Myth of BBC and Ofcom’s due accuracy and “anything goes” for children in Gaza!
BBC, Ofcom and Director of Editorial Complaints and Review (BBC) Peter Johnston stated the documentary on Gaza: How to survive a warzone has to be sanctioned for it committed a “serious breach” of broadcasting rules under Section 3: Accuracy. They expressed the step taken indicated their professionalism, commitment to their audience and integrity in production of their products. But they all forgot they were committing another serious breach when they sanctioned the documentary stating not “labelling” the 13 years old child as being son of Deputy Minister of Agriculture within Hamas administrative wing was a serious violation of Broadcasting rules and guidelines. They were abusing the rights of a child and defaming him by questioning his integrity and ethics, they did this by sanctioning a documentary on children living through a genocide (not war BBC). It was not Professionalism it was act of total Inhumanity to children in Gaza.
Under
Broadcasting rules and guidelines there are provisions with regard to
involvement of people under 18 in programmes. While this is may be focusing far
more on children as audience, isn’t it relevant to children who are part of
creation of the programme. According to section 1.28 Due care must be taken
over the welfare and the dignity of people under 18 years who take part or
otherwise in programmes. This is irrespective of the consent given by an adult
for the child’s involvement. The rule further elaborates under 1.29, people
under eighteen must not be caused unjustified distress or anxiety by their
involvement in programmes or by the broadcasting of these programmes.
Violation
of Child Rights
Both
Ofcom and BBC have violated the rights of the child when they set in the
process to create a context where the credibility of the child was brought into
question. How much they respected the
rights of children in Gaza is self evident as the sanction occurred as the
child and his friends are living through a genocide.
BBC and
Ofcom since you have a penchant for accuracy, lets set the narrative state,
there was no war in Gaza it was and is a genocide, this has been indicated to
be so by ICC, ICJ and other experts on Genocide and from UN. Israel has been
accused of carrying out genocide, domicide and massacre. It is not war that
Israel is carrying out, there is only one military power, billions-dollar
industry, Israel that is attacking a resistance group, with over 35,000 members
and capacity for guerrilla warfare, to be fought on foot. Other than that, all
it has is the power to drop rockets that largely becomes fodder to Israel’s
defence systems. But then war cannot be fought only from air, troops have to be
on the ground to make a difference, a difference that ensured extended
onslaught on Gaza.
Israel
has been doing so for decades way before 2023, as it criminally occupying the
land of Palestinians. It not a situation where Palestinians would be dancing in
love for Israelis, unless Palestinians were mentally demented.
BBC and
Ofcom you arrived at your conclusion based on logical fallacies and false
assumptions.
1) The
global hegemony of West that made it employ the logical fallacy of equivocation
to its hilt, for many countries have classified Hamas as a terror organisation,
and then it has gone ahead and banned Hamas the elected government of
Palestine. There is no legal provision to ban a government as a terror
organization, and an elected representation that governs Palestine, cannot be
an organization. There is no provision to ban all association with Hamas as
terror acts and for terming associating actor as terrorist, if this held true
then members of many agencies in Israel and other countries would be
terrorists.
2.
There is another false assumption that is being masqueraded as fact, here by
sanctioning the documentary, purely based parents’ profile, by doing so all
three reviewers are indicating criminal liability or discrimination is
transferable through genetic lineage. It is applicable to all including
children. Strangely such diligence was not shown neither in case of Hitler and
his followers, or in case of Israeli government representatives and IDF soldier
who stand accused of genocide and war crimes. Why?
It is
important to remember the only group Hamas has attacked are Israelis who are
criminally occupying Palestinian land, and at the same time Israel without
provocation purely based on logical fallacies have bombed and assassinated many
countries in the region.
3. BBC,
Ofcom and Director for editorial complaints and reviews emphasises the role of
due accuracy and that being the justification for sanctioning the documentary.
But they have been selective in their focus with regard to due diligence when
sanctioning the documentary.
According
to the Broadcasting rules and guidelines, under section 3. Accuracy, “The term
‘due’ means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriated to the output,
taking into account the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience
expectation and any additional information provided by BBC that may influence
the expectation”.
While
sanctioning the documentary, all reviewers in the individual and agency
capacity preferred to focus on “… any additional information provided by BBC
that may influence the expectation” the focus being on audience. There are
other issues that were ignored by the reviewers, “…due means that accuracy must
be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking into account the subject and
nature of the content”.
The
subject is perspective of children in Gaza as they live through a genocide. The
title of the documentary being Gaza: How to survive a warzone (genocide would
be more apt). When the subject is that of children being live participants or
victims for acts of war crimes, acts of anti-humanity and genocide, it is clear
the documentary is ethnographic in nature presenting the subjective reality
experienced by children. Children in Gaza are diverse as in any other place,
they are going through an inhumane reality and the world is silently watching a
live genocide all are criminally accountable.
Since
the presentation is subjective what was the need for character assassination of
a small child which was done through insinuation and sanction, thereby stating his
presentation was doubtful with regard to integrity and could be coloured
through genetic lineage of being son of Deputy Minister of Agriculture as part
of administrative wing of Hamas.
4. The
three reviewing bodies and individuals did another logical fallacy in their
review, they have indicated the 13 years of child is giving his input as a
narrator and that is an important role in the documentary. But a clearly
visible reality to any audience is that a child is giving his perspective and
what he inferred. The reviewers without any substantiation for justifying the
sanction states in their assessment “The narrator occupied a unique and
prominent position in the programme acting as a trusted guide to the
viewers”. To nail their accusation on a small child they further elaborate “
the narrator’s critical role as the editorial voice of the programme and
trusted guide to the viewers, we considered the omission important information
about his familial connection to Hamas administration to be very problematic”.
All
three sanctioning authorities shifted the child’s position from a 13-year-old
affected by a live genocide to that of trusted guide of viewers and as the
editorial voice of the programmes. The questions to be asked then are: Was the
child given the professional fee as a trusted guide for the programme or as the
editor of the programme? Was the child given acknowledgement in the documentary
as the guide and editor? Was an assessment made about his professional
expertise to carry out these tasks?
If not
then all three reviewing entities or individuals did violate the rights of the
child, abused his rights by doing character assassination, creating doubts
about his ethics, integrity, and trustworthiness.
5. If
Ofcom, BBC and internal reviewer are so concerned about “due accuracy” then why
do they ignore 3.2.2 of Accuracy principles “…material facts and other content
that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed. And as per 3.2.3
“The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. Content
producers should not distort know facts, present invented material as fact or
otherwise undermine audiences “trust” in the BBC content”.
If BBC,
Ofcom and internal reviewers stand by these provision that why is never a
mention made on side when news from Israel is presented that “Israel stands
accused of plausible genocide by ICC and ICJ”. Or when the Prime Minister of
Israel or any other leader who has been sanctioned is given coverage on BBC why
is that fact not disclosed to the audience along with information that UN State
Members are expected to arrest these individuals if they set foot on their
country.
No,
of you will not dare even think of relevance of law, Broadcasting rules and
guidelines when Israel or its leaders stand accused; but when it comes to
children from Gaza “anything goes”.
It is
time someone from the region held these entities accountable, rights and
protection against defamation is not Jewish or White Privilege, it is the right
of Humanity.
Children
of Gaza I salute you, for your capacity to smile even after facing the trauma
of Genocide!
Molly
Charles
Reference
1. Ian
Youngs. BBC Gaza documentary a ‘serious’ breach of rules, Ofcom says.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c629j5m2n01o
2. The
OFCOM Broadcasting code (2019). Ofcom.org.uk
Comments
Post a Comment