BBC WORLD SERVICE
Written evidence submitted by Christian
Solidarity Worldwide
You may remember that last summer, Christian
Solidarity Worldwide made a submission [June 2004] to the FASC
concerning the BBC coverage of Nigeria, during the FASC investigation
into the BBC World Service.
The BBC replied to Christian Solidarity Worldwide's
submission, and the BBC reply was included as part of the FASC
report [September 2004].
CSW has now brought out a fresh submission,
dealing with the BBC reply. We do apologise for the long delay.
Our Advocacy Officer responsible for Africa has been on long-term
sick-leave. Also, we wanted to make thorough enquiries in Nigeria
and elsewhere concerning the BBC allegations, and this took some
time.
However, we felt that we still needed to produce
the reply, as the BBC letter contained some unhelpful comments
which needed to be addressed.
I hereby enclose a copy of our reply. I hope
you find it helpful.
Please do get back to me if you have any questions.
Dr Alan Hobson
Parliamentary Officer
Christian Solidarity Worldwide
22 February 2005
Annex 1
In June 2004, Christian Solidarity Worldwide
[CSW] submitted a report to the FASC: Recent Religious Violence
in Central and Northern Nigeria, as part of the Committee's
discussion concerning the BBC World Service. On 13 July 2004 Nigel
Chapman, Acting Director of the BBC World Service, wrote to the
Committee in answer to CSW's submission. The following is CSW's
answer to Mr Chapman's letter.
We must stress from the outset that the concerns
expressed in the original CSW document were not simply promulgated
without regard for the opinion of those on the ground, but were
accurately reporting the concerns of churchmen and lay Christians
in Nigeria. Indeed, CSW teams have travelled several times through
Plateau, Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi and Niger States, and during all
visits we have made since 2000, Christian Association of Nigeria
(CAN) leaders, ordinary church leaders and church goers have voiced
complaints about BBC Hausa. CSW was simply articulating the concerns
of Christians in Nigeria.
As to the use of the term, "Christian militias",
which the BBC denies using [Letter from Nigel Chapman, 13 July],
it should be noted that in the document CSW was careful not to
attribute this specifically to BBC Hausa, but more generally to
the international "media". However, as an overall publishing
house, the BBC used this term on numerous occasions, and was later
quoted in Nigerian news reports, as their journalists had no access
to the area.
For example, in the article entitled "Nigeria
land clashes kill 67", published on 4 May 2004 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3681335.stm),
the BBC reporter makes use of term, "Christian Taroc militias".
The article, "Muslims seek Nigeria clash probe" (5 May
2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3683015.stm) refers
to "Christian militiamen" and "Christian militia",
while the 11 May 2004 article "Muslims riot in northern Nigeria"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3703775.stm) contains
yet another reference to "Christian militia".
Special mention may be made of the 6 May 2004
BBC "Eyewitness: Nigeria's `town of death'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3689615.stm),
which not only makes reference to a militia drawn from Christian
ethnic groups, but also strongly implies that this alleged militia
was responsible for the totality of the destruction in the town.
The reporter paints a clear picture of devastation, but makes
only a passing reference to a previous incident in which Muslims
killed Christians who had taken refuge in a church and drove non-Muslims
out of the locality, destroying their property in the process.
This omission does not do justice to the full history of destruction
in the area, as it makes no mention of the fact that Christians
and other non-Muslims had been driven out of the town prior to
the reported incident, and that not all of the destruction witnessed
by the reporter may have been due to the reprisal attack by non-Muslims.
Such reports were picked up by other media houses
as reliable, and were used widely around the world.
By 14 May, it appears that the BBC had changed
their reference terms from "Christian militias" to "Christian
militants", perhaps recognising the potential connotations
of the former. This term was used in the article detailing the
disagreement in the aftermath of the Yelwa incident between the
leader of the Plateau State Chapter of CAN and the President of
Nigeria entitled "`Idiot' cleric in Obasanjo spat" (14
May, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3713621.stm).
With regard to the reporting of the exaggerated
death toll in Yelwa, which contributed towards enflaming the situation
and leading towards the reprisals in Kano, it should be noted
that CSW criticised not only the BBC but also "other media
houses", including CNN, Reuters and Radio Deutche Velle.
Nonetheless, the BBC did quote this figure, specifically in its
abovementioned 6 May 2004 "Eyewitness" report. This
report explicitly states that the number killed "is likely
to be far higher than the official toll of 67" and cites
estimates of 550 and 600, as well as reporting a mass grave of
250 people. Therefore, CSW does not understand Mr Chapman's denial.
The 9 June article "Mosque row sparks Nigeria
clashes" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3791501.stm)
makes further reference to "hundreds" of Muslims having
been killed in Yelwa.
As to the riots that occurred in Kano, in our
submission we quoted Nigerian church leaders. We continue to maintain
that the death toll in that incident was not accurately reported
and was actually played down, perhaps to forestall further problems
in the area. However, the fact remains that the death toll in
Kano was far higher than was reported nationally and internationally.
Moreover church leaders continue to express dismay at the fact
that although deaths in Kano exceeded the death toll in Yelwa
by several hundreds if not thousands, the incident received far
less international scrutiny.
Nigel Chapman's letter refers to meetings held
between Jerry Timmins, Head of the Africa and Middle East region,
and two unnamed Christian representatives in the North, who exonerated
the BBC of any bias in its reporting. CSW is surprised that the
BBC have elected not to name these people. The CSW report has
been entirely open in referencing every document and statement
regarding the death tolls in Yelwa, every event preceding this,
and also events in Kano. We are happy to send the original documents
that we received from sources on the ground to the BBC should
this be required. However, CSW's sources in Nigeria are curious
to learn the identity of these representatives, and whether they
were based in Central and Northern Nigeria at all.
Finally, we must register our concern about
the scope of the BBC's investigation into BBC Hausa transcripts.
Nigel Chapman has issued a rebuttal against the particular incidents
to which we referred as exemplar, but our complaint is against
an overall pattern of bias, which we are reporting on behalf of
our sources in Nigeria. It is of course straightforward to select
particular broadcasts to support an argument, but CSW's concern
has been against a systematic downplaying of the plight of Christians
and the followers of traditional beliefs, particularly in Plateau
State, and an exaggeration of the plight of Muslims, which has
not served to allay strains in the area. The use of the term,
`Christian militias' is a case in point. Furthermore, according
to our sources there has been a pattern of asking comments of
Hausa/Muslim individuals or groups, but not their non-Muslim counterparts.
The reporters have only moved to adjust their bias on acknowledging
the protest of an aggrieved section of the public.
CSW contends that if the BBC were serious about
eliminating bias, even if it is merely perceived or alleged bias,
the investigation they would conduct should be more thorough,
and ought to take the form of constant monitoring of BBC Hausa.
The reputation of BBC Hausa is at stake in Nigeria among non-Muslims,
and this could have ramifications on the reputation of the BBC
as a whole. We have raised these issues because of the seriousness
of the implications of biased reporting in the context of civil
disturbance. It is precisely because the BBC is held in such high
regard internationally that we urge them to take further action.
Christian Solidarity Worldwide
February 2005
| 
