The sin of impartiality at all costs.

Impartiality in news reporting is like objectivity in history. It's an impossible ideal. Even when genuine attempts at impartiality are made, news reporting is at best an attempt at unbiased reporting of facts – but of course the reporter selects what is shown and said, and states as facts what others are likely to dispute. All reporting comes from a perspective, a specific context, and is articulated in words selected by editors and reporters that inevitably present an angle on the story, even tone of voice and facial expression influencing hearer and viewer. And that doesn't even touch on the complexities of fitting such a story as Gaza in the wider narrative of Middle East politics, national and tribal memories, and centuries old enmities.

To claim to maintain impartiality in such compexity either presupposes there is no right or wrong in any news reporting, or if there is, impartiality requires silence on the moral dimensions of a politically driven military conflict, in order to continue with impartial reporting. Which the BBC has done with enormous credit throughout this most recent episode...prefacing each news bulletin with the scrupulously impartial disclaimer that news reporters were prevented by the Israeli military from entering Gaza during the invasion. So impartial reporting was in fact partial – that is incomplete!

If all that sounds confusing I'm not surprised. But there is a moral philosophical  question here that won't go away; it's also a theological ethical and exegetical question:
Moral philosophy: is impartiality so important that it takes precedence over universally recognised human suffering, some of it likely to lead to death? Are there no situations in which other values rank higher in the decision-making process than impartiality? If not, does that mean news reporting is considered free of moral judgement and ethical responsibility?

Theological Ethics: wherever human suffering can be lessened by the actions, even costly actions, of people of goodwill, is there an imperative arising from the value of human life and the evil that is inflicted suffering, that forbids a bystander stance? If a reporter had been travelling with the Good Samaritan, would he or she be exempt from the imperatives of compassion in order not to take sides, or even be perceived as being partial to the victim? I know – the parallel can be pushed too far. But as a follower of Jesus I can't avoid thinking of impartiality as a too expensive luxury in a world of such indicriminate and partial suffering.

Exegesis: Bad enough to stand before the Judge and have to admit, 'When did we see you hungry, imprisoned, naked, and do nothing?' But to say 'Well we did see you hungry, imprisoned, naked – but we didn't broadcast the emergency appeal because we have to preserve our impartiality, and we're not sure the aid could be delivered anyway'.

I do have enormous sympathy for the BBC General Director and the Trustees. They are in a very hard place where the right decision is hard, and costly, to make. But to report with scrupulous care on the suffering of the people of Gaza, accompanied by images of immense suffering and brokenness, and refusing to broadcast an appeal that can bring help, begins to feel like exploitative voyeurism. I don't believe that about the BBC – their reporters are the best in the world. Their honesty and humanity, their skill and professionalism, their ability to report fairly, would not be diminished by broadcasting an appeal whose content they are free to edit and shape around the sensitivites they have to negotiate. But in the end – this is not simply a tactical call to ensure the BBC reputation – it is a moral call that will also affect the BBC reputation.