RSS
1,500 Breaches of Editorial Guidelines: BBC Excoriated in Scathing Report on Israel-Hamas War Coverage
The BBC logo is seen at the entrance at Broadcasting House, the BBC headquarters in central London. Photo by Vuk Valcic / SOPA Images/Sipa USA.
On December 6,2023, HonestReporting highlighted significant issues with the BBC’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, nearly three months after the October 7 Hamas massacre.
After multiple serious violations of its editorial guidelines by journalists covering the conflict, we questioned whether the publicly-funded broadcaster’s reputation could recover. We also called out the corporation’s unconvincing defense of its editorial mistakes, as the BBC sought to justify its errors by claiming that its journalists were “reporting in difficult and dangerous conditions.”
This excuse was particularly troubling in the case of Jon Donnison’s coverage of the Al-Ahli Hospital incident, especially given that Donnison was reporting from Jerusalem, not Gaza.
The BBC’s coverage has shown little improvement since then, with HonestReporting repeatedly exposing further breaches of the corporation’s guidelines in its coverage of Israel (see here, here, and here).
This week, a damning report exposed the full extent of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias during the Israel-Hamas war.
The analysis, spanning four months of the broadcaster’s coverage starting on October 7, uncovered a staggering 1,500 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines and highlighted systemic failures to maintain its commitment to impartiality and accuracy during a conflict that has fueled a troubling rise of antisemitic bigotry worldwide.
The BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times at the height of Israel’s war against Hamas according to this professional study in the @Telegraph: #BBCbiashttps://t.co/M6feRf7dPT
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) September 8, 2024
The 199-page report, reviewed by HonestReporting, was the result of an extensive investigation carried out by a team of around 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists, led by UK lawyer Trevor Asserson and his firm. The findings expose significant bias, with a consistent pattern of language and reporting that favored Palestinian narratives while downplaying or misrepresenting key facts about the conflict:
Broadcast of False Information — The Al-Ahli Hospital Incident
One of the most notable examples of the BBC’s reporting failures involved the Al-Ahli Hospital blast in Gaza on October 17, 2023. BBC correspondent Jon Donnison, reporting live, speculated that an Israeli airstrike was the most likely cause of the explosion that he claimed had killed 500 people. However, it soon emerged that the explosion occurred in the hospital’s grounds and was caused by a misfired rocket from Islamic Jihad, not an Israeli airstrike. Despite this, Donnison stated, “it is hard to see what else this could really be other than an Israeli airstrike.” Even after the truth was established, the BBC delayed issuing a clear correction.
Repeated Failure to Label Hamas a Terrorist Organization
Throughout its coverage, the BBC refused to refer to Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite its official designation as such by numerous countries, including the UK.
Instead, the BBC often portrayed Hamas in sympathetic terms, framing the group as a “resistance movement” and its fighters as “soldiers.”
This failure to accurately label Hamas contributed to a skewed portrayal of the conflict, in which the brutality of Hamas’ attacks, including the kidnapping of over 250 Israelis, was downplayed or presented in a neutral tone.
Particularly outrageous was a headline describing Hamas’s October 7 attack as a “spectacular” operation.
According to @BBCNews, “It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn – who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.”
And yet the BBC does a damn good job of portraying Israel as the bad guys. https://t.co/syr6Kvi2ys
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 11, 2023
Glorification of Hamas in BBC Arabic Coverage
In BBC Arabic coverage, the glorification of Hamas was even more pronounced.
For example, a report from October 8, 2023, showed celebratory scenes in Ramallah, with residents handing out sweets following Hamas’ attack on Israel. Rather than questioning or contextualizing these celebrations, the BBC Arabic segment amplified Hamas’s propaganda under the headline: “Hamas’s military prowess has shocked Israelis.”
Why does @BBCArabic cameraman Jehad El-Mashhrawi omit that the tragic death of his son in 2012 was the result of a misfired Palestinian rocket?
Is there anything else he omits in his heartbreaking firsthand Gaza experience in order to blame Israel?https://t.co/F2Xh01lpLc
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 21, 2023
Sympathy Imbalance in Favor of Palestinians
The report used artificial intelligence to calculate a “sympathy ratio” in the BBC’s coverage, revealing a stark imbalance favoring the Palestinian narrative. Headlines and body text overwhelmingly evoked sympathy for Palestinian casualties, while the suffering of Israeli victims was largely ignored or downplayed. Even when articles did include sympathy for Israel, it was often buried deep within the text, whereas sympathy for Palestinians was prominently displayed in the headlines.
