大象传媒

The Context

The programme, which began at 8pm, included a report from Jon Donnison in Jerusalem.听 Shortly before 8.09pm, in answer to a question from the presenter in the studio, he said:

Now the Israeli Defence Force, the Israeli military, have been contacted for comment and they have said that they are investigating.听 But, you know, It's hard to see what else this could be, really, given the size of the explosion, other than an Israeli airstrike or several airstrikes, because, you know, when we鈥檝e seen rockets being fired out of Gaza, we never see explosions of that scale.听 We might see half a dozen, maybe a few more people being killed in such rocket attacks, but we鈥檝e never seen anything on the scale of the sort of explosion on the video I was watching earlier, which, as you say, is still to be verified.

The ECU judged that it would have been clear to viewers from this that Mr Donnison was speaking at a time when the Israeli Defence Force had offered no substantive comment, and while there was still uncertainty about the authenticity of the video material put forward as evidence of the blast.听 It would also have been clear that, though he suggested a strong probability of Israeli involvement, he was not offering a definitive judgement.听 It accepted, however, that it was not consistent with the 大象传媒鈥檚 standards of due accuracy to offer any view about responsibility for the incident at a point where so little reliable information was available.

The ECU noted that 大象传媒 News had made a posting[1] on the Corrections and Clarifications page of bbc.co.uk on 19 October which said it had been wrong for Mr Donnison to speculate on the causes of the blast.听 In the ECU鈥檚 view, this clear public acknowledgement of fault was sufficient for it to reach a finding that both complaints had been resolved in this respect.听

Resolved (accuracy)

听

The resolved finding also applies to three complaints escalated to the ECU after this summary was published

听

News bulletins, 7 October 2023

The Board of Deputies argued that not applying the term 鈥渢别谤谤辞谤颈蝉迟鈥� to Hamas in the reports in question represented a 鈥渇ailure to use the correct terminology for a terrorist organisation鈥�, the warrant for its correctness being its designation as a terrorist organisation by UK law, and that the 大象传媒 had failed to meet the audience鈥檚 expectations in this respect, contrary to the requirement in the 大象传媒鈥檚 guidelines on impartiality that 鈥渢he likely audience expectation鈥� should be taken into account.听 The ECU considered that it did not follow from the legal position that the use of descriptors other than 鈥渢别谤谤辞谤颈蝉迟鈥�听 (or no descriptor at all) would necessarily result in inaccuracy, and found no grounds for concluding that it did so in the reports in question.听 The ECU also noted that the section of the impartiality guidelines which referred to audience expectations was directed to the different levels of impartiality which audiences might expect in different contexts, with particular reference to reflecting an appropriate range of views, and did not warrant its use as a test of whether the 大象传媒鈥檚 policy on the term 鈥渢别谤谤辞谤颈蝉迟鈥� was compatible with impartiality.听

The ECU also considered the Board of Deputies鈥� argument that the use of such terms as 鈥渂辞尘产别谤鈥�, 鈥渁迟迟补肠办别谤鈥�, 鈥済unman鈥�, 鈥渒idnapper鈥�, 鈥渋苍蝉耻谤驳别苍迟鈥� and 鈥渕颈濒颈迟补苍迟鈥� fell short of the requirements of Section 11 of the Guidelines (on war, terror and emergencies) because they did not 鈥渃onvey the full horror of Hamas's actions on 7 October鈥�, 鈥渢别谤谤辞谤颈蝉迟鈥� being the sole adequate term in the context.听 The ECU accepted that none of the terms cited by the Board of Deputies, considered on their own, conveyed the full horror of the actions concerned (while allowing room for doubt that even 鈥渢别谤谤辞谤颈蝉迟鈥� did so), but took the view that it was the reporting of Hamas鈥檚 actions themselves, rather than the terminology applied to their perpetrators, that was the test of whether justice has been done to the events.听

Not upheld (accuracy, impartiality)

听

Other related items

In addition to The Context, CAA complained about:

1. A posting on 大象传媒 Breaking News X (Twitter) account, at 6.51pm on 17 October which read 鈥淗undreds feared dead or injured in Israeli air strike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian official says鈥�.

2. A push alert[2] sent by 大象传媒 News sometime after 6.25pm on 17 October which read 鈥淗undreds feared dead or injured in Israeli airstrike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian officials say鈥�.

3. A posting which read 鈥淢ore than 500 people have died in Gaza after Israel launched massive retaliatory air strikes, according to Gaza鈥檚 Health Ministry鈥�, believed by CAA to have been posted on 17 October and subsequently deleted, but corresponding only to an item posted on 9 October and still available at .

4. A report by Jeremy Bowen in the 17 October edition of the 10pm News on 大象传媒 One, in which he said 鈥淭he Israeli army's first response [to questions about the Al Ahli Hospital blast] said 鈥榟ospitals were highly sensitive and not targets of its military鈥� and urged caution about what it called 鈥榯he unverified claims of a terrorist organisation鈥�. That statement will not be believed by Palestinians and by millions of others in the Middle East who see these images鈥�

The complaint about items 1,2 and 3 was on the basis that they erroneously suggested Israeli responsibility for the blast, whereas it had been caused by 鈥渁 failed rocket fired by a terrorist organisation in Gaza鈥�.听 For the reasons set out in analyses by 大象传媒 Verify at /news/world-middle-east-67144061 and /news/world-middle-east-67216929, the 大象传媒 cannot yet establish as fact who was responsible for the blast.听 The ECU accordingly saw no grounds for concluding that items 1 and 2 were inaccurate in relation to that event.听 As to item 3, it was an accurate report of a claim, duly attributed, in relation to earlier events.

The complaint about item 4 was on the basis that Mr Bowen had been speaking over footage of 鈥渆xtremely distressing images of young, injured and crying children without explaining who those children were, but implying, by association with the output, that they were injured by the blast at the hospital鈥�.听 While agreeing about the implied association, the ECU noted that the point at issue in the context of Mr Bowen鈥檚 report was not the authenticity or otherwise of the images but the impact they and the associated claims by Hamas were having on Palestinian and wider Arab opinion, and judged that the juxtaposition of words and images could not be taken as implying Israeli responsibility for the injuries because Mr Bowen had begun his contribution to the bulletin by making clear Israel denied responsibility and attributed it to Palestinians.

Not upheld (accuracy, impartiality)

听

[1] The current version of the posting can be found at /helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications.

[2] A push alert is a message sent to mobile phones via the 大象传媒 News app directing users to a recently-published online article.