The saga grinds to an end at last:The Editorial Standards Committee (the “Committee”) has ratified (i.e. approved) its finding for the nineteen appeals on Death in the Med, and publishes it today, Tuesday 19th April. Perhaps not a great surprise after the convoluted business of the complaints procedure: only 3 points were conceded. Below is a summary of the report, with one of the rejections, of probably the most justified complaint, about that fake recording, which I myself had pointed out had been in one breath accepted by the programme both as a fake and as a warning.
CONFIDENTIAL (EMBARGOED UNTIL PUBLICATION)
Summary
The Programme
At its meeting on 17 March 2011 the Editorial Standards Committee (the “Committee”)
considered together appeals from 19 complainants in relation to Death in the Med, a programme in the weekly current affairs series Panorama. Death in the Med was broadcast on 16 August 2010 on BBC One. It relates to the boarding at sea by Israeli commandos of the Mavi Marmara, which was part of a flotilla attempting to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. Nine activists on board the Mavi Marmara, the largest ship in the flotilla, were killed and more than 50 passengers and nine Israeli soldiers were injured.
The Committee’s Finding
The consolidated appeal raised 51 points of issue; the Committee upheld three of those points (two in relation to accuracy and one in relation to impartiality) but decided not to uphold the remaining 48 points. Despite finding three instances where the Editorial Guidelines had been breached the Committee nonetheless concluded that, in tackling this highly divisive subject, Death in the Med had achieved due impartiality and due accuracy overall.
The Committee regrets any breaches of the Editorial Guidelines and apologises for them on behalf of the BBC. Whilst it expects the BBC to consider seriously any lessons to be learnt in respect of its findings, the Committee wishes to make it clear that it commends the BBC for having tackled this most controversial of issues. In the Committee’s view, the programme was an original, illuminating and well-researched piece of journalism. The Committee remarked it is unlikely that a current affairs programme such as this, covering such a contentious issue, would be found to be entirely flawless if it were subjected to the level of deconstruction and analysis that Death in the Med has undergone. However, the BBC is committed to the highest journalistic standards, and programme-makers must be prepared to face the most rigorous scrutiny when covering such contentious issues.
To summarise, with regard to the three upheld matters, the Committee concluded:
• In the absence of clear video footage of anyone being shot, material from the preliminary autopsy reports would have given a broader picture and added to the programme’s description of how the activists died. The Committee decided the information about the volume and nature of the gunshot wounds detailed in the preliminary autopsy reports gave a fuller picture of the manner in which the Israelis killed nine people and the level of force deployed by the Israeli commandos. The inclusion of some reference to the preliminary autopsy findings would have enabled the programme to achieve due accuracy as required by the Editorial Guidelines.
Accordingly, the Committee concluded that in this respect the programme had breached the Editorial Guidelines on accuracy (Point S).
• As regards the treatment of casualties by the Israelis, the imagery and the accompanying script line (“The Israelis evacuated the badly wounded to hospital”) would have left viewers with the impression that the badly wounded were all promptly and appropriately cared for. The Committee noted that, although not proven, there are detailed allegations of mistreatment of at least some of the casualties. The Committee decided that to achieve impartiality on the issue the programme was required to verify that the Israelis took proper care of the badly wounded. In the absence of such confirmation the programme was obliged to reflect the views of those who allege that the Israelis mistreated some of them. The Editorial Guidelines on impartiality provide that we must ensure we avoid “an imbalance of views on controversial subjects”. Accordingly, the Committee decided that in this respect the programme had breached the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality (Point AI).
• The programme accurately described some of the aid on board the flotilla (mobility scooters, hospital beds and medicines, two thirds of which the reporter said she had found to be out of date). However, the facts show that this was just a tiny proportion of a consignment which had consistedof thousands of tons of aid, including large quantities of much-needed building materials. As a result, the Committee concluded that the programme was not clear and precise in its presentation of the full extent of the aid on board the flotilla. Accordingly, the Committee decided there had been a breach of the Editorial Guidelines on accuracy (Point AR).
