The BBC, Guardian and Independent all cover the latest development in the press industry’s reaction to the Leveson report – the publication of an plan for press regulation by the Associated Newspapers, Express Newspapers, Trinity Mirror, News international and Telegraph Media Group.

The alternative regulation model negates the provision in the Royal Charter published by the Government last month on a statutory underpinning to press regulation – the provision that it can only be altered by a two thirds majority in each House of Parliament. The industry’s proposed self-regulation model also contains a provision allowing newspapers “a "veto" of appointments to the board of the new regulator”, according to the Independent.

The issue of the industry’s ‘veto power’ on appointments was a major sticking point in the negotiations before a cross party deal was agreed and instrumental for the purposes of complying with a key Leveson recommendation – that the press regulation body be independent of the industry.

The BBC reports that the editors of the FT, Guardian and Independent, have not backed the industry proposal. Lionel Barber, Alan Rusbridger and Chris Blackhurst, respective editors of the titles, broke ranks with editors when they backed the need for statutory underpinning to press regulation.

The BBC also notes some of the points of difference in the industry’s alternative model notable among them being this:

“Make it more difficult to bring group complaints”

The issue of third party complaints was strongly rejected by the industry after the initial editors’ meeting at the Delaunay with editors’ considering the recommendation by Lord Leveson to be ‘unacceptable’.

The Royal Charter agreed in cross party talks last month introduces the third party complaints clause in the provision:

The Board should have the power (but not necessarily the duty) to hear complaints:

a) from anyone personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the standards code, or

b) where there is an alleged breach of the code and there is public interest in the Board giving consideration to the complaint from a representative group affected by the alleged breach,

In our evidence and submission to the Leveson Inquiry the problem posed by the absence of a third party complaints clause to media representations on Islam and Muslims was one of our primary concerns. It is worthwhile remembering the paragraphs in Lord Leveson’s report underscoring the need for a third party complaints clause:

“Overall, the evidence in relation to the representation of women and minorities suggests that there has been a significant tendency within the press which leads to the publication of prejudicial or pejorative references to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental illness or disability....That failure has, in the main, been limited to a section of the press and may well stem from an undue focus on seeking to reflect the views (even if unsuccessfully) of a particular readership. A new regulator will need to address these issues as a matter of priority, the first steps being to amend practice and the Code to permit third party complaints.”

Hacked Off’s Director, Evan Harris, has responded to the alternative charter by the newspaper industry calling the reaction a "temper tantrum by some powerful people used to having their own way" and saying:

"The royal charter agreed by parliament is not going to be reopened at the request of Mr Murdoch, Mr Desmond and Mr Dacre”.

Hilary Aked has written a more detailed article for Open Democracy picking up on the topic of a recent post on Spinwatch, the BBC and the longstanding debate about its pro-Israeli bias.

Aked argues that claims leveled by both sides of perceived BBC bias cannot be right but there does exist an “objective reality consisting of material facts that can’t be disputed”. Aked goes on to analyse various facets of the BBC’s coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict to shed light on these ‘material facts’.

Language

On the subject of language, Aked gives numerous examples of vocabulary and concepts used when covering the Israel/Palestine conflict. One such example is the use of the term “targeted killing”, which a BBC guide states should be attributed to the Israeli sources who use it. However, Aked writes that “three times, in the space of a week during the recent bombing, the BBC used the phrase uncritically even when it was not quoting an Israeli source directly.”

Another example is the Palestinian’s ‘right of return’, something enshrined in international law. But, Aked argues, the BBC’s guide appears to reflect an element of the Israeli perspective on the ‘right of return’ framing it as a ‘demand’ by the Palestinians, rather than a legal right.

Facts and structure

Factual inaccuracies are critical in this minefield and Aked states that “there have been undeniable inaccuracies on both sides”. She refers to the recent complaint upheld by the BBC over its inaccurate report on a pro-Palestinian protest which suggested that it was racially motivated. There is also the case of the complaint by the Council for the Advancement of Arab British Understanding (CAABU) about the inaccuracy of a Newsround report which was “designed, ironically, to outline the basics but littered with fundamental errors”. The BBC recently issued an apology for that error too.

Aked notes that “the most scholarly and extensive systematic studies remain those carried out by The Glasgow Media Group's Greg Philo and Mike Berry.” Philo and Berry’s work, ‘Bad News from Israel’ and ‘More Bad News from Israel’, found a marked and consistent pro-Israeli bias in BBC coverage of the Middle East conflict.

