Gilad Atzmon attacks BBC for using "neocon" language in describing flotilla activists and re-circulating Israeli propaganda videos. In his opinion:
"The BBC also failed to present its viewers with clips that have been available on the world wide web for months now. Namely footage of the moment an Israeli 'commando' executed Furkan Dogan, aged 19, on the upper deck. No mention either that Furkhan was not a terrorist but merely in his senior year at Kayseri High School, where he was awaiting the results of his university entrance exams. He hoped to become a doctor. Instead, we heard Israeli commandos repeating the usual stories about IDF soldiers shooting passengers only in the limbs. And that dear friends only after extreme 'provocation'. As we all know 9 peace activists died on the Mavi Marmara, peppered with IDF bullets- to the head and chest area."
"There is one very positive aspect to the BBC documentary. It gave us a glimpse into the Israeli desperation. Never in the past would Israel's leaders consider letting anyone near its Fleet 13 commando unit. Now, their bored, probably terrified recruits put on glamorous Hollywood style mock 'boardings' for even a lowly (once upon a time despised) BBC crew. Proof - the Israelis are losing ground. "
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-bbc-panorama-an-exemplary-work-of-clumsy-journa.html
Ken O'Keefe, who was on board Mavi MArmara, and was interviewed by BBC has this to say of the documentary:
"And the (Panorama) story goes that we are the aggressors, “terrorists”, “extremists” and killers. Only in this context can the poor Israeli commandos be victims. How is it possible to dominate and control commandos simply to let them go if we are killers? Answer, it isn’t. And that is precisely why Panorama blatantly lied."
"BBC’s perversion of the truth will elevate the cause of justice immensely, delegitimizing itself in such grand fashion was indeed a great big gift."
http://kenokeefe.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/bbcpanorama-delegitimises-itself-that-much-more/
This is a critique from Palestinian Return Center:
"The BBC thinks it's an impartial organisations, in fact it has shown that it's a mouth piece for the IDFs crimes.
The BBC should recognise that an impartial position at this early stage would have been to simply state the facts as accepted by the international community and not provide justifications for the killings of 19 innocent civilians.
BBC spokesperson, told PRC that, 'We are unable to respond as we have not been given the courtesy of detailed evidence of any accusation.'"
http://www.prc.org.uk/newsite/en/centre-activities/94-lobbying-a-delegations/497--action-alert-direct-bias-showed-on-bbc-on-flotilla-crime-
*********************************************************************************
Here is a complaint letter by a peace activist written to BBC for its shabby journalism with "Death on the Med":
Dear all,
To be honest, I had a very hard time picking a "complaint category" as your program last night ticked all -the wrong- boxes. This was one of the most biased piece of "journalism" I have seen in a really long time. The fact that it posed as investigative journalism was simply offensive and an insult to your viewers intelligence. The great I.F Stone must have rolled in his grave last night.
Jane Corbyn tooks all the Israeli navy facts for granted and hardly challenged them. One the other hand, she challenged every single fact put by the flotilla organisers. TheFlotilla was portrayed as an Islamist one, omiting to mention that the main organisers, the Free Gaza Movement, were mainly Westerners coming from all walks of life. The program only addressed the Mavi Marmara issue when all 6 boats had been very violently seized by the Israeli Navy. There was hardly no mention of the fact that this happened in International Waters, that all possessions of the passengers (of the 6 boats) had been stolen, that the passengers arriving in Israel had been paraded (an illegal act) taken to jail,interrogated for hours, humiliated constantly....
The above showing an obvious bias towards the Israeli Navy.
But something is worse than being biased when you portray yourself as an investigative journalist.Blatant factuals errors.