Point AB – regarding the allegation that the programme used an audio recording which the Israelis admit had been doctored; the impression left by the script was that the programme accepted the Israeli version of events
122. Relevant Script
The Committee noted that the relevant script for point AB was as follows:
Commentary: The Israelis released what they said was the radio response from the flotilla. Part of it was defiant and abusive.
Israel Military Recording: Shut up – go back to Auschwitz... We’re helping Arabs going against the US. Don’t forget 9/11 guys...
Commentary: The recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy. The flotilla’s organisers insist they did not hear these comments being made.
For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly.
123. Context
The Committee noted that on 31 May 2010, (less than 24 hours after the Mavi Marmara was boarded by Israeli commandos) the IDF released 1’05” of video footage in which an Israeli naval officer is heard and seen issuing a warning to the Mavi Marmara not to enter the area under Israeli blockade; the abusive comments above do not feature in the footage.
The Committee noted that on 4 June 2010 the IDF released a 27” audio recording of what it said was a radio transmission between the Israeli Navy and the flotilla in which unidentified voices are heard making the anti-Semitic comments featured above. The picture accompanying the audio was a freeze frame image from the 31 May video. The subtitled audio was new material of the same officer speaking to another ship in the flotilla, the Defney.
The Committee noted that on 5 June 2010, after questions were raised as to the authenticity of the 4 June recording, the IDF released what it said was a clarification/correction:
“The audio was edited down to cut out periods of silence over the radio as well as incomprehensible comments so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange. We have now uploaded the entire segment of 5 minutes and 58 seconds in which the exchange took place and the comments were made.
“This transmission had originally cited the Mavi Marmara ship as being the source of these remarks, however, due to an open channel, the specific ship or ships in the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified.”
124. Allegation
The Committee noted the complainants said:
“(The reporter) stated that the comments were controversial. She did not accurately state that the flotilla organisers deny that they were ever made, merely that they had not heard them.”
“The voice in the recording was of someone apparently from around mid-America, cowboy country... despite admitting that the Israelis had given up trying to pass this off as genuine, (the reporter) goes on to say, ‘For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly’. If we accept that the recording was a fake, we cannot in the same breath allege that it would have been perceived as a warning.”
“This (the commentary) is tacit acceptance of the Israeli story ... since this could only be a warning to the Israelis if the transmission had been made. This in turn reflects a bias in ... reporting.”
125. BBC Response
The Committee noted that the programme responded:
“The IDF stand by the actual verbal content of the tape.
“The script accurately reflected what the Israeli’s had released in the statement:
‘The Israelis released what they said was the radio response from the flotilla. Part of it was defiant and abusive.’
“We accept that there is controversy surrounding these tapes and therefore we clearly pointed this out:
‘The recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy. The flotilla’s organisers insist they did not hear these comments being made.’
“The press release issued by the Free Gaza Movement at the time – June 6 2010, said:
‘According to our Captain of Challenger 1, Denis Healey, a man with 25 years of experience on the sea, there would be no way that anyone could communicate with each other without the entire fleet hearing the exchange…
“there was no exchange like this by anyone on any boat during the entire time I was piloting the boat” said Denis.’
“The programme script accurately reflected the FGM’s (Free Gaza Movement) denial.
“We were told by the Israelis that the range of the radio/audio meant that it came from the flotilla. They could not confirm from which ship but were clear it came from somewhere in the flotilla.”
The Committee noted the ECU’s response:
“(the reporter) assured me that she was conscious of the general tenor of what the Free Gaza Movement and other activists were saying about the VHF recording and as a result of her research and interviews (both on and off the record) concluded that the debate centred around the question of whether activists would have heard the comments. This seems to me reasonable since it is possible that the comments could have been made from a VHF transmitter and not been picked up by some of the other craft in the area.
“I don’t accept that the wording used by (the reporter) gave the impression she tacitly agreed with the IDF version that the comments were genuine. Her comment could, I suggest, equally be seen as a straightforward summary of what the Israelis said to her to support their view that the activists intended to provoke a confrontation with Israel.”
