BBC Refuses to Broadcast Call for Help

The British state broadcaster, BBC, has stirred controversy on the Island after refusing to broadcast a call for help for war-torn Gaza. The only terrestrial British television station that will not do so, has justified its rather unusual move by the need to maintain its previous impartiality in the mentioned conflict.

In this move, it will ignore calls from a number of charitable organizations, ministers, and the public. So far, more than 50 members of the British Parliament have signed a proposal calling on the BBC to reconsider its position, after their ‘Vanja Sutlić’, Mark Thompson, rejected a request from Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for International Development, to broadcast the controversial call for help. In addition, the mischievous house has received 11,000 complaints from the public since announcing its stance, while thousands protested in person outside the BBC headquarters in London over the weekend. About 100 protesters even occupied the headquarters in Glasgow, and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have already expressed their discontent with the decision. The umbrella organization for crisis aid, DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee), which brings together 13 of the largest humanitarian organizations in Britain, claims that it explained to the BBC, among other things, that the collected aid would also be distributed to Israelis, victims of Hamas rockets, thereby keeping ‘impartiality’ intact.

The British The Times, on the other hand, proudly reports that they reviewed DEC’s correspondence and concluded that very little aid would go to Israelis according to the estimates mentioned in that correspondence. Strange considering that the official records show that Israeli victims are few, while Palestinian victims number over a thousand. However, this is not the first time the BBC has refused to broadcast a call for help. In 2006, during Israel’s war with Hezbollah, in the invasion of another sovereign country, Lebanon, the BBC rigorously defended its impartiality, The Times learns. Of course, they defend their position at the BBC with the thesis of media independence, and Thompson eloquently explains why his house does not intend to show the controversial call. ‘The call would inevitably use those images that we have used, or are using, in our reporting programs, but in their case, they would gain the context of encouraging the public to donate.’

Nevertheless, all masks fall at the end of the article where the public learns how far the BBC goes in its careful consideration of which calls for help to broadcast and which not, and how much discretionary power it takes in its impartiality. For example, they did not broadcast a call for help for the hungry in Africa because they assessed that the relevant aid could not be delivered. Whose expertise they relied on for that assessment is unknown. Last year, however, they refused to broadcast a call for help for earthquake victims in Burma, only to later agree because they assessed that access to the country had improved. Since when has any call for help to anyone in need been an expression of bias, it is hard to understand, but it is possible to conclude that the cloak of excessive impartiality hides precisely – bias.  (Vanja Figenwald)