1) The audio footage:
Jane Corbin said that the audio footage authenticity is disputed. WRONG. The Israeli Navy itself admittedthat that had edited footage and played around with it. (Some of itdated from 2008). This has been widely reported and could not havebeen missed by your team of investigative journalists, right. Here is one article about this:http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/idf-admits-it-doctored-flotilla-audio-clip-washington-posts-kessler-must-retract/
2) The Hamas quote:
Jane Corbin said that Gaza was controlled by Hamas, a political party who "does not recognise Israel's existence". WRONG again. Once more the fact that Hamas recognises Israel's existence as a fact has been widely published including in mainstream newspapers such as the guardian. (once more an investigative journalist must have heard about such a paper,right?). Here 2 articles from the Guardian:
3) the "some passengers wanted to be martyrs" quote:
Jane Corbin's voice over, at one point said: "Some passengers on the boat wanted to be martyrs"and then shows some footage of a Turkish passenger. Problem is, the passenger does not say at any point that he WANTS to be a martyr.Passenger say that if there is violence, he'll respond, and that IF he died as a martyr, he'll be proud to have died for a just cause.Totally different, right?
4) The "this was a political flotilla" discovery:
After 30 mins of such groundbreaking investigative journalism, Jane Corbyn had a huge SCOOP. "This was not a humanitarian aid flotilla, but a political one, which attended to put pressure on Israel and to push the country to end thesiege on Gaza". Amazing! Thanks. Problem is that this SCOOP had been announced more than 6 months ago by the flotilla organisers and repeated over and over again since then.
I could go on and on, as yesterday'sprogram was so clearly flawed and blatantly biased.
Not sure what was Panorama agenda in making this program. Totally discrediting the BBC as an impartial broadcaster? totally discrediting the profession of journalist?
Or maybe it was both.
Best regards
********************************************************************************
The following is BBC's response to the complaint letter. It also included point-by-point rebuttal by the author in bold letters:
"Thank you for your feedback regarding 'Panorama – Death in the Med' as broadcast on 16 August. Please be assured that your concerns were forwarded to the programme's production team.
We understand the strength of feeling regarding the Israeli Defence Force's operation against the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010. We recognise the complexity of the subject and note its ramifications within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole.
I do not recognise the complexity of the subject. 200 soldiers illegally boarded 6 passenger vessels (yes, 6) in international waters (it has been proven that Mavi Marmara was actually going away from Gaza to avoid confrontation), in the middle of the night, killed 9 people (after autopsy, it was established that some of the dead were shot more than 9 times, in back, head and chest from very close range-less than 45 centimeters away), illegally took the rest of the passengers to Israel, paraded them in Ashdod port, took them to jail, interrogated them, stole their laptops, cameras, films, diaries, backpacks, credit cards and passports (at least 4 soldiers are under investigation for selling some of the passenger's possessions) tried to force them to sign "confessions that they entered Israel illegally" and then illegally deported them to Turkey (which was not everyone country of origin).What is complex about this?
This programme intended to explore the considerable confusion about what actually happened on the Mavi Marmara on the day in question.
What confusion? If there was some confusion in viewer's mind it is down to the fact that most mainstream media (including BBC) gave unprecedented airing time to Israel's PR machine (Mark Regev, Tzipi Livni and Caporal Leibovitz).On the other hand, most testimonies by passengers (from Mavi Marmara and rest of vessels) were saying the same thing. "Israel attacked us, use disproportionate violence, shot people from the helicopter....".Who are we suppose to believe? An army of occupation, well known for its human rights abuses, or 700 peace activists?
Israel has been accused of breaking international law by seizing a Turkish ship. Israel says the protesters were terrorists. Turkey insists they were innocent victims. With several inquiries underway Panorama's Jane Corbin uncovered important new evidence from both sides in a bid to establish what really happened.
What important new evidence did Jane Corbin uncovered? Sorry I missed this part. (am being serious). Israel has not been accused of breaking international law by seizing a Turkish ship (actually, your team of journalist forgot to mention that ship was actually Comoros registered) in international waters. Israel HAS breached international law by seizing a Comoros registered ship in International Waters. Why try to blur people's mind when things are obvious?You're right on 1 point. Israel said the protesters were terrorists. Only Israel said so. Even the CIA admitted that they was no ground to say that IHH was involved in any terrorism. Also, what is your definition of terrorism? The CIA one is this one: "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"Could this apply to the passengers at all? Even if they did attack the soldiers, this is not terrorism.
