Another case of BBC misrepresentation of the ICJ ruling

Back in April we pointed out that a BBC interview with the former president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had highlighted numerous misrepresentations of a decision issued by that court in January in BBC reporting:

A BBC INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS MULTIPLE BBC MISREPRESENTATIONS OF ICJ RULING

CAMERA UK submitted a complaint to the BBC on April 27th 2024, citing nine such examples. Although we never received a response to that complaint, six of the nine examples we provided were later amended in the second half of May:

BBC UNABLE TO REPLY TO A COMPLAINT ABOUT ITEMS IT ALREADY AMENDED

Another item of BBC content – not cited in our complaint – which was originally published on February 11th 2024 – told BBC audiences that:

“Air strikes already kill many people in Rafah, but despite American calls for restraint, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has ordered the army to attack the town once it has a plan to move Palestinian civilians out of Rafah. Since nowhere in Gaza is safe, residents do not find that reassuring. Perhaps Mr Netanyahu is trying to mollify Mr Biden.

Another potential audience might be the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which has ruled that Israel faces “plausible” allegations that it is committing the crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.” [emphasis added]

That article by the BBC’s international editor Jeremy Bowen – titled “Israel-Gaza war: Death and Israel’s search for ‘total victory’” and classified as a “briefing” – underwent multiple amendments following its initial publication, including on May 28th.

The penultimate amendment (to date) is dated September 28th and comprises the addition of a footnote dated September 26th:

However, no link is in fact provided to the article by “our Legal Correspondent” Dominic Casciani published on May 17th 2024, which includes the following:

“In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement – and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances… are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”.

This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC.

In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.

Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” – rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.”

Moreover, despite that amendment and another made two days later, Bowen’s original misleading claim remains in situ.

In other words, the BBC’s international editor promoted disinformation in February which was refuted by the former president of the ICJ in a BBC interview in April – as acknowledged by the BBC in May – but a footnote was only added to his report in late September and – over eight months after its original publication – that disinformation nevertheless still remains online.

CAMERA UK has submitted a complaint to the BBC on this issue.

More from Hadar Sela
BBC ‘fact-checking’ fails to deliver on Palestinian vaccinations issue
On January 26th the BBC News website published an article by ‘Reality...
Read More
Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *