ABC Corporate Affairs replies to Dr Vacy Vlazna re bias by Foreign Correspondent on Gaza-Collision Course 25Oct10 October 26, 2010

Dear Dr Vlazna

I refer to your complaint regarding the BBC report Gaza – Collision Course, broadcast by Foreign Correspondent on 7 September.

Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the broadcast, assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards and sought and considered material provided by ABC News.

The ABC did not produce this program and therefore is not able to answer all of your questions regarding the BBC’s editorial decisions on what was, or was not, included in the report.  However, I am advised by ABC News management that Foreign Correspondent did assess the broadcast to ensure that it was in keeping with the Corporation’s editorial standards, prior to broadcast.

The report set out to examine the confusion and debate over what actually occurred on the Mavi Marmara by presenting both sides of the issue.  Its clear focus was the Israeli seizure of the Mavi Marmara, and not the deep and continuing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.  The report was scrupulously balanced through the presentation of a range of principal relevant perspectives including three Israeli commandos who boarded the boat; the Head of the Israeli Defence Force inquiry into the events; the Free Gaza coordinator, Lubna Masarwa; the Head of the IHH, Bulent Yildrum as well as IHH volunteers and other activists on board the boat, including former US marine, Ken O’Keefe.

The report included the accusation that Israel had broken international law by seizing a Turkish ship in international waters and that it had fired first at those aboard the ship.  The report also included the counter accusation that some of the protestors aboard the Mavi Marmara were actually terrorists and that it was they who had instigated the violence by wielding metal bars and stabbing the Israeli commandos landing on the ship with knives.

The report made it clear that the flotilla was still in international waters when seized, ninety miles from Gaza.  The program also made it clear that a number of inquiries into the incident were ongoing. The report was balanced and impartial, providing both sides the opportunity to state their views, and no one view was unduly favoured over another.

The broadcast included footage from a variety of different sources, including from the Israeli Defence Force, some from the IHH, Cultures of Resistance and others from individuals who were on board the Marvi Marmara.  The BBC has issued a statement that all of the footage featured in the broadcast was meticulously double- and cross-checked to verify its accuracy and that any footage of uncertain events during the raid were clearly labelled as such.

Audience and Consumer Affairs cannot agree that that there was any presumption in the broadcast that Israel had the ‘right’ to board the Mavi Marmara.  The introduction of the report stated that Turkey accuses Israel of an act of piracy and it was made clear that the flotilla was in international waters when seized, some 90 miles from Gaza;

CORBIN: In the early hours of May the 31st, the Israeli Navy started closing in. The flotilla was still in international waters, 90 miles from Gaza.

BULENT YILDIRIM: If we organised another boat and Israel attempted to illegally invade it, we’d use our right to passive resistance.

We cannot agree that reference to the events of Operation Cast Lead should have been included in the report.  The report’s clear focus was the Israeli seizure of the Mavi Marmara,  and it is not possible to include every aspect of the long and complex dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians within the one report.  The reference to rockets fired from Gaza was stated within the context of the reasons why Israel persists with its embargo.  That section of the report also noted that “there’s no easy access in and out, no economic life because of the Israeli embargo.”

The ABC notes your concern regarding the BBC’s decision not to include reference to interviews with activists who witnessed the commandos firing weapons, the failure of the Israelis to return seized equipment, the autopsy reports of the deceased or footage of Israeli assaults on activists.  There was footage of the chaos on board shown through the Israeli military footage and the smuggled footage from Cultures of Resistance.  ABC News management understands that the BBC worked with whatever footage it had.

As noted above, the ABC did not produce this report and cannot explain the decisions on what was, or was not included in the report.  However, it is relevant to note that the requirement for accuracy and balance does not mean that all available material must be included in a report.

Given the contentious nature of all of the claims and counter claims over the incident, those interviewed for the report were afforded the opportunity to describe their version of the events on board the ship.  The Israelis are perfectly entitled to express their genuinely held views, just as all other contributors were permitted to do.  The report set out why the Israeli’s referred to some of those on the ship as “terrorists”, including the reference to the cache of weapons seized on the ship, as well as the fact that commandos were stabbed with knives and beaten with metal poles.

The ABC does not know why British activists were not interviewed by the BBC.  There were a range of views broadcast from both sides of the issue and balance was achieved in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards.

We are not aware of any admissions from the IDF regarding the doctoring of audio used in the report.  At no time in the report does the BBC even come close to stating that the audio was broadcast from the Captain’s deck, as you claim.  The program stated the following;

CORBIN: The Israelis released what they said was the radio response from the flotilla. Part of it was defiant and abusive.

FLOTILLA RESPONSE: Shut up. Go back to Auschwitz. We’re helping Arabs going against the US. Don’t forget 9/11 guys.

CORBIN: The recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy. The flotilla’s organisers insist they did not hear these comments being made.

