The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

BBC defends decision to censor the word "Palestine"

The broadcaster claims that allowing the lyric "free Palestine" would have comprised impartiality.

By Samira Shackle Published 02 February 2012 15:34

In a ruling on 31 January, the BBC Trust defended its decision to censor the word "Palestine" from a freestyle by rapper Mic Righteous on 1xtra in February last year. In the performance (above), he rapped:

I still have the same beliefs

I can scream Free Palestine,

Die for my pride still pray for peace,

Still burn a fed for the brutality

They spread over the world.

BBC production staff covered up the word "Palestine" with the sound of broken glass. The censored version was also aired in April. Responding to the original complaints, the BBC said that "Mic Righteous was expressing a political viewpoint which, if it had been aired in isolation, would have compromised impartiality."

Yet its own guidelines make allowances for "individual expression" for "artists, writers and entertainers", as long as services "reflect a broad range of the available perspectives over time". The BBC argues that a late night music show was not the appropriate place to get into political debate as it was not obvious when these other views would be aired.

Amena Saleem, of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said: '"In its correspondence with us, the BBC said the word Palestine isn't offensive, but 'implying that it is not free is the contentious issue', and this is why the edit was made."

But the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is a fact, not a statement of opinion. The UN Security Council classifies Israel as the "occupying force" in the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, in upholding their decision, the BBC Trust has not addressed this key issue in the complaints. Consequently, nine complainants have said that their main point, that the BBC "demonstrated bias against Palestinians", had been ignored.

At the time, the PSC made the point that the BBC did not ban the song "Free Nelson Mandela" in 1984, even though Mandela was considered to be a terrorist by many western governments.

The BBC Trust has decided it is not "proportionate or cost-effective" to proceed further with the complaint, but the original decision does not seem proportionate either. Indeed, had the BBC allowed the song to go through uncensored, it probably would not have been remarked upon (after all, it was two words, not a long political diatribe). As it is, this incident sends a very uncomfortable message.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Palestine BBC

More from Samira Shackle

View the discussion thread.

48 comments

Wed, 2012-07-18 13:04 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article.

Goji

Goji

fructe goji

genti

Sun, 2012-06-10 19:32 — another AJ (not verified)

I complained once to the BBC about blatantly alarmist and misleading content with a potential negative public health impact and received a completely unsatisfactory reply which simply asserted the program was not alarmist without adddressing my point at all.

I was more worried about the failure to address the complaint at all than I was by the original program. I could accept that they disagreed if they actually addressed my point but to simply ignore it and assert everything was fine without any logic or analysis was disturbing.

At least the rational fo rdoing nothing given in this case can be seen as a tacit admission they got it wrong even if the argumenr about cost effectiveness means they can effectively decide to do nothing in any case the feel fit

I think the problem is a general problem of not addressing legitimate complaints and treating them seriously rather than a specific political problem although it is very clear that the BBC tries very hard not to upset Israel and it's supporters.

Tue, 2012-04-17 19:36 — Indu Pendent

Same here.
I complained because a family show on BBC at 5:37pm came out with "bastard" and "arse" with no warning whilst my 3 year old was watching.

I got a letter back saying that they had only received 3 other complaints for the same issue which wasnt enough to do anything about it like say sorry. It was rediculous because they said these were normal words in everyday use that my 3 year old was exepected to know. As a mother it made me think the BBC is corrupted where the complaint procedure is about them using it to close ranks and cover their own backsides.

What gives the BBC the self ritgheous power to decide that my 3 year old should know "bastard" and "arse" without my consent? What the BBC needs is a lot of the dead wood firing.

Thu, 2012-02-02 15:43 — Des Demona (not verified)

correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't 'burn a fed' mean kill a policeman?
Maybe that would be a better line to censor?

