IT was found that the BBC had breached editorial guidelines on accuracy by failing to disclose the narrator of the How to Survive a Warzone documentary was the son of a Hamas official in an independent review.
Ofcom is now due to investigate the programme, which was removed from iPlayer in February.
This breach has been covered extensively by the wider mainstream media, but is it really the whole story?
The Johnston Review may have indeed found that audiences should have been informed about the narrator’s background, but there were several other points it made which are not being spoken about.
So, what does the report really say?
Narrator contribution did not breach standards
While on page one the review does state that the failure to disclose the narrator’s father’s position as deputy minister of agriculture in the Hamas-run government breached guidelines, it quickly makes another crucial point.
In the fourth paragraph, the review says “I do not consider anything in the narrator’s scripted contribution to the programme breached the BBC’s standards on due impartiality”.
It adds: “I have also not seen or heard any evidence to support a suggestion that the narrator’s father or family influenced the content of the programme in any way”.
Despite these findings, director-general Tim Davie still deemed the oversight by the BBC to be a “significant failing”.
No issues with reporting in programme
Further into the lengthy review, readers will find it says the narration “is factual and carries balance where required”.
On page 27, it goes on to say that while there was a single accuracy guideline breached (3.3.17), there wasn’t actually any issues with accuracy and fairness in the programme’s reporting.
“I do not find there to have been any issues with the accuracy, fairness, or due impartiality of the reporting in the programme in the context of the Israel-Gaza war. The production took place in an extremely difficult context, an active warzone, and I find that this was addressed with appropriate care and sensitivity,” the review said.
No breaches with translation
Critics of the programme took issue with the translation of “Yahud” as “Israelis” and not “Jews”.
But the review found no significant problems in this area.
“I do not find there to have been any editorial breaches in respect of the programme’s translation.”
It goes on: “Translation seldom offers a perfect reflection of the associations and connotations of the words used in the original, and the test of accuracy is whether audiences would be materially misled. The translations in this programme did not risk misleading audiences on what the people speaking meant.”
No problems with programme funds
Some critics claimed licence-fee money made its way to Hamas through payments to the narrator’s family, but the review did not find any evidence of this.
“I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the programme funds were spent other than for reasonable, production-related purposes,” it states on page two.
It adds: “The BBC has no reasonable basis to conclude that anyone engaged or paid in connection with the programme was subject to financial sanctions.”
