3 ms·

Yeah the BBC suffers badly from this problem, because they are required by Ofcom to have fair and "balanced" reporting, and they interpret that as meaning they

Yeah the BBC suffers badly from this problem, because they are required by Ofcom to have fair and "balanced" reporting, and they interpret that as meaning they always have to get one view from each side of a story. Doesn't matter how batshit or fringe a side is, they'll present them equally.

ars 1y ago
Is that why they come across as so antisemitic? Obviously there are biased antisemitic news organizations, but of the high-profile ostensibly neutral ones BBC stands head and shoulders above the rest in the level of antisemitism. (You don't have to take my word for it - a quick Google will find huge numbers of examples. Usually they'll get criticized and then post a correction, so in some sense they themselves acknowledge the problem - yet it keeps happening.)
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Which definition of "semite" are we using, today? It tends to get thrown around to mean a lot of different things on HN.
  - mhb 1y ago
    You're happy to redefine genocide in a ludicrously expansive fashion but pretend to need clarification about what antisemitic means in this context? I know, you're just asking questions.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      I don't believe I ever did that. Sounds like you're deflecting.
      - mhb 1y ago
        You never did what? Deflecting what?
    - adrian_b 1y ago
      "Semitic" is a word that includes both hebrews and arabs, because both are classified as descendants of Shem in the Bible. Despite that, most people who use the word "antisemitic" apply it only to something that is done against hebrews, and not to something done against arabs. Therefore it makes sense to request clarification about what someone means by that word, i.e. if they meant that BBC is anti-Israel or it is anti-arabs. It would be much better if everyone who means that something is anti-Israeli, would say it clearly, instead of using the ambiguous word "antisemitic". The word "Semitic" has been created due to a misunderstanding of the Bible, because there the classification of the people was not based on real descendance from common ancestors, but it was based on the political dependence of those people at the time when the Book of Genesis was written. Unfortunately, nobody has found a suitable replacement for this word. (In the Bible, the descendants of Shem were those dominated by Assyro-Babylonia, while the descendants of Ham were those dominated by Egypt, regardless of their true ancestors. For instance the Phoenicians were classified as descendants of Ham and the Hebrews as descendants of Shem, despite being 2 extremely closely related populations, separated by little else except their different religions.)
      - mhb 1y ago
        Yes, of course. But in this context there was no confusion and no ambiguity.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        Besides the systemic persecution, slaughter and annexation of Semitic arabs in the Levant, today.
        mhb 1y ago
        And you're just clarifying to make sure you're not misunderstanding that the discussion regarding BBC antisemitic bias might be about Semitic arabs?
- mhb 1y ago
  > Is that why they come across as so antisemitic? If you're inclined to offer the most charitable interpretation in the universe, perhaps.
- rozab 1y ago