‘Middle East experts’

In a section scrutinising the BBC’s use of ‘experts’ Aked writes, “Propaganda is most effective when it is unseen”. She points to the BBC’s own guide, which states that the notion of a ‘middle east expert’ may be problematic, as “some "experts" may have a history of sympathising with one cause or another even if they have no overt affiliation”. Journalists should, therefore, “where time and space allow, to provide a lengthier indication of the contributor's views on past issues so that the audience might calibrate his or her statements for themselves”.

However, as Aked remarks, “This is one area in which the BBC failed abysmally in the recent violence and has a poor history throughout its reporting of the conflict and indeed its reporting in general.” She refers to the pro-Israeli advocate, Jonathan Sacerdoti who “appeared four times on BBC News between 14-15 November defending Israel’s actions in Gaza, without viewers ever being informed of his history of pro-Israeli activism.” Another example is Raheem Kassam, who was introduced as someone from the Henry Jackson Society, without mention of the fact that “HJS is a right-wing British think tank that promotes a neoconservative worldview”, or that many of its staff were absorbed from the pro-Israeli media monitoring organisation, Just Journalism.

Lobbying

Here, Aked draws attention to the way that the BBC responds to pressure from lobbies. “The main activity of these groups when it comes to the media is to co-ordinate supporters to engage in that most British activity – complaining”, she writes.

She states that “whilst media activism by pro-Palestinians does seem to be on the rise, evidence of pressure exerted by pro-Israel groups and individuals is more compelling”, listing a number of examples as to why this is the case. She cites from Philo and Berry who heard from one BBC editor that “we wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis” following any report which could be construed as anti-Israel. Whilst complaints, or the ‘stick’, are one aspect of this, the ‘carrot’, she argues is more effective and pro-Israel groups such as BICOM- the Britain Israel Communication and Research Centre, have “far greater resources at their disposal than the equivalent pro-Palestinian groups”.

Concluding, Aked writes that “The BBC is neither totally biased for Israel nor completely partial to the Palestinians. Each report varies and there will be differences in the online, radio and TV mediums depending on which journalists and editors hands they pass through.”

She adds though, that “there is an internal power struggle going on” and the politicisation of the Disaster Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza in 2009, which the BBC refused to broadcast, “is perhaps the most damning evidence, along with material suggesting a general trend of pro-Israel bias in overall BBC coverage…The BBC is not the only – or even the worst – case of partial reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but it is one of the most influential. Though the pro-Palestinian lobby has become more organised of late - and is currently pushing for an inquiry into pro-Israel bias - it is fighting an uphill battle. The BBC is inherently conservative and, more to the point, anxiety about being accused of ‘anti-Israeli’ bias seems to have been firmly instilled in at least the higher echelons of command.”

One wonders whether the ‘cowardice at the heart of the government’s relationship with Israel’, as Peter Oborne recently described it, also extends to the BBC?  A truly impartial inquiry into its coverage of the Middle East conflict would be a welcome intervention to clear the air of any doubt.

Ian Cobain, Guardian journalist and author of Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture, in a report in the paper today covers the investigations launched by Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service against MI5 and MI6 on allegations of complicity in torture.

Investigations into the rendition and torture of two Libyan nationals, Sami al-Saadi and Abdel Hakim Belhadj are currently underway. Cobain notes three further cases which the police and CPS are taking forward:

“One of the latest three investigations is thought to concern a British Muslim who is alleged to have been subjected to mistreatment at Bagram, and who is said to have subsequently agreed to work as an informant for MI5 in order to avoid further suffering.

“The second concerns Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national and UK resident who was detained and allegedly mistreated at Bagram, before being flown to Guantánamo. He remains at Guantánamo, with his lawyers alleging that a deal struck between the US, UK and Saudi authorities is preventing his return to his family in London.

“The third investigation is examining allegations made by Hassan Zemiri, 45, an Algerian married to a Canadian who was detained at Bagram and Guantánamo before being released. Zemiri alleges that British intelligence officers interrogated him while he was being beaten and, on one occasion, water-boarded, at Bagram. He also alleges that an Englishman calling himself Paul took part in the beatings.”

Among cases the CPS has declined to pursue is that of Martin Mubanga.

Allegations of complicity in torture, rendition and violations of the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment have dogged the security agencies as further cases of abuse have been unearthed and challenged in the courts.

