With the conflict in Gaza continuing to present challenges for news organisations across the globe, The TV Show would like to know what you think about the way in which broadcasters, including Channel 4, have covered events. We’ll be debating the issue during our first show of 2009, broadcast this Saturday, 31 January, at 4pm.
Do you think UK news coverage been impartial? Do you think it is necessary and right for broadcasters to be impartial when reporting from a warzone? Should viewers have been shown more graphic coverage, highlighting the realities and violence of war?
And on the contentious issue of the DEC charity appeal – do you think Channel 4 were right to broadcast the appeal? Or do you agree with the BBC and Sky News, who feel that promoting the appeal would jeopardise their impartiality?
The TV Show audience will be discussing these points with representatives from Channel 4 News and will have the chance to ask questions about the challenges of reporting the conflict. Please see our Take Part section to find out how you can join the studio discussion, or leave your comments below to take part in the online debate.
Commentsoldest first
I was appalled that this courageous and thought provoking programme, superbly presented by Jon Snow, should have a total moron putting together the credits and calling it Unseen GAZZA. Shocking and utterly disrespectful to those dying in this conflict. My thirteen year old knows better.
I would say Ch4 News offered a neutral bias towards the conflict and it was certainly correct to show the DEC appeal.
I was appalled and disgusted at the obvious bias of the BBC towards Israel although rather oddly this was not reflected by BBC journalists themselves.
Apart from ethical and moral issues…
I complained to the BBC about their refusal to show their appeal and their reply suggests that they think the DEC are untrustworthy and inefficient.
Quote: “We also could not be confident that the aid resulting from audience donations could reach those it was intended for at a time of a fragile ceasefire and sporadic border access”
And this from an organisation recently proven to be deceitful and inefficient!
(Apologies if you already read that!)
Channel 4 continues to report in an impartial, factual and educational way. The Channel 4 News coverage in particular has conducted interviews which have been concise, have challenged inconsistencies and questioned the views of leading political and social authoriities. Graphic images have thier place and should be used responsibly, but educating the mainstream as to the reasons of why this war has been waged and who benefiits from this is far more criitical.
There is an important aspect of the BBC refusal to broadcast the DEC appeal that has not been sufficiently noted. Israel has trashed the economic infrastructure of Gaza in order to make its people even more dependent on aid than before. It wishes to control this aid so as to use it as a means for imposing the discredited and compliant Palestinian Authority on Gaza, and to secure collaboration. Thus aid will be used as a means for buying compliance. So Israel (and its US ally) wish to prevent aid getting to Gaza via independent channels such as DEC. The BBC is — as usual — serving the aims of Israeli/US strategy.
The BBC has already amply demonstrated its’ partiality by including the tagline ” against Hamas” (or variations thereof) with every mention of Israel’s action in the Gaza Strip. This, though unattributed, is the version Israel and its’ propagandists seek to disseminate and is therefore unreliable by any objective criteria.
Conflict aside, I’d like to make an on-topic note people here are ignoring due to emotions:
Many years ago when a country went to war on another, a large group of able men went out, met their opponents on a hill or a valley somewhere and basically both sides commenced killing eath other in any way they could think of until one side shouted uncle or ceased to exist. Sometimes men called ’spies’ were sent before hand to gauge the size of the enemy. That was war, and it was accepted for what it was. The risks and outcome of wars were known to all – one side will return a winner and one side might just not return.
Today in ‘modern’ times when two countries go to war they set a convinent date and at a predetermined time commence button pushing, missle firing, plane bombing each other, or as in some cases – one side does the button pushing and one side eats the bombs. Med do not meet in face to face carnage until much later, when its ’safe’ for one side to do so. That’s ok – its “technology”. However, during all this time a host of journalists, photographers, tv crews, hollywood film crews (who bought the script), amatuer web bloggers and god knows who else, are all on the battlefield trying to get their scoop at any cost. The result of this is that now soldiers have to think 3 times before they fire a bullet in case a camera is on them. Sometimes it can cost them their life, as the ‘other side’ won’t hesitate. As well, as we saw in the 2nd Lebanon war a year ago, journalists (including Israeli ones) actually reported troop positions, tank counts, force size and scale resulting in one side gaining free inteligence normally reserved for the ’spies’ of old. All Hizbolla had to do is watch the telly and they got immediate, accurate intelligence including commentary. This obviously caused an upset with Israeli army who would have preferred some level of secrecy. No surprise then that this time, in order to save their own soldier’s lives they elected to not allow any journalists into Gaza. This I think, is not a question of fairness. This is war, and the direct consequence of past journalist behaviour. What did you expect? An army to sacrifice lives so that some journalists can get a story?
