18 ms·

"Instead, the report says, the BBC’s coverage has involved the systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians and unquestioning acceptance of Israeli PR. This has al

"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... "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...

engine_y 1y ago
Yes... that's what the Muslim media monitoring organization says. It's like the olden Google days - where people were doing SEO campaigns measured in deepness of the links...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
YZF 1y ago
[flagged]
- int_19h 1y ago
  It doesn't matter if the the original cause for the war is just or not if the war involves mass slaughter of civilians, and concealing this fact is deeply unethical. This is true in all other cases that you mention - whether civilians are targeted by the West and its allies in the war against ISIS, or by Ukraine in the war against Russia, that should all be covered objectively, not suppressed. Separately from that, you seem to be conflating Hamas with Palestinians in general. Most people killed by Israel in Gaza are not Hamas.
  - YZF 1y ago
    There is no other way to fight this sort of war. What you are saying is that Israel should just surrender because it has no way to fight the militants who are embedded with civilians and civilian infrastructure and the other specific situation of this conflict. This is not how war works from an international law perspective or otherwise. It's also not how ethics work. It is ethical and moral for Israel to defend its citizens against attack even at the cost of civilian lives on the attacking side. It is moral and ethical for Israel to use force to recover the hostages that were abducted on Oct 7th and to ensure its enemy can't keep attacking its civilians. No other country in the world would do anything different here. Israel is not targeting civilians. Israel targets the enemy's military. The vast majority of situations where the media portrays Israel as intentionally targeting civilians Israel has a legal military objective. For example the media portrayed Israel as attacking the European hospital when the target was Muhammad Sinwar the head of Hamas in a tunnel by and under the hospital: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/08/middleeast/israel-recovers-mohammed-sinwar-body-latam-intl https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/08/middleeast/israel-recovers-mo... Anti-Israeli media basically just reports Israel attacking hospitals and so if that's where you get your news that might be the picture you get (e.g. 10's of millions of people consuming Al Jazeera content.) I am not really conflating anyone with anyone. The facts of the story are: - Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. - Hamas ran and still runs portions of Gaza and exerts absolute control. Anyone going against it in any way is tortured and/or killed. - Surveys show broad support amongst Gazans to attacking Israel and to Hamas. The precise numbers vary. - Civilians were involved in the Oct 7th attacks, looting, killing etc. - Civilians were also involved in holding Israeli hostages. - Hamas intentionally blends the line between civilian and militant. A civilian grabs an RPG from a weapons stash, fires it, then becomes a civilian again. A civilian triggers a rocket to be fired at Israeli cities, from civilian infrastructure, and then becomes a civilian again. A civilian building has a tunnel exit where a civilian comes out of a tunnel, fires at Israelis, and then he and the building becomes civilian again. The entirety of the Gaza strip has been built for years to support this sort of warfare. - To be clear this does not mean that uninvolved civilians are a military target but the civilians in Gaza, very much like civilians in other military conflicts, are impacted by wars and can't magically be removed from the conflict. - The media seeks to decouple the idea of "Palestinians" (Gaza/Hamas civilians) from "Hamas" as another lever against Israel. This decoupling is mostly impossible. I.e. somehow Israel is responsible for the well being of the Gaza civilians and their government that started this war is not even in areas ruled by the Hamas government. - Israel provides civilians with early warnings and a chance to evacuate, with areas that are designated as safer (and they are safer despite what the media tells you, just not perfect safety which is impossible in a war), and tries to minimize civilian deaths when going after militants embedded with civilians. - Israel enables and provides aid to Gaza civilians despite not occupying the territory where they reside. This is mostly unheard of in modern war, e.g. Russia sending food to Ukraine or the other way around or the western allies sending food to ISIL. Hamas steals the food by force and resells it in the markets to raise money or hoards it to support its fighters. Again civilians are certainly impacted but the expectations from Israel here and pressure on it has no other war time precedent that I can think of. Again Israel is expected to wage war here like nobody else does. The media and the UN has been using words like famine and starvation from something like the second week of this long war, mostly as a weapon against Israel. I'm not sure what is a realistic expectation here from Israel and why e.g. when Egypt controlled their Gaza border