BBC appears to admit that licence fee funds went to senior Hamas family

The BBC, engulfed in scandal, has shared an e-mail with staff and released statements regarding the progress of its internal review into the so-called documentary about Gaza.

You can read the full e-mail and statements below.

The BBC’s admission of ‘serious flaws’ is an exercise in damage control. They now admit that licence fee payers’ money was handed to the family of a senior Hamas official. That payment was for the appearance of a boy in the film. Clearly the filmmakers knew who the boy’s family were because they paid them, but rather than the boy’s actual family appearing in the film, audiences were shown a fake family to hide the truth of his real family’s deep involvement with Hamas. The BBC says that they maintained full editorial control and responsibility for the film, so either that is true and the BBC is to blame for this lie and has only come clean because they were caught, or they actually did not have editorial control and are simply conducting damage limitation.

None of this even begins to explain the editorial decisions that are plain for all to see, such as the decision to refer to Hamas terrorists as an ‘army’, or to deliberately mistranslate ‘jihad against the Jews’ as ‘resistance against the Israelis’.

What is most telling of all is that the BBC is behaving as though this is a one-off problem, not a symptom of a wider rot within the organisation. They have paid money to a Hamas official’s family, which could have been discovered using Google, and simply labelled it as a ‘serious mistake’. That is a matter for resignations and police investigation. They are conducting their own internal review just of this programme, but an organisation like the BBC does not end up giving money to a senior Hamas official just by accident: it is part of a pervasive problem of bias enabled by a wilful blindness to its own deep flaws.

The BBC cannot be allowed to mark its own homework on a matter this serious. There must be an independent investigation into bias at the BBC. Pending the outcome of that investigation, the licence fee must be suspended. Hundreds of people are contacting us telling us that they refuse to pay the licence fee until they can be sure that the BBC is trustworthy.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “A national treasure has become a national embarrassment. The BBC has now admitted that licence fee funds were paid to the family of a senior Hamas official. It has not yet been able to rule out that further payments to Hamas were made as it continues to investigate where hundreds of thousands of pounds went. The BBC’s statement is an exercise in desperate damage control, and shows why an internal review is no substitute for an independent investigation into this documentary and the wider bias at the BBC that allowed it to be made and aired. Clearly those responsible must lose their jobs.

“It is unconscionable that the British public should have to pay a licence fee to an organisation that gives that money to proscribed terrorists. It represents a shocking double standard in our law. Pending an independent investigation, the licence fee must be suspended.”

These developments come after:

• Gary Lineker, Miriam Margolyes and hundreds of others signed a letter criticising the BBC for pulling the so-called documentary;
• Further revelations have come to light about mistranslations in the film that sanitise the antisemitic vitriol in Gaza;
• Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told Parliament that she has sought assurances from the BBC but was still waiting on the results of the BBC’s internal review;
• Campaign Against Antisemitism and others have reported the BBC to Counter Terrorism Policing, which is reviewing the case.

BBC e-mail and statements

Yesterday, Deborah Turness the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, shared the following e-mail and statement with staff.

Subject: A message about ‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone’

Dear all,

I’m writing in relation to the documentary ‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone’.

I’ve been working with a senior team over the past week to investigate the concerns surrounding the programme, and to prepare a report for the BBC Board which met earlier today. I’m sharing below a statement from the BBC and the BBC Board which will go out shortly.

I’d like to acknowledge the impact this episode has had on our reputation, and on the trust that you work hard to earn each and every day.

Since joining BBC News as CEO, my priority has been to drive transparency in our journalism to grow that trust, and these events damage the good work we have been doing together.

It’s important to say here that this is exactly the kind of journalism BBC News should be doing, and that we must continue to do. In turbulent times, we must find a way to go to difficult places to tell important stories. But of course, we have to get it right.

Finally, I would like to recognise that this is a difficult time, particularly for our hard working colleagues in the Current Affairs team, whose journalism is admired across the industry.

The BBC statement below contains information from our initial fact finding work and some details of the actions we are taking.

Thank you for your continued work and dedication.

Deborah Turness
CEO, BBC News and Current Affairs

BBC Statement on “Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone”:

BBC News has conducted an initial review on the programme “Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone”. Today the BBC Board was updated on that work. The review has identified serious flaws in the making of this programme. Some of these were made by the production company, and some by the BBC; all of them are unacceptable. BBC News takes full responsibility for these and the impact that these have had on the Corporation’s reputation. We apologise for this.

Nothing is more important than the trust that audiences have in our journalism. This incident has damaged that trust. While the intent of the documentary was aligned with our purpose – to tell the story of what is happening around the world, even in the most difficult and dangerous places – the processes and execution of this programme fell short of our expectations. Although the programme was made by an independent production company, who were commissioned to deliver a fully compliant documentary, the BBC has ultimate editorial responsibility for this programme as broadcast.

One of the core questions is around the family connections of the young boy who is the narrator of the film. During the production process, the independent production company was asked in writing a number of times by the BBC about any potential connections he and his family might have with Hamas. Since transmission, they have acknowledged that they knew that the boy’s father was a Deputy Agriculture Minister in the Hamas Government; they have also acknowledged that they never told the BBC this fact. It was then the BBC’s own failing that we did not uncover that fact and the documentary was aired.

Hoyo Films have told us that they paid the boy’s mother, via his sister’s bank account, a limited sum of money for the narration. While Hoyo Films have assured us that no payments were made to members of Hamas or its affiliates, either directly, in kind, or as a gift, the BBC is seeking additional assurance around the budget of the programme and will undertake a full audit of expenditure. We are requesting the relevant financial accounts of the production company in order to do that.

Given the BBC’s own failings, the Director-General has asked for complaints on this matter to be expedited to the Editorial Complaints Unit, which is separate from BBC News. Alongside this a full fact-finding review will be undertaken; the Director-General has asked Peter Johnston to lead this work.

Peter Johnston, the Director of Editorial Complaints and Reviews, is independent of BBC News and reports directly to the Director-General. He will consider all of the complaints and issues that have been raised. He will determine whether any editorial guidelines have been broken; rapidly address the complaints that have been made; and, enable the BBC to determine whether any disciplinary action is warranted in relation to shortcomings in the making of this programme. This will include issues around the use of language, translation and continuity that have also been raised with the BBC.

We have no plans to broadcast the programme again in its current form or return it to iPlayer and will make a further assessment once the work of Peter Johnston is complete.

Statement from the BBC Board:

“The BBC Board met today. The subject matter of the documentary was clearly a legitimate area to explore, but nothing is more important than trust and transparency in our journalism. While the Board appreciates that mistakes can be made, the mistakes here are significant and damaging to the BBC.

“The Board has required the Executive to report back at the earliest opportunity on the outcomes of the work the Director-General has commissioned.”