British Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Lisa Nandy met this week with Israel’s ambassador to Britain, Tzipi Hotovely, to convey – apparently upon the suggestion of her aides – the message that the BBC is “institutionally anti-Semitic” and that the government otherwise subscribes to the preferred view that “one mistake is an editing error but if you have multiple mistakes, you need to look at the leadership.” Presumably, their discussion involved the BBC’s coverage of the Glastonbury music festival, where incidents such as punk duo Bob Vylan leading “offensive” chants could slip through the censors.
Whether “institutionally anti-Semitic” or not, the BBC has been making decisions detrimental to its reputation and credibility as of late. During Israel’s genocide in Gaza, for instance, it has published countless stories under misleading headlines, or refused to report crucial facts and events, betraying a sense of partiality, to say the least. And for a plainer reading, we can refer to the verdict of insiders: According to a letter signed by over 100 BBC journalists, staff have been “forced to do pro-Israel PR.”
Despite its critical function as a “public relations” organ, the BBC still appears to adhere to certain standards, however. Evidence of this is found in its recent publication of a study documenting that Britain did, in fact, commit genocide against Indigenous Australians almost 200 years ago. Of course, acknowledging what academic consensus has long recognized hardly warrants applause, but it does allow the BBC to claim that it is “taking responsibility” for Britain’s colonial past, particularly atrocities committed in the early 1830s. In this sense, standards are upheld.
On the other hand, it is not surprising that many critics find this revelation hypocritical, especially given its timing. The notion that a public broadcaster increasingly accused of justifying an ongoing genocide would now bravely “confront” a historical one, crucially one with no real political consequences, would always be ridiculed. It has to be said, nonetheless, that perhaps, from the BBC’s point of view, it makes sense to adopt this strange strategy. The ultimate purpose is really to normalize genocide in general, telling the world effectively that, “look, once upon a time even we committed genocides, so it is not a big deal if Israel is committing one right now – give the guys a break!”
The Israeli perspective would probably have a stronger fictional aspect to it – one that seeks to provoke passions by saying, for example, “Indeed, let us regard this genocide simply as a contemporary reimagining of our revenge against the Nazis, even if it is actually being committed against another people whose land we believe we have the right to colonize.” That the Israeli government would endorse this perspective is understandable, too – but the question is, why does the BBC favor the fictional over the factual in its journalism?
We are all familiar with the view that, since mass media is largely owned and controlled by private corporations, they may not always choose to be impartial in matters that concern them, both financially and ideologically – though this familiarity in no way prevents us from finding the entitlement abhorrent. Yet, what is even more infuriating for most people seems to be when it is a publicly funded media organization that is guilty of doing this, like the BBC today.
There is a way to explain why the censorship mechanism at the BBC, especially pertaining to matters of foreign policy, can be even stricter than those employed by most private media organizations, despite the former supposedly having to be more accountable to the public. In this specific case, for example, this counterintuitive phenomenon could be explained by Britain’s diminishing role in global affairs. It could be argued, quite plausibly indeed, that this is a major factor in the BBC’s commitment to what is often called “responsible journalism.” Responsible in the sense that it is designed never to give the impression that Britain may risk its “national interests” over a potential clash with a power of which it has become largely dependent. Of course, if this is responsibility, it answers not to truth, but to power.
