This house believes that the BBC should air an appeal on Gaza
Context
The British Broadcasting Corporation has defended its decision not to participate in a television fund-raising appeal for Gaza, saying it did want to avoid compromising public confidence in its impartiality.
Normally all broadcasters show Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) appeals without charge, but in a statement on Friday, the BBC said: "Along with other broadcasters, the BBC has decided not to broadcast the DEC's public appeal to raise funds for Gaza.
"The BBC's decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation, and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story."
Sky news and a few other channels followed BBC's decision.The DEC is an umbrella organisation representing a number of aid agencies (13), including Action Aid, Save the Children, the British Red Cross, Islamic Relief and Oxfam.
Sky news has also joined BBC in refusing to air the appeal.
Prop
1. We are going to substantiate our argument by showing how the two main claims the BBC is making does not justify their actions :
a) We believe that Impartiality is not compromised:
· The situation in Gaza is dire and needs urgent attention.
o The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs states that the Gaza strip humanitarian crisis is significant and should not be understated. It also states that the situation is a "human dignity crisis" in the Gaza strip, entailing "a massive destruction of livelihoods and a significant deterioration of infrastructure and basic services".
o According to the World Food Programme, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation and Palestinian officials, between 35% and 60% of the agriculture industry has been wrecked. Extensive damage has occurred to water sources, greenhouses, and farmland. It is reported that 60% of the agricultural land in the north of the Strip may no longer be usable. More than 50,800 Gazans were left homeless.
o The Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations has stated that after the end of the Israeli operation, and on "good days" only 120 truckloads get into Gaza, instead of the normal daily requirement, including commercial traffic, of 500 trucks at minimum. It is also reported in his statement and other UN humanitarian office reports that essential items such as construction materials, water pipes, electrical wires, and transformers continue to be effectively banned, or only allowed infrequently after "endless haggling".
o The UN also reports that international organizations has faced "unprecedented denial" of access to Gaza by Israel since 5 November and that humanitarian access remains unreliable and needs to be granted everyday without restriction.
o In a damage assessment by the World Health Organization, 48% of the 122 health facilities assessed were found to be damaged or destroyed. 15 of Gaza's 27 hospitals and 41 primary health care centers has suffered damage. Two centers were destroyed, and 29 ambulances have been partially damaged or destroyed.
o An initial survey conducted by the UN Development Programme estimates that 14,000 homes, 68 government buildings, and 31 non-governmental organization offices (NGOs) were either totally or partially damaged. As a result, an estimated 600,000 tonnes of concrete rubble will need to be removed.[236] Since 2007, construction material have not permitted entry into Gaza, adversely affecting UN projects, in particular UNRWA and UNDP which were forced to suspend more than $100 million in construction projects due to lack of materials.(from WIKI)
SO, CONSIDERING THE DIRE SITUATION IN GAZA AND LISTENING TO ALL THE FACTS WE’VE MENTIONED ABOVE WE MUST ASK OURSELVES WHETHER AN APPEAL FOR AID CAN REALLY COMPROMISE PARTIALITY. ASKING FOR AID WOULD BE THE NATURAL NEXT STEP. IT’S NOTHING PARTIAL; IT FITS THE FACTS and what’s happening!
· Impartiality would mean giving equal air time to both sides of the story and reporting on the truth, it has nothing to do with children dying and the need to help them. HELP is devoid of any political motive.
· Most of the stats that are mentioned in the appeal are cited from the UN and other impartial bodies.
· BBC has aired appeals by the DEC on other issues such as Darfur, and Burma before!
· The humanitarian crisis, in which innocent children are suffering, is likely to be prolonged as a result of the corporation's decision
· The add itself says that it's not about who is right and who is wrong its about saving the children....
b) We also believe that aid not being channeled into Gaza has no real value in this debate because:
· Israel has been criticized for their stance internationally (just like Burmese government was).SEE ABOVE FOR UN STATEMENT.UNSC resolutions have been passed condemning these blockades for aid.
· Even, the European Union, and over 50 nations donated humanitarian aid to Gaza, including the United States which donated over $20 million.
· Even if it is hard to get there, people don’t care because they want to help and aid is trickling in even though at a slow pace.
· Why should Israel’s wrong doings be encouraged.
NOW THE TWO MAIN PRINCIPALS: that brings the arguments mentioned above together
2. It should be left to People's freedom to decide - It is up to the people to decide whether they won't to give aid or not. So bringing the persisting situation to the attention of the people is in fact not contrary to journalistic impartiality. Selling premade bias views to the public is what is contrary to journalistic responsibility. But bringing a reality (because people suffering in Gaza is a reality) to the attention of the people is in fact very much, what a journalistic organization ought to do. The decision is always left to the people.
