This week, the BBC issued its final ruling on a controversy which has been raging for nearly a year after the words âFree Palestineâ were censored from a freestyle rap played on Radio 1Xtra. Appearing on the popular Charlie Sloth Hip Hop M1X last February, the artist Mic Righteous performed a rap which included the lyrics: âI can scream Free Palestine for my pride/still pray for peace.â BBC producers replaced the word âPalestineâ with the sound of breaking glass and this is the version that was aired and which can be seen on a video on the BBC website (the censorship occurs at 2:59). The edited performance was repeated in April on the same show. BBC upholds censorship decision Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has spent the last eight months trying to find out why the decision to censor an artist who raised the issue of Palestine was made. During the course of a long correspondence, the BBCâs head of editorial standards for audio and music, Paul Smith, wrote that the showâs producer âdid not edit out the word âPalestineâ because it was offensive â referencing Palestine is fine, but implying that it is not free is the contentious issue.â In that single sentence, a senior BBC executive revealed the BBCâs complete disdain for the Palestinians and their suffering, and its shameful disregard for international law when it is being broken by Israel. The United Nations is clear in its recognition of Israelâs illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and UN Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and Gaza. The chant âFree Palestineâ is basically shorthand for the same demand. It is obvious why Israel, the occupier, would want to silence calls for a free Palestine, but not so clear why the BBC feels the same. PSCâs attempts to find out, backed up by a concerted campaign of pressure from members, resulted on 31 January 2012 with the BBCâs ruling that it had been âovercautiousâ in making the edit but that the final content broadcast on the Charlie Sloth show had not been biased and therefore did not breach its editorial guidelines. And so this taxpayer-funded public broadcaster evaded our accusation that it had displayed bias against Palestine through its censorship of an artistâs work, and instead defended itself by saying that the final content, from which the word âPalestineâ had been removed, was not biased against Palestine. It is a level of manipulation and duplicity that would not be out of place in Joseph Hellerâs novel of self-contradictory, circular logic, Catch 22. Artists speak out against censoring Palestine The musician and political activist Lowkey, who has made regular appearances on the Charlie Sloth Hip Hop M1X, said of the BBCâs decision: âThis censorship sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the BBC, where it seems people are free to criticize any state in the world, even their own, but not Israel. Moreover, it seems you are free to recognize the plight of any group of people in the world, apart from Palestinian people. One can only wonder why.â Lowkey was one of 19 artists, MPs, academics and lawyers who signed a letter to The Guardian newspaper on 23 May 2011 protesting the edit as âan attack on the principles of free speechâ (âPalestine on the BBCâ). The film and television director Ken Loach was another signatory, and he also condemned the BBCâs final ruling this week, accusing the corporation of making âa perverse, political judgement.â He added: âThe BBCâs bias towards Israel is consistent, relentless and has been clearly documented by the Glasgow Media Group in Bad News from Israel and More Bad News from Israel. One small example: when Palestine was admitted to UNESCO, Radio 5 Liveâs news bulletin in the afternoon had one interviewee to comment. Guess what? It was an Israeli. No Palestinian was allowed to speak. In general, the Palestinian voice is not heard.â Palestinian voices missing from flagship BBC program The absence of the Palestinian voice from the BBCâs considerable output is glaring. Even more so when compared to the frequency with which Israeli government ministers, opposition leaders and spokespersons are invited to air their views. The Today program on BBC Radio 4 is promoted by the BBC as being its flagship news and current affairs program. Broadcast daily except Sundays, it is widely acknowledged as setting the political agenda for the day. In the 12 months from February 2011 to February 2012, Today conducted at least six in-depth one-on-one interviews with Israeli spokespersons, including Danny Ayalon, Israelâs deputy foreign minister, and Tzipi Livni, the leader of Kadima, now Israelâs opposition party which previously led the government and ordered Operation Cast Lead, Israelâs 2008-09 massacre in Gaza. There was also an interview with the outgoing Israeli ambassador to London in June 2011 and with his successor three months later. The outstanding characteristic of each interview is that the BBCâs heavyweight journalists, including John Humphreys and James Naughtie, both famous for their aggressive interviewing style, conducted them without challenge or interruption. Moreover, the interviews focused on the issues of âIsraelâs security in the light of the Arab Springâ and âthe threat of Iran.