5 ms·

I read the article but not sure which pro Israeli editorials the BBC has published. My experience is quite the opposite with BBC having a clear anti war stance

I read the article but not sure which pro Israeli editorials the BBC has published. My experience is quite the opposite with BBC having a clear anti war stance.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Daishiman 1y ago
Imagine all the other things they have not published because even with what they've written, it's still pro-Israeli bias.
jedimind 1y ago
"Comprehensive new research finds the BBC coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza is systematically biased against Palestinians and fails to reach standards of impartiality. Analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) shows Israeli deaths are given 33 times more coverage per fatality, and both broadcast segments and articles included clear double standards. BBC content was found to consistently shut down allegations of genocide." https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased-against-palestinians-in-gaza-coverage/ https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased...
- tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago
  The self-described mission of the Centre For Media Monitoring is "Promoting Fair And Responsible Reporting Of Muslims And Islam", so they might be slightly biased...
  - jedimind 1y ago
    According to your own logic I should not even bother providing any evidence when you can simply assume any organization to be biased based on identity alone instead of addressing the evidence they provide, like the BBC operates under a Royal Charter agreed upon with the britsh government, "so they might be slightly biased..." "Instead, the report says, the BBC’s coverage has involved the systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians and unquestioning acceptance of Israeli PR. This has allegedly been overseen by BBC Middle East Editor and apparent Binyamin Netanyahu admirer, Raffi Berg, who is accused by anonymous journalists of “micromanaging” the section." - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-israel-gaza-media-experts/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra...
    - bawolff 1y ago
      Would you honestly accept a report by an Israeli think tank that came to the opposite conclusion? I feel like most people would be suspicious of such a report.
  - propagandist 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - CoastalCoder 1y ago
      I'd think this is more an example of a "genetic fallacy" rather than "ad hominem". I.e., impugning the argument based on who presents it.
      - propagandist 1y ago
        Thank you for the correction! Won't mix up my fallacies next time.
    - nandomrumber 1y ago
      Isn’t military service in Israel compulsory?
      - propagandist 1y ago
        You must refuse to participate in the forces committing these acts. https://youtube.com/watch?v=MQ1TAOibLss https://youtube.com/watch?v=MQ1TAOibLss And if the state is compelling its subjects to participate, let's have an honest discussion about what that says about this state.
  - eddythompson80 1y ago
    [flagged]
molteanu 1y ago
It's about the careful wording, about who gets to be on the spotlight, about who gets to call the other side a tyrant, an evil state, about saying things like "regime change" and no-one batting an eye. Slowly, but surely, you form an opinion as to who the bad actor is as you've seen or read about its bad behaviour (but not of the behavior of the other party) Most interestingly, it's about who holds the microphone and is allowed to say whatever they want, unquestioned.
- dmix 1y ago
  In a meta sense, yes, but in practice it’s mostly just a large collection of journalists and editors, real humans, working in a chaotic information space where there’s a large variety of angles and sources being put out at all times depending on the context. It’s equally easy to cherry pick this sort of thing to build a narrative of some ulterior agenda. Especially given the high pace that news demands in the social media age. What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks.
  - memonkey 1y ago
    > What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks. Do you believe this with regard to what is happening in Israel/Palestine? The chaos of information and what is truth is only bubbled up when 1) there's very few journalists in the area or 2) all the journalists are being killed or 3) there's no journalists and only special interests. Consider that even if it was a "narrative" which at this point is controlled by social media, as it stands it seems to be: "these people are evil, they should be killed, sorry not sorry about the babies" or "these people are committing genocide, this bad."
  - garbagewoman 1y ago
    Thats a very reductive view of the situation, have you been keeping track of the headlines or are you just a disinterested outsider?
  - pixxel 1y ago
theptip 1y ago
A sin of omission, not commission. > We believe the refusal to broadcast the documentary ‘Gaza: Medics Under Fire’ is just one in a long line of agenda driven decisions.
darkoob12 1y ago
It's mostly anout how Israel army controls the way journalists report the war or regime in west bank that walks, quacks, and swims like an apartheid but apparently they can't call it that. Sadly no one will be able to document the carnage in gaza. They plan to create an internment camp in the south and move civilians into at after making sure they are not linked to Hamas. Then they are going to basically follow Trump's plan to clean Gaza by building new jewish settlements and kill anyone outside the internment camp. While doing that they will not allow independent journalists to go in gaza.
- bawolff 1y ago
  As much as there are barriers to reporters here, it seems less than most other conflicts. Its not like journalists have unrestricted access to the Ukraine/Russia front line. Access to other conflicts like Sudan or Myanmar are also very restricted in practise.
  - NomDePlum 1y ago
    That doesn't appear to be correct. How have you reached that conclusion? Israel has not granted access to journalists to report independently since October 2023. There has been very limited escorted trips with external journalists but all tightly supervised by the IDF. Journalists already in Gaza have been killed regularly and there are credible accusations that many are deliberately targeted by the IDF.
    - bawolff 1y ago
      > Israel has not granted access to journalists to report independently since October 2023. Has Russia granted access by independent journalists to russian occupied Ukraine in that time period? As far as i know the answer is no. And even on the Ukraine side there has been significant restrictions E.g. a quote from https://theintercept.com/2023/06/22/ukraine-war-journalists-press-credentials/ https://theintercept.com/2023/06/22/ukraine-war-journalists-... “The Ukrainian government has made it virtually impossible for journalists to do real front line reportage.” Maybe its hard to say which one is worse, but they seem to be at least in the same neighbourhood