This was especially evident in the coverage following the October 7 massacre, where, despite the unprecedented brutality of this attack, the BBC focused disproportionately on Israel’s immediate military response.
“Palestinian forces.”
Is this how you describe armed Hamas terrorists, @BBCWorld?
And you seem to have forgotten the bit where they infiltrated Israeli villages and towns, murdering and kidnapping Israeli men, women and children. It was more than just a rocket attack. https://t.co/AgLeA1nrk9
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 7, 2023
Inconsistent and Inadequate Corrections
The BBC’s failure to issue prompt and transparent corrections for its reporting mistakes was another critical issue highlighted in the report. In one example, after falsely reporting that Israel had executed 137 Palestinian civilians, this inaccurate information was repeated in six different broadcasts before the BBC finally issued a correction — 12 days later.
Downplaying Palestinian Terrorism
The BBC has consistently downplayed Palestinian terrorism while portraying Israel as a militaristic, aggressive nation. According to the report, the BBC suggested that Israel faced “no substantial threat,” effectively delegitimizing Israel’s right to defend itself. By contrast, the coverage of Hamas’s military strength and its role as a terror organization received far less attention.
Misleading Comparisons in Coverage
The report highlighted a specific example from BBC Arabic in November 2023, where a roundup of newspaper coverage contrasted a photograph of a Gazan girl after an air raid with a photo of an ultra-Orthodox Jew carrying a machine gun. The context of the second image was entirely omitted: the man was returning from the funeral of a Jewish student shot by Palestinians in the West Bank.
Furthermore, the photo was taken in October 2000, more than two decades before October 7, 2023.
Minimizing Israeli Victims
The BBC’s coverage frequently minimized the suffering of Israeli victims while giving detailed attention to Palestinian casualties. For example, a picture of Israeli hostage Noa Argamani used by the BBC on January 1, 2024, showed her smiling before the war, rather than the distressing image of her abduction by Hamas, which had been widely circulated.
Yet, even in the face of the evidence presented in the Asserson report, the BBC continues to deny that there is any substantial problem with its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.
In response, the BBC stated it would “carefully consider” the findings but quickly moved to undermine the credibility of the research, questioning both the methodology and the use of AI. In the BBC’s typical evasive fashion, a spokesman for the corporation told The Telegraph: “We don’t think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context.”
The corporation’s World Affairs editor, John Simpson, who previously justified the BBC’s refusal to call Hamas terrorists by stating, “It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn,” also dismissed the Asserson report on X.
The BBC says it has serious questions about the methodology of the attack on BBC reporting of Gaza in today’s Sunday Telegraph. Jeremy Bowen and Lyse Doucet, who are singled out for vicious criticism, are known worldwide as two of the finest correspondents in world journalism.
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) September 8, 2024
His statement perfectly illustrates the BBC’s ongoing issue of prioritizing neutrality over accuracy, and creating the false impression of two equal sides where none exists. This approach has long been part of the BBC’s defense, and Simpson’s justification for his employer mirrors the broadcaster’s broader reluctance to admit bias, even when faced with undeniable evidence.
This denial is not a new phenomenon.
More than 20 years ago, the Balen report similarly identified bias in the BBC’s coverage of Israel, yet the broadcaster has never released the findings to the public. For years, the BBC has fought legal battles to keep the Balen report under wraps, a telling sign of its damning contents.
The Asserson report is merely the latest in a long line of warnings. It reveals not just isolated errors, but a consistent pattern of bias that undermines the BBC’s journalistic integrity. But how can the BBC begin to address its failings when it refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem?
The question remains: how long can this continue? Can the BBC withstand any further blows to its credibility?
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post 1,500 Breaches of Editorial Guidelines: BBC Excoriated in Scathing Report on Israel-Hamas War Coverage first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Nominates Marco Rubio for US Secretary of State
US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, Sept. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
US President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday confirmed that he will nominate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to serve as secretary of state in his incoming administration, a potential signal that the next White House will take a more adversarial posture toward Iran.
Trump’s confirmation came a couple days after several media outlets reported that he was expected to tap Rubio, 53, to head the US State Department. The move to place a lawmaker known for his hawkish foreign policy views as the nation’s top diplomat has mollified concerns among some critics that the second Trump administration would adopt a more isolationist approach to international affairs.
“Marco is a Highly Respected Leader, and a very powerful Voice for Freedom. He will be a strong Advocate for our Nation, a true friend to our Allies, and a fearless Warrior who will never back down to our adversaries,” Trump said in an official statement. “I look forward to working with Marco to Make America, and the World, Safe and Great Again!”
