Comment on A pattern of negative posts about the BBC

blimthepixie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• JohnSmith@feddit.uk ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I tend to engage with comments I deem worth engaging with. Yours probably is not worth engaging with either, but hey, for the lols.

  Regrding claims about BBC being Zionist, brushing genocide under the carpet, etc I say this. I have seen several reports on the BBC covering IDF killing Palestinians, using food shortages as a weapon of war, and committing other war crimes. That observation does not align with many such bias claims.

  source

  • AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    The problem is that even though the BBC do report on things like killings by the IDF, food shortages and other war crimes, they don’t seem to be applying editorial standards equally. This means that the bias can be hard to notice unless you’re actively comparing how Palestinian deaths are reported to how Israeli deaths are reported.

    It’s stuff like emotive terms being used far more often for Israeli casualties than for Palestinian casualties. A group of Israelis are “massacred”, whereas the same number of Palestinians might be described as being “killed”. Similarly, an individual is far more likely to have been “murdered” if they’re Israeli. That’s just one example, but there’s many more (with plenty of data to back it up) in a report by the Centre for Media Monitoring (linked page has a good summary of the report’s key points, because the actual report is pretty big)

    Criticism of the BBC has come from within too, such as in this open letter published in late 2024, signed by over 100 BBC employees concerned about editorial double standards when it comes to reporting on Israel-Gaza. People’s concern isn’t just about the human rights of biased reporting, but the fact that such editorial double standards degrade people’s trust in the BBC’s reporting in general.

    We can find other examples for comparison beyond this conflict itself. Especially nearer the beginning of the genocide, there were even more instances of war crimes not being called war crimes than there is now. Defenders of the BBC would argue that this was consistent with the BBC’s stance of being an apolitical news source, and that they didn’t call things war crimes because there weren’t any rulings from international courts to support this term. However, this didn’t stop the BBC only 36 days after Russia invaded Ukraine, with the headline “Gruesome evidence points to war crimes on road outside Kyiv”.

    In an ideal world, I want my news reporting to be consistent with the actual world, but I get that perfect objectivity is impossible in a subjective world. However, it’s far beyond any reasonable leeway when each Israeli death gets 33 times the coverage of each Palestinian death, despite there being 34 times the number of Palestinian casualties. That gap in reporting is insane to me. When their own editorial standards mean so little to them, I just don’t feel comfortable trusting them.

    This level of systematic bias isn’t really something that’s viewable by any one person — though it’s good that you tried to look into the claims of bias that you’ve heard. Unfortunately, the scale of this conflict (and the subsequent reporting) is too large for that to be able to give an accurate view. I’d encourage you to check out the summary of the Centre for Media Monitoring report that I linked above if you want to get a more “from above” view

    source