←back to thread

524 points mhga | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
rich_sasha ◴[] No.44497577[source]
Offending or over-accusing sides of this conflict is a very asymmetric risk. Misrepresent Palestinians negatively and you may eventually get an angry, vague letter - with a quarter of signatories doing so anonymously. Misrepresent Israelis negatively and you get very powerful and well-organised protests. BBC is sadly doing the rational thing of staying clear of suggesting Israel may be doing some bad things. It is a Corporation after all and so acts in corporate ways.

But this is also the example coming to them from the top. On the occasions where Israel has clearly committed egregious violations, such as shooting at people massed at the aid dispensal locations or the medics who then got buried in shallow graves, Israel gets barely a whimper of criticism from European politicians - and apparently full-throated cheering and support from the US. The ICC arrest warrant is as forgotten as last year's snow.

So why are we surprised the BBC doesn't want to stick its head above the parapet?

replies(9): >>44497864 #>>44497881 #>>44497983 #>>44498194 #>>44498240 #>>44498415 #>>44499944 #>>44500139 #>>44503427 #
omnimus ◴[] No.44498240[source]
I think what is upsetting is that BBC is public service broadcaster where the whole point is that they are financially independent of government so they can do whatever journalism their employees deem necessary. They should be insulated from political pressure as much as possible.

Self censoring their own documentary does not align with that.

replies(1): >>44498291 #
1. zimpenfish ◴[] No.44498291[source]
> the whole point is that they are financially independent of government

Hasn't been the case for a long time though, eg. [0]

[0] https://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/the-bbc-mid-term-charter...