Where such documentaries covered the Middle East we have obtained a transcript and/or a video of the programme and analysed whether the programme leaves an overall negative or positive impression of one or other party to the conflict. We have substantiated our findings with quotations from the documentaries.. We would not expect each programme to be balanced. Each programme maker will inevitably have a point of view which they wish to get across. Some will believe that the Israelis are the real root of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, others will think that it is the Palestinians. Also some programmes are bound to give a negative impression of one side or another. A programme devoted to Arafat\ufffds corruption (were one to be made) would likely leave the viewer with a negative impression of Palestinians. A programme devoted to Sabra and Shatila would likely leave the viewer with a negative impression of Israelis. Both stories have a place and documentaries on either subject can be justified. What cannot be justified is a significant imbalance over time between the two narratives.
These people are pushing the idiots view of balance, which holds that you have to present both sides for roughly the same amount of time and in equality quality. This attitude is one of the most destructive because it treats all issues as if both sides where equally valid. Even worse, this attitude is often tied to the thinking that holds that all issues have exactly two mirror image sides.
Jay