  Meanwhile in the pro-Palestine movement, the BBC is seen as being so pro-Israel some people think their editors should be prosecuted[1]! (for what, I am unclear on) 112 BBC journalists recently signed an open letter accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias[2]. Domestically, every single political movement feels the BBC is biased against them. Their dry reporting style is at odds with what many, especially Americans, are used to. Unlike the author of that blogpost I do not really have a problem with them not using the word 'genocide' but I do take issue with some of their selective reporting (of course, every outlet must make a selection and everyone will have a problem with it). For example, Israeli newpaper Haaretz has been doing a lot of reporting on IDF soldiers being ordered to fire on crowds of unarmed civilians at aid sites[3]. The BBC does acknowledge it, but it's buried behind a headline about the IDF starting an investigation[4]. They do this because they always prefer quotes from official sources to eyewitness stuff. [1]: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-06-20/bbc-editors-trial-israel-genocide/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-06-20/bbc-editors-tr... [2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3926pSPNwXd8j7I716CBJEzqT_vJjdab6cOQkFCCXk/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3926pSPNwXd8j7I716CBJEz... [3]: https://archive.is/pQw3k https://archive.is/pQw3k [4]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9vveg0vp9o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9vveg0vp9o
hitekker 1y ago
You might have seen different BBC stories than I have. Like when the BBC said all converts to Islam are "reverts"; https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-the-bbc-say-muslim-reverts/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-the-bbc-say-musl... ; the nasty implication being that one religion is the status quo of humanity Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg0g18989o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg0g18989o https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ksv0y7/reform_accused_of_blatant_racism_over_sarwar/ https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ksv0y7/refo... The other day actually, I saw a newscaster describe the horrors Apartheid in South Africa as though it were happening today. She then closed with "... [Apartheid] is now no longer enforced" and transitioned quickly to the next topic. Not ended or abolished, but merely "not enforced". Their bias is rather pernicious.
- rafram 1y ago
  > Like when the BBC said all converts to Islam are "reverts" They didn't. They used their interviewees' own preferred terminology to refer to them in the story, which is fine. "Reverts" is the most common term among Muslims. Sort of like how capitalizing God in a story about Christians doesn't invalidate the beliefs of people who worship multiple gods. > Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist The first line: "Scottish Labour has described [...]".
- IshKebab 1y ago
  > Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals This is an insane characterisation of that article, which seems fair to me and not at all what I was talking about. Wanting your race to be represented in politics is a perfectly reasonable view and it doesn't need "calling out".
  - hitekker 1y ago
    You should watch the original video, not just the BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kucaq6jkHMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kucaq6jkHMg . The reddit thread and other articles also provide context that the BBC article glossed over & excluded. The way I see it: a politician was intimating to a community, known for its conservative religious practices, that they can one day enforce their ideal in their children's education. If the dogwhistle is too quiet, consider how Muslims, Christians and other non-racial communities drove the US Supreme Court ruling to allow opt-out of LGBTQ education. IMHO, the insane idea is "a community is a race". As if South Asians getting more votes translates directly to "representing their race", not their culture or religion. It's a similar kind of crazy to "Islamophobia is basically racism" which the UK government has been trying to legislate: https://www.arabnews.com/node/2588955/amp https://www.arabnews.com/node/2588955/amp