126. Consideration
The Committee considered three separate issues:
• Did the programme use material that the IDF had admitted was doctored without telling the audience?
• Should the script have stated that the organisers deny the statements were made?
• Did the wording in the script suggest the programme’s “tacit acceptance” of the recording’s authenticity?
The Committee noted that the first issue relates to some confusion as to which audio recording the clarification on 5 June related. The IDF website states the 5 June clarification was to the release of the 4 June recording, and was unrelated to the 31 May release. As the quote from the IDF website demonstrates, the IDF did not “admit” the 4 June release had been doctored; the clarification explained it had been edited for clarity.
The Committee noted that the discussion about this tape has focussed on the activists’ denial that the comments were ever made. The activists base their certainty that it is a fraud on the claim that the voices did not match those of any of the Captains (and it was only they and Huwaid Arraf, Chair of the Free Gaza Movement) who had access to the radios), and that no-one heard the comments.
The Committee noted that (if it is accepted the comments were made) it is not known from which ship the comments originated, and the ECU argues that it is possible that comments made from one transmitter would not necessarily be picked up by all the craft in the flotilla. The ECU concluded therefore that the programme accurately reported that the organisers insist they did not hear the comments because it was not possible for the organisers to state with certainty that the comments were not made.
127. The Committee’s Decision
The Committee considered whether the BBC had complied with the Editorial Guidelines on accuracy. The Editorial Guidelines note that accuracy “is often more than a question of getting the facts right”. The Guidelines include the statement that “All the relevant facts and information should be weighed to get at the truth”. In addition, if an issue is controversial, the Guidelines say relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.
The Committee decided the programme accurately reflected the content of the audio recording. The Committee did not accept the complainants’ argument that the audio recording had been proven to be fake, neither did the Committee find any evidence that Israel had said it was. The Committee considered that the programme had taken care to reflect fairly that which it could corroborate, i.e. that the flotilla organisers claim they did not hear the statements being made. The Committee decided the evidential base for the claim that the recording was a fake was not so strong that it obliged the programme to report that allegation too. The Committee considered the programme achieved due impartiality and due accuracy in stating the “recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy”.
Next the Committee considered whether, despite reporting the organisers’ denial that the comments were made and also reflecting that the authenticity had provoked controversy, the sentence below nevertheless implied the programme accepted the recording was genuine:
“For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly.”
The Committee noted that the programme had made it clear that there was more than one view as to whether the radio transmission had been made. The programme makers
explained the Israeli point of view (i.e. that the audio recording was a radio response from the flotilla) and also the view of the flotilla’s organisers (i.e. that they did not hear the comments in the audio recording being made). As mentioned above, the programme specifically stated that the recording’s authenticity provoked controversy.
The Committee acknowledged a complainant’s argument that the statement “For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly” was a tacit acceptance of the Israeli story. However, the Committee decided that this statement could also be interpreted as a summary of the Israeli position as described to the reporter rather than a tacit acceptance of the Israeli story. The Committee noted that the issue of whether or not the audio recording was a radio response from the flotilla was a controversial issue. The Committee concluded that Panorama had weighed the information and opinions available to them and had scripted accordingly. As a result, the Committee concluded that this was duly accurate based on the available information and opinions.
The Committee then tested the same sentence for impartiality. The Committee decided that the programme presented both the views of the Israelis and the views of the flotilla’s organisers regarding the authenticity of the audio recording. The Committee decided that the viewer would have understood from the section overall: that the Israelis claimed that the audio recording came from the flotilla; that the flotilla organisers denied hearing the comments in the audio recording being made; and that whether or not the audio recording was actually a radio response from the flotilla is disputed. The Committee concluded that the overall treatment of this issue was duly accurate and duly impartial. Nevertheless, the Committee agreed that programme makers should be reminded that when an issue is in dispute, it is extremely important in scripting to minimise the possibility of some viewers concluding that the programme has accepted a particular point of view.
Finding: Not Upheld
No comments:
Post a Comment