3. AND FINALLY THEMOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT: What BBC has done has ended up making them look biased towards Israel’s cause. So now it’s the opp’s version of partiality where people are dying and the truth is neglected vs our version of partiality where people are saved and actions are being proposed according to what really is happening.
Opp
We oppose the airing of an appeal on 3 main grounds:
1. The partiality argument: Here we say that the claim made by the BBC and the other news broadcasters is justified
· It is a highly sensitive political issue that the BBC can’t afford to take such a risk. There are so many complex view points. And aid is a political stance at the moment.
· The appeal is of emotional nature and only talks about a certain part of the story. It completely ignores these complexities.
· The task of a news organization is to report the news. It’s up to the People to act on them.
· We have an international audience and we want all of them to watch our reporting.
· BBC already reports on the Humanitarian situation in Gaza and also maintains a level of professionalism and impartiality and has total control over what they air.
· The BBC director general, Mark Thompson, ruled out a change of policy, saying the corporation had a duty to cover the issue in a "balanced, objective way".
"Of course, everyone is struck by the human consequences of what has happened," he told Radio 4's Today programme. "And we will, I promise you, continue to report that as fully and as compassionately as we can. But we are going to do it in a way where we can hold it up to scrutiny. It's our job as journalists."
2. Would BBC airing the appeal really help relive this humanitarian situation?
· The issue already has so much attention, and even the BBC has a segment on the humanitarian side of the conflict, the DEC has their own website, along with all the power of its 13 aid organizations propaganda machine, people know where their local red cross office is, so why does BBC have to compromise its impartiality in such a situation.
· Even after the people send in their aid there is a low possibility of that aid getting into Gaza. Israel is controlling the borders and not allowing the aid to get through. This shows how impartiality matters, because the Israeli government says its doing this because of an attack on their soldiers.
· The aid might end up in the hands of HAMAS to help to arm them. Example:
On 3 February, blankets and food parcels were confiscated by Hamas police personnel from a United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) distribution center, and on 4 February, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator demanded that the aid be returned immediately. Hamas security forces confiscated 10 trucks loaded with 200 tons of food supplied from UNRWA stores in Gaza City Thursday.
(Counter argument : "We want to clarify that what has been published by the mass media about confiscating the trucks loaded with food supplies is inaccurate," explained the Hamas government's statement.
It added that it was just a matter of misunderstanding between the drivers of the trucks at the crossings between Gaza and Israel and the issue has been resolved through out direct contact with UNRWA and the crossings director.
"We call on the mass media to be careful and be more accurate in publishing untrue information aims at forging facts. The government rejects this way that aims at achieving political goals," said the statement.)
· Considering all these facts, why don’t we let the BBC do what it wants as it would not really have an effect? AND REMEMBER WE JUSTIFIED THE BBC’S STANCE! SO LETTING THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT IS EVEN MORE JUSTIFIED!!
3. Since we are debating in a context where we are dethatched from the BBC we dont have to be impartial so we ask the question of whether sending aid to Gaza is really justified. CAUTION: THIS ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON WHAT SORT OF SITUATION WE ARE IN AND WE MUST MAKE SURE WE FRAME IT PROPERLY AND EVEN THEN WE should not emphasize on it!.
· People elected the HAMAS government and this is what they wanted. They had ample opportunity to not support such a radical view and could have always supported the PNA. And this is tough but they will learn a lesson and there will be a large public opinion against the HAMAS.
· There are more important humanitarian crisis situations that we should focus on....situations that
EXAMPLES FOR DISPUTED FIGURES AND THE COMPLEXITY AND POLITICAL ASPECT OF THE APPEAL:(from WIKI)
The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health (PMoH), has stated that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians.[210] The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,285 with 895 civilians deaths.[210] An IDF report on February 17, 2009 stated that Israel has identified 1,200 of the Palestinian deaths, of which 300 were identified as noncombatants.[10] 580 of the deaths were stated to be from Hamas and combatants from "other groups".[10] The PCHR said that of the 390 non-civilian fatalities, 167 were members of Hamas' civil police and 223 were combatants. The IDF has said that 700 militants including police were killed
Disputed figures
John Holmes, an Under-Secretary General of the UN and the Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations, said in his statement to the United Nations Security Council that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have not been seriously challenged.[215] Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi wrote in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Palestinians had distorted casualty claims, estimating the number of wounded to be "far lower than 5,300", the number quoted by the PMoH and repeated by the UN and the ICRC.[216] Israel accuses Hamas of significantly inflating the civilian death toll and of playing down the number of Hamas operative casualties