during the beginning of the war there was no demand from Egypt to provide safe haven for civilians and/or to provide aid. Legally and morally Israel should be allowed to put a total siege on the northern Gaza strip as long as it has told civilians to evacuate and provided them a location in the south to do so - it has done both. EDIT: So e.g. from news that just came out. Civilians were killed in Nuseirat in the central Gaza strip. The IDF says the target was a militant from the Islamic Jihad but the precision bomb used malfunctioned and fell 10's of meters away from the intended target killing civilians in the area. It's an extremely dense urban area. Israel uses precision munitions. But they don't always hit their intended targets. Israel conducts dozens, sometimes hundreds, of strikes, a day against military targets. What would you do if you are Israel? Give the Islamic Jihad and Hamas immunity because they are in civilian urban areas? Withdraw and let them run Gaza again?
- jedimind 1y ago
  [flagged]
gruez 1y ago
>https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra... The tagline is "As many question BBC’s coverage, three academics tell openDemocracy why they don't think the broadcaster is impartial", which I think sums up the article accurately. That doesn't seem to add much aside from proving that there are outsiders (impartial or biased, we don't really know) that agree with one side. It shouldn't be surprising that with any culture war issue, than you can find some academics to be on your side. >https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased... Skimming the article, the methodology used is very questionable. For instance: >Despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel, the BBC ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles. If you think 1 death = 1 coverage, then clearly BBC is biased. However, 1 death = 1 coverage is clearly not how anyone expect the media should operate. How many people die in civil wars in Sudan or Congo, compared to how much coverage are they getting? Does that mean the BBC has a anti-Sudan bias? Moreover should each death really merit equal coverage? Would it be biased if BBC ran more pieces about the sad plight of Ukrainian soldiers compared to Russian soldiers? >It was also found to have attached “Hamas-run health ministry” to Palestinian casualty figures in 1,155 articles – almost every time the Palestinian death toll was referenced across BBC articles. Why is this an issue? In the Russsia-Ukranie war for instance, if you cite casualty figures from Russia, it's pretty obvious that it's from the Kremlin. The Gaza Health Ministry is actually Hamas run, and that fact isn't readily apparent. There are other serious allegations made in that piece that I don't have expertise to comment on, but the above two snippets don't inspire much confidence.
- hn-shithole 1y ago
  > How many people die in civil wars in Sudan or Congo, compared to how much coverage are they getting? Does that mean the BBC has a anti-Sudan bias? Yes.
  - gruez 1y ago
    Yet, when was the last time 100+ concerned journalists penned a open letter saying that we needed more coverage of the genocide in Sudan? It's all good if it's some sort of principle that's being applied evenly, but it's pretty clear in the case of the Israel vs Palestine conflict, most people are invoking that principle are doing it only when it suits them.
ars 1y ago
Anyone who call it "Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza" is hardly a reliable source. And the entire criticism is amount of coverage per death? I men the Israeli deaths have names attached to them and you can verify them, the Palestinian ones are just numbered by Hamas. Obviously the coverage will be different. I skimmed the article by CfMM and it's hardly a neutral source. Like they complain that BBC doesn't call Palestinian prisoners hostages. Well obviously they don't them them that, because they aren't hostages.
- nobankai 1y ago
  [dead]
- dvdplm 1y ago
  The Palestinian dead have names too, and it doesn’t take much to verify them. Beyond the deaths, the hostages taken by both sides are exactly that: hostages. Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not? What makes you think anything akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now?
  - ars 1y ago
    > and it doesn’t take much to verify them. Really, and how exactly would you verify them? And of course they would never just make up the numbers, right? https://www.cfr.org/blog/un-halves-its-estimate-women-and-children-killed-gaza https://www.cfr.org/blog/un-halves-its-estimate-women-and-ch... > Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not? A hostage is taken randomly to force the other party to do something. The Palestinians arrested were arrested because of a specific reason pertaining to them, some have been tried in court, some have not, but none were taken randomly. You can call some of them prisoner of war, but of course those would be combatants, and again they were taken because they were fighting. None were taken randomly, so none are hostages. > akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now? I'm not surprised you are getting basic information wrong, most Palestinians activists know almost nothing about Palestine or Gaza. To give you a correction the prisoners we are talking about were arrested in the West Bank, not Gaza.

