...The Corporation has spent thousands of pounds trying to block the release of the Balen Report into its coverage of Israel and Palestine. Why?

My guess is that this is the one area where the BBC is genuinely alarmed by the consequences of its actions. Its reporting of the Middle East has been so relentlessly pro-Palestinian for so long, and that coverage is so influential, that it finds itself an actual player in the conflict, as opposed to an impartial observer.

The BBC is now regarded by Palestinian factions as a sympathetic but naive middleman to be manipulated at will, rather as the Catholic Church in Ireland was manipulated by the IRA during the Troubles. I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to call Johnston a friend of Hamas; but it is possible that he was a victim of this dynamic.

At any rate, don’t expect the Balen Report to be published any time soon.

...There are also no bright lines between the relationship of friend and friend and reporter and source. (In reference to Phillip's choice of the word "friend" to describe the relationship between Johnston and Hamas.) The problem is that reporters always have to become friends, on some level, with their sources. Sources do not HAVE to give away information; they do not have to let you into their lives; They make these decisions because they like you and/or trust you. This is especially true when it comes to gaining access to a secretive, conspiratorial, "revolutionary" group like Hamas. Meanwhile all sorts of friendly behavior (except accepting gifts) is permitted in the interest of "developing sources": long, lazy dinners over drinks, long walks, long talks, visits to homes...The reporter may fool himself that he is remaining objective but it is impossible not to feel protective of and affectionate about the people with whom he spends so much time.

This is of course especially true when your life literally depends on the good graces of your primary sources...