Ofcom exonerates Al Jazeera

Ofcom dismisses complaints about Al Jazeera’s The Lobby

Broadcasting regulator throws out allegations against investigation which revealed the Israel lobby’s inner workings.

Of particular interest to JVL readers will be what Ofcom said about the use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in this context. See an extract below.

Download the full Ofcom report here.

Al Jazeera did not breach any broadcasting rules in its coverage of the pro-Israel lobby in the UK, Britain’s broadcasting regulator has ruled.

On Monday, Ofcom dismissed complaints against Al Jazeera’s four-part series “The Lobby“, an undercover investigation that aired in January and made global headlines.

Filmed over six months, The Lobby revealed the Israeli embassy’s covert influence campaign to smear and attack British citizens critical of Israel and its practices – including British Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

Ofcom received complaints in the aftermath of the series from a number of pro-Israeli British activists, including one former Israeli embassy employee.

These complaints levelled a range of charges against Al Jazeera from “anti-Semitism” and bias to unfair editing and infringement of privacy.

In each instance, Ofcom dismissed the charges, and the complaints as a whole without reservation.

“We did not consider that this aspect of the complaints warranted further investigation,” Ofcom said.

“The fact that the programmes uncovered evidence of inappropriate behaviour by those acting on behalf of the Israeli government, or by those belonging to a small number of organisations that promote Israeli policy, does not mean that they were anti-Semitic,” Ofcom said. “In the same way, programmes that expose the violence associated with some black gang culture in Britain’s inner cities are not, by default, racist.”

Ofcom is responsible for licensing all UK commercial television services.

“We are extremely pleased with the verdict,” said Clayton Swisher, Al Jazeera’s director of investigative journalism and the series narrator.  “It overwhelmingly validates the revelations captured by our brave undercover, known as ‘Robin’.  Our entire team put a ton of care into making this film, under full legal review throughout. This totally vindicates our work and is a terrific verdict for all journalists exposing wrongdoing.”

Undercover investigation

As part of the investigation, Al Jazeera filmed Shai Masot, the Israeli embassy’s then senior political officer.

At one point, in a discussion with British civil servant Maria Strizzolo, Masot plotted to “take down” Sir Alan Duncan, a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights who has condemned the Israeli occupation.

Masot’s position came to an early end shortly after the investigation was broadcast. Strizzolo resigned.

The Israeli ambassador to Britain, Mark Regev, formally apologised to the British Foreign Office while Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson conceded Masot’s “cover” was “well and truly blown”.

Ofcom’s findings come at a time when Israel is seeking to close Al Jazeera’s Jerusalem bureau and deny its reporters access for allegedly causing “incitement”.

Meanwhile, at least four Arab states are demanding the wholesale closure of Al Jazeera amid a blockade against Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based.

The Lobby is available to watch here.

An extract from the Ofcom Report, pp.24-25:

Issue 338 of Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin 9 October 2017

Not in Breach

The Lobby

Al Jazeera English, 11 to 14 January 2017, 22:30

___________________________________

In coming to our Decision in this case we had regard to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (“IHRA”) working definition of anti-Semitism which the UK Government agreed to adopt in December 2016 which states:

“Anti-semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”. 3

The guidance published with the IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism includes the following as a contemporary example (amongst others) of what could constitute anti- Semitism in public life and the media, taking into account the overall context: “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”.

The guidance also suggests that manifestations of anti-Semitism might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collective. There was therefore the possibility that a programme, such as The Lobby, which focused on the actions of the State of Israel and alleged that individuals associated with it were attempting to inappropriately influence British democracy, may be considered by some to be anti-Semitic.

Importantly however, the IHRA guidance makes clear that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

We considered that the allegations in the programme were not made on the grounds that any of the particular individuals concerned were Jewish and noted that no claims were made relating to their faith. We did not consider that the programme portrayed any negative stereotypes of Jewish people as controlling or seeking to control the media or governments. Rather, it was our view that these individuals featured in the programme in the context of its investigation into the alleged activities of a foreign state (the State of Israel acting through its UK Embassy) and their association with it. We also noted that a number of the organisations featured in the programme, such as Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel, are not defined by any adherence to Judaism or having a predominantly Jewish membership.

As per the IHRA guidance, Ofcom did not consider that such a critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations.

For these reasons, our Decision is that there was no breach of Rule 2.3. [This requires that material which may cause offence must be justified by the context. Under “meaning of context” the Code lists a number of factors including the editorial content of the programme and the service on which it was broadcast. ]

Save