The BBC has failed to explain what due diligence it did ahead of the live broadcast of a rant from the Glastonbury stage which the broadcaster itself has branded antisemitic. This echoes a statement by Glastonbury organizer Emily Eavis which also appears to concede the antisemitic nature of the rant.
In their defense, the BBC state that “The judgment on Saturday to issue a warning on screen while streaming online was in line with our editorial guidelines.”
What puzzles me is the decision to issue an on-screen warning? Why was this decision made? Surely the only reason to issue such a warning in advance was because the producers anticipated what the content coming up was likely to be? Did they issue similar warning before or during, for example, Neil Young’s set? No – because they did not reasonably anticipate, in their own words, “incitement to violence” or “antisemitic sentiments”. But for Bob Vylan, obviously they did! Otherwise, why a ‘warning’?
The very idea of a warning is preposterous. It is a heads-up to people who might be disturbed or offended by content to tune out. Fair enough, but that doesn’t stop the content going out. It makes sense if someone has, for example, suffered a recent bereavement and therefore would chose not to watch a program presenting this theme, or if someone is offended by profanity or blasphemy and – while others are not – may wish to avoid hearing it themselves. But “incitement to violence” or “antisemitic sentiments” do not fall into any of these “trigger warning” categories. No one should have it beamed into their houses, not because some might be offended by it, but because some might be urged to act on it.
Others have made the point so I won’t dwell on it except to say that after hundreds of young people were murdered and raped in the most brutal way at a similar music festival on October 7th 2023, I cannot understand how or why the Glastonbury organizers would invite those who support the killers to perform at their festival. Their words of condemnation ring hollow and performative. I can only imagine they wish to safeguard their lucrative broadcast agreements with the BBC.
But here is the fact: the Glastonbury organizers deliberately invited people they could reasonably anticipate would express these views. One act is currently on trial for waving a flag in support of Hezbollah, for goodness sake! An activist group invited to speak is currently also facing being banned under the Terrorism Act. As I argued above, the BBC itself anticipated trouble and did nothing to mitigate it. It now accepts it should have done more. Their spokesperson said: “The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves.”
But an apology is not enough. This smacks of the “do what you want to now and say ‘sorry’ later” approach. It seems devious and dishonest.
I don’t want them to be fined by Ofcom because, as a publicly-funded service, the wrong-doers will just end up paying with our money. They are already too cavalier with the public’s money. No, what I would like to see is a moratorium on the partnership with Glastonbury. If Glastonbury’s management cannot be trusted not to book acts which will outrage the public and potentially break the law, and the BBC cannot be trusted to broadcast this festival responsibly, then it must be axed from the line-up.
The call should be for NO GLASTONBURY ON THE BBC.
UPDATE:
If there is any amusing aspect to this story it is that the BBC management are so wet that they’re taking all this flack on behalf of some morons who ‘dissed’ them to their audience and implied they were complicit in covering up a genocide. Maybe they should join the promoters who have dropped them and stop their airplay on their platform. It’s not like they’re grateful for it.
