Bbc | Lisa Goldman

Protestors demonstrate against the BBC's decision in London. Credit: Frantzesco Kangaris/Agence France-Presse

Protesters demonstrate against the BBC in London. Credit: Frantzesco Kangaris/Agence France-Presse

A reader who works for the BBC wrote to ask if I planned to post about her employers’ decision against broadcasting a fund raising appeal for Gaza. The Beeb based its decision on the concern that broadcasting the appeal while the story was ongoing would give the impression of bias. John Burns of the New York Times summarizes the ensuing controversy here.

Anyway, I responded to this reader’s query by observing that I hadn’t really been following the controversy very closely, even though I knew it was a huge story in the UK. Privately, I thought it sounded shrill, polarizing and unnecessary. And even more privately I thought, “Eh, the Brits are so eccentric. After all, they eat yeast paste on white bread for breakfast. Eechs. And besides that, imagine thousands marching on the streets of London if the Beeb refused to broadcast a fundraiser for East Timor, Congo or Sri Lanka. Ha!”

So I suggested that this reader might be interested in writing a guest post for this blog. Below is her response, which I am publishing with permission. The reader’s name is witheld for obvious reasons.

Oh, two more things: Sky news also decided against broadcasting the appeal; and in the end, the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) raised GBP 3 million – even though the money might never actually end up helping the people of Gaza.

***

Hi Lisa

Truth be told, I’m reluctant to write about it because: (a) I do not proclaim to be a writer – nor a decent one at that and (b) although I understand the decision not to air the appeal and, to a degree, stand by the decision, I’m still unsure whether or not it was the right decision in the long run. The argument that the Director General puts forth is that it’s a continuing news story and by broadcasting an emotional appeal on a news channel with harrowing images, it might appear that the BBC was “taking sides”. In addition, management was not convinced that the funds raised would reach the victims and those in need. And yet, by not broadcasting it, the BBC has been denounced as pro-Israel/ anti-Palestine and taking sides.

Just as a side note: this isn’t the first time that an appeal was rejected by the BBC. In 2006, the BBC rejected an appeal for East Africa, again, because they weren’t certain that the funds would reach the victims.

I don’t mean to sound like a PR piece for the BBC and as I said, although I understand the decision I can’t say with 100 percent certainty that it is the right one.

What does piss me off, however, is that this tragic war and the BBC’s refusal (as well as Sky’s refusal) to air the appeal, seems to have been hijacked by and turned into yet another example of how evil they perceive Israel to be. Or how “powerful Jews” lobby and influence broadcasters. Every day, I am emailed viewer’s comments about our programmes and recently, I’m particularly astonished at people objecting to a presenter on a children’s show (“Blue Peter“), who is rediscovering his Jewish roots. The comments are too depressing to reiterate.

I should probably note that I’m not Jewish (or Christian- never even been baptized!) but rather, just another person who wants peace in the Middle East.

Also, perhaps it’s my Canadian upbringing (and thus hyper sense of political correctness), but I am regularly shocked at how anti-Israel (anti-Jewish? I don’t know), Europe and Europeans can be. Not anti-Olmert/current politicians – but out and out ANTI-ISRAEL. And even though I identify as someone who is left-wing, I always seem to find myself isolated when it comes to that old debate that everyone and their dog has an opinion about – i.e. Israel’s right to exist.

Sorry to have gone on about this, I guess I’m just tired of walking past the protests outside my work and having “shame” screamed at me for something out with my control. It’s been cathartic though!

The news coming out of Jerusalem is grim. As of tomorrow, entire swathes of the downtown area will be completely closed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The main highway linking the airport to the capital will be locked down for several hours. Hundreds of miserable foreign correspondents are being forced to rise at the crack of dawn, in order to stand around for hours in the pouring rain and freezing wind while watching George W. Bush as he shakes hands, smiles, waves, and gives speeches.

Oh, the horror. I am so, so grateful that I live in Tel Aviv and don’t do instant news.

I’m afraid that GWB’s visit ranks right up there with the Annapolis Conference on the huge yawn scale, as far as the Israeli (wo)man on the fabled street is concerned. Apathy? Indifference? Nah. That would imply awareness and a conscious decision to turn away. I don’t know anyone who’s even mentioned the presidential visit. If I weren’t obliged to read four newspapers per day and watch two hours of TV news, the big event would barely graze my consciousness. I wish I could explain how and why we are able to love and enjoy life, despite a pervasive feeling of utter hopelessness and helplessness regarding the political situation.

But what’s all this got to do with CNN?

Well. The Israeli cable television service HOT stopped broadcasting CNN a couple of months ago, due to what HOT described (if I remember correctly) as a breakdown in contract renewal negotiations. Freely translated, that basically means that HOT told CNN they wanted a discount in licensing fees, CNN said “No way! Why should we give you a discount? We’re one of the most important 24-hour news services in the world! So take it or leave it,” and HOT said “Fine, we’ll leave it. We’re not going to let CNN make friers out of us. We’ll just broadcast FOX instead.”

As usual, consumer protests had absolutely no effect. Why’s that, you ask? Well, two reasons: 1) the number of Israelis who regularly watch foreign news broadcasts is quite low, so the relatively few HOT subscribers who might cancel their subscription due to the absence of CNN do not present a financial threat; and 2) getting a divorce from one’s cable provider is an unbelievable hassle in this country – especially if your cable provider is also your Internet service provider. Who wants to spend ages on the phone with customer service, followed by hours of waiting around for technicians? And besides, HOT cable has the exclusive rights to my favourite Israeli TV shows. Bah.

According to an item published in yesterday’s Maariv newspaper, the manager of the King David Hotel, which subscribes to HOT, realized that he could not properly accommodate the president of the United States of America if there were no access to CNN on the television in his suite. So the King David reached a special agreement with HOT, whereby the latter would provide access to CNN exclusively to the hotel’s presidential suite, for the duration of GWB’s stay. None of the other guests will benefit from this little agreement; and HOT will, of course, terminate CNN broadcasts as soon as the prez goes home.

I don’t think I can adequately describe how much this little story irritates me. Meanwhile, since everything about FOX – from its Ken and Barbie anchors to its outrageously provincial, reactionary news coverage, to its cartoon-like color scheme – just grates on my nerves, I shall have to continue watching the BBC World Service for my international news coverage. With any luck, someone at HOT or CNN will blink soon.

I miss ~~John~~ Jon Stewart, dammit.