Jane Corbin is a world renowned journalist with twenty years' experience reporting for 'Panorama' and the on-going conflict in the Middle East. She is respected for her dedicated, impartial and balanced work on both sides of the conflict and approached this subject with the same level of fairness which she is known for.
Who says that Jane Corbin is respected, impartial and balanced? Did you ever conduct a survey about this? Did you ask your viewers?
We appreciate some viewers were unhappy about the nature of the video and audio footage we showed. We can assure you that enormous care was involved in selecting the footage we showed. During the programme we made it clear that a variety of different sources were shown, some from the Israeli Defence Force, some from the IHH and "culturesofresitance.org" and others from individuals who were onboard the Mavi Marmara on the night in question. The majority of the footage used in the programme is openly available on the internet.
Once more, I have to totally disagree with your above comment. Either your team is very unprofessional or you DID NOT use "enormous care" when selecting footage. Why using audio footage "remember 9/11" or "go back to Auschwitz" which the Israeli Army admitted to have tempered with and edited? You had more than 100 hours of video and audio footage, why even use something that was at least "very controversial" and "disputed". This is sensationalism, not investigative journalism.
All featured footage was meticulously double and cross checked to verify its accuracy; any footage of uncertain events during the raid was clearly labelled as such.
See above for comments. Why using footage of uncertain events while you had some of very certain ones? Same question as before arise, are you a programme about serious, investigative journalism or one about sensationalism?
Viewers were shown a wide range of opinions and whenever a question of authenticity of footage arose, we made this clear.
We also spoke extensively to the groups and individuals involved in the incident including three Israeli commandos involved in the raid; the head of the IHH - Bulent Yildirim; the Free Gaza Coordinator on board the Mavi Marmara - Lubna Masarwa; three Turkish activists and activist Ken O'Keefe, who were on board the Mavi Marmara on the night in question. We also spoke to Hamas official Dr Ahmed Yousef in Gaza. They were all given sufficient time and a platform to make their points.
It's not about who you interrogated. It's about how you then edit this and present it to your audience. You know this very well.
The programme made it clear that the flotilla was still in international waters, ninety miles from Gaza. The programme also made it clear that a number of inquiries are ongoing.
Again, editing is key. You might have made this very clear but what people will remember is "Israel's has agreed to a UN investigation". Which once more, is far from the truth. Israel has agreed to UNSC investigation with reservations yet to be accepted by Ban Ki Moon. Israel has not agreed to cooperate with UNHRC investigation.Another question for you to answer is:"Why did Israel agree for BBC to interview soldiers involved in Mavi Marmara attack and is refusing this to UN investigation?"
We believe the programme was balanced and impartial, going to great lengths to give opposing sides the opportunity to air their views.
You believe that programme was balanced an impartial. It seems like many viewers do not agree with you. Why?
We acknowledge the strength of your views regarding this matter, thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
You still have not answered the following questions:
-Soldier claimed that he was stabbed (while no proof was given)
-soldiers could not shoot while abseiling down (maybe, but soldiers in helicopter could shoot, right? Why many passengers bullet injuries were on top of the head and on top of their feet?)
-Passengers used Israeli Army weapons to shoot soldiers and had weapons on board. Preposterous claim, even the IDF admitted that this was not true.
-Hamas does not recognise Israel. Stop with this very vague statement, please. What Israel? Which borders? Israel as a Jewish State? An occupying power? Hamas and its leaders (Meshal and Haniyeh) have repeatedly said that they were willing to negotiate on 1967 borders and accepted Israel as a political fact. Why not mentioning this?
-Some passengers wanted to be a martyrs. No one said this during the programme. No one.
Kind Regards
BBC Audience Services"
No comments:
Post a Comment