In its Middle East coverage, the BBC can hardly be distinguished from Al Jazeera: “BBC pressured to suspend journalists who ‘liked’ videos celebrating Oct. 7 or wrote anti-Israel post,” by
March 18, 2024:Al Azzi, who has worked for the BBC since 2019, described Israel as a “terrorist apartheid state” in a since-deleted post from 2018, according to Honest Reporting….
That charge – anathematizing Israel as a “terrorist apartheid state” — is what Al-Azzi believes, but she is cunning enough to have covered her tracks by deleting the post. Unfortunately for her, all those deleted posts can be recovered and in her case, they have been.
“We stand by our journalism,” network executives said in a statement to the Telegraph. “Those who have read our story will know the BBC has been transparent in telling audiences where and how information is corroborated and attributed, and where this has not been possible
Who “corroborated” the story about the IDF “humiliating and beating medical personnel”? Why, members of Hamas, or those who have been threatened by Hamas to make such a charge. That’s what the BBC is relying on. Isn’t it enough that those reporting this fiction are on record as applauding Hamas? Was the BBC “transparent” in “telling audiences where and how information is “corroborated and attributed”? Did it tell that audience that the reporters who provided this “information” have been found to be virulently anti-Israel and pro-Hamas, judging by their posts, and tweets, and retweets?
“We have provided multiple first-hand accounts, named independent sources, shared visual evidence and included rights of reply throughout, working to the highest standards of journalism.”…
These are “first-hand accounts” by medical personnel reading from a Hamas-supplied script. There was no visual evidence presented of the “beatings” by the IDF. As for the “highest standards of journalism” that the BBC claims were practiced by Al-Azzi and Ibrahim, does their celebrating the atrocities on October 7 meet that BBC claim of “the highest standards”?
Former BBC Director of Television Danny Cohen has also accused the company of institutional bias against Israel.
“Their refusal to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas was misguided and offensive, and then they doubled down,” he said on the “Unholy” podcast, according to Israel National News. “In my view, this reveals institutional anti-Israel bias and in some cases racism against Jews.”
Since the UK and dozens of other countries have designated Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” why does the BBC refrain from describing it as a “terrorist group”? Does it know better than the British government?
The BBC said it “stands by” Ibrahim and Al Azzi’s reporting on a story critical of Israel but is investigating whether their social-media use violated company guidelines….
It’s not so much that their social media posts and tweets may “violate company guidelines,” but that those posts and tweets reveal a virulent anti-Israel hatred that celebrates, rather than condemns, the Hamas atrocities. That is the heart of the matter: such views should be anathema to the BBC, and such reporters cannot be trusted to report objectively on Israel and the Palestinians.
In a statement, BBC executives said they reject “the suggestion that we are biased against Israel.
“The conflict is a challenging and polarizing story to cover, and we are dedicated to providing impartial reporting for audiences in the UK and across the world,” network executives said in a statement to The Post.
The BBC’s “impartial reporting” provided to audiences everywhere? I beg to differ. My evidence is the following Murderers’ Row at the Biased BBC: the late John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen, Lyse Doucet, Orla Guerin, Barbara Plett, Yolande Knell. A half-dozen reporters whose longstanding antipathy to Israel has become a thing of legend..
“Our own audience research shows that BBC News is considered the most impartial provider for coverage of the conflict. Recent research by More in Common echoes this and shows the highest proportion of people in Britain sees the BBC as neutral.
How nice that the BBC has done its “own audience research” and gives itself a pat on the back and a sincere vote of confidence in itself as “the most impartial provider for coverage of the [Arab-Israel] conflict.” Might the BBC be a little bit biased on its own behalf? I’ve done my own survey and it is my solemn duty to report that no one I queried — not a single soul — shares that belief. When I mentioned the BBC claim of being an “impartial provider” of news about the Arab-Israeli conflict, the most common response was derisive laughter.
“BBC News will continue to listen carefully to all audience feedback.”
Okay, BBC, now that you’ve listened carefully to the outrage over your continued employment of Al-Azzi and Ibrahim, will you do anything to correct this appalling situation? Or do you reckon you’ve done quite enough just by “listening carefully”?
