British Broadcasting Corporation White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ

Telephone: 020 8743 8000 Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk

Editorial Complaints Unit

20 February 2015
News Channel, 11 January 2015
Im writing to let you know the provisional outcome of the Editorial Complaints Units
investigation into complaints about the interview conducted by Tim Willcox. I shall address the
points of complaint as summarised by my colleague Andrew Bell in his email to you, but, as its
clear from the terms of many of the complaints we received that the complainants had seen only
a brief clip from the interview, Id like to begin by filling in some of the context.
There had been live coverage of events in Paris throughout the day on the channel, presented by
Tim Willcox, Lyse Doucet and Mishal Husain. Reportage was interspersed with interviews, a
number of which reflected on the respective situations of Frances Jewish and Muslim
communities in the light of the recent events. The sequence containing the comments which
prompted you to complain began at about 4.40pm, with Mr Willcox having taken up a position
on a balcony overlooking the Boulevard Voltaire, the main route being followed by the march.
He introduced a pair of friends, one Muslim (Aziz, born in France of Algerian parents) and one
Jewish (Chava, born in Israel of Polish parents). His first question set the tone of the interview:
How important is it today for people from both your backgrounds, do you think, to
show the world, to show extremists, that actually two cultures, two religions, live side
by side happily?
Chava replied to the effect that there was no option for them other than to live together. He
next asked Aziz why the gunmen involved in the attacks (like him, from north African Muslim
backgrounds) felt so alienated. Aziz referred mainly to social issues in France, a sense of
exclusion among some in the Muslim community, and instances of extreme poverty in some
predominantly Muslim areas. After a question to Aziz about the impact on the Muslim
community of cartoons depicting Mohammed, Mr Willcox had the following exchange with
Chava:
TW: Do you ever feel threatened or frightened by the Muslim community here,
because if you look at the figures more Jews in France seem to be leaving France than
in other European countries1, and yet France has the biggest population of Jews, as it
does indeed of Muslims, in Europe. Do you feel that fear?
Chava: I didnt feel this fear until last days, I have to say. As Im coming from...its
not the same for Jews being born here and Israeli coming to here. This is two
different populations. Israelis, when they come to France, they have something
already inside them, they are not, we are not afraid, we know that every moment we
can go somewhere else. We have like a back very strong. The Jews which were born
here, they are coming from another culture, so its completely different. But I can tell
that since a few days I feel again not secure and not...Its something which is very, and

1 A point which had been noted by a number of previous speakers, in the context of President
Hollandes promise of enhanced security for the Jewish community and his planned meeting
with Jewish community leaders that evening.

I was talking to Aziz also, I feel that now its like in 1930s, we are...the situation is
going back to these days of 1930 in Europe.
TW: But do you think it can be rescued now with the right approach, with a more
inclusive society addressing the problems that people have?
Chava: I didnt understand completely your...
TW: Do you think that can be resolved, though, now, before its too late?
Chava: Yes of course we have to, we have to not to be afraid to say that the Jews are
being the, they are the target now. Its not only the...the...er...
TW: Many critics, though, of Israels policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer
hugely at Jewish hands as well.
Chava: We cannot do an amalgam...to...between...
TW: But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives...
Chava: Of course, but this is not my...er...
TW: No, I understand.
The exchanges concluded with two further questions to Aziz, about what the days
demonstration might have achieved, and about French legislation on the wearing of the veil in
public.
I think its clear from what Ive quoted above that Mr Willcoxs reference to the Palestinians,
though framed as a statement, was in effect a question put to Chava for comment. I would
accept that (as Mr Willcox has himself acknowledged) what he said was poorly-phrased, but
what the Editorial Complaints Unit must decide is whether his words amounted to a serious
breach of the BBCs editorial standards. Thats the question Ill be keeping in mind as I address
the particular points of complaint as summarised by my colleague.

That the question put by Tim Willcox to an interviewee was misleading in that it linked
the Paris killings in a kosher supermarket with events in the Middle East;

Nothing in the days coverage of events in Paris suggested a direct link between events in the
Middle East and those killings, and I cant see that such a suggestion can readily be derived from
what Mr Willcox said.

That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that all Jews were
responsible for the actions of Israel

Many complainants argue that the question must be regarded as anti-Semitic because it falls foul
of a definition of anti-Semitism which includes Holding Jews collectively responsible for
actions of the state of Israel, and which they attribute to the European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)2. That, however, seems to me an unduly harsh construction
2 In fact the phrase isnt part of the EUMC definition, but is one of a number of examples
provided of what might be considered anti-Semitic under the definition, subject to taking into
account the overall context. The EUMC definition was withdrawn in 2009 by its successor
organisation, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which has published no
definition of its own.
2

of what Mr Willcox said. In the light of the opening reference to Israeli policy, it seems to
me more natural to construe Jewish hands as referring to Israeli Jews (insofar as they might
be responsible for the formulation or execution of Israeli policy), rather than to Jews collectively.
I would accept that it was inept to use a form of words which was even open to the first
construction, but I would regard that as an aspect of the poor phrasing already acknowledged,
rather than a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that Jews were
responsible for the murder of other Jews;

That the question was offensive because it trivialized the Holocaust;

I take these points together because I think they both go beyond any meaning that can
legitimately be taken from Mr Willcoxs words. In the immediate context of what Chava had
just said, the meaning seems to me to be only that there are some (Many critics...of Israeli
policy) who regard at least some Jews as perpetrators of violence or discrimination rather than
(or as well as) targets of them. I can see that such a question might be regarded as inopportune
at such a juncture, but not that it was offensive, or anti-Semitic, in the senses complained of
above.

That the question displayed bias against Israel;

There might be grounds for such a complaint if Mr Willcox had endorsed the view he attributed
to critics of Israeli policy, but he didnt.

That Tim Willcoxs comment But you understand everything is seen from different
perspectives suggested there was a justification for the killings;

Again, this seems to me to impute more meaning to what Mr Willcox said than it can bear. As
may be clear from the portion of his exchange with Chava Ive transcribed above, they were
having some difficulty in maintaining mutual comprehension, and I think Mr Willcoxs comment
is better understood as an effort to draw the exchange to a conclusion rather than to make a
particular point. In any event, everything is seen from different perspectives is barely more
than a truism, and it doesnt suggest that all perspectives are equally justified.

That the interviewee was not treated with appropriate respect;

I see nothing in Mr Willcoxs comments which is intrinsically disrespectful, and I saw nothing in
Chavas demeanour to suggest that she felt disrespected. I understand that Mr Willcoxs
producer contacted Chava after the broadcast and that she assured him that she hadnt been in
the least offended.

That the terms of the apology from Tim Willcox were inadequate and failed to address
what was inaccurate and offensive about his remarks;

That posting an apology on a private Twitter account3 was inadequate and that it
should have been published by the BBC.

These points rest on the premise that Mr Willcoxs comments constituted a serious breach of
editorial standards, of a kind which would require due public correction and apology. I hope its
apparent from what Ive written above that I dont share that premise. I share Mr Willcoxs
view that his comments were poorly-phrased, but I think they were no worse than that.
3 In fact it was his personal BBC account.
3

Accordingly, Im not proposing to uphold the complaints received by the Editorial Complaints
Unit. This, however, is a provisional finding, and Ill be happy to consider any comments you
may wish to make before I finalise it, provided you let me have them by 6 March.
Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel
Head of Editorial Complaints