it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew".
realistically it generally functions more of a bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think rather than as a news outlet.
the cackhanded attempt to smear trump that led to this resignation was part of that and the crackdown signifies that the British establishment has largely shifted from "fervently anti trump" to a policy of appeasement / cordial relations. Two years ago this kind of dishonest editing would probably have been tolerated if not outright encouraged (as it was when done to Jeremy Corbyn).
The way that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy declared powerless "not President Trump" a "tyrant" and "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" but is now keen on cordial relations is another reflection of this narrative shift: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o
> it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew".
a measure of how out of touch this comment is:
among the reasons for her stepdown and accusations of bias according to this article was literally that BBC (especialy BBC Arabic) parroted Hamas a little too much at times.
Edit to reply: Do you actually watch BBC? I watch BBC a lot. As in I sub and don't just get what algorithms throw at me. I didn't get even a slightest feeling they were slavishly pro Israel. Their videos about Gaza were regular and almost all negative of Israel reporting about destruction and suffering in Gaza. Just go to bbcnews youtube and search Gaza. You can also search Gaza genocide. didn't watch every video but headlines are telling.
It feels like talking to somebody who says things that exist in their head and not reality
The current leadership relented a little on the crackdown on their journalists in the last ~6 months ever since the UN declared it a genocide and allowed slightly more honest reporting of the genocide. Im pretty sure that recent glimmer