←back to thread

Open letter accuses BBC board member of having a conflict of interest on Gaza

(www.theguardian.com)
524 points mhga | 8 comments | 08 Jul 25 02:18 UTC | HN request time: 1.436s | source | bottom
Show context
gruez ◴[08 Jul 25 03:19 UTC] No.44496666[source]▶
Coming from an outsider, the letter is frustratingly vague. The only concrete allegation is the pulling of the documentary "Gaza: Medics Under Fire", but without a statement from BBC explaining why they pulled it, it's basically impossible from an outsider to know whether censorship is indeed happening or not. The rest of the letter basically down to a he-said-she-said over bias/censorship happening. Owen's article doesn't really add much either, seeming to take everything at face value and then using that to slam the BBC. This is all great if you're already predisposed to think the MSM has a pro-Israel bias, but otherwise leaves you at least confused.

Is there another source that does a better job at substantiating the claim that BBC has a pro-Israel bias?

replies(2): >>44496734 #>>44497519 #
jedimind ◴[08 Jul 25 03:29 UTC] No.44496734[source]▶
"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-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...

replies(5): >>44496811 #>>44496823 #>>44496843 #>>44496859 #>>44497218 #
gruez ◴[08 Jul 25 03:44 UTC] No.44496859[source]▶
>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...

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.

replies(6): >>44496977 #>>44496980 #>>44497987 #>>44498061 #>>44498096 #>>44498223 #
1. hn-shithole ◴[08 Jul 25 04:05 UTC] No.44496980[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>44497028 #
2. gruez ◴[08 Jul 25 04:15 UTC] No.44497028[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>44497345 #>>44497542 #
3. WaxProlix ◴[08 Jul 25 05:24 UTC] No.44497345[source]▶
Aside from the fact that nobody is lionizing a group in Sudan (vs say Israel), and so there's no direct comparison here?

One major difference that I see - though of course I can't speak for the journalists - is that my country and tax dollars are directly involved in this conflict. Every child who burns alive, every man woman and child raped in an Israeli camp, every doctor or medic killed by targeted drone or sniper fire is in a sense in my name. I'm not saying Sudanese political instability isn't impacted by western actions, but this conflict is very real for a lot of people because of a direct, material involvement.

Journalists maybe feel this way, too?

I do also think this is a pretty straightforward distinction, and suspect your bringing up a fundamentally different conflict to say something like "well you think Israeli deaths get too much coverage in this war, why do Sudanese deaths not get very much?" is weird and borderline disingenuous.

4. Alive-in-2025 ◴[08 Jul 25 06:13 UTC] No.44497542[source]▶
No. pointing out genocide, attacks that kill hungry or starving people trying to get food is not some special unusual mean thing. It's something that all decent peoples should be against. I'm against all attacks on the innocent. It doesn't need to be repeated, but I'll do it - I was against the attacks by Hamas on Israel too.
replies(1): >>44497994 #
5. philipallstar ◴[08 Jul 25 07:52 UTC] No.44497994{3}[source]▶
Even calling this genocide is biased. Going into a country to kill the people from it of a race, and then texting celebratory texts that you killed some of that race, and capturing people of that race, is at least attempted genocide, if not completed.

Retaliating to that to get your hostages back and to stop the endless attacks on your race is not genocide.

replies(1): >>44500900 #
6. Supermancho ◴[08 Jul 25 15:25 UTC] No.44500900{4}[source]▶
> Even calling this genocide is biased.

I do not agree. Unless this applies to European Jews then? They were not all killed. Some were captured, some were used as labor or for experimentation. Some started a new state! If a sustained campaign is not successful in killing every single individual, how many before you might call it a genocide? This is a poor metric. If the borders of a country are eliminated (first politically, then practically), alongside hundreds of thousands of deaths targeted by culture/location/race, and confiscation of their property, there has been a genocide as far as most of the world is concerned. These are elements of culture and they can only be recreated or replaced or lost to time.

> Retaliating to that to get your hostages back and to stop the endless attacks on your race is not genocide.

The retaliation sped up the ongoing genocide as a pretext. Each side has wrongs they are retaliating from. The hostages are a justification to do what was already an official state goal. Complete annexation of Palestine. Imagine if any US state (or country) was slowly swallowed by a neighbor encroaching with violent and disposable settlers, the violence would be the same. This is the state of modern warfare demonstrated repeatedly over the last 200 years. Further imagining there is a moral actor, is arbitrarily picking a side.

replies(1): >>44506866 #
7. philipallstar ◴[09 Jul 25 06:25 UTC] No.44506866{5}[source]▶
> Unless this applies to European Jews then? They were not all killed.

I didn't say anything about "not all killed". Please - all these silly distractions and fallacies permeate any attempts to discuss this. You're not talking to an avatar representing all the worst, easiest to counter arguments from the "other side". You're talking to a real person who is articulating a view.

replies(1): >>44510530 #
8. Supermancho ◴[09 Jul 25 14:34 UTC] No.44510530{6}[source]▶
Characterizing history is complicated. Going about the thought process as to how I've come to my views, from a base set of assumptions, is not silly. Good luck with whatever.