On April 9th and 10th respectively, the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 interviewed Saeed Khatibzadeh, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran, and Alex Gandler, the Spokesman of the Israeli Embassy in the UK. An analysis of how these two interviews were approached shows how the BBC uses framing and language to construct a narrative, while ostensibly platforming both sides.
On April 9th, Nick Robinson introduced his interview with Mr Khatibzadeh with these words:
Robinson: “A fragile peace. that is how US Vice President JD Vance described the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, and now we know why. Vance and Donald Trump insist that the ceasefire did not include Lebanon, which saw more than a 100 targets attacked by Israel yesterday. The Iranians insist that it did include Lebanon, and they can point to the statement issued by the man meant to be hosting peace talks tomorrow in Islamabad, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which referred to a ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. I’ve been speaking to Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, who’s in Tehran. I asked him for his reaction to those attacks in Lebanon and how he thinks that affects the ceasefire.”
Here we can see neutral language which suggests confusion over the nature of the ceasefire, emphasis on reaction to Israeli attacks, and an appeal to authority by naming Pakistan as a neutral mediator backing up the Islamic Regime’s claim that the ceasefire did in fact cover Lebanon.
The next day, when Anna Foster interviewed Alex Gandler, she also used an appeal to authority to create her framing, this time with an entirely erroneous statement from UN Aid Chief Tom Fletcher, author of the notorious 14,000 dead babies libel:
Anna Foster: “Well, a week ago on this program, I spoke to the UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher. He was telling me about the situation in Iran and also the situation in Lebanon, where he just been and he said civilian lives are not being protected and he believes that war crimes are being committed.”
Tom Fletcher: “This stuff isn’t negotiable. You don’t hit civilian infrastructure that includes hospitals across Beirut and across Lebanon. I met huge numbers of medics whose ambulances are being hit at the moment you don’t hit schools, you don’t hit energy sources, you don’t hit bridges. Those are war crimes. that is absolutely clear in international law”
Foster: “Well, let’s speak to Alex Gandler, the spokesperson for the Embassy of Israel to the United Kingdom. Good morning”
Gandler: “Good morning, shalom.”
Foster: “Tom Fletcher says that it is clear in humanitarian law that civilian infrastructure should not be hit. So why is Israel doing that in Lebanon?”
This statement by Tom Fletcher is not true. Under International Law when civilian infrastructure is used for military purposes it may become a legitimate military target. The relevant legal tests are then applied, such as whether the anticipated military gain is proportionate to any harm to civilians, and whether proper precautions were taken to limit that harm . What Foster has done here is appeal to Tom Fletcher’s credibility as a senior UN official to advance a false statement and force Alex Gandler into defending against it.
When Mr Gandler pushes back on this point she doubles down:
Gandler: “Well, we can talk about what is happening in Lebanon, but it’s quite important to put this whole thing in context, Hezbollah is using every possible infrastructure that Lebanon, the State of Lebanon, has in order to conduct attacks on Israeli civilians that includes houses, includes bridges, includes residential and urban areas and unfortunately, Tom Fletcher I don’t know why he said it the way he said, but he’s completely wrong. On every legal level. there are caveats within the international law that explain if civilian infrastructure is used to act as part of an aggressive war, then it becomes a military target.
Foster “Not when so many civilians are being killed. I mean the attacks on Wednesday killed 33 children and they are not combatants, and we talked about ambulances, bridges, it is civilian infrastructure, it is clear under international law. So why is Israel doing that?”
Notice that Gandler has already answered her question; Israel is attacking civilian infrastructure where it is being used by Hezbollah to launch attacks on Israeli civilians. Foster however ignores this and makes an emotional appeal to the killing of children, the classic trope applied to Jews since the 12th century, as evidence that Israel is in fact committing war crimes.
Surely then, the BBC would approach an interview with an Iranian diplomat in the same way? Nick Robinson must have, for example, asked Mr Khatibzadeh about the killing just three days before of an entire family in Haifa, whose home was not, and has not been suggested to have been, in use by the IDF? He did not.