Face it – the media will take sides as much as it would like to appear nuetral. Its human nature. I’ve never for a second thought the BBC or any other British media body was pro Israel. It always appears to me that they favour the Palestinian side, which is fair enough. Being for the ‘weak’ seems always like the more politically correct thing to do. I was for actually bucking for the poor hundreds of thousands Iraqis that died during British and American bombardments in the name of WMDs and the all mighty Bush.
As to the question of Gaza, my heart went out to the people of Gaza. It really did. However, the BBC correctly stated that this is not against the people of Gaza. It was against Hamas who has so far killed and mamed many more of its own people than this conflict has done. And yes, broadcasting such an appeal for MONETARY donations is wrong. The money will only buy more weapons, not food. Hamas is a fanatic religious organisation who puts martyrdom as a higher value to aspire to, much above their own people’s well being. You want to help – broadcast an appeal to donate food, clothes, computers, medicine. A good donation of common sense might also benefit both sides of this conflict.
Peace, Salam, Shalom to all.
Firstly, its not the 19th century. There are human rights and UN code of law devised to protect the innocent. I think your partial view of the war seems to be influenced by media of your kind. UN have clearly reiterated, during and post-war, that the attacks were dispropotionate and importantly indiscriminate. Innocent lives were taken, children orphaned, women widowed, families ruined, and your answer to this is “food, clothes, computers, medicine.” A naive outlook of the situation.
I think you should switch news channels and see the reality of the economic, social, medical, and psychological disaster caused. These people probably do not even want your money if you give them the option of freedom. Oppressed in their own land. I hope the rest of the world stop being by-standers and provide the help these people deserve.
As British we have had an history of supporting victims of war whether they are the jews during world war 2, Iraqis during the Gulf, or currently Palestine. I feel it is our moral obligation to continue with this and disregard any political influence.
This is the ultimate means of spreading peace, salam, shalom to all.
You have to understand that this is not an ordinary conflict. This has been going on for a very long time, and every time there’s a progress towards peace, extremists from both sides do all they can to subvert it and usually succeed. In the past 8 years since Israel left Gaza there has been over 6000 (!) rockets fired towards Israel without a significant retaliation. Israel warned it will have to act and act severely. The world media did not report any of those rockets as keenly as it did the current Israeli response. British people did not stand up for those hurt by the rockets as victims of war. Hamas has been using civilian houses as rocket launch sites. When the occupants attempted a slight protest they were beaten or shot. Why didn’t any British person stand up for those Palestinians who were hurt by Hamas? And what exactly do you propose should have been a proportionate response for 6000 rockets over 8 years?
I strongly support a palestinian state. I don’t think this can be reached with hamas in power. I also do my best to avoid passing judgement on either side of this conflict as this is one of the most complex conflict of this century without a clean-cut solution to it.
And by the way James,
Its very naive to think that money given to Hamas will not be used to purchase weapons instead of medicine. If monetary donations are to be given, at the very least a 3rd party should manage the money.
After the events by Israel in Gaza, I am now convinced that the abused become abusers! Please do not let the bully stop you reporting the injustice.
i think the whole situation has been taking out of hand. The news channels are always one handed and it is normally towards gaza.
I have just come in and caught the very end of the debate on the BBC’s decision not to screen the Gaza appeal on the grounds that it may infringe on their policy of impartiality?? Does the BBC actually know the definition of impartiality ? they must be one of the most biased corporations in the world !! Dave Cutforth in Tamworth.
considerig that i have too pay the licence fee, even though i dont wish to watch bbc, i think its a disgrace that they didnt show the appeal.
