The art of balance: the other side of the coin

Middle East, The, August-Sept, 2008 by Judith Brown

Similar findings were made in an extensive study of ITV and BBC output by Glasgow University. As many people use TV as their main source of news, the study demonstrated that the lack of context, the style of language and the spokespersons used often confused audiences rather than informing them. Respondents in their audience studies did not understand fundamental issues such as refugees, military occupation and settlement building, but instead saw the conflict as a tit-for-tat border dispute. The BBC is particularly vulnerable to lobbying, as the public views it as more reliable than commercial broadcasters; the corporation claims "accurate, robust and impartial journalism". The BBC commissioned an independent report from Loughborough University in 2005 to evaluate its coverage of the conflict; the findings correlated with the Glasgow study, describing coverage as incomplete and misleading. An important finding was that BBC reports did not show that one side is in control whilst the other side lives under occupation. They also described a disparity in favour of Israel that existed in talk time and media appearances. This was also confirmed by an extensive Arab Media Watch (AMW) study of BBC news output, which showed similar disparities in terminology, talk rime, historical context, and the tendency to play down Palestinian suffering. For example, after Israeli attacks resulting in many civilian deaths, there was one Palestinian attack on Jewish settlers and one suicide attack, but the BBC repeatedly described these as "ending a period of relative calm".

The terminology and context issues particularly concern refugee issues. The Glasgow study found that only 8% of people knew that Palestinian refugees were displaced from their homes when Israel was formed. The media had an opportunity to debate this after the 2007 Arab Summit. Their peace initiative was re-launched, promising Israel full peace in return for withdrawing from occupied lands and finding a just settlement for refugees. This was hot mentioned in tabloid newspapers, and although a dozen broadsheet editorials at the time referred to the Arab offer, none focused on the refugee issue.

The British broadcasting media are required to provide balanced coverage, but the press has no such restrictions and can provide a partisan view, hence there are likely to be articles that reflect opposing versions of 'truth'. However, newspapers still have a duty to provide accurate information, but that does not stop them from omitting items that do not suit their editorial line. It is notable that there has been little comment on the siege of Gaza, which conforms to the legal definition of collective punishment of 1.5m civilians. When the siege intensified at the beginning of February 2008, the only commentary in The Times was entitled "A barrage against Israel", and the siege was blamed on the Palestinians. It went on; "... the frenzied, rhetorical onslaught of the Jewish state is at best intellectually lazy ..." However, there was little sign of this onslaught; out of 10 daily newspapers, only the Telegraph, Independent, Financial Times and Guardian each published one leader, and in addition there were only nine commentaries, rive of them in the Independent. Only the Independent reacted directly to Israel's intensification of the siege, whilst the others reacted to the breach in the Gaza-Egypt border.