I read the article but not sure which pro Israeli editorials the BBC has published. My experience is quite the opposite with BBC having a clear anti war stance.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Daishiman 1y ago

Imagine all the other things they have not published because even with what they've written, it's still pro-Israeli bias.

jedimind 1y ago

"Comprehensive new research finds the BBC coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza is systematically biased against Palestinians and fails to reach standards of impartiality. Analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) shows Israeli deaths are given 33 times more coverage per fatality, and both broadcast segments and articles included clear double standards. BBC content was found to consistently shut down allegations of genocide." https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased-against-palestinians-in-gaza-coverage/ https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased...

tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago
The self-described mission of the Centre For Media Monitoring is "Promoting Fair And Responsible Reporting Of Muslims And Islam", so they might be slightly biased...
- jedimind 1y ago
  According to your own logic I should not even bother providing any evidence when you can simply assume any organization to be biased based on identity alone instead of addressing the evidence they provide, like the BBC operates under a Royal Charter agreed upon with the britsh government, "so they might be slightly biased..." "Instead, the report says, the BBC’s coverage has involved the systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians and unquestioning acceptance of Israeli PR. This has allegedly been overseen by BBC Middle East Editor and apparent Binyamin Netanyahu admirer, Raffi Berg, who is accused by anonymous journalists of “micromanaging” the section." - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-israel-gaza-media-experts/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra...
  - bawolff 1y ago
    Would you honestly accept a report by an Israeli think tank that came to the opposite conclusion? I feel like most people would be suspicious of such a report.
- propagandist 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - CoastalCoder 1y ago
    I'd think this is more an example of a "genetic fallacy" rather than "ad hominem". I.e., impugning the argument based on who presents it.
    - propagandist 1y ago
      Thank you for the correction! Won't mix up my fallacies next time.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    Isn’t military service in Israel compulsory?
    - propagandist 1y ago
      You must refuse to participate in the forces committing these acts. https://youtube.com/watch?v=MQ1TAOibLss https://youtube.com/watch?v=MQ1TAOibLss And if the state is compelling its subjects to participate, let's have an honest discussion about what that says about this state.
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  [flagged]

molteanu 1y ago

It's about the careful wording, about who gets to be on the spotlight, about who gets to call the other side a tyrant, an evil state, about saying things like "regime change" and no-one batting an eye. Slowly, but surely, you form an opinion as to who the bad actor is as you've seen or read about its bad behaviour (but not of the behavior of the other party) Most interestingly, it's about who holds the microphone and is allowed to say whatever they want, unquestioned.

dmix 1y ago
In a meta sense, yes, but in practice it’s mostly just a large collection of journalists and editors, real humans, working in a chaotic information space where there’s a large variety of angles and sources being put out at all times depending on the context. It’s equally easy to cherry pick this sort of thing to build a narrative of some ulterior agenda. Especially given the high pace that news demands in the social media age. What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks.
- memonkey 1y ago
  > What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks. Do you believe this with regard to what is happening in Israel/Palestine? The chaos of information and what is truth is only bubbled up when 1) there's very few journalists in the area or 2) all the journalists are being killed or 3) there's no journalists and only special interests. Consider that even if it was a "narrative" which at this point is controlled by social media, as it stands it seems to be: "these people are evil, they should be killed, sorry not sorry about the babies" or "these people are committing genocide, this bad."
- garbagewoman 1y ago
  Thats a very reductive view of the situation, have you been keeping track of the headlines or are you just a disinterested outsider?
- pixxel 1y ago

theptip 1y ago

A sin of omission, not commission. > We believe the refusal to broadcast the documentary ‘Gaza: Medics Under Fire’ is just one in a long line of agenda driven decisions.

darkoob12 1y ago

It's mostly anout how Israel army controls the way journalists report the war or regime in west bank that walks, quacks, and swims like an apartheid but apparently they can't call it that. Sadly no one will be able to document the carnage in gaza. They plan to create an internment camp in the south and move civilians into at after making sure they are not linked to Hamas. Then they are going to basically follow Trump's plan to clean Gaza by building new jewish settlements and kill anyone outside the internment camp. While doing that they will not allow independent journalists to go in gaza.

bawolff 1y ago
As much as there are barriers to reporters here, it seems less than most other conflicts. Its not like journalists have unrestricted access to the Ukraine/Russia front line. Access to other conflicts like Sudan or Myanmar are also very restricted in practise.
- NomDePlum 1y ago
  That doesn't appear to be correct. How have you reached that conclusion? Israel has not granted access to journalists to report independently since October 2023. There has been very limited escorted trips with external journalists but all tightly supervised by the IDF. Journalists already in Gaza have been killed regularly and there are credible accusations that many are deliberately targeted by the IDF.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > Israel has not granted access to journalists to report independently since October 2023. Has Russia granted access by independent journalists to russian occupied Ukraine in that time period? As far as i know the answer is no. And even on the Ukraine side there has been significant restrictions E.g. a quote from https://theintercept.com/2023/06/22/ukraine-war-journalists-press-credentials/ https://theintercept.com/2023/06/22/ukraine-war-journalists-... “The Ukrainian government has made it virtually impossible for journalists to do real front line reportage.” Maybe its hard to say which one is worse, but they seem to be at least in the same neighbourhood