The TV show was excellent. It was neutral and did not cave in to undue pressure from any one side. I believe that the coverage of Gaza by Channel 4 was accurate, impartial and netural unlike BBC and Sky/Fox. It needed proves what some of us had always known about the BBC that they were pro-israeli and have a zionist view point. As for Sky, I dont believe it is worth even commenting on them as i often find them to be using FOX for their internation coverage. For the mature and informed viewer the fact that BBC and Sky/Fox are in one camp is quite a disgusting evidence of their “impartiality”. I have cancelled my license fee.
BBC’s refusal to broadcast the appeal reflects the ignorance of the channel to understand the scale of the disaster. Journalism should accentuate the reality of a situation and allow the public to be the judge. By not broadcasting the appeal shows how considerate BBC are of their viewers opinion.
I think Mark Thompson has expressed his partiality by indicating the appeal was not worthwhile showing. A very poor decision (according to an avid viewer- me). Conversely, Channel 4 has done a great job in retaining its integrity and impartiality. Great job Mr. Snow.
The BBC was 100% wrong to not broadcast the DEC appeal! By claiming that it would raise issues over its impartiality is a whitewash and no-one has failed to comment on how this seems to make the BBC treat ALL its viewers as IDIOTS!
I hope all those who complained about the BBC’s refusal to show the appeal have themselves contributed to the appeal – otherwise it would be nothing short of hypocritical.
Dear Channel Four,
I want to thank you for your programme -TV show (31st Jan, 4 pm), in which you and the audience discussed impartiality in news reporting on Gaza, along with the refusal by BBC’s to broadcast the DEC’s appeal for Gaza on the grounds of endangering the BBC’s (spurious) impartiality.
I entirely agree with the comments of the lady from the audience who maintained that “truth should come before impartiality” . I should add to that, that humanity and compassion ought to take precedence over any hollow notion of impartiality as defined by the BBC. Channel 4’s programme, though short, highlighted the danger of maintaining a convoluted concept of impartiality – ending with a sanitized reporting which is devoid of any human feelings, emotions and compassion.
I greatly appreciate Channel 4’s continued reporting of the untold horrors unleashed on Gaza by the IDF , and the incisive interview conducted by Jon Snow with the “sleek “Israeli war spokesman /messenger – Mark Regev . I wish the BBC and other TV channels had the courage to penetrate the bland smokescreen of Israel’s publicity machine which goes hand- in- hand with Israel’s barbaric war machine – trampling upon any notion of humanity .
As an Israeli peace activist , I thank you personally for agreeing to screen the DEC appeal for Gaza which showed the full horrors of Israel’s brutal war on the defenceless population of Gaza. I hope that in the future , as in the past, you will continue to report on the Israeli -Palestinian conflict by maintaining your genuine impartiality which is devoid of the unchallenged pro-Israel bias adopted by the rest of the main-stream media . Please remain in the vanguard of honest reporting and conscientious journalism – being faithful to yourselves and the public.
Yours sincerely
Ruth Tenne
it was great to see this thrashed out on channel 4 whose news coverage beats the beeb into a cocked hat. the BBC is so keen to be “impartial” that it treats the situation between Israel and the Palestinians as if they were equals when that is clearly not the case. If Gazans try to smuggle some rocket parts and submachine guns through a tunnel then that’s terrible but if Israel receives $2.5 billion in MILITARY aid from the US every year that’s just fine and we don’t bother to mention it.
i agree with the blogger who differentiated between the BBC and its reporters. I perceive the corporation as pro-Israeli because we never get the proper context.i cant remember the last time they mentioned when talking about Hamas that they were elected and that Israel arrested around 40 elected representatives them three years ago and has yet to charge or release them. Individual journalists often do a very good job but they don’t get a chance to go into the background the way channel 4 news so often does.
I think Brits in general are biased in favor of the Palestinians, not because they’re anti–Jewish necessarily, but rather because they fear Islamic retaliation if they don’t favor the Palestinians. I think the news coverage reflects this fear.
Leave a comment
* Required field.