MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169376892 · doi:10.1177/1750635212440916

A threat to impartiality: Reconstructing and situating the BBC’s denial of the 2009 DEC appeal for Gaza

2012· article· en· W2169376892 on OpenAlexaff
Jiska Engelbert, Patrick McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia War & Conflict · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpartialityAppealDenialLawContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)SociologyPolitical scienceHistoryPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2009, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) denied a request from the Disaster’s Emergency Committee (DEC) to broadcast an emergency appeal to relieve human suffering in Gaza in the wake of the Israeli ground offensive ‘Cast Lead’. The decision marked the first time in the over 40-year relationship between the two organisations that a request was refused by the BBC, but an appeal went ahead. BBC Executives argued that airing the appeal could pose a threat to public confidence in the BBC’s impartiality. This article, both descriptive and exploratory in scope, first reconstructs a chronology of this ‘impartiality argument’, providing a detailed overview of the key players, the (historical) relationship between them, and the run-up to and aftermath of the BBC’s decision. The second part of the article analyses the BBC’s denial of the DEC request and explores how the BBC’s concerns over impartiality articulate its new ‘wagon wheel’ approach to impartiality. Finally, the authors study the BBC’s decision and the – rekindled – centrality of impartiality within the context of the BBC being increasingly bound by the nature of its brand and the visibility of the Middle East conflict.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0280.060
Scholarly communication0.0310.014
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0110.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedia War & ConflictSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207