No media outlet incurs the wrath of our readership more than the BBC. With such a vast amount of coverage broadcast on TV and radio over the course of 24 hours, it is humanly impossible to monitor each and every instance of bias displayed by the world’s largest and most influential broadcaster. Nonetheless, a number of respected commentators and columnists have identified and eloquently pointed out what HonestReporting UK has constantly drawn attention to.
Tom Gross states that “the BBC’s coverage of the present war has been so extraordinary that even staunch BBC supporters in London seem rather embarrassed – in conversation, not on the air, unfortunately.”
It is not just that the supposed crimes of Israel are completely overplayed, but the fact that this is a two-sided war (started, of course, by Hizbullah) is all but obscured. As a result, in spite of hundreds of hours of broadcast by dozens of BBC reporters and studio anchors, you wouldn’t really know that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been living in bomb shelters for weeks now, tired, afraid, but resilient; that a grandmother and her seven-year old grandson were killed by a Katyusha during a Friday night Sabbath dinner; that several other Israeli children have died.
You wouldn’t have any real understanding of what it is like to have over 2000 Iranian and Syrian rockets rain down indiscriminately on towns, villages and farms across one third of your country, aimed at killing civilians.
Writing for the Jewish Chronicle, respected commentator Stephen Pollard also critiques the BBC:
The central problem with the BBC’s coverage is that, for all the fair and accurate reporting which the BBC carries, there are two regular and systematic forms of bias against Israel. First, editorialising masked as reporting, which usually begins with the assumption that Israeli action is ‘disproportionate’ and which gives free and uncritical rein to the allegation that the IDF is guilty of war crimes. And second, unbalanced reports or programmes.
Take the 23rd July edition of what the BBC describes as its ‘flagship political programme’, Sunday AM with Andrew Marr. There were four guests, all known for their hostility to Israel: Glenys Kinnock, Matthew Parris, Nayla Mouawad and Sir Menzies Campbell. All were simply invited by Andrew Marr to offer their thoughts. Not one guest was invited on who might have acknowledged that there is another view.
From the very first day it was obvious how the BBC would treat the conflict, when a film on Newsnight concluded with the reporter, Peter Marshall, remarking across a picture of a blown-up bridge: “All this destruction. And still more threatened” – as if it was a given that the IDF was on a wilful mission of destruction.
On Sunday, BBC1’s 10’o’clock News’ coverage of the destruction of Hezbollah’s launch sites in Kana treated the IDF’s film of rockets being launched from the bombed building as an irrelevance, and allowed the Security Minister, Isaac Herzog, just two sentences to put Israel’s case – the only element in the entire bulletin which did not portray the IDF as guilty of wilfully murdering civilians.
Yaakov Lappin, writing for Israel’s YNet, notes how Israeli war deaths are being underreported by the international media and gives another example of BBC bias:
Meanwhile, an article has appeared on the BBC website in which a reporter for the British broadcaster, Hugh Sykes, relays a conversation he has with Lebanese residents.
The article is remarkable as it contains the views of a BBC journalist being given to Lebanese locals, rather than the other way around.
In the piece, written in first person narrative, Sykes tells people in Lebanon that there would be “no point” for Israel to strike Hizbullah targets in Lebanon: “‘People keep asking me… ‘Beirut – will they bomb Beirut again?’ ‘What would be the point?” I reply.'”
The BBC journalist also attempts to second guess where Israeli strikes hit.
“Four massive thumps one night, and six the next, as Israeli bombs or shells slammed into the ground a few kilometres away. Or into the children’s homes,” Sykes wrote.
Comments about these examples and any other incidents of bias you may see to BBC Complaints.
DAILY MAIL DISTORTS THE REAL PICTURE
The Daily Mail of 5 August publishes what it calls “dramatic pictures” that:
show the capital of Lebanon now resembles a post-Blitz London. The satellite images were taken just nine days apart and reveal the extent of the devastation which has been wrought on the Haret Hraik neighbourhood….
Whole city squares have been obliterated across miles of the cityscape as hundreds of bombs are dropped during Israel’s almost unremitting bombardment.
The paper, however, fails to provide any visual context as to the scale of the area in the photographs. Even the New York Times, not renowned for its fairness towards Israel, provides a multimedia map with details of Hezbollah targets attacked by Israel in the very same neighbourhood. Unlike the Daily Mail, the New York Times makes it clear that the Haret Hraik neighbourhood is just that – a small part of Beirut – complete with Hezbollah infrastructure located there.
Letters to the Daily Mail.
Above is only a small selection of UK media. Due to the incredible volume of coverage, not all instances of media bias can be specifically highlighted by HonestReporting UK. We call on our subscribers to go the extra mile and respond to the media where necessary. Click here to find contact details for UK and other major international media outlets.
to media bias.
