[Closed] BBC and the DEC Appeal

FTA: ITV and Sky have also said they will not show the appeal. So why complain to the BBC?

If it was a general 'victims of violence in the middle east' campaign I would have some sympathy. But this proposal is clearly one-sided.

cheers for the link

The BBC made the decison first and the others went with their decison

dmjb4
Are you really comparing the conditions of the Paelestinaian people with other people in the Middle east because where are the condition this bad?
Think that might be your bias there not the OP

Giving humanitarian aid to suffering people is not to take sides it is to reduce / prevent suffering and death

I think the numerous charities who are part of the DEC are in a much better position to make an independent and impartial judgement on what aid is needed around the world than the BBC (whose decision making of late has been questionable on a number of issues)!

Why is the campaign one-sided? As far I am aware Israel is not suffering lack of food, water, power and medical equipment. Nor have a large part of its buildings, including schools, been needlessly destroyed. Nor does it have a UN centre which has been bombed. Nor has it suffered ordnance with phosphorous in. Nor have over a 1000 innocent Israelis been killed in the space of 3 weeks!

This doesn't of course imply that Hamas's actions are legitimate, but simply that Gaza is suffering a humanitarian disaster as a result of war and Israel isn't, and the aid agencies role is to help in disaster areas.

The Jewish lobby has far too much influence over the press.

Tony Benn stuffed the BBC on the Today programme this morning. Gave out all details live on air, and there wasn't anything they could do to stop him.

I'm not sure the BBC have been "stuffed" given that they're providing a link to the DEC appeal website on the very page listed in the OP.

Tony Benn was class on the radio today, don't really agree with most of his opinions, but it was great to hear someone who acutally gives a shit.

Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, is questioning the BBC decision, and even the Government are sending £25 million.

All the BBC seem to do is winge on about how they need more money from the licence fee. After a number of their recent decisions, I think a number of their senior management should be increasing our jobless statistics.

For those who want to donate the DEC website is https://www.donate.bt.com/bt_form_gaza.html

Thanks to Andy M. Registered complaint using link.

The Jewish lobby has far too much influence over the press.

Dibbs - Lots of Jewish people have protested against what the Israeli government has been doing - eg Gerald Kaufman, and Alexis Sayle to name only the two who come to mind.

I'm not sure the BBC have been "stuffed" given that they're providing a link to the DEC appeal website on the very page listed in the OP.

Yes, in fairness to the BBC journalists, the BBC's chief Operating Officer got a pretty good grilling on the today programme by 'Posh' Ed Sturton.

Compliant submitted. What a bunch of toss. A person in need, is a person in need.

Yes it's the "Zionist lobby" which are the problem, not the "Jewish lobby".
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Jews - but something seriously wrong with Zionists - a distinction which is [i]very[/i] important to remember.

.
I can't understand how the BBC are claiming that they are preserving their impartiality but refusing the appeal - surely they are doing the exact opposite and supporting one side, ie it is right and proper that the hospitals and schools in Gaza should be reduced to rubble. And that people in Gaza don't deserve to have food, shelter and medicine.

What TF is that about ❓

Tony Benn on Today show:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gsljl/Today_24_01_2009/ ]Clicky[/url]

...about 22 mins in.

complaint lodged. Don't agree with Hamas, but what happened in Gaza was a war crime.

ITV have backed down and will now show the advert.

Ironically announced on the BBC website - at times they really know how to shoot themselves in the foot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7848673.stm

[i]Tony Benn on Today show: ...about 22 mins in. [/i]
That was genius. Good for Tony.

Though having said that, you can see the dilemena the BBC has, as iirc it rebuked last year for allegedly having a pro-palastine attitude to news reporting, or something to that effect.

The BBC have played this one brilliantly. They have emphasised their position as an independent broadcaster with a world wide reputation for impartiality who are not willing to be ordered around by any government. At the same time by discussing this openly and interviewing Tony Benn and others they have allowed the DEC message to get even more publicity. What they have done is to make this a news story so that they report it while remaining immune from any accusation of bias. Pretty shrewd I would say.

im with the BBC on this one.

