This is better reported by other media, as the BBC is one of the parties in the controversy. But the news organization did a fine job fleshing out the issue and remaining disinterested in reporting on it.

Missing at least one bit of important information: is there precedent for their decision, or perhaps guidelines in the BBC charter or policy about censoring advertising on its political content?

the story gives both perspectives on the bbc's decision without analysis. the decision appears to place the corporation in a negative light as explained by reasonable arguments given by many in the article. in fact, so reasonable that the decision seems still, a mystery.

While I agree the BBC should not take sides on a political basis, They could make it clear they are not taking sides and run the aids that way. One way or another, food and medicine has got to find it's way into Gaza.

This is an interesting story because of the self-reflexivity: BBC is reporting on how it is being criticized. The article presents fairly well the issues at hand as well as the differing points of view. I would imagine that a publication like The Guardian might have been more strident in its criticism of the BBC for its decision not to air the DEC appeal while minimizing Director General Mark Thompson's rationale for this decision. In this BBC article, I understand that the issue is political sensitivity versus humanitarian urgency. Moreover, the BBC views their decision not to air the appeal as one of impartiality and independence. In sum, I think that the article was of quality because it was self-referential without being ... More »