hectoring of Palestinians or the sympathetic echoing of Israeli views — because, as CAMERA demonstrated, there were no
such exchanges. All the Panorama editor can muster on this score is to claim the BBC’s approach is “normal”:
“The implication is that Jane Corbin is being unfair by asking questions solely from a Palestinian perspective. But this is normal journalistic practice.”
This is a stunning admission. Critics have long noted that it is “normal” for the BBC to take an anti-Israel approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are suspicions that the
BBC’s suppressed “Balen Report” says as much. But now we have a BBC editor casually maintaining that there is nothing wrong with aggressively questioning only one side, and
highlighting only one side’s complaints, in a programme about a complex and controversial dispute. In terms of journalistic ethics, and the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, such bias is far
from normal.
Mr. Giles goes on to say, “ It would be curious not to ask questions of Israelis in a film which was made against a background of strong international condemnation of Israel for its
demolitions and evictions in east Jerusalem.”
Then why does Mr. Giles not find it curious that his Panorama team avoided asking any questions about parallel grievances that elicit international condemnations — about Palestinian actions
on the Temple Mount, its dumping of Israeli artifacts, its denial of Jerusalem’s Jewish roots, it systemic demonization of Israelis and rejection of Israel’s historical and cultural
claims to Jerusalem? Why did Ms. Corbin not exhibit the same “robust” (as Mr. Giles puts it) questioning of Palestinians on those points?
Mr. Giles does not say. Instead, he falsely suggests that Ms. Corbin’s questioning of Israelis was made “in a context in which Palestinian actions were also queried.” This,
however, is simply not true, as anyone who has seen the original Panorama programme can attest. Contrary to his suggestion, there were no queries made of Palestinians about their riots on the
“compound surrounding the holy mosques,” nor were there any about their illegal building on sensitive land, — or any other Palestinian actions that constitute obstacles to peace.
As our video shows, and as Mr. Giles admits, such questioning was reserved for Israelis.
In his third example, Mr. Giles claims CAMERA was “plainly incorrect” when it suggested the programme disingenuously portrayed evictions as ruthless nocturnal raids by Israeli settlers
and authorities, expelling Palestinians from their homes without warning or recourse. In fact, Ms. Corbin clearly states, “When Arabs won’t move or sell, then [Arieh King] gets eviction
orders.” As we indicated in our video, Mr. King does not and cannot obtain eviction orders for Arabs who refuse to sell their legally owned homes. This is a grossly inaccurate
statement.
Moreover, the programme failed to detail the rigorous procedures to which evictions are subject. There must be opportunity for the occupant to appeal to courts and to establish their legal
claim to the property. There must be sufficient warning once the illegal status of the occupant is established and once an eviction order is served. There must be sufficient time for the
illegal occupants to vacate the property by themselves before they are physically evicted, etc.
These are but some of the disconcerting problems we briefly highlighted in our video. In summary, Panorama’s report on Jerusalem violated the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, and the ESC,
instead of enforcing those standards, signaled to its journalists that when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, the language and spirit of guidelines can be disregarded.
For those who prefer a more detailed discussion instead of the summarized version presented here and in our video, we certainly encourage them to view the Panorama video, read our original
complaints (e.g. here and here), and see the BBC Trust’s defense here.
Ricki Hollander, Senior Research Analyst, CAMERA
Gilead Ini, Senior Research Analyst, CAMERA
Comments