The BBC can report on Gaza, and people can see whats going on, and if you feel compelled to donate you ca pop into oxfam, save the children etc and make a donation.

But the BBC should not be forced (or willingly) tell people what to do and who to supourt. All those people who think they should sho go live in China and enjoy the privelage of a proper governmetaly controlled state media.

Avdave2 - I complained anyway, but I think you're right. They're certainly giving it quite a bit of publicity!

Just listened to the Today program. Ace.

But the BBC should not be forced (or willingly) tell people what to do and who to suport

Eh? What?

This was never about telling people who to support. It's about a charity appeal for humanitarian aid - something the BBC has done many times before and it runs regular appeals for UK charities. Are you going to say it shouldn't run Children in Need? (Or 'I'm happy to help children in need - so long as they aren't Palestinians?')

The BBC made a wrong decision here and are now trying to hide behind 'independence'. The BBC are a public corporation: 'independence' does not mean being beyond criticism, or being accountable to no one.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

But the BBC should not be forced (or willingly) tell people what to do and who to supourt.

.

Good for you for having the courage to admit to everyone that you are weak-willed and unable to think for yourself.

Generally however, most people make their own minds up about "[b]what to do and who to support[/b]" and don't follow instructions issued by the BBC 😯

I've just [url= http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/01/impartiality.asp#comments ]seen the solution to how the BBC can remain impartial[/url]:

the solution to the BBC impartiality problem is simple: first, show the DEC advert appeal. Then, run a fundraising ad to pay to replenish Israel's stocks of white phosphorus. The BBC remains impartial and everyone gets to choose whether or not to help out and can choose whichever side they want. Or both if they want to be super impartial too.

Simple!

DEC isn't exactly an independent organisation. One it's members is Christian Aid for instance. Generally, when condemned by a combination of the Church, Politicians, the Sun, Mail, and Mirror, the object of the anger is probably thinking more clearly....

Besides which, the Beeb, and DEC have form, the Beeb had already turned down a request by them to broadcast an appeal in 2006 over attempts by DEC to include Gaza in an appeal for aid to the Lebanese, after the War between Hezbollah, and the Israelis. One of the supporters of the march that ended at Broadcasting House was part of Press TV, a mouthpiece for the Iranians who's speaker insisted that Israel should be "rinsed and hung out to dry". (Whatever that dark statement means) The point being, there is little neutrality here...

Finally, the BBC has an internal Charter, one of it's principles is "Those that use campaigns should remember that campaigners have an agenda, and should not generally be regarded as objective observers: Charity workers, for instance..." So now they are being roundly condemned for following their own rules...When Sky News turned down the request for more or less the same reasons, could you hear the complaints?...At all?

nickc are you seriously suggesting that the BBC were right to refuse to show the DEC appeal because someone on a march to Broadcasting House was allegedly a journalist for an Iranian TV station ? 😯

.

I couldn't give a toss whether Ghengis Khan himself might of supported the DEC appeal - it has zero effect on my judgement about what it right and what is wrong.

.

And since you don't appear to understand the difference between the BBC and Sky News, let me try and explain it to you.

The BBC is answerable to the British people, Sky News is answerable to Rupert Murdoch.

And incidentally, Rupert Murdoch probably has the right to claim Israeli nationality due to his maternal ancestry.

DEC isn't exactly an independent organisation. One it's members is Christian Aid for instance.

You are trying to be funny aren't you?

How do you think right wing Israeli organisations will view and use BBC footage showing support for Hamas and Hezbollah (Because that's how they'll twist it)? How do you think Political Islamic organisations will view and use BBC footage showing support for Christian Campaigners/charities? (Because that's how they'll twist it) What do you think that will do for the view of the BBC in the Middle East? The NGOs and charities under the DEC umbrella are not neutral. Ergo, it harms the neutrality of BBC to show it.

How do you think right wing Israeli organisations will view and use BBC footage showing support for Hamas and Hezbollah

The Israeli government has been very careful to distance itself from the BBC's stance.

In any event who cares how right-wing Israeli organisations or 'Political Islamic' organisations might portray the decision to show the broadcast? There's something called 'doing the right thing' - and the BBC isn't.

The NGOs and charities under the DEC umbrella are not neutral. Ergo, it harms the neutrality of BBC to show it.

What a bunch of tosh.

Why does it follow? The BBC is not the DEC. A charity appeal is not news coverage.

Are you seriously arguing that the Red Cross, Help the Aged, Christian Aid and Oxfam are politically partisan? Or does 'not neutral' mean not prepared to sit on the fence while people need help?

[i]In any event who cares how right-wing Israeli organisations or 'Political Islamic' organisations might portray the decision to show the broadcast?[/i]

Thousands of people across the world, never mind the Middle East, listen and watch the BBC in the hope that their coverage of world events shows a clearer picture than they can get from local sources, not to mention that it might harm relations between the BBC and those organisations including The Israeli Govt, Fatah, and the PA. The first priority of the BBC is to defend it's requirement to be seen as a neutral broadcaster of news, and not a broadcaster of partial requests for money.

Christian Aid, called this month on Gordon Brown to "Push for the EU to suspend its talks with Israel on upgrading relations": because Israel was "in breach of international humanitarian law in targeting civilians in Gaza, Christian Aid holds that these talks must be suspended." Ergo it is Partial.

The claim that by not broadcasting this appeal the BBC are some-how ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians, is morally conceited

I find it unbelievable nickc that you are actually supporting the BBC's stance on this.

Well, when I say 'the BBC' I really mean Mark Thompson. Because it was him "in consultation" with about 6 other people who took the decision.

[i]And[/i] he doesn't seem to know why he took the decision ! Originally the BBC gave the number one reason as being, that it couldn't be guaranteed that the aid would reach those for which it was intended. When it was realised that Mark Thompson was not in any way qualified to pass judgement on the professional capabilities of organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, that objection was very quietly dropped !

In fact the overwhelming majority of staff at the BBC are totally opposed to the decision and have indeed got round it in many ways. For example on this web page they show the DEC phone number and the direct link to the DEC website :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7849943.stm ]Gaza decision up to BBC - Burnham [/url]

I also saw on the BBC News Channel footage of a DEC appeal which had been previously shown, when it came to the DEC phone number it was frozen and left in the background - I'm sure the news presenter had a smirk on his face.

.

This is [i]not[/i] a political issue - politicians from all parties, both left and right, have condemned the BBC's decision. As have multitude of people right across society's rich tapestry, including Christians, Muslims and Jews.

This is [i]not[/i] an issue about taking sides - anymore than Red Cross parcels to POWs during WW2 was anything to do with taking sides.

This [i]is[/i] about common humanity. It [i]is[/i] about saving lives of innocent children.

Anyone who can't see that, has some issues imo.

[i]This [is] about common humanity. It is about saving lives of innocent children.

Anyone who can't see that, has some issues imo. [/i]

Yes, in this country it is. It is a sad fact of life in the Middle East that others [b]will not[/b]see it or use it, like this. The obvious danger is that the BBC will be seen to be taking sides, from being an observer, it becomes linked. I have no doubt that the DEC are trying their very best to help the people of Gaza, but the BBC is in a no win situation in this. And as I have said, to believe that the BBC is doing this out of some lack of care or regard to the suffering of the Palestinians is to miss the entire point.

Don't be so ridiculous - people in the Middle East aren't going to think that the BBC is anti-Israeli because they have allowed a televised appeal for humanitarian aid !

Although sadly much more likely, some people might come to the conclusion that the BBC is in fact anti-Palestinian.

You are too naive.

No mate - it's very much [i]you[/i] who is naive.

If you think people in the Middle East are going to trust the BBC [i]more[/i] as a result of censoring an appeal for humanitarian aid, you are indeed very naive.

😯

Ernie you're missing the point of the argument entirely. This is going nowhere.

As I recall someone was championing BBC to be impartial in the previous longest thread on this Gazza war but now it seems that BBC is being considered one sided. WTF!

FFS! There are some channels already broadcasting the appeal and some not going to air the appeal. So what? Let them be or do you want the whole world to think like you? Why the herd mentality eh? Why should they listen to you?

FFS! Dear Leader Kim in North Korea is not feeling well and his people are starving ... don't see anyone championing their cause at all.

