←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
523 points mhga | 2 comments | 08 Jul 25 02:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.003s | source
Show context
topspin ◴[08 Jul 25 03:43 UTC] No.44496856[source]▶
Recent BBC World headlines:

    Gaza doctor whose nine children were killed in Israeli strike dies from injuries (June 2)
    Gaza now worse than hell on earth, humanitarian chief tells BBC (June 4)
    Three journalists among five killed in Israeli strike on Gaza hospital (June 5)
    Four killed near Gaza aid centre, health workers say (June 8)
    Dozens of Palestinians killed while seeking aid in Gaza, hospitals say (June 11)
    More than 20 Palestinians killed by Israeli fire near Gaza aid sites, Hamas-run ministry says (June 16)
    Israeli forces kill 51 Palestinians waiting for flour at Gaza aid site, witnesses and rescuers say (June 17)
    Eleven killed by Israeli fire while seeking aid in Gaza, rescuers say (June 18)
    At least 12 Palestinians killed waiting for aid in Gaza, say medics (June 19)
    Israeli military kills 23 Palestinians near aid site in Gaza, witnesses and medics say (June 20)
    GHF boss defends Gaza aid operation after hundreds of Palestinians killed near sites (June 27)
    At least 81 people killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza, Hamas-run health ministry says (June 28)
    Israeli military investigates 'reports of harm to civilians' after hundreds killed near Gaza aid sites (June 30)
    Hundreds of families displaced by wave of Israeli air strikes on Gaza, Palestinians say (June 30)
    Dozens killed in Gaza as Israel intensifies bombardment, rescuers say (July 3)
    Israel's strike on bustling Gaza café killed a Hamas operative - but dozens more people were killed (July 4)
Now, perhaps these anonymous staff make some distinction between headlines and whatever they mean by "PR," but there appears to be zero hesitation reporting everything the BBC can find on the crimes of Israel, real or imagined. Reading the open letter makes no such distinction, citing "reporting" many times. At least two of the above are directly attributed to "Hamas-run ministry," which is somehow a source for BCC's supposedly pro-Israel reporting.

How am I supposed to not see what I'm seeing with my lying eyes? I don't believe I'm capable of this tier of cognitive dissonance.

replies(11): >>44496923 #>>44496926 #>>44496951 #>>44496957 #>>44496962 #>>44496964 #>>44496967 #>>44496970 #>>44497010 #>>44497026 #>>44497057 #
WaxProlix ◴[08 Jul 25 04:02 UTC] No.44496964[source]▶
1. You don't have the counterfactual here, so who's to say how the world would have turned out without exhortations from top brass.

2. Recent is the keyword. The tide of public sentiment has shifted somewhat against Israel in this conflict as the civilian casualties mount & theater of combat expands, so maybe it's easier to be a Brave Truth-Teller in the past 2 months of a conflict whose most recent flare-up dates back going on 2 years now.

3. These seem like fairly sanitized headlines considering what they're actually talking about. Consider the last one vs "Israeli Terrorist Strike Murders Dozens, Though They Claim One Murdered Individual Among the Group Not So Innocent" or something. So even though some of the facts are getting reported on, how they're reported on (arguably almost as important) could still be an editorial decision from higher echelons.

replies(2): >>44497015 #>>44498486 #
1. gruez ◴[08 Jul 25 04:12 UTC] No.44497015[source]▶
>1. You don't have the counterfactual here, so who's to say how the world would have turned out without exhortations from top brass.

This presumes the journalists are somehow neutral to begin with. If they're biased to be anti-israel, then arguably the top brass telling them to tone it down a notch would make the coverage more neutral.

>3. These seem like fairly sanitized headlines considering what they're actually talking about. Consider the last one vs "Israeli Terrorist Strike Murders Dozens, Though They Claim One Murdered Individual Among the Group Not So Innocent" or something. So even though some of the facts are getting reported on, how they're reported on (arguably almost as important) could still be an editorial decision from higher echelons.

This presumes there's some Objectively Neutral™ version of a headline for a story, but how do know what that should be? Is the "Israeli Terrorist Strike Murders Dozens ..." wording supposed to be the neutral version? If that's the neutral version, I can't imagine what the anti-israeli version is supposed to be.

replies(1): >>44497032 #
2. WaxProlix ◴[08 Jul 25 04:16 UTC] No.44497032[source]▶
> This presumes the journalists are somehow neutral to begin with

I don't think it presumes that, I'm just pointing out that the existence of articles reporting on Israeli war crimes doesn't preclude bias.

> How do you define what the neutral version of the headline should be?

I don't really believe that true neutrality exists, we're always exposed to biases. Which and to what degree are at question here. My hypothetical headline was specifically meant to highlight this - the same events can be reported on "accurately" in many ways, with many biases. The existence of those facts in a newspaper doesn't mean there's no bias. That's all.