engine_y 1y ago

Yes... that's what the Muslim media monitoring organization says. It's like the olden Google days - where people were doing SEO campaigns measured in deepness of the links...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

YZF 1y ago

[flagged]

int_19h 1y ago
It doesn't matter if the the original cause for the war is just or not if the war involves mass slaughter of civilians, and concealing this fact is deeply unethical. This is true in all other cases that you mention - whether civilians are targeted by the West and its allies in the war against ISIS, or by Ukraine in the war against Russia, that should all be covered objectively, not suppressed. Separately from that, you seem to be conflating Hamas with Palestinians in general. Most people killed by Israel in Gaza are not Hamas.
- YZF 1y ago
  There is no other way to fight this sort of war. What you are saying is that Israel should just surrender because it has no way to fight the militants who are embedded with civilians and civilian infrastructure and the other specific situation of this conflict. This is not how war works from an international law perspective or otherwise. It's also not how ethics work. It is ethical and moral for Israel to defend its citizens against attack even at the cost of civilian lives on the attacking side. It is moral and ethical for Israel to use force to recover the hostages that were abducted on Oct 7th and to ensure its enemy can't keep attacking its civilians. No other country in the world would do anything different here. Israel is not targeting civilians. Israel targets the enemy's military. The vast majority of situations where the media portrays Israel as intentionally targeting civilians Israel has a legal military objective. For example the media portrayed Israel as attacking the European hospital when the target was Muhammad Sinwar the head of Hamas in a tunnel by and under the hospital: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/08/middleeast/israel-recovers-mohammed-sinwar-body-latam-intl https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/08/middleeast/israel-recovers-mo... Anti-Israeli media basically just reports Israel attacking hospitals and so if that's where you get your news that might be the picture you get (e.g. 10's of millions of people consuming Al Jazeera content.) I am not really conflating anyone with anyone. The facts of the story are: - Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. - Hamas ran and still runs portions of Gaza and exerts absolute control. Anyone going against it in any way is tortured and/or killed. - Surveys show broad support amongst Gazans to attacking Israel and to Hamas. The precise numbers vary. - Civilians were involved in the Oct 7th attacks, looting, killing etc. - Civilians were also involved in holding Israeli hostages. - Hamas intentionally blends the line between civilian and militant. A civilian grabs an RPG from a weapons stash, fires it, then becomes a civilian again. A civilian triggers a rocket to be fired at Israeli cities, from civilian infrastructure, and then becomes a civilian again. A civilian building has a tunnel exit where a civilian comes out of a tunnel, fires at Israelis, and then he and the building becomes civilian again. The entirety of the Gaza strip has been built for years to support this sort of warfare. - To be clear this does not mean that uninvolved civilians are a military target but the civilians in Gaza, very much like civilians in other military conflicts, are impacted by wars and can't magically be removed from the conflict. - The media seeks to decouple the idea of "Palestinians" (Gaza/Hamas civilians) from "Hamas" as another lever against Israel. This decoupling is mostly impossible. I.e. somehow Israel is responsible for the well being of the Gaza civilians and their government that started this war is not even in areas ruled by the Hamas government. - Israel provides civilians with early warnings and a chance to evacuate, with areas that are designated as safer (and they are safer despite what the media tells you, just not perfect safety which is impossible in a war), and tries to minimize civilian deaths when going after militants embedded with civilians. - Israel enables and provides aid to Gaza civilians despite not occupying the territory where they reside. This is mostly unheard of in modern war, e.g. Russia sending food to Ukraine or the other way around or the western allies sending food to ISIL. Hamas steals the food by force and resells it in the markets to raise money or hoards it to support its fighters. Again civilians are certainly impacted but the expectations from Israel here and pressure on it has no other war time precedent that I can think of. Again Israel is expected to wage war here like nobody else does. The media and the UN has been using words like famine and starvation from something like the second week of this long war, mostly as a weapon against Israel. I'm not sure what is a realistic expectation here from Israel and why e.g. when Egypt controlled their Gaza border during the beginning of the war there was no demand from Egypt to provide safe haven for civilians and/or to provide aid. Legally and morally Israel should be allowed to put a total siege on the northern Gaza strip as long as it has told civilians to evacuate and provided them a location in the south to do so - it has done both. EDIT: So e.g. from news that just came out. Civilians were killed in Nuseirat in the central Gaza strip. The IDF says the target was a militant from the Islamic Jihad but the precision bomb used malfunctioned and fell 10's of meters away from the intended target killing civilians in the area. It's an extremely dense urban area. Israel uses precision munitions. But they don't always hit their intended targets. Israel conducts dozens, sometimes hundreds, of strikes, a day against military targets. What would you do if you are Israel? Give the Islamic Jihad and Hamas immunity because they are in civilian urban areas? Withdraw and let them run Gaza again?
jedimind 1y ago
[flagged]

