In a clip circulating online the BBC’s International Editor Jeremy Bowen appears to unequivocally accuse Israel of genocide. As an individual, Mr Bowen is entitled to any opinion, however offensive. As a senior public servant with responsibility for providing British audiences with accurate and impartial news, he is not.
The BBC’s guidelines on impartiality state:
“Impartiality is fundamental to the BBC’s purpose and is enshrined in the BBC’s Charter. It means not favouring one side over another and reflecting all relevant sides of the debate. It means not taking sides, reflecting all relevant strands of public debate and challenging them with consistent rigour. Impartiality is key to a relationship of trust with audiences, that they know the BBC is not being influenced by any personal or other agenda in what it chooses to broadcast or publish or in how it covers stories and that it seeks to include a wide range of views on any given topic.”
And:
“Just as important as the BBC’s content are the words and behaviours of all the people who represent the BBC. External activities and public expressions of opinion, including on social media, may affect perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality as much as its output.”
Going even further, BBC guidelines on conflict-of-interest in journalists and those involved in news production state unequivocally that:
“Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output of this nature have additional restrictions and must not:
-
advocate any particular position or change regarding a matter of current public policy or party-political debate, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject'”
By accusing Israel publicly of genocide, Bowen has launched himself into the deeply controversial waters known to some as the Genocide Hoax, and BBC impartiality off a cliff.
The allegation that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is an exceptionally controversial and politically charged one. It is also an allegation with barely any true credibility.
Emerging as early as October 8th, before any military response to the horrors of October 7th began, the genocide allegation has been consistently made, but not proved. The “independent” report submitted to the UN, but not adopted by the UN, by three individuals with documented hostility to Israel infamously used the existence of death as proof of intent, among many other egregious issues. The widely misquoted “plausibility” test applied by the ICJ referred not to the allegation itself but to the question of whether the Palestinians could plausibly claim rights under the protection from genocide convention, a jurisdictional question misrepresented as a judgement. The IAGS vote, by an organisation whose membership includes anyone with $30 and an agenda, including, it should be noted, at least one pet dog, was immediately disavowed and criticised due to lack of transparency, low turnout, and unvetted membership. There has been extensive scholarly and expert dissent to the allegation, and in very simple terms things like the exceptionally low civilian to combatant death ratio achieved by the IDF in Gaza, the distinctly un-genocidal decision to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of Gazan children against Polio, the exponential population growth all call into question the decision to label Israel as engaged in genocide.
It feels illogical to believe that one of the best militaries in the world, committing genocide against a population of 2 million people captive in an enclosed space 141 miles square for three years has only managed to kill 74000 people. What seems more likely on balance, is that the Genocide Hoax is a planned and predetermined PR campaign by an extremely propaganda savvy movement to invert the Holocaust and recast Jews as Nazis. The modern lovechild of Holocaust denial and Blood Libel, the Genocide Hoax seeks to strip the holocaust of its unique memory, strip Jews of any victimhood, and cast the Jewish state as uniquely blood thirsty and depraved; medieval Blood Libel recast for the modern world.
Jeremy Bowen’s personal animus towards Israel has been suggested before. As far back as 2009 Bowen was censured for his coverage on Israel, a decision he publicly attacked in The Guardian. A full 14 years later and the now promoted Bowen said he had “no regrets” on his egregious misreporting on the Al Ahli hospital blast. His intervening years of bias have been well documented by CAMERA researchers. What is perhaps most concerning is the free reign Bowen appears to have been given to destroy BBC impartiality.
The BBC stipulates that:
“Any individual in a role requiring impartiality who is intending to express opinions publicly on matters of current public policy, politics or any controversial issue, or taking part in political activity, must inform their line manager in advance, who should consult Chief Adviser Politics if there is a risk to impartiality, or the perception of impartiality.”
The question here then, is did BBC bosses give Bowen permission to engage in the Genocide Hoax? And if not, what consequences will he face?
As International Editor Bowen has significant influence. His opinions could, in theory, effect a wide number of stories, not just those of his own authorship. The BBC stipulates:
“Presenters, reporters, correspondents and on-air editors are the public face and voice of the BBC; they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality has been achieved. Audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output – or anywhere else – the personal opinions of its journalists or presenters in news and current affairs or factual journalism on matters of current public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area”
So can we see the taint of the Bowen blood libel in BBC output? Maybe we can.
CAMERA is in an ongoing dispute with the BBC over a new formulation it has begun using to manufacture the appearance of consensus on the Genocide issue. In coverage from The UN in September the BBC wrote:
“Last year, the world’s leading association of genocide scholars declared that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
A resolution passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) stated that Israel’s conduct meets the legal definition as laid out in the UN convention on genocide.”
Alongside allegations from obviously partisan Mahmoud Abbas and Zohran Mamdani, with no reference to the huge amount of dissenting opinion. On the 7th October the formulation appeared again in the live coverage of the October 7th memorials in Israel:
“Last year, the world’s leading association of genocide scholars declared that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.”
Again with no mention of the considerable opposing opinion.
In response to CAMERA’s complaints about the categorisation of IAGS as “the world’s leading association of genocide scholars” Jeremy Howell of the BBC complaints department told us:
“The IAGS vote was mentioned because it is a worldwide organisation which includes many scholars in the field of genocide studies.”
A materially different position to “the worlds leading association of genocide scholars” unless we now agree that any pub on any University campus in the world is now a leading scholarly association because it “contains many scholars”.
When presented with the obvious issue with this statement Howell ignored the problem completely and simply responded that his comments were accurate:
“I would also say that describing IAGS in a previous reply as ‘a worldwide organisation which includes many scholars in the field of genocide studies’ was duly accurate.”
These interactions with the BBC suggest a concerted effort to obfuscate and deflect, rather than a commitment to due impartiality accidentally missed.
Jeremy Bowen’s comments breach BBC guidelines on multiple levels, and the BBC’s conduct on this issue suggest that his leadership is materially damaging the BBC’s commitment to impartiality. His position at the BBC is untenable, and the BBC response to his actions will tell us a huge amount about the BBC’s commitment to its own standards.