The BBC meets its match

In the last three months British litigation lawyer Trevor Asserson's
Web site, bbcwatch.com, recorded one million hits.

It contains his three well-documented reports systematically
demonstrating the BBC's anti-Israel bias.

A few days ago the BBC suddenly created a senior editorial post to
advise on its Middle East coverage – an unprecedented appointment.
Malcolm Balen, a former editor of the BBC's 9 o'clock news, was
selected. His terms of reference and the methodology he will apply
have not been published, nor is it certain that his findings will be
made public.

Observers attribute this appointment to several factors: The Israeli
government's refusal to cooperate with the BBC; the emergence, during
the recent Hutton enquiry, of many shortcomings in BBC reporting of
the Iraq war; and The Daily Telegraph's running – over two months – of
the Beebwatch column scrutinizing BBC reporting.

Asserson preceded them with his original methodology of systematic
analysis of BBC bias.
Criticism of the BBC has come a long way in 10 years since I
interviewed the late David Bar-Illan for my book Israel's New Future.
Even back then he said, "the BBC is by far the worst offender" among
foreign media in Israel.

Bar-Illan told how, at the first intifada's peak, an Arab coffeehouse
in Jerusalem collapsed due to structural problems. Jews and Arabs
cooperated to save lives. The BBC, however labeled it a bomb explosion
rather than stressing the cooperation. Bar-Illan added: "From the
political sphere, there are hundreds of examples of BBC malice."

Bar-Illan provided qualitative examples while Asserson quantifies
them. The BBC's monopoly derives from a legally binding contract with
the British government. Asserson explains how it is breaching this
with its biased reporting on Israel. As a lawyer, he wanted to analyze
it in a way that would stand up as evidence in court.

ASSERSON DEFINED the BBC's 15 independent legal obligations under its
charter. These include: fairness, respect for truth, due accuracy,
attachment to fundamental democratic principles, not broadcasting its
own opinions on current affairs or public policy, ensuring opposing
views are not misrepresented, and not letting the audience gauge
reporters' personal views.

He recorded the BBC's broadcasting on the Middle East over three
periods of several weeks, the first one being at the end of 2001.
Asserson identified many events where the BBC breached multiple
guidelines, in some cases even most.

One typical example was when suicide bombers killed 26 Israeli
civilians in Jerusalem and Haifa in December 2001. The BBC only used
the word "terror" when describing Israel's retaliatory attacks on
Palestinian targets. In another, Palestinians attacked a bus in
Emmanuel, killing 10 civilians and wounding dozens. Thereupon Israel
attacked a Palestinian police station without serious casualties,
which the BBC reported very dramatically. The Palestinian attack was
mentioned with minimal detail of its brutality.

When Asserson sent the BBC his report with the comprehensive examples
of its guideline breaches, its news director denied them without
providing a detailed response. Asserson conducted a second study in
May–July 2002. He gave many new examples of how the BBC "only reports
the Palestinian side, suppresses news stories, fails to explain
Israel's mistrust of the Palestinians and uses pictures out of
context."

The Iraqi war enabled Asserson to compare, in his third study, the
BBC's reporting on British soldiers in Iraq and Israeli troops in the
conflict with the Palestinians. He wrote: "Coalition troops are
described in warm and glowing terms, with sympathy being evoked both
for them as individuals and also for their military predicament. By
contrast Israeli troops are painted as faceless, ruthless and brutal
killers with no or little understanding shown for their actions."

Asserson illustrated how the BBC goes to considerable lengths to
"explain, excuse and lessen civilian deaths at the hands of coalition
troops while mitigating arguments are brushed aside or scorned if
voiced at all where Israelis are concerned."

Asserson also explains how the BBC is turning from a reporting body
into a news manufacturer.
US President George W. Bush's speech of June 24, 2002, for example,
was entitled on the White House Web site, "President Bush calls for
new Palestinian leadership." Nineteen of the 28 paragraphs addressed
Palestinian leadership and institutional reform. Bush said that
Palestinian authorities are encouraging terrorism; Israeli policy was
criticized in two or three paragraphs. The BBC was the only news body
which presented the speech as criticizing Israelis and Palestinians
equally.

In passing, Asserson also illustrates the anti-Israel atmosphere among
BBC journalists. One, Ian Haddow, signed in his private capacity an
anti-Israel e-mail petition. He added the words "save us from Israel"
after his name.

Both scenarios for the BBC's future are better than the status quo.
Either it balances its reporting, or Balen's appointment will be
exposed as another BBC effort to gloss over the truth. That will not
help its attempt in 2005 to renew the charter giving it a monopoly.

Beyond that, Asserson's seminal methods can probably be used against
many other government-owned media in the democratic world.

The writer is the chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs and author of the forthcoming book, Europe's
Crumbling Myths: The Post-Holocaust Origins of Today's Anti-Semitism.