There are two sides to every story. With infinite nuances and variations, obviously.
For many years the BBC has listened more sympathetically to one side in the interminable Middle East conflict than the other. As the story has evolved and become more complicated, the BBC’s position has become more entrenched and also more incongruous, being that it supports democracy, liberty, gay rights and all things that make radical Islam such a strange bedfellow.
Jeremy Bowen has an agenda. We are told he still resents the killing, by an Israeli, of his Palestinian driver. He sympathises with the Palestinians, and finds most Israelis prickly and brusque. His fixers and enablers are Arabs.
One could well disregard all that, but his most egregious failing is that he has only a partial knowledge of history. He tries to appear fair to both sides, but he doesn’t know or won’t tell us that different but equally valid and credible versions of historical events even exist. He might omit a crucial detail that would throw things into a different light here; add a word there, and imbue his reports with subtly disparaging innuendos everywhere.
The recent BBC Trust’s decision to uphold two complaints against Jeremy Bowen, and to publicly censure him brought forth a petulant outburst from Jonathan Dimbleby. He blamed this outcome on the absence, on the day of the hearing, of Richard Tait, head of the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee.
Now it seems, the BBC are going to investigate another complaint against Jeremy Bowen – with Mr. Tait as chair.
Richard Tait has already stated his position. He has the utmost faith in Jeremy Bowen. So we await the outcome with bated breath.