Complaint
A listener complained that 大象传媒 coverage of violence in and around the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem was one-sided, representing only the Israeli Police and not the Palestinian point of view. 聽The ECU considered whether both reports met the standards for impartiality set out in the 大象传媒 Editorial Guidelines.聽
Outcome
The reports, from 大象传媒 Correspondent Yolande Knell, concerned clashes between Israeli Police and Palestinians at the mosque compound. 聽In the earlier bulletin Ms Knell reported police had entered the mosque and video showed 鈥渃haotic scenes鈥 after they had entered what is the third-holiest site for Muslims. The complainant asked why only what the police said was happening was reported and not the Palestinian view. However the ECU took the view the latter was clear from the report 鈥 for instance, that what happened included the police using tear gas in a prayer room during Ramadan in what is viewed as an extremely holy place. 聽The later bulletin made clear that hundreds of Palestinians had been injured in the incident. 聽Ms Knell explained Israeli Police had used stun grenades and rubber bullets and batons.
In both cases the arguments of the Israeli Police on what they felt justified their actions were described, but listeners were given sufficient information to judge those actions for themselves and to take a view on the proportionality of the police response. 聽In the ECU鈥檚 view, to report what a police force does is not to endorse its actions and the word 鈥減olice鈥 would not have conferred legitimacy on its actions at the mosque in the minds of the audiences.
Not Upheld