In a column in the Guardian today also, columnist Seumas Milne comments on the case of Shaker Aamer writing:

“No wonder the British government is so keen to force through secret court hearings in "national security" cases through its justice and security bill – or that it has struggled to convince the courts that the Salafist cleric Abu Qatada, regularly detained without charge for years, would not be at risk of torture if packed off to a police state such as Jordan.

“It's hardly surprising in the wake of such a saga that western claims to be the champions of human rights and humanitarian intervention are treated with derision across much of the world.”

The Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator, Peter Oborne, in his column in today’s paper scrutinises the Conservative Party’s relationship and attitude towards Israel and its implications for the Middle East peace process. Drawing on his documentary for Dispatches on the Israel Lobby, and the PM’s speech at a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch this week, Oborne concludes that ‘cowardice’ lies at the heart of the Government’s approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Oborne elaborates on the history of the relationship between the Party and Israel, which dates back “at least as far the historic meeting between the great Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann and the Conservative prime minister A J Balfour in 1905, during which Weizmann convinced Balfour of the case for a Jewish national state.” It was the Balfour Declaration signed in 1917 that committed the UK to establishing a homeland for Jews in Palestine.

Oborne writes that the relationship in the present day is “sustained by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI)”, which boasts the membership of 80% of Tory MPs, “including most cabinet ministers”. He adds that “No other lobbying organisation – and certainly not one that acts in the interests of a foreign country – carries as much weight at Westminster.” Oborne divulges details of the CFI’s work, including taking parliamentarians to Israel, whilst “its sponsors play an important role in financing both the Tories nationally, and MPs at the local level”.

This contrasts significantly to the access that Palestinians and their representatives enjoy in Westminster, “they would be lucky to get a single Conservative MP in the audience for their events,” he writes.

He continues with how this “lack of even-handedness reflects itself in policy”, pointing to a promise made by Cameron to remove the word ‘disproportionate’ from the Conservative Party’s lexicon when describing Israel’s belligerent actions in Gaza in 2008-2009 and again more recently. Further examples cited are the government’s line that Hamas was to blame for the recent escalation in conflict, and its abstention from the recent vote at the UN General Assembly on upgrading Palestine’s status.

Oborne argues that William Hague and David Cameron have ‘failed’ in their attempts to be more robust than Tony Blair in their policy towards Israel. The ‘excellent’ formal position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been coupled with a refusal to act upon those beliefs, “for example, they condemn the settlements, but only in a half-hearted way (the Prime Minister devoted 64 words to the issue on Tuesday, and almost 300 to the Iranian threat).”

“This is cowardice… The brutal truth is that Benjamin Netanyahu is leading his country down the path to self-destruction. If he is allowed to go ahead with the latest plans for settlement construction, all hopes of Middle East peace will vanish and die.”

If Israel continues on its path of settlement expansion, Oborne states, “We will then be left with a greater Israel stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river…the Palestinians would suddenly find themselves in a majority. Israel would then face a choice between retaining its democracy, but ceasing to be a Jewish state, or embracing a form of apartheid in which Palestinians were refused basic rights. Judging from the rhetoric emanating from Mr Netanyahu and his unpleasant coalition allies, this is probably the choice today’s Israeli leadership would make."

From a survey published last month on Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians, the claims of its “embracing a form of apartheid in which Palestinians were refused basic rights” is more credible than one might think.

Oborne concludes that as inheritors of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the current government and Cameron in particular have a ‘distinct responsibility’ to Israel; “Given the cowed inertia of President Obama, it is all the more important that the British Prime Minister steps forward.”

“Mr Cameron does not want to go down in history as the man upon whose watch all hope of a two-state solution died, and with it all hope of a secure and peaceful future for the country a Conservative prime minister helped to bring into existence.”

Oborne’s article elucidates some of the possible motivations behind the government’s consistent ‘double-speak’ on the issue of the Middle East crisis. The influence of the pro-Israel lobby is one which Oborne explored in greater detail in his 2009 Dispatches documentary which followed months of investigation. You can watch the documentary at this link.

Constant references to Israel’s security without acknowledging the insecurity, and the indignity, which Palestinians have lived in since 1948 reveals the sheer one-sided nature of the UK’s stance. Beyond the moral responsibility which Britain has to Palestine, is the responsibility the government has to the British electorate. A recent poll indicated that 72% of the British public support the Palestinian right to statehood. Something which did not deter the Government from abstaining in the UN vote last month.

Oborne’s article is a brave and commendable intervention, much like The Independent’s Owen Jones on BBC Newsnight some weeks ago. In this ‘sterile Westminster consensus’ the refreshing honesty of Oborne and Jones is welcome relief.