←back to thread

523 points mhga | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.258s | source
Show context
gruez ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
ars ◴[] No.44497218[source]
Anyone who call it "Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza" is hardly a reliable source.

And the entire criticism is amount of coverage per death? I men the Israeli deaths have names attached to them and you can verify them, the Palestinian ones are just numbered by Hamas. Obviously the coverage will be different.

I skimmed the article by CfMM and it's hardly a neutral source. Like they complain that BBC doesn't call Palestinian prisoners hostages. Well obviously they don't them them that, because they aren't hostages.

replies(2): >>44497301 #>>44497554 #
dvdplm ◴[] No.44497554[source]
The Palestinian dead have names too, and it doesn’t take much to verify them. Beyond the deaths, the hostages taken by both sides are exactly that: hostages. Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not? What makes you think anything akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now?
replies(1): >>44516450 #
1. ars ◴[] No.44516450[source]
> and it doesn’t take much to verify them.

Really, and how exactly would you verify them? And of course they would never just make up the numbers, right? https://www.cfr.org/blog/un-halves-its-estimate-women-and-ch...

> Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not?

A hostage is taken randomly to force the other party to do something. The Palestinians arrested were arrested because of a specific reason pertaining to them, some have been tried in court, some have not, but none were taken randomly.

You can call some of them prisoner of war, but of course those would be combatants, and again they were taken because they were fighting.

None were taken randomly, so none are hostages.

> akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now?

I'm not surprised you are getting basic information wrong, most Palestinians activists know almost nothing about Palestine or Gaza. To give you a correction the prisoners we are talking about were arrested in the West Bank, not Gaza.