No one in the UK should be required to pay the license fee to the BBC that ultimately goes to the care and feeding of such creatures as Al-Azzi and Ibrahim, and to Simpson (when he was alive), Bowen, Doucet, Plett, Guerin, and Knell. Get rid of that mandatory license fee, which in 2024 has risen to £169.50, and must be paid by everyone in the U.K. (with a handful of exceptions for the poor and the aged) who watches television, even by those who never actually watch the BBC. Why should those who find its coverage of the conflict utterly intolerable be forced to pay the BBC? Down with Bush House. Up with freedom.
Photo By Alexander Svensson – New Broadcasting House, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=110007702
Ray Jarman says
I would like to ask the BBC why it like PBS in the US has lost its founding goals of truth and without bias or prejudice. I remember growing up watching the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour on Public Television as well as John Cameron Swayze and later Walter Cronkite at CBS. These news broadcasters did not seem to side with anyone and presented the news honestly. It appears that all networks and news stations have a political agenda which I was brought up to believe is improper and that facts are of their raison d’être. News papers used to separate the news from the opinion columns but it is now nearly impossible to differentiate between the two.
James Lincoln says
Ray,
50 or so years ago, one could be fairly well informed by accessing the new sites that you have mentioned. I also really liked the McNeil / Lehrer Report.
Now, in order to find the truth, one must access well vetted conservative news websites.
Ray Jarman says
You are so correct and here at Jihad Watch we are able to obtain the news that is so often missing elsewhere.
James Lincoln says
Thanks for your reply, Ray.
Tony Rice says
Auntie no longer deserves the respect that she used to get and qualified for. Sad day for Britain as a national icon has been debased and lost. Who is responsible ?
Siddi Nasrani says
Your quote, “Who is responsible”? I think that is the Left leaning Socialist Marxist cohorts.
carpediadem says
And the right for doing nothing about it.
Mike 2 says
My mother was amazingly well and correctly informed for someone who left school at fourteen. When asked why, she replied that, as she did the household chores and took care of younger siblings, she listened to the radio. ” I am BBC educated “. That was the nineteen thirties.
gravenimage says
How things have changed…
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I had always thought of the BBC as the English version of al Jazeera. Or al Jazeera the Arabic version of BBC
James Lincoln says
BBC / Al Jazeera reminds me of CNN / MSNBC…
Ray Jarman says
James,
Once again when CNN was launched, it was much more even keel. In Viet Nam, CNN and Armed Forces Radio & Television were the only outside sources for news and we appreciated both very much. But as you point out, not at all at this time.
James Lincoln says
You’re right about CNN, Ray.
When it first debuted in 1980, it was actually pretty good.
That was then.
crown says
Ah, yes. Barbara Plett. The one who sobbed at the heart-rending sight of the poor child-killer Arafat descending toward his death.
That’s the unbiased BBC for you.
tgusa says
The people at the BBC have lost their way. I do believe that they do what they do regarding muslims and islam out of abject fear but that is no excuse.
tgusa says
I remember in my younger days getting my first TV that came with a remote. With a click of a button I could go from channel 2 to 4 to 7 to 11 and I noticed that all of those channels were airing the same story with the same wording at the same time. That was when I became aware of the parrot media.
James Lincoln says
tgusa,
Yes, all mainstream news outlets parrot the same talking points.
And the news anchors will “look and sound professional – and really intelligent”, but will then go on to read whatever is put in front of them.
aum says
BBC – Biased Broadcasting Corporation – Legally I have to keep paying the license fee.
Mick says
Bowen and the extant Simpson are/were also critical of Shia and Sunni regimes.
Like Sandy Gall and Frederick Forsyth, they took risks to cover trouble spots, on our behalf.
Like Jihad Watch and the Times of Israel today, they present pieces for a mosaic.
You can discard the dross..
Mick says
In short, I need a set of 3D images. I then decide where to stand.
Rick Olsha says
AM YISRAEL CHAI !!!!