Did he ask Mr Khatibzadeh about the murder of tens of thousands of Iranian civilians in January? He did not.
Did he then, ask Mr Khatibzadeh about the Iranian regimes call for civilians to form human chains around targets in Iran, an explicit use of human shields and therefore also a war crime? He did not.
In fact, in the entire interview Robinson didn’t ask Mr Khatibzadeh one question relating to the documented and unquestionable crimes of the Islamic Regime, even going so far as to soften Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli civilians on behalf of the Islamic Regime as “firing rockets into Israel” by an “ally”:
Robinson: “Will you tell Iran’s allies, Hezbollah, who get their weapons, training and support from Iran, to stop firing rockets into Israel?”
Khatibzadeh: “I think that it is quite clear that Hezbollah is pure Lebanese freedom movement.”
There is a cavernous difference in language between “allies” and “proxy military”, as there is between “firing rockets into Israel” and “Civilian infrastructure should not be hit. So why is Israel doing that in Lebanon”. Passive and active language does immense work in creating an image in the mind of the audience. A national broadcaster which holds itself to the highest standards of impartiality is well aware of language choice and framing, which is why it claims to avoid making subjective value judgements by its careful use of the word terrorist. Unfortunately, that scrutiny of value judgements does not seem to extend to making unproven accusations of war crimes against Israel.
Ms Foster went on to ask Mr Gandler about provocative statements made by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich:
Foster: “Bezalel Smotrich, the Israeli Finance Minister has talked about the annexation of South Lebanon as one of the aims, the objectives of this war. Is that something that you share as a war aim the annexation of South Lebanon?”
Gandler: “I don’t think it was discussed as a possibility within the Israeli Government or as part of what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked about regard in to these recent talks so no it’s not”
Foster: “So why is the finance minister saying it then, because you can see that it creates a bad climate for negotiations, doesn’t it and he’s a key part of that Government. So when he talks about calling for the annexation of South Lebanon, the Litani River, he said, must be our new border, just like the yellow line in Gaza. Why are Members of your Government speaking out of turn like that?”
Gandler: “Well, that’s something you will probably need to ask the Finance Minister. I speak for the official line of the Israeli Government”
Foster: “And he’s in the government a member of the government so that’s why I’m asking you if he what, why is he putting forward lines that aren’t official government lines when he’s a key member of that government?”
Gandler: “Because, as you know, in democracies, different parties make different coalitions in those parties the politicians can say their line, but the official line of the Israeli Government is not that.”
This was a reasonable question, and Ms Foster clearly by her repeated reframing of the question didn’t appreciate the equally reasonable answer.
Nick Robinson in his interview with Mr Khatibzadeh, must then have asked the same reasonable question about the official statements from the Islamic Regime for decades that Israel must be destroyed. He did not. Even when Mr Khatibzadeh claimed that Iran was acting to secure peace in the entire middle east, after spending weeks bombing not just Israel but Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Cyprus, Azerbaijan and even Turkey, Robinson did not ask, “Will the Islamic Regime abandon its goal of destroying Israel”, he just accepted the claim as truth:
Khatibzadeh: “Look, we are. We are very much focusing on the well-being of the whole Middle East, and this rogue behaviour of Israel cannot continue, we are going to settle it down for once forever. You know peace for the whole Middle East is something that I believe that everybody is interested including President Macron when he called you know yesterday, President Pezeshkian and everybody who’s calling us and everybody who is trying to to reach to the understanding.”
Robinson: “I take it from your answer Minister that you want those talks, and believe those talks will continue”
The approach of these two BBC journalists to two diplomats from two countries at war shows a stark example of the way the BBC continues to use language and framing to construct a narrative. The responsibility to impartiality cannot be reduced to “we showed both sides” when the sides are presented in such a way as to whitewash one and vilify the other.
