In summarizing its mission as the publicly-funded broadcaster in the United Kingdom, the BBC states it must “provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.”

This involves — the corporation promises — providing accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming that conforms to the highest editorial standards.

The commitment to impartiality is — or should be — what sets the BBC apart from other media organizations that nail their political colors to their mast.

While the BBC has staunchly defended itself against criticism that it has a deep-seated bias against Israel, its critics have pointed to many examples over the years of the broadcaster’s journalists brazenly breaking the corporation’s impartiality guidelines.

But the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7 has seen criticism of the BBC reach a climax amid accusations of an abject failure by the organization to report on the Israel-Hamas war fairly, accurately, and transparently.

Spreading Misinformation

There is an irony in the BBC’s publishing a piece one week after Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel that asked: “Who’s behind Israel-Gaza disinformation and hate online?”

The article, by the corporation’s so-called “disinformation and social media correspondent” Marianna Spring, reported how social media was “awash with false claims, conspiracy theories and hateful content surrounding what’s happening in Israel and Gaza.”

This, Spring warned, was resulting in successful attempts to distort and confuse the online conversation, which “can have serious implications for the international community when it comes to investigating allegations of war crimes, providing aid and figuring out what’s happening where.”

Yet, the BBC itself has been guilty of spreading distortions and false claims about the Israel-Hamas war online.

One of the most damaging was undoubtedly the corporation’s reporting on the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion in Gaza, which saw the BBC print unverified (and later debunked) claims by Hamas-linked officials that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed in an Israeli airstrike at the hospital.

Even as Israel said it was investigating the blast and as facts were still emerging, the corporation doubled down on its misinformation when BBC correspondent Jon Donnison announced live on air that he thought it was most likely that Israel was to blame.

And when conclusive evidence emerged that a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket was responsible, the BBC still sought to defend its coverage on the basis that while it made a mistake, it was a “fast-moving story,” where there were “claims and counter-claims” and where its journalists were “reporting in difficult and dangerous conditions.”

.@BBCNews likes to tell us that Israeli videos “cannot be verified.” But they’ve got no problem broadcasting footage featuring a Palestinian who has appeared in multiple videos playing different characters, including one where he fakes his own death. https://t.co/BaGMchjUxn

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 3, 2023

The Obsession With Balance

Balance is important when it comes to the news: outlets have a duty to report both sides of the story.

However, the BBC has been accused of having a fetish with its attempts at balance in its reports on the current war.

But giving equal weighting to claims made by an internationally recognized terrorist group to those of a democratic state such as Israel is simply absurd.

The absurdity of this was perfectly encapsulated in the BBC’s refusal to call Hamas what it actually is — a terrorist organization.

The BBC’s world affairs editor, John Simpson, even defended the decision not to call Hamas terrorists because, “terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. 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.”

While the corporation eventually walked back from its insistence that it would refer to terrorists as “militants” following a considerable backlash — announcing that in future coverage it would make clear that Hamas is a UK-proscribed terrorist organization — the fact that the BBC couldn’t decide who was the good guy and the bad guy between Israel and Hamas speaks volumes.

Another example of the BBC trying to offer “two sides” in a report where none exists was during the IDF’s raid on Al-Shifa Hospital, which for many years has been used as a Hamas command center.

The IDF clearly states it is bringing medical teams & Arabic speakers into Al-Shifa Hospital to help patients.@BBCNews reinterprets it to libel the IDF as *targeting* medical teams & Arabic speakers.

Just how much lower can the BBC go? https://t.co/I9kVy3MC87

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 15, 2023

When the IDF provided real-time evidence of how Hamas had embedded itself within the hospital, the BBC seemed to work overtime to try and undermine and discredit as much of the IDF’s proof as possible.

In one the many instances of its disturbing tendency to give weight to the claims of a bloodthirsty terror group, the BBC’s international editor, Jeremy Bowen, suggested that the caches of weaponry uncovered by Israeli soldiers inside Al-Shifa may have belonged to the hospital security team.

Utterly incredible. @BowenBBC trying to “normalize” the presence of weapons in a Gaza hospital. Anything to avoid acknowledging that Hamas could be using Al Shifa for nefarious means.

Keep going, Jeremy. Maybe you’ll end up on Israel’s favorite satirical comedy show next week. https://t.co/jN3kZ40rPc

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 17, 2023

The BBC is also facing what appears to be growing anger from within its own ranks at how the corporation is covering the Israel-Hamas war.

HonestReporting recently revealed that the head of the BBC’s Global Service, Liliane Landor, was forced to address allegations from reporters based in the Middle East that the corporation is biased in favor of Israel.

Yet, rather than robustly challenge staff who threatened to walk out in protest, Landor reportedly promised to set up a special team to handle staff complaints and receive opinions on rectifying harm caused by the alleged pro-Israel bias.

Meanwhile, bosses at the BBC’s London HQ denied permission for journalists to attend a massive march against antisemitism using guidelines that prevent employees from attending demonstrations deemed “controversial.” This despite the BBC having a policy that allows staff to demonstrate in “opposition to racism [which] is a fundamental democratic principle.”

As mentioned, allegations of an anti-Israel bias have dogged the BBC for years.

But the barrage of criticism aimed at the BBC over its coverage of the current Israel-Hamas war has shown that the corporation cannot continue burying its head in the sand where this issue is concerned.

The BBC will lose all credibility if it does not.

The post Can the BBC Ever Be Trusted Again After Israel-Hamas War? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.