Key Takeaways:
-
Senior BBC journalists repeatedly breach accuracy and impartiality on Israel, yet face minimal consequences—even when the BBC’s own oversight bodies confirm serious errors.
-
Figures like Jeremy Bowen and Jon Donnison have shaped global anti-Israel narratives through inaccurate reporting, from misattributed images to premature accusations, while retaining influential roles at the publicly funded broadcaster.
-
The BBC enforces accountability inconsistently—junior staff are penalized for antisemitism, but senior correspondents who distort Israel’s actions are protected, undermining the broadcaster’s credibility and claims of neutrality.
As a publicly funded broadcaster, the BBC’s raison d’être is impartiality. On Israel and Gaza, however, its neutrality is constantly called into question. In part because some of its most high-profile journalists have built up a record of serious misjudgments, especially on social media, and yet remain in their posts. They remain while junior staff have been hung out to dry. Figures such as International Editor Jeremy Bowen and correspondent Jon Donnison seem to glide past meaningful censure, even when the BBC itself acknowledges that its standards were breached.
For readers outside the UK, it is important to understand why these failures have caused such shock. The BBC is not simply another media outlet. It is a national institution created by royal charter, funded through a mandatory licence fee, and trusted for generations as the country’s primary source of news. It sits in British public life in a way that American networks simply do not. When the BBC gets a major international story wrong, it is not perceived as a single newsroom making a mistake. It is felt as a failure of a public service that is meant to belong to everyone.
This is why the conduct of its senior correspondents matters so profoundly. When figures at the very top of the organization repeat errors, ignore caution or breach editorial guidelines, the damage extends far beyond a single report. It undermines the credibility of an institution that millions rely upon for neutral information.
1/ 🚨 BBC in Crisis.
Two top execs – Tim Davie & Deborah Turness – forced to quit after a bombshell dossier exposed bias and even doctored footage of Trump.
You’d think that would spark real change, right?
WRONG. 🧵🎥 pic.twitter.com/EK1AF8COXz
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 12, 2025
Few cases illustrate this tension more clearly than the long record of Jeremy Bowen. His record is not a matter of perspective, but of formal findings made by the BBC’s own oversight bodies. In 2009, the BBC Trust upheld key complaints against his reporting on Israel. In a BBC News article and a From Our Own Correspondent broadcast on the 1967 war, the Trust found that several statements were inaccurate and that the article had breached the BBC’s guideline on impartiality, criticizing Bowen’s wording as imprecise on questions of history and international law. His documentary The Birth of Israel provoked similar concerns from outside critics, including HonestReporting, who argued that it omitted crucial historical context. Although the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee ultimately did not uphold the complaints, the controversy added to long-running questions about Bowen’s treatment of Israel.
Yet Bowen did not lose his job. He remained for many years the BBC’s Middle East editor and is now the corporation’s International Editor, still shaping how millions understand the conflict. If a senior journalist produced content that BBC bodies declared inaccurate and biased on climate change, Brexit or the British economy, it is difficult to imagine management responding this way. On Israel, by contrast, the findings were treated as an inconvenient footnote. Lessons would supposedly be learned. Bowen carried on.
.@BowenBBC represents so much of what is wrong with @BBCNews coverage of Israel. His reaction to @TrevorAsserson‘s damning report on the BBC’s treatment of the Israel-Hamas war comes as no surprise.https://t.co/3wS8W4IPOj pic.twitter.com/XtX07FmZcE
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) September 15, 2024
Then there is journalist Jon Donnison. His record reveals a pattern of carelessness that always seems to cut in the same direction. In 2012, while serving as the BBC’s Gaza and West Bank correspondent, he tweeted a photograph of a bloodied child on a hospital bed, describing it as a heartbreaking image of a Palestinian victim of an Israeli strike. The child, in fact, was Syrian, and the image came from the Syrian civil war. Donnison apologised and deleted the tweet, but by then it had circulated widely.
In 2012 he was forced to apologize after retweeting a photo of an injured Gazan child who was actually Syrian. But with the original retweet going out to more than 7,000 followers & receiving nearly 100 retweets of its own, the apology was too little too late to undo the damage. pic.twitter.com/VnBGY6knk6
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 20, 2023
Fast forward to October 2023 and the explosion at the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza. In the fog of breaking news, caution is not optional, particularly when the stakes include the global reputation of a democratic state and the mobilization of street protests across multiple continents. Reporting live as events unfolded, Donnison speculated on air that it was hard to see how the explosion could be anything other than an Israeli airstrike, heavily implying Israeli responsibility. As evidence accumulated, including independent open-source analysis, it became increasingly clear that the blast was likely caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket.
Eventually, the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit conceded that the coverage had not met the corporation’s standards of due accuracy. Yet the issue was deemed resolved because a clarification had been posted online. The finding was not formally upheld. There was no disciplinary announcement. The journalist whose speculation helped shape a global narrative simply moved on to the next story.
Even now, Donnison continues to test the limits of BBC impartiality. In February 2025, he tweeted that propaganda efforts by Hamas and Israel over hostage releases were pretty nauseating, drawing an obscene equivalence between a democratic state lobbying for the release of kidnapped civilians and a terror organization that abducted them. Following public outrage, he deleted and apologized. Once again, there is no indication of meaningful sanction.
The pattern is not limited to English language coverage. BBC Arabic has long been dogged by accusations of partisan behavior, including staff posting content on social media that openly endorses actors involved in the conflict. One senior journalist reportedly left only after refusing to cooperate with an internal investigation, raising troubling questions about how robust such processes really are.
Here, the contrast with other cases becomes even more striking. When historic tweets by BBC Monitoring journalist Tala Halawa resurfaced, including Hitler was right and Israel is more Nazi than Hitler, the BBC confirmed that she no longer worked for the corporation. In that instance, the red line was clear. Explicit genocidal antisemitism is incompatible with employment at the BBC. Rightly so.
Tala Halawa is a “digital journalist” for the @BBC.
Halawa directly influences and creates news content watched by many millions around the world.
In what world can someone like this work for a professional news outlet? pic.twitter.com/r2LIHmZfF2
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 23, 2021
But what message does it send when blatant breaches of accuracy and impartiality on Israel, repeated over many years by prominent correspondents, are dealt with through quiet clarifications and private apologies, while those same journalists retain their powerful platforms? Or when staff who openly cheer on armed resistance are allowed to continue reporting on Israeli civilians who are the targets of that resistance.
The BBC now faces unprecedented scrutiny over its Israel-Gaza coverage. Leaked letters, internal memos and external reports all point to profound discomfort within the organization about how this conflict is being handled and about the ideological leanings of some of its staff. At the heart of the crisis lies a simple question: who is held accountable when BBC journalists get Israel wrong?
Accountability cannot mean sacking the occasional junior figure for outrageous historic tweets while protecting senior correspondents whose on-air words reverberate globally in real time. It cannot mean allowing resolved complaints and quiet corrections to substitute for genuine consequences. If the BBC wants to be trusted on Israel, it must confront the record of figures like Jeremy Bowen and Jon Donnison honestly, rather than pretending that a few buried clarifications are enough. Until that happens, every new pledge of impartiality will ring hollow, especially to those who have been watching this pattern of failure for years.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