ars 1y ago

Is that why they come across as so antisemitic? Obviously there are biased antisemitic news organizations, but of the high-profile ostensibly neutral ones BBC stands head and shoulders above the rest in the level of antisemitism. (You don't have to take my word for it - a quick Google will find huge numbers of examples. Usually they'll get criticized and then post a correction, so in some sense they themselves acknowledge the problem - yet it keeps happening.)

bigyabai 1y ago
Which definition of "semite" are we using, today? It tends to get thrown around to mean a lot of different things on HN.
- mhb 1y ago
  You're happy to redefine genocide in a ludicrously expansive fashion but pretend to need clarification about what antisemitic means in this context? I know, you're just asking questions.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    I don't believe I ever did that. Sounds like you're deflecting.
    - mhb 1y ago
      You never did what? Deflecting what?
  - adrian_b 1y ago
    "Semitic" is a word that includes both hebrews and arabs, because both are classified as descendants of Shem in the Bible. Despite that, most people who use the word "antisemitic" apply it only to something that is done against hebrews, and not to something done against arabs. Therefore it makes sense to request clarification about what someone means by that word, i.e. if they meant that BBC is anti-Israel or it is anti-arabs. It would be much better if everyone who means that something is anti-Israeli, would say it clearly, instead of using the ambiguous word "antisemitic". The word "Semitic" has been created due to a misunderstanding of the Bible, because there the classification of the people was not based on real descendance from common ancestors, but it was based on the political dependence of those people at the time when the Book of Genesis was written. Unfortunately, nobody has found a suitable replacement for this word. (In the Bible, the descendants of Shem were those dominated by Assyro-Babylonia, while the descendants of Ham were those dominated by Egypt, regardless of their true ancestors. For instance the Phoenicians were classified as descendants of Ham and the Hebrews as descendants of Shem, despite being 2 extremely closely related populations, separated by little else except their different religions.)
    - mhb 1y ago
      Yes, of course. But in this context there was no confusion and no ambiguity.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        Besides the systemic persecution, slaughter and annexation of Semitic arabs in the Levant, today.
        mhb 1y ago
        And you're just clarifying to make sure you're not misunderstanding that the discussion regarding BBC antisemitic bias might be about Semitic arabs?
mhb 1y ago
> Is that why they come across as so antisemitic? If you're inclined to offer the most charitable interpretation in the universe, perhaps.
rozab 1y ago
Meanwhile in the pro-Palestine movement, the BBC is seen as being so pro-Israel some people think their editors should be prosecuted[1]! (for what, I am unclear on) 112 BBC journalists recently signed an open letter accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias[2]. Domestically, every single political movement feels the BBC is biased against them. Their dry reporting style is at odds with what many, especially Americans, are used to. Unlike the author of that blogpost I do not really have a problem with them not using the word 'genocide' but I do take issue with some of their selective reporting (of course, every outlet must make a selection and everyone will have a problem with it). For example, Israeli newpaper Haaretz has been doing a lot of reporting on IDF soldiers being ordered to fire on crowds of unarmed civilians at aid sites[3]. The BBC does acknowledge it, but it's buried behind a headline about the IDF starting an investigation[4]. They do this because they always prefer quotes from official sources to eyewitness stuff. [1]: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-06-20/bbc-editors-trial-israel-genocide/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-06-20/bbc-editors-tr... [2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3926pSPNwXd8j7I716CBJEzqT_vJjdab6cOQkFCCXk/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3926pSPNwXd8j7I716CBJEz... [3]: https://archive.is/pQw3k https://archive.is/pQw3k [4]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9vveg0vp9o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9vveg0vp9o

hitekker 1y ago

You might have seen different BBC stories than I have. Like when the BBC said all converts to Islam are "reverts"; https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-the-bbc-say-muslim-reverts/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-the-bbc-say-musl... ; the nasty implication being that one religion is the status quo of humanity Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg0g18989o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg0g18989o https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ksv0y7/reform_accused_of_blatant_racism_over_sarwar/ https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ksv0y7/refo... The other day actually, I saw a newscaster describe the horrors Apartheid in South Africa as though it were happening today. She then closed with "... [Apartheid] is now no longer enforced" and transitioned quickly to the next topic. Not ended or abolished, but merely "not enforced". Their bias is rather pernicious.

rafram 1y ago
> Like when the BBC said all converts to Islam are "reverts" They didn't. They used their interviewees' own preferred terminology to refer to them in the story, which is fine. "Reverts" is the most common term among Muslims. Sort of like how capitalizing God in a story about Christians doesn't invalidate the beliefs of people who worship multiple gods. > Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist The first line: "Scottish Labour has described [...]".
IshKebab 1y ago
> Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals This is an insane characterisation of that article, which seems fair to me and not at all what I was talking about. Wanting your race to be represented in politics is a perfectly reasonable view and it doesn't need "calling out".
- hitekker 1y ago
  You should watch the original video, not just the BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kucaq6jkHMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kucaq6jkHMg . The reddit thread and other articles also provide context that the BBC article glossed over & excluded. The way I see it: a politician was intimating to a community, known for its conservative religious practices, that they can one day enforce their ideal in their children's education. If the dogwhistle is too quiet, consider how Muslims, Christians and other non-racial communities drove the US Supreme Court ruling to allow opt-out of LGBTQ education. IMHO, the insane idea is "a community is a race". As if South Asians getting more votes translates directly to "representing their race", not their culture or religion. It's a similar kind of crazy to "Islamophobia is basically racism" which the UK government has been trying to legislate: https://www.arabnews.com/node/2588955/amp https://www.arabnews.com/node/2588955/amp