BBC sanctions reporter who cried over Arafat
Written by Haitham Sabbah on 26. November 2005, 1622hrs // Part of Haitham Sabbah's adventure in Media, Palestine, Sabbah, UK // Other posts by Haitham Sabbah
As the U.S. and U.K. turn into police states I am continually appalled by items like this!
BBC governors yesterday upheld a complaint against a reporter who said she was tearful following the death of Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat. The BBC’s head of editorial complaints initially rejected complaints against Barbara Plett.
A listener then appealed that decision to the governors.
In the broadcast on October 30, 2004, BBC correspondent Barbara Plett, described watching a helicopter carry Arafat from his West Bank headquarters on his way to a French hospital, where he later died:
But where were the people, I wondered, the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern? Was this another story we Western journalists were getting wrong, bombarding the world with news of what we think is an historic event, while the locals get on with their lives? Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry… without warning…
But the governors concluded that the reference to crying did breach the guidelines on due impartiality. The BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden has apologised for what she described as an "editorial misjudgement".
She said it appeared Plett "unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause". The governors said they approved of the "rapid and comprehensive way" in which Ms Boaden had apologised to those who were offended.
Why shouldn’t the journalist cry at the condition of Arafat? It was sad. It was heartbreaking.
One of the problems with 21st century news reporting is the rampant hypocracy. Journalists are expected to be "impartial" which simply defies human nature. On the other hand, there are constant impassioned news reports of conditions throughout the world and we are expected to react in an equally passionate and emotional way. So which is it? Impartial or impassioned? It said the BBC responded to complaints about the journalist’s expressing her feelings. Did it ever occur to them to tell the complainers to fuck off?
Do you like - BBC sanctions reporter who cried over Arafat - Subscribe to Sabbah's for Free.
Article Tags>> 
November 27th, 2005 at 4:55 am
DON IMUS: They’re (the Palestinians) eating dirt and that fat pig wife of his is living in Paris. COLLEAGUE: They’re all brainwashed, though. That’s what it is. And they’re stupid to begin with, but they’re brainwashed now. Stinking animals. They ought to drop the bomb right there, kill ‘em all right now. IMUS: Well, the problem is we have (reporter) Andrea (Mitchell) there; we don’t want anything to happen to her. COLLEAGUE: Oh, she’s got to get out. Andrea, get out and then drop the bomb and kill everybody. COLLEAGUE: Look at this. Animals. Animals! Freedom of speech
November 27th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
since when expressing one’s feelings is a crime? weird…
November 28th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
[...] this lady. Talking about Main Stream Media manipulation, Sabbah’s Blog writes that BBC sanctions a journalist for insensitively feeling puzz [...]