.png)
3 hours ago
8 ARTICLE AD
BBC Chair Samir Shah has labeled the Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone controversy a “dagger to the heart” of BBC impartiality, as he urged a “proper independent review” of the corporation’s Middle East conflict coverage.
Shah, who is understood to have been extremely frustrated by the situation that has played out over the past 10 days, did not hold back this morning when speaking to the Culture, Media & Sport Committee (CMSC) about the immense damage caused to the 100-year-old pubcaster by the under-fire doc.
“I agree that this is a really bad moment,” Shah said. “What has been revealed is a dagger to the heart of the BBC’s claim to be impartial and trustworthy, which is why I and the board are determined to answer the questions being asked.” The BBC Board is “very exercized” by the scandal and “we will get to the bottom of this and take appropriate actions,” added Shah.
Led by Russell Brand reviewer Peter Johnston, the BBC has commissioned an in-depth investigation into Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, after it emerged that one of the doc’s narrators is the son of a Hamas minister. Regulator Ofcom has said it could still step in if it is not satisfied with how the BBC is going about things and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has met with Shah and been highly critical of the situation.
Shah, who used to run BBC current affairs, said today a “deep dive into the mechanics of the film itself” is required. “I have a worry that it wasn’t so much the processes that were at fault but that people weren’t doing their job,” said Shah, although he subsequently denied he was criticizing specific BBC staff. He harked back to his time covering the Northern Irish conflict, which he described as “my Gaza” during his time working for BBC current affairs. “In Northern Ireland we had to be very careful about the circumstances of which a terrorist organization works and how they control things,” he said.
The BBC’s coverage of the Middle East conflict warrants a “proper independent review,” according to Shah. who said “we have had loads of complaints about our coverage.”
The BBC has been commissioning longer reviews into its news coverage over the past couple of years and Shah suggested “this should be the next one we study,” following similar probes into coverage of the economy and migration.
The How to Survive a Warzone issue first reared its head when an investigative journalist unearthed the narrator’s Hamas links. A group of 45 Jewish TV industry figures including ex-BBC content chief Danny Cohen contacted the BBC and the doc was eventually removed from iPlayer, with the BBC saying producer HOYO Films, which is run by the doc’s director Jamie Roberts, failed to inform executives about the narrator’s father. In response, hundreds of people including BBC presenter Gary Lineker signed an open letter condemning the corporation’s “censorship on Palestine.” The BBC has since said that HOYO hid the narrator’s Hamas connections from its compliance team.
Speaking alongside Shah, Director General Tim Davie stressed there was “no evidence of active deception” from Roberts’ company and “that’s why we need to do a review.” He said HOYO had said “no money” was paid to Hamas but a small fee was given to the narrator’s mother and sister, questions that Davie stressed need answering.
Despite pressure from both sides of the debate, Davie vehemently pointed out that the BBC does not “bow to lobbies.”
“If you think we bow to lobbies then come and spend a day with me,” he added. “We navigate a course sensibly and rationally based on sensible journalism.”
Davie didn’t rule out the doc returning to iPlayer once Johnston’s review is complete but stressed that it had to be pulled once he discovered the roots of the problem. “At that point quite quickly I lost trust in the film and therefore I took the decision quite quickly to take it off iPlayer.”
“You equivocate on virtually everything”
CMS chair Caroline Dinenage had kicked off the meeting by saying to Davie and Shah: “You must be as frustrated as us to have to talk about the latest scandal” in reference to the Gaza doc.
Before this saga erupted, Davie and Shah were supposed to be addressing the committee on more long-term, holistic issues such as future funding models and BBC independence.
Regarding the future of the licence fee, Shah found himself squirming when put under pressure over his claim that the BBC needs to look at whether non-payment of the fee remains a criminal offence, something he said he was “troubled by.”
Pressed on what could be done, he struggled to come up with a solution that wouldn’t lose the BBC money, only saying: “When we discuss the new funding model we should make enforcement part of that debate and discussion.”
Referencing a previous committee session, Dinenage slammed Shah for “equivocating on virtually everything.” A different committee member then said it was “extraordinary” that Shah would come out with an idea that could lose the BBC £200M ($254M) to £300M in lost licence fee income a year at a time when it is struggling for funding.
Shah eventually shot back by pointing out the previous government took away funding for over-75 license fees and BBC World Service funding, which has lost the BBC around £1B per year since. “That is not in my gift but if [the government] were to [take back those payments] then the ability of me to say, ‘let’s not criminalize that offence’ could happen” he added. “We could then have the money to cope with that phenomenon.”