gruez 1y ago

>https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra... The tagline is "As many question BBC’s coverage, three academics tell openDemocracy why they don't think the broadcaster is impartial", which I think sums up the article accurately. That doesn't seem to add much aside from proving that there are outsiders (impartial or biased, we don't really know) that agree with one side. It shouldn't be surprising that with any culture war issue, than you can find some academics to be on your side. >https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased... Skimming the article, the methodology used is very questionable. For instance: >Despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel, the BBC ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles. If you think 1 death = 1 coverage, then clearly BBC is biased. However, 1 death = 1 coverage is clearly not how anyone expect the media should operate. How many people die in civil wars in Sudan or Congo, compared to how much coverage are they getting? Does that mean the BBC has a anti-Sudan bias? Moreover should each death really merit equal coverage? Would it be biased if BBC ran more pieces about the sad plight of Ukrainian soldiers compared to Russian soldiers? >It was also found to have attached “Hamas-run health ministry” to Palestinian casualty figures in 1,155 articles – almost every time the Palestinian death toll was referenced across BBC articles. Why is this an issue? In the Russsia-Ukranie war for instance, if you cite casualty figures from Russia, it's pretty obvious that it's from the Kremlin. The Gaza Health Ministry is actually Hamas run, and that fact isn't readily apparent. There are other serious allegations made in that piece that I don't have expertise to comment on, but the above two snippets don't inspire much confidence.

hn-shithole 1y ago
> How many people die in civil wars in Sudan or Congo, compared to how much coverage are they getting? Does that mean the BBC has a anti-Sudan bias? Yes.
- gruez 1y ago
  Yet, when was the last time 100+ concerned journalists penned a open letter saying that we needed more coverage of the genocide in Sudan? It's all good if it's some sort of principle that's being applied evenly, but it's pretty clear in the case of the Israel vs Palestine conflict, most people are invoking that principle are doing it only when it suits them.

ars 1y ago

Anyone who call it "Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza" is hardly a reliable source. And the entire criticism is amount of coverage per death? I men the Israeli deaths have names attached to them and you can verify them, the Palestinian ones are just numbered by Hamas. Obviously the coverage will be different. I skimmed the article by CfMM and it's hardly a neutral source. Like they complain that BBC doesn't call Palestinian prisoners hostages. Well obviously they don't them them that, because they aren't hostages.

nobankai 1y ago
[dead]
dvdplm 1y ago
The Palestinian dead have names too, and it doesn’t take much to verify them. Beyond the deaths, the hostages taken by both sides are exactly that: hostages. Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not? What makes you think anything akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now?
- ars 1y ago
  > and it doesn’t take much to verify them. Really, and how exactly would you verify them? And of course they would never just make up the numbers, right? https://www.cfr.org/blog/un-halves-its-estimate-women-and-children-killed-gaza https://www.cfr.org/blog/un-halves-its-estimate-women-and-ch... > Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not? A hostage is taken randomly to force the other party to do something. The Palestinians arrested were arrested because of a specific reason pertaining to them, some have been tried in court, some have not, but none were taken randomly. You can call some of them prisoner of war, but of course those would be combatants, and again they were taken because they were fighting. None were taken randomly, so none are hostages. > akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now? I'm not surprised you are getting basic information wrong, most Palestinians activists know almost nothing about Palestine or Gaza. To give you a correction the prisoners we are talking about were arrested in the West Bank, not Gaza.