Rubio issued a brief statement advocating an approach of “peace through strength” to international relations.
“As Secretary of State, I will work every day to carry out his foreign policy agenda. Under the leadership of President Trump we will deliver peace through strength and always put the interests of Americans and America above all else,” Rubio said on X/Twitter.
Since his election to the Senate in 2010, Rubio has developed a reputation as a foreign policy hawk, advocating for greater investments in the US military and a tougher approach to adversaries such as Iran, China, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Rubio’s policy views have previously resulted in conflict with more isolationist members of the Republican Party, who have argued that the US should step back from international conflicts and increase focus on domestic issues.
The selection of Rubio also indicates the incoming Trump administration will be diplomatically supportive of Israel.
In the year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, Rubio has steadfastly signaled his support for the Jewish state, resisting calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and underscoring the importance of Israel achieving a decisive win against Hamas.
He stated in October 2023 that Israel has “no choice but to seek the complete eradication of Hamas in Gaza,” adding that “this tragically necessary effort will come at a horrifying price” and that “the price of failing to permanently eliminate this group of sadistic savages is even more horrifying.”
In May 2024, the senator cautioned that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization in Lebanon, could soon break out into full-scale war.
“The imperative that Israel has at some point to address it, even though there’s a real threat there of a full-scale war with Hezbollah, which militarily is a lot more challenging and destructive,” Rubio said.
Last month, Rubio condemned Iran’s direct attack against Israel after the Iranian regime fired a barrage of nearly 200 ballistic missiles at the Jewish state.
“I urge the reimposition of a maximum pressure campaign against Iran and fully support Israel’s right to respond disproportionately to stop this threat. The United States will continue to stand with Israel,” Rubio said in a statement.
Rubio has also assigned blame to Iran for fomenting instability and chaos in the Middle East, adding that the regime has also acted as the “primary” oppressor of its own civilians.
“The primary source of violence, conflict, suffering, and instability in the Middle East is the criminal ‘Islamic Republic’ regime which has also oppressed the people of [Iran] for almost [45] years,” Rubio said on X/Twitter.
Beyond Rubio, Trump has also handpicked other administration members with pro-Israel bonafides. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a lawmaker who has gone viral for her blistering repudiations of university presidents over their response campus antisemitism, has been selected to serve as ambassador to the United Nations. Trump also selected Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) to serve as his next national security adviser.
The post Trump Nominates Marco Rubio for US Secretary of State first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Top National Security Picks Have Expressed Strongly Pro-Israel, Anti-Iran Views
US President Donald Trump is interviewed by then-Fox and Friends co-host Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, US, April 6, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
US President-elect Donald Trump’s selections for national security adviser and defense secretary have a history of making statements in support of Israel’s right to defend itself from neighboring threats.
In the week following his resounding victory at the polls, Trump has swiftly moved to fill his incoming cabinet with allies of Israel.
Among his top national security picks, the president-elect has chosen US. Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) to serve as his national security adviser and nominated Fox News host and Army National Guard officer Pete Hegseth as the next secretary of defense.
Waltz, a Green Beret and former Pentagon policy adviser, has developed a hawkish reputation on foreign policy matters. He supported Israel’s retaliatory strikes against Iran in October, arguing that the Jewish state should target Kharg Island, a major hub of the regime’s oil exports. The representative also suggested that Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities outside of Tehran. The lawmaker has openly criticized the Biden administration for allegedly holding Israel back from a full force retaliation against Iran.
Waltz has also argued that the US should attempt to weaken Iran through sanctioning the Chinese buyers of Iranian oil, saying that isolating Iran economically would cripple their ability to finance the operations of terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah. He has also helped spearhead bipartisan efforts to recategorize the Houthis in Yemen as an official international terrorist organization, a move that he argues would isolate the group by making financial transactions with them illegal.
On Tuesday, Trump raised eyebrows by tapping Hegseth to head the Pentagon. Hegseth, a former infantry officer in the Army National Guard deployed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has repeatedly expressed affinity for Israel. Hegseth, a devout Christian, argued on television that Jews have a right to live in Israel on Biblical grounds. In his 2020 book, American Crusade, Our Fight to Stay Free, he stated that Israel is “central to the story of Western civilization” and that the Jewish state is “inextricably linked” to America.