â Israelâs aggression towards the Palestinians and its daily violations of international law were not considered topics for discussion. In that same period, not a single Palestinian leader or spokesperson was accorded a similar one-on-one interview on the Today program. While Israelis were interviewed, on average, once every two months, the Palestinian viewpoint was simply not sought. This culture of promoting the Israeli perspective while denying the same rights to the Palestinians was vividly highlighted during the three day visit of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to London last month. Abbas met Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the principal leader of the Church of England, to discuss the Jordanian-backed peace talks. During a press conference with Abbas, Clegg condemned Israelâs West Bank settlements and described them as âan act of deliberate vandalismâ to peace negotiations. Yet on the Today programme, and across the BBC, it was as if Abbasâ visit had never happened. The BBCâs self-proclaimed flagship news and current affairs program made no mention of it over the three days he was in London, it found nothing newsworthy to report on from the press conference with Clegg, and there was certainly no long, uninterrupted interview with any Palestinian figures, despite this being the ideal opportunity to seek their views. Even more incredibly, on the first day Abbas was in London, the Today program not only ignored him, but chose instead to interview Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who happened to be in Manchester, for a full six minutes during which he wasnât challenged on any of Israelâs well-documented violations. This is all shocking enough, but it doesnât end there. In the same letter in which he disputed the occupation, the BBCâs Paul Smith went on to say: âPalestine does not exist at the moment ⦠âPalestineâ refers to a historical state or an aspiration.â According to BBC journalists who have spoken to PSC, this is the BBCâs unofficial policy on âPalestineâ and hence the desperate attempts to keep the word out of its broadcasts. An exception, they say, will be made during the Olympics when reporting on the efforts of the Palestinian competitors. But this does not go far enough. In November, PSC wrote to the BBC to ask why Canon Giles Fraser, the recently departed Canon Chancellor of St. Paulâs Cathedral, London, had been allowed to say he was visiting Israel during a report for the Sunday program when, in fact, the towns he visited were Bethlehem and East Jerusalem â both in the occupied West Bank. We received this reply: âHe didnât refer to going to Palestine because at the moment there is no independent state of Palestine. The aim of the peace process is to establish a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel but until this happens many people prefer not to use the word.â So there you have it â as far as the BBC is concerned, Palestine is a dirty word. Itâs controversial and using it may offend people who deny its existence. Who benefits from the erasing of Palestine from our news reports? The same people who benefit from the BBCâs complete failure to place news events from the occupied territories in the context of occupation, blockade, house demolitions, land theft, arbitrary arrest and trial of civilians, including children, in military courts, the destruction of farmland and olive groves by settlers, air and land attacks and much more. The same people who benefit when the BBC consistently invites Israeli spokespeople onto its programs to voice their fears for Israeli security, without mentioning the daily terror of the Palestinians under occupation. The result is coverage which is incomplete and misinformed at best and complicit in an illegal occupation at worst. Frighteningly, it is produced and broadcast by a media organization which commands the lionâs share of the audience in the UK and has a worldwide reach. And, in the time of the Arab uprisings, when the BBC is covering the struggles of millions of people for freedom, its greatest shame is that it remains committed to editorial practices that make Palestine invisible.
Meanwhile back in the real world the territories of Gaza/West Bank were free from the EVIL JEWISH ZIONIST RULE until 1967 (while the rest of modern day Israel was until 1948) and not once was there an attempt to set up a country called Palestine by any of the neighbouring Arab countries But we can't have facts get in the way of a feeble attempt to show that the pro-Arab BBC is biased towards Israel
Kinda weird coming from a Spurs fan, and their ties to the Jewish roots. Maybe you are not all yids after all.
I didn't bother reading all that because it will no doubt actually agree with my current one sided opinion on the situation - and there's no point reinforcing already deeply held beliefs and all that.
There is nothing wrong with israel, it's iran you should all be bitching about. **** palestine, they're run by a terrorist group (Hamas) and therefore should be treated like terrorists. Well done BBC, good job as always.
How the **** am i stupid for disliking terrorists? Just because you're a stupid mug with no respect for the country that provides for you, doesn't mean you have to get touchy when i'm speaking the truth. You probably see Hamas as a group of jolly freedom fighters, i see them associated with the idiots who crash planes into tall buildings, just for some "holy cause"
Well the first six words which led to my conclusion "There is nothing wrong with Israel" seems like a rather simple way to describe the entire Israeli/Palestinian situation. The United Nations and it's hundreds of rulings against Israel for defying international law on so many occasions is "nothing wrong" - there are indeed many things wrong with the Palestinian input in that conflict, but this is not the subject in hand - the subject in hand is that there is indeed nothing at all wrong with Israel. So why make such a statement, because you have put absolutely no thought into it and prefer to say the first thing which comes to your brain.
No, i'm just pissed off that israel is used as a scapegoat for everything wrong with the world. They're our allies, the brits on this forum should at least attempt to back them, not leave me to plow a lonely furrow.