😯

ernie_lynch:"I find it unbelievable nickc that you are actually supporting the BBC's stance on this."

😆 Nickc how dare you try to have an opinion of your own. You should be taught how to think and be told who to support. You must not try to have a mind of your own. Look into my eyes! Look into my eyes! Sit!

😆

Thanks to Andy M. Registered complaint using link.

Disagreeing with 'the point of the argument' is entirely different to 'missing the point'.

But you're right about it going nowhere - I feel as if I'm arguing with someone about whether the Earth is flat or not.

Have you got some sort of misplaced loyalty because perhaps you consider yourself to be 'Jewish', which might a explain your attempts defend something which is so clearly indefensible ?

If so, then I'm clearly wasting my time - although just remember that plenty of Jews are appalled by the BBC's decision.

[url= http://www.dec.org.uk/ ]DEC[/url]

Ernie, you last post is childish. Clearly we have a different point of view. Whether I agree with the views of the DEC, the Palestinians, The Israelis, Sky News or the BBC, is irrelevant, I have just tried to explain why I think the news organisations have taken the decisions they have.

I have just tried to explain why I think the news organisations have taken the decisions they have.

I'm not really interest in why you "think" the BBC have taken the decisions they have (Sky News is irrelevant - they just followed the BBC lead)

I was much more interested in finding out why you might have thought that they were right. Unfortunately you appear to have been completely unable to provide any convincing arguments, and have instead relied on deflection and diversionary tactics ranging from dismissive statements of "missing the point" and "this is going nowhere", to references of me being "naive" and "childish".

I've got no problem with that btw, just follow it up with some sort of argument ffs.

But hey, wtf let's forget it 😕

Do you know what ernie? I couldn't give a flying fvck what anyone in the Gaza Strip or The West Bank, or Hebron or The Golan Heights or Jerusalem "thinks" of the BBC. Do you know why? Because it's our BBC. We pay for it and we want it to be impartial. To use your own terminology, I can't seriously believe you would think that the BBC should show a DEC advertisement a matter of days after a very shaky ceasefire in one of the most politically explosive conflicts in recent times...just after the ten o'clock news, showing almost identical pictures to those being shown in the footage just minutes before.

It is up to the international community in whatever form it takes to condemn and sanction the Israelis for their actions in recent weeks, not that I have any faith that it will. Nevertheless, it is not up to the BBC to do it. Your inference that SKY were taking the same line because of Murdoch's mothers jewery was, even for you, a fairly wild accusation; not that I'd ever defend Murdoch.

In fact, I say fvck it, lets have no charity ads on the BBC at all. Plenty of charity is politically and religiously motivated (with the exception of your beloved Red Cross...hmmm, where did that cross come from, anyway....moving on...) so why should our license fee go to pay for their ads? I have enough of being chugged walking down the street on a Saturday, I don't want the BBC shoving it down my throat after the news. Anyway, what's the panic? The DEC have got more publicity out of this than they could ever have wished for.

Let's just not have any news programmes on TV then is that is your argument, as by implication all news can be interpreted as having a bias by one party or other!

Well I'm glad that you "couldn't give a flying fvck what anyone in the Gaza Strip or The West Bank, or Hebron or The Golan Heights or Jerusalem "thinks" of the BBC" deadlydarcy.

And I'm not too bothered either. Nickc on the other hand appears to be somewhat concerned - if I haven't missed the point that he's trying to make.

But yes I think that the appeal should have been shown. And if you feel that strongly about it, you must have been gutted when it was shown on all the other terrestrial channels.

I made no 'inference' about SKY News other than the fact that the owner of the Channel [i]probably[/i] has a right to Israeli nationality - something which I think is rather pertinent, wouldn't you agree ?

Your inference that the International Committee of the Red Cross is, quote, "religiously motivated" is absurd and ridiculous.

Anyway, what's the panic? The DEC have got more publicity out of this than they could ever have wished for.

Where did you get the "panic" thing from ? Disapproving of a decision which the Director Gen of the BBC has made does not constitute "panicking".

And you're right, the DEC have got more publicity out of this than they could ever have wished for.