What should be the relationship between public service broadcasting and disaster relief campaigning?

April 2009

Barbara Stocking and Paul Renney have different opinions on the BBC's refusal to run the DEC appeal video

Barabara Stocking, chief executive, Oxfam:

As Oxfam staff were under fire – quite literally – in Gaza, the organisation and other charities were subjected to a barrage of criticism for taking a ‘political’ stance over the conflict by calling for a ceasefire. When the BBC refused to run the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal film the argument became part of the national conversation.

A Times columnist accused Oxfam of being anti-Israel ‘partisans’ running an ‘ideological campaign’. The agency was accused in the Independent of dabbling in politics by a columnist who asked ‘what business is it of Oxfam's, really, whether and when the fighting stops?’
Such commentators argued that an aid agency had no right in making ‘political’ demands, and should stick to being impartial providers of aid on the front line.

Impartiality and neutrality

There is confusion between impartiality and neutrality. Oxfam is determined to be strictly impartial: we decide who to help on the basis of need. Political views or affiliation, religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality do not influence the decision of who we help. Instead we focus on need and concentrate our efforts on the most vulnerable, or those least able to help themselves.

Humanitarian workers are on the side of the family without a home, the child without a school, the village without clean water.

But if neutrality is equated with not having an opinion or a position on an issue then Oxfam is not neutral, and never can be. We take positions on many issues, from conflict and climate change to aid and trade. We do this because we feel no doubt about our obligation to deal with the causes of poverty and suffering as well as the symptoms. Which is why we have to lobby the politicians who have the power to change the situations where we can only provide relief. Gaza is no different.

Practicalities

That’s why over a year before the war began Oxfam attempted to improve the lives of the poor people of Gaza by urging the Israelis to end their blockade of the territory, under which innocent people were suffering as the economy slowly ground to a halt. While the fighting raged Oxfam called for a ceasefire from both sides, because it was almost impossible to deliver humanitarian aid as the bombs fell.

Oxfam delivers aid to the people of Sudan or Zimbabwe despite very difficult political situations, using 60 years of experience to make sure help gets to the right people. When the fighting stopped, the same happened in Gaza, and we got our aid programmes running at full speed again.

What about the Israelis though? Surely the people in Sderot and other Israeli towns hit by Hamas rocket attacks deserve our help and sympathy? Without in any way downplaying their suffering, the situation there had not overwhelmed the abilities of both the people and the authorities to cope. In Gaza there was no drinking water, gas and functioning hospitals stocked with drugs, and the authorities were unable to provide those things.

Politics

Critics say Oxfam and the other DEC aid agencies should stick to working in more straightforward and less political disasters – droughts, cyclones, cholera epidemics in Africa.

Yes, the conflict in the Middle East is more political than most, but it’s only a matter of degree. All conflicts are political. The real reason Oxfam’s lobbying made such a stir is because the demands were directed at a conflict which many people in Britain understand and care passionately about and feel a strong affiliation to one side or the other. There simply isn’t that level of engagement when the CNDP and FDLR militias fight in the Congo.

Politics intrudes even into natural disasters. How a country prepares for natural disasters and how it recovers from them are questions about allocating resources – that is they
are political.

In 1970 a cyclone killed half-a-million people in Bangladesh. In 2007 the similarly powerful cyclone Sidr killed around 4,000 Bangladeshis, despite the country’s population nearly doubling in the past 40 years. So many people survived cyclone Sidr because over previous years the government had committed itself to spending money and resources on reducing the impact of disasters.

Politics can make a real difference to people’s lives on the ground. That’s why Oxfam gets involved in politics – and will continue to do so.

Paul Renney, consultant, Campbell Hooper Solicitors LLP:

Impartiality? A difficult concept in today's political, human, and various other rights minefield, and one that certain institutions of our society toy with at their peril.
I speak of the BBC, or rather the director-general, Mark Thomson's recent stand against those charities that make up the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC), and their televised appeal for charitable funds to help people in Gaza.

The appeal video highlighted the suffering of innocent children deprived of their homes and in desperate need of food and medication because of the attacks on their territory by the Israelis - which were in response to the earlier rocket attacks launched into Israel by the Palestinians from the Gaza territory. The BBC declined to screen the video, while some other UK broadcasters, commercial, not public ones, like Channel 4, did broadcast it. The BBC's refusal was publicised and attracted much adverse press comment, many letters, and some public criticism, for what was commonly seen as its harsh attitude.

Stripped of the emotional overtones however, to understand why the BBC took this stance, it is worth considering the wider issues, outside the more immediate emotional ones.

Public purposes

The BBC is governed by its Royal Charter, which established it as an independent corporation, independent in all matters and with certain listed public purposes, at the heart of the operation. The Charter established a BBC Trust, not a traditional ‘trust’ in the legal sense, more a body discharging a public trust as guardian of the public interest; an aim the BBC takes very seriously. Also, undeniably linked with this discharge, is the duty to act in all matters in an impartial manner; anything else that compromised the BBC's independence, would ruin its ability to broadcast a news service, not only viewed, but envied and respected throughout the world.

The public purposes include promoting education and learning, representing the UK, its nations, and communities, and bringing the UK to the rest of the world and the world to the UK. None include getting involved in political matters, especially from only one side.

The DEC is a registered charity, acting as the umbrella organisation for its 13 humanitarian aid agencies. It operates the Rapid Response Network, which includes broadcasters, especially the BBC, listed and thanked on their website as a supporter for participating in past appeals; the Bangladesh Cyclone Appeal in 2008, the earlier Tsunami appeal etc, all notably natural, not manmade, disasters.

The dilemma

The BBC is asked to broadcast the appeal video; it contains clearly upsetting pictures of those suffering in Gaza. So there is public suffering, yes; a clear need for funds, outside of what its government can provide, and the appeal needs to reach a very large audience; the BBC seem an
obvious choice.

But, and it is a big but, should a public broadcaster, financed primarily by its licence fee payers, with an absolute need to protect its impartiality and independence, broadcast such an appeal?

The appeal was not in relation to a natural disaster, but highlighted the suffering on one side of a battle zone; but what suffering was taking place on the Israeli side, the receiving end originally of the rockets from Gaza? There was no similar appeal for them. Also, the BBC were going to be broadcasting pictures of the conflict, and its effect on individuals in both territories, as part of the news; there was a serious possibility of viewers becoming confused between pictures from the appeal, and pictures provided as part of the news service.

Given that it was also only one-sided, how would BBC journalists seeking access and other news items in Israel be treated after it had been broadcast, if they were still granted access at all! Supporting the ‘other side’, would undoubtedly be raised, their independence compromised, and possibly even their personal safety.

Where do you draw the line?

In addition, would it stop there? What about appeals for those suffering in Zimbabwe? If the DEC wanted to help those suffering in that region, would that also be broadcast? Other parts of Africa, and in the rest of the world, where through human actions, not natural disasters, people are suffering; should the BBC broadcast appeals on their behalf too?

All these unwelcome scenarios could well have resulted if the BBC had not taken the firm line when it needed to. It wasn't the only broadcaster channel available, but it is a public service and cannot afford to get embroiled on one side in such political issues; it must preserve its independence, and its impartiality, to have a future as a respected public broadcaster. Those who say otherwise, are relying on the emotional issues, not considering the wider ones.

When all these factors are taken into consideration, the BBC took the right line, reserving itself for natural disaster appeals, and leaving more political ones, to those operating outside the public service.

Paul Renney is writing in a personal capacity