The IDF acknowledges that there is no way of knowing for sure where those comments came from, having originally cited the Mavi Marmara as the source of the transmission.  However, due to an open channel, the Israelis concede the specific ship in the flotilla responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified.  At no stage do the Israelis admit to “doctoring” the audio, as you claim.  They have admitted to editing out irrelevant material and have also posted the full version online to support that claim.

We cannot agree that the reporter at any stage questions the activists right to defend themselves.   She noted, accurately, that the flotilla carried some who were well and truly ready to confront the Israelis, should they attempt to seize the ship;

BULENT YILDIRIM: We’re going to defeat the Israeli commandos. We’re declaring it now. If you bring your soldiers here we will throw you off the ship and you’ll be humiliated in front of the whole world.

The reporter put the statement to the head of the IHH and allowed him the opportunity to respond;

CORBIN:  You said that if they, the Israelis board the ship, we will throw them into the sea. Isn’t that a provocation to be saying that to your followers on the ship?

BULENT YILDIRIM: I spoke correctly there. I spoke beautifully. I watched it again afterwards. Israel stole these images from us, but we’re not denying it. If we organised another boat and Israel attempted to illegally invade it, we’d use our right to passive resistance. We’d throw them into the sea.

The reasons why Israel enforces an embargo on Gaza were made clear in the report as were its aggressive actions in closing in on the flotilla and seizing the Mavi Marmara.

The introduction of the report stated that Turkey accuses Israel of an act of piracy and it was made clear that the flotilla was in international waters when seized, some 90 miles from Gaza;

CORBIN: In the early hours of May the 31st, the Israeli Navy started closing in. The flotilla was still in international waters, 90 miles from Gaza.

We cannot agree that in order to meet the editorial standard for impartiality, the program was required to include an examination of maritime law.  This report focused strictly on the events on board the Mavi Maramara and it is not possible, with the obvious time constraints of a 20 minute report, to include or examine every conceivable aspect of the issue.

We cannot find any reference whatsoever in the report that supports your claim that there is an assumption that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza.  In fact, the report included a number of statements that contest any such assumption;

CORBIN: Here in Gaza the problem’s not so much a lack of food or medicine – there’s no easy access in and out, no economic life because of the Israeli embargo…People are forced to recycle rubble to rebuild houses.

FATIH KAVAKDAN: Anyone with a conscience, not just Muslims, needed to take some aid to Gaza.

KEN O’KEEFE: Yeah and I believed that if, the real problem here is the occupation, the blockade. That is the problem. It must end. Now if it requires confrontation in which we use non lethal force to defend ourselves and our mission, then so be it.

BULENT YILDIRIM: If the embargo isn’t lifted then of course there will be more flotillas. We’ll go back with more boats. We lost nine people. This isn’t something that can just be left like that.

The fact that Israel used helicopters and highly trained commandos against activists with makeshift weaponry was made patently and repeatedly clear in the report.  The reporter could not have stated more clearly that the commandos also carried pistols;

CORBIN: The first helicopter hovered over the top deck of the ship. The commandos inside were armed with non lethal weapons, paintball and stun guns but each man also had a pistol. They couldn’t abseil down. The people below had tied the rope to the ship’s antenna.

In answer to your question – “In BBC language, is a pistol really a non-lethal’ weapon?” –  the ABC is satisfied that the BBC used the English language in a clear and precise manner and that the overwhelming majority of our audience understood the reporter when she stated “but each man also had a pistol”.

The Israeli commandos featured in the report were referring to their stab wounds, inflicted with knives not “chairs and junk” when stating that those attacking them were trying to “finish us off” and “kill us all”.  The report included footage of a range of weapons seized on the ship, which included knives.  Nowhere in this section of the report was it “assumed” that the activists were the aggressors.  Both sides gave their version of events regarding the violence and no one sides version was favoured over another;

CORBIN: But people were being killed. The dead and wounded were carried down below. Amongst the casualties was Fatih, hit in the chest by paintball pellets and in the arm by a live round.

FATIH KAVAKDAN: After I was shot my friends took me inside to the first floor. Everyone was panicking and shouting for the doctor because 50 people were badly wounded. I saw friends covered in blood.

You say that Jane Corbin “talks about IHH recruiting  fellow Islamists’ to join them on board”. Jane Corbin says nothing of the sort, anywhere in the broadcast.  We would be most interested in you substantiating this claim with specific reference to were you allege it occurred.  We will be happy to investigate the matter further if you are able to back it up.

In regard to the inclusion of autopsy reports or detailed accounts of how passengers died,  the decision on what to include in the report was taken by the BBC.  It is relevant to note that the requirement for accuracy and balance does not mean that all available material must be included in a report.

Audience and Consumer Affairs believe the report is in keeping with sections 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the ABC Code of Practice.  Balance was achieved through the presentation of a range of principal relevant perspectives, none of which were unduly favoured over another, and the issues raised in the report are based on news values.  A copy of the Code of Practice is available online at the attached link: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.

Yours sincerely

Kieran Doyle
Audience and Consumer Affairs