The BBC’s been coming in for a lot of stick lately. It seems the place is unable to stagger from one week to the next without some section of society launching into some frenzied tirade about how bloody awful Auntie is. I don’t think it’s fair, but then again, neither is the BBC.

The BBC is supposed to be impartial, unbiased, and, particularly in its News coverage, present both sides of whatever story it’s covering. Fairness and impartiality are right at the centre of the Corporation’s raison d’etre, it’s in the Royal Charter that gives the BBC a legal right to demand a license fee from every TV and Radio consuming person in the country. Problem is there’s no such thing. There’s no such thing as impartiality, there’s no such thing as objectivity, and presenting a balanced view of anything is all but impossible.

The latest little debacle is over the BBC’s refusal to broadcast an appeal from the Disaster Emergency Committee for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Now one of the main reasons the BBC has not broadcast the appeal is that they are unwilling to broadcast appeals for donations from the public when they cannot be sure the money raised will actually reach those in need, and given the current situation in Gaza, that’s not an unfounded fear. This has precedent; the BBC delayed broadcasting the DEC’s appeal after the South East Asian Tsunami until they were sure that the proceeds donated would be able to reach those affected. I think that’s fair enough, the BBC’s not a commercial organisation, it doesn’t broadcast adverts in return for cash, so if it’s going to broadcast an appeal from another organisation appealing for public donations, it needs to be sure of the integrity of that appeal.

Unfortunately the Beeb has also cited impartiality as a reason for refusing to broadcast the appeal. The logic goes something like: we’re still reporting on the conflict in that area, the affects are still ongoing, and the reasons for the humanitarian crisis, those who are responsible and those who are affected, are contentious issues that we have to cover impartially in our News coverage. Unfortunately that kind of logic doesn’t stand up too well to scrutiny. There have been politically contentious issues surrounding many humanitarian disasters that the BBC have broadcast appeals for, indeed, Michael Buerk’s broadcasts from Ethiopia in the mid 80s, became in integral part of the broader humanitarian appeal that sprang up around Live Aid, but you could hardly argue that there was nothing politically contentious about that humanitarian disaster.

The whole Gaza thing is not really about impartiality. It’s physically impossible to be impartial about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has a history so complex that few people even understand what’s happening there now, let alone how, where or when it all began. I recently went on the march in Central London to appeal for a ceasefire in Gaza, (I would emphasise that the reason I was there was to call for a ceasefire, not for victory to Hamas which much of the crowd seemed to be in favour of) and was amazed to see people there wearing stickers of the BBC logo with a Star of David obscuring the second B. The BBC has long been seen by some as being pro-Palestinian in its coverage of the region, but it doesn’t take much searching to find those who believe that the Corporation is at the behest of the pro-Israeli lobby.

So which is it? Is the BBC pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli? Well the reality is it’s neither, and yet it is still forced to tread on eggshells to even try and cover what is happening in the region. So are they truly reporting impartially? No, of course not, they struggle to report anything. Impartial does not mean honest, it is more usually associated with presenting both sides of a story. Neither side in Gaza is innocent, neither side can be truly said to be legitimately defending their people or acting proportionally. The abstract concepts of authority, legitimacy, and recognised states and governments are not definitive markers for right and wrong, but some people see them as such. For some it’s very clear cut that Hamas are terrorists indiscriminately murdering civilians, whilst the Israeli forces are legitimately defending their people, for others it’s very clear that Israeli forces are the terrorists indiscriminately murdering civilians, whilst Hamas fight for the safety and freedom of their people. There is no right and wrong to either of these views, both can be and are argued for vehemently. There is no truth to be had in either perspective. If the BBC reports those perspectives they will be seen as legitimising them, whether that is their intention or not. So isn’t it easier just to report the facts of what is happening in the area? Well those “facts” are inextricably linked to those perspectives; report the facts and you are reporting those warped perspectives, you are automatically, in the eyes of those who hold those perspectives, taking sides. The BBC cannot be impartial when it comes to Israel and Palestine, because those involved, or those with an interest, will simply not let them be impartial.

The problems arise when the BBC tries to appease those parties. Trying to remain impartial when it is impossible to do so undermines the honesty that is the true underpinning of journalistic reporting. To be impartial implies giving voice to both perspectives, showing “both sides of the story”. Quite frankly, fuck their “sides of the story”. Both sides are trying to justify the murder of civilians; there is no value in giving voice to that. We all know that they think they’re right and the other side are wrong, we should also all realise that it’s not that simple.

No matter what the BBC does, it will never be seen as impartial on this matter, and on many others, but what it can do is be honest. Report the facts as the BBC sees them. When they change their reporting or methods because of the pressure brought to bear by those with vested interests or specific perspectives everyone loses out.

Ironically the appeal by DEC has probably received far more publicity through the BBC’s refusal to broadcast it, than if it had broadcast it.