Thu, 2012-02-02 16:15 — David (not verified)

Having had cause to do so a few times recently, there is absolutely no point complaining to the BBC about anything. They resolutely stand their ground and never seem interested in genuinely seeing matters from the opposite point of view (never mind accepting it). I think the BBC is a great institution which does a lot of good, but it needs to understand that it does not hold the monopoly of wisdom and should start admitting it when it gets things wrong. That would be a strength, not a weakness.

Thu, 2012-02-02 16:37 — James Hunter (not verified)

Nothing to do with Mark Thompson's wife at all.

Thu, 2012-02-02 16:46 — AlmosJustice (not verified)

In common with other posters I too have had numerous reasons to complain to the BBC, (Which they don't make easy btw) about biased, unresearched or pure propaganda repetition from govt ministers, particularly in the last few months. I've always supported the BBC against the neolib corporatists that want to demolish it on behalf of Murdoch. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion though that if the BBC are going to pander so disgracefully to right wing governmental and corporatist interests, what is the point in saving it? The excuse above is patently nonsense. The whole of the international community is in agreement that palestine is very far from 'free'. Consequently the BBC is bringing itself into disrepute by aligning itself with a foreign power (Israel) against the views of the vast majority of democrats. Another occasion when the phrase 'not fit for purpose' unfortunately describes the BBC's news output rather well. The BBC needs to recognise that defenders of the BBC, like myself, will be less keen to support their monopolistic model if they do not present the highest levels of news gathering and reporting.

Thu, 2012-02-02 16:55 — COMMIE_SMASHER (not verified)

The BBC is part of ZOG or rather ZOM - Zionist occupied government and media.

Thu, 2012-02-02 18:06 — Janet Green (not verified)

This Monday, 31/2/11, BBC 4's 'Only Connect' called Ariel a city in Israel. According to the UK Government and under international law, Ariel is an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.

Thu, 2012-02-02 18:18 — Murder most fowl (not verified)

Janet - thanks (light bulb flashes over my head)

In captions for "The Crusades", they put Acre (I think) in "Israel" but Ariel in "Northern Israel". I wondered at the time why there was a difference.

Be fair, however; they have to sell these series to the US, and the easiest way is to structure filming not to need reworking.

Thu, 2012-02-02 19:30 — TGonzalez

"Methinks thou dost protest too much." In fact, your refusal to allow use of the term "free Palestine" blatantly betrays your extant bias. How about using one of their older names. Would you also censor "free Phillistines"??????

Fri, 2012-02-03 21:56 — Rachel Walker (not verified)

Observation. I would not have heard this recording if not for the ban. Listening to his rap, the blanking of the word only serves to make the sentiment of the rap more powerful. By censoring, we are forced either for or against the BBC's action rather than enjoying the rap as a peice of art.

Fri, 2012-02-03 23:49 — Mrs Nobody

There is something very wrong with this country if the BBC is unable to stomache the word Palestine.

All this story does is confirm in peoples minds that the BBC is a propaganda tool of the establishment.

Sat, 2012-02-04 02:02 — Tom (not verified)

Does BBC managment realize that by censoring this, the CD sales will go way up. Which will show even more people how hypocritical this is?

If you publically criticize Israel on the BBC, will you get sacked as well?

Sat, 2012-02-04 08:58 — skiptonman

police state .. hello ..do as we say, not as we doo ... democracy died years ago, the hippies have always been right

Mon, 2012-02-06 15:29 — Soup One (not verified)

I am shocked to find such anti-Jewish racism and conspiracy theories at the New Statesman.

I never thought that it would sink so low as to allow this type of invective.

Fri, 2012-03-16 03:20 — Flashbuck (not verified)

HaHaHaHa there's nothing like the use of the so-called term 'palestine' to get all the knee-jerk fascist left Jew hating muppets posting endless bile and shrill drivel. HaHaHaHa love it!

Fri, 2012-02-03 13:20 — Andyb (not verified)

The BBC's obsession with impartiality can sometimes lead to truly bizarre decisions. This one of them.

Since when isn't it allowed for individuals to express personal political opinions? Since when has it become acceptable for the BBC to censor artists? Pathetic!