4 ms·

>They published straight up misinformation as fact first Can you add some specifics to this claim? I'm unaware of the BBC having reported "Hamas-sourced" subst

>They published straight up misinformation as fact first Can you add some specifics to this claim? I'm unaware of the BBC having reported "Hamas-sourced" substantial misinformation as fact. I'm sure some errors and retractions have been done - especially given that BBC like all Western media continues to be forbidden to operate freely in Gaza.

dgxyz 7mo ago
During the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital incident they posted an entirely unverified and unattributed story stating that the cause was an Israeli air strike, pushed this as breaking news and 43 minutes later changed the attribution to Hamas and PIJ sources confirmed. This lead to two of my female Jewish friends getting spat on and having their hair pulled on the tube and called murdering zionists. This happens a lot with the BBC in the rush to publish. It is not an excusable situation. There are real consequences. The decline is parallel to the rise in social media and moving the news teams out of London and attention dynamics. You can find a list of problems in the corrections and clarifications here - work through 2023 to 2025: https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarificat...
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 7mo ago
  > This lead to two of my female Jewish friends getting spat on and having their hair pulled on the tube and called murdering zionists Do you think this is specifically and only due to that specific, single story, or do you think it might be a cumulative effect due to all the rest of what's been happening? Not that this excuses or justifies random attacks on other people simply because they happen to be Jewish, that's how the cycle of reprisal happens.
  - dgxyz 7mo ago
    There was a major uptick after that. The BBC were quoted over and over by social media influencers which lead to further blanket demonisation of Israelis and Jews. It simply legitimised violence. Hence my point about there needing to be editorial considerations made as there are consequences. You know the stupid shit thing though? My friendship group has an Iranian, a Palestinian, a Saudi, two Jews and a bunch of English people in it, a German and I'm literally descended from a nazi and everyone is quite happy and gets on fine. Divisive narratives hurt everyone.
- constantius 7mo ago
  I'm not going to dispute what you're saying, but the causal relation (between BBC and the attack, or especially their faith and the attack) and the overall context seem murky and very ambiguous.
  - dgxyz 7mo ago
    I'm not saying it was entirely intentional or there was an agenda, it's just unprofessionalism over and over and over again. At some point it becomes institutionalised at which point you become a propaganda outfit for a foreign entity publishing their statements verbatim. See my other post in the thread for some further extrapolation of the side effects, but this was quoted over and over again by social media using the BBC's reputation to legitimise it.
    - mrexcess 7mo ago
      >I'm not saying it was entirely intentional or there was an agenda, it's just unprofessionalism over and over and over again. A few things here: 1) I'm not seeing the "over and over again" part at all, can you help me there? 2) The more scrutiny we give to this claim, the more the strength of it seems to fade. We went from BBC critically misinforming the British public by uncritically reporting Hamas statements, to the BBC misattributing an attack in a war full of misattributed attacks on both sides, which was corrected within hours. 3) Do you think there are similar examples of BBC reporting or publication that could be used to make the opposite case - that BBC holds a pro-Israel bias?
      - nailer 7mo ago
        1. Not the OP, but check out the BBC's own internal memo. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating... Direct link to Israel/Hamas section: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/#israel-hamas-warundefined https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating... Here's a Guardian (left) report about the Director General resigning over reports of bias across multiple issues including Israel/Hamas: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/09/tim-davie-expected-to-resign-bbc-director-general https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/09/tim-davie-expe... And Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britains-bbc-boss-tim-davie-resigns-following-criticism-over-trump-documentary-2025-11-09/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britains-bbc-... And an anti-Hamas/pro-Israel critique: https://honestreporting.com/exposed-leaked-report-reveals-the-anti-israel-bias-rotting-the-bbc-from-within/ https://honestreporting.com/exposed-leaked-report-reveals-th...

dgxyz 7mo ago

During the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital incident they posted an entirely unverified and unattributed story stating that the cause was an Israeli air strike, pushed this as breaking news and 43 minutes later changed the attribution to Hamas and PIJ sources confirmed. This lead to two of my female Jewish friends getting spat on and having their hair pulled on the tube and called murdering zionists. This happens a lot with the BBC in the rush to publish. It is not an excusable situation. There are real consequences. The decline is parallel to the rise in social media and moving the news teams out of London and attention dynamics. You can find a list of problems in the corrections and clarifications here - work through 2023 to 2025: https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarificat...

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
pjc50 7mo ago
> This lead to two of my female Jewish friends getting spat on and having their hair pulled on the tube and called murdering zionists Do you think this is specifically and only due to that specific, single story, or do you think it might be a cumulative effect due to all the rest of what's been happening? Not that this excuses or justifies random attacks on other people simply because they happen to be Jewish, that's how the cycle of reprisal happens.
- dgxyz 7mo ago
  There was a major uptick after that. The BBC were quoted over and over by social media influencers which lead to further blanket demonisation of Israelis and Jews. It simply legitimised violence. Hence my point about there needing to be editorial considerations made as there are consequences. You know the stupid shit thing though? My friendship group has an Iranian, a Palestinian, a Saudi, two Jews and a bunch of English people in it, a German and I'm literally descended from a nazi and everyone is quite happy and gets on fine. Divisive narratives hurt everyone.
constantius 7mo ago
I'm not going to dispute what you're saying, but the causal relation (between BBC and the attack, or especially their faith and the attack) and the overall context seem murky and very ambiguous.
- dgxyz 7mo ago
  I'm not saying it was entirely intentional or there was an agenda, it's just unprofessionalism over and over and over again. At some point it becomes institutionalised at which point you become a propaganda outfit for a foreign entity publishing their statements verbatim. See my other post in the thread for some further extrapolation of the side effects, but this was quoted over and over again by social media using the BBC's reputation to legitimise it.
  - mrexcess 7mo ago
    >I'm not saying it was entirely intentional or there was an agenda, it's just unprofessionalism over and over and over again. A few things here: 1) I'm not seeing the "over and over again" part at all, can you help me there? 2) The more scrutiny we give to this claim, the more the strength of it seems to fade. We went from BBC critically misinforming the British public by uncritically reporting Hamas statements, to the BBC misattributing an attack in a war full of misattributed attacks on both sides, which was corrected within hours. 3) Do you think there are similar examples of BBC reporting or publication that could be used to make the opposite case - that BBC holds a pro-Israel bias?
    - nailer 7mo ago
      1. Not the OP, but check out the BBC's own internal memo. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating... Direct link to Israel/Hamas section: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/#israel-hamas-warundefined https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating... Here's a Guardian (left) report about the Director General resigning over reports of bias across multiple issues including Israel/Hamas: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/09/tim-davie-expected-to-resign-bbc-director-general https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/09/tim-davie-expe... And Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britains-bbc-boss-tim-davie-resigns-following-criticism-over-trump-documentary-2025-11-09/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britains-bbc-... And an anti-Hamas/pro-Israel critique: https://honestreporting.com/exposed-leaked-report-reveals-the-anti-israel-bias-rotting-the-bbc-from-within/ https://honestreporting.com/exposed-leaked-report-reveals-th...