“If you love America, you should love Israel. We share history, we share faith, and we share freedom. We love free people, free expression, and free markets,” he wrote. “And whereas America is blessed with two big, beautiful oceans to protect it, Israel is surrounded on all sides by countries that either used to seek, or still seek, to wipe the nation off the map.”
During a 2016 trip to Israel, Hegseth said that he was “struck by the pervasive sense of purpose which permeates Israel and its people who understand the special nature of its founding and defense.” He also said that America can “learn from Israel” and that the Jewish state “is indispensable for the future of the West and human freedom.”
Following the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who headed the Quds Force responsible for overseeing Iran’s proxies and terrorist operations abroad, Hegseth urged then-President Trump to bomb Iran’s nuclear production facilities.
“I happen to believe that we can’t kick the can down the road any longer in trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. They used the killing of Soleimani as an excuse to say ‘we’re scrapping the Iran Deal.’ We all know they were scrapping it anyway,” Hegseth said on Fox News, adding that America should notify Iran of its plans to destroy its “nuclear production facilities,” “key infrastructure,” “missile sites,” and “port capabilities.”
Hegseth also argued that attempts to restrain Israel from direct confrontation with Iran are “ridiculous” and that the Islamic regime represents an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.
“Israel wants to deal with Iran, we should let them … If it was not for Israel, Iran would have had the bomb already,” he said.
The post Trump’s Top National Security Picks Have Expressed Strongly Pro-Israel, Anti-Iran Views first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel
Mike Huckabee looks on as Donald Trump reacts during a campaign event at the Drexelbrook Catering and Event Center, in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, US, Oct. 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
American Jewish organizations were quick to react to US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he would choose former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to be the next US ambassador to Israel after he assumes office in January.
“Mike has been a great public servant, governor, and leader in faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about peace in the Middle East!” Trump wrote in his announcement.
Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has long been a vocal pro-Israel voice. He has repudiated the anti-Israel protests that erupted in the wake of Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7 and criticized incumbent US President Joe Biden for sympathizing with anti-Israel protesters during his speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC). The incoming ambassador also lambasted the anti-Israel encampments at elite universities, stating that there should be “outrage” over the targeting and mistreatment of Jewish college students.
Ted Deutch, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), posted on X on Tuesday that his organization “looks forward to working with Gov. Huckabee and newly appointed Special Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff to strengthen the US-Israel relationship, bolster Israel-diaspora relations, and promote strong connections between American Jewry and Israel.”
Other Jewish communal organizations, such as the Jewish Federations of North America and the Anti-Defamation League, have so far not made statements.
The Republican Jewish Committee (RJC) said it was “thrilled” with the choice. “As a man of deep faith,” the RJC wrote, “we know Governor Huckabee’s abounding love of Israel and its people is second to none.”
It continued, “As the Jewish state continues to fight an existential war for survival against Iran and its terrorist proxies, Governor Huckabee will represent America’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s security with distinction.”
On the other side, however, the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) called Huckabee “utterly unqualified for this role” and argued that “his extremist views with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not further the national security interests of the United States or advance prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
Huckabee told Israel’s Army Radio in his first interview since the announcement of his ambassadorship that “of course” the annexation of the West Bank is a possibility during Trump’s second presidential term.
“Unfortunately, when it comes to the US-Israel relationship,” the JDCA concluded, “Donald Trump will continue to only be motivated by his own narrow self-interest, and we’re deeply concerned about what that means for the United States and Israel.”
J Street also opposed the choice, writing in a statement that “Huckabee, a right-wing, evangelical minister with a long history of championing settlement expansion, annexation, and a radical ‘Greater Israel’ agenda, holds principles and espouses views that — if now implemented — would shatter the foundations on which a healthy and strong US-Israel relationship has been built over the past 75 years.”
J Street on Monday urged the Biden administration to withhold offensive weapons from Israel as part of a partial arms embargo, arguing that the United States needs to hold Israel accountable for alleged human rights “violations” before Trump takes office.
Huckabee has taken positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict considered further to the right than most American Jews and politicians. The former governor has defended Israel’s right to build settlements in the West Bank, acknowledging the Jewish people’s ties to the land dating back to the ancient world.
“There is no such thing as the West Bank — it’s Judea and Samaria,” Huckabee has said, referring to the biblical names for the area. “There is no such thing as settlements — they’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There is no such thing as an occupation.”
Huckabee has also argued, including during his 2008 US presidential campaign, that any future Palestinian state should be created from land in Arab countries, rather than from territory that Israel captured in 1967 during the Six-Day War.
The post American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.