Reactions to the BBC's sanctioning expose Western hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is the most enduring feature of the relationship between developing and developed countries. It has been very much on display of late, following the decision by the Rwanda Utilities Regulation Agency (RURA) to suspend indefinitely the Kinyarwanda Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). This was one of three recommendations from the Ngoga Committee which the Government of Rwanda established to look into the BBC’s conduct in relation to its documentary titled “Rwanda’s Untold Story.” The discussion on this subject in international media has simply ignored the evidence for the accusations levelled against the BBC, including denying or minimising the genocide against the Tutsi, and that many times perpetrators of the genocide and their supporters have used it as a platform to justify their actions. Instead, the discourse has tended to distract those reading or listening from the gravity of the offense. And now that the Ngoga Committee’s recommendations have been accepted and acted upon, the diversionary tactics have multiplied. As was the case with reactions to the Committee’s report, commentary on the decision to implement its findings focused on defending the BBC, not on the evidence showing its transgressions. The documentary’s mocking of victims of the genocide which millions of Rwandans found offensive receives predictable lip service. That it sought to trade places between victims and perpetrators is simply dismissed. It is as if to suggest that whoever was angered by the broadcast is feigning anger. Distortions, pretentiousness, condescension Some are content to reduce the anger to political scheming. Consider a recent press release by the Paris-based ‘media rights campaigner,’ Reporters sans Frontiers (RSF). Without giving any weight to the gravity of the offenses committed by the BBC, this would-be crusader for media rights concluded that the decision to sanction it was “part of the preparations for the 2017 presidential elections and a probable constitutional amendment allowing President Kagame to run for a third term.” In one fell swoop, reality is distorted, as the discourse is cleverly manoeuvred away from the BBC’s transgressions toward the third term issue. In that way, third term talk serves as the proverbial red herring as RSF seeks to mislead. And then there is double-speak. “We recognise the hurt caused in Rwanda by some parts of the BBC 2 documentary ‘Rwanda’s Untold Story.’ However, we regret the indefinite suspension of the BBC Kinyarwanda service on FM and on the internet in Rwanda.” The quote is taken from a joint statement of diplomats representing seven countries of the European Union with offices in Rwanda, supported by the US, as demonstrated by a tweet by that country’s ambassador. With the left hand, they give. With the right one, they take back. They may recognise the hurt caused by the BBC, but they would rather not treat it as a serious matter. William Gelling, the British High Commissioner was on top form: “Specifically with respect to the commission’s findings, we have said that we hope very much that whatever the government chooses to do in response and however it chooses to implement those decisions, it manages to do so in a way that will allow BBC to begin broadcasting in the local language again as soon as possible.” The message is clear: Whatever the government chooses to do, it has to do it the way Mr. Gelling wants it done. That, though, was only part of his performance. On March 3 he had told journalists that his government had no authority over, and could not interfere with, the BBC, an independent entity. Moreover, he clarified, no one should expect him to apologise on its behalf. Obviously he sees no contradiction between his earlier claims and subsequently telling the Government of Rwanda to “allow BBC to begin broadcasting in the local language again as soon as possible.” Presumably the independence of the British broadcaster deserves respect, but not that of Rwanda as a country. Meanwhile, the BBC maintains its sniffy attitude, refusing to budge. It refused to appear before the inquiry committee. And it insists it did nothing wrong. “We stand by our right to produce the independent journalism which has made us the world’s most trusted news source,” it boasted in a statement released to the public. “We strongly reject any suggestion that any part of this documentary constitutes genocide denial.” Which raises the question: If Mr. Gelling has no authority whatsoever over the BBC, which he has made clear, what on earth do his actions now mean? Whatever the answer, it would be remiss to end the discussion without highlighting the smelly double standards in all this. Double standards In March the UK media regulator, Ofcom, warned Russia Today (RT), a news channel operating in the UK, that its reporting on the Ukraine crisis was biased. RT was accused of failure to show “due impartiality … in particular, when reporting on matters of major political controversy.” As a result, “any future breaches of the due impartiality rules may result in further regulatory action, including consideration of a statutory sanction” which may include withdrawing its broadcasting license. Through its spokesman, the regulator blew its own trumpet: “Ofcom has strict rules to protect audiences. If broadcasters break our rules we take swift, robust action.” RT could be shutdown in the UK for broadcasting biased political matters. However, Rwanda cannot do the same to the BBC because of its distortion of facts about the genocide against the Tutsi, because doing so “affects media freedom and limits the space for expressing opinions.” It goes to show what sort of people we are dealing with. lonzen.rugira@gmail.com

Opinions

Reactions to the BBC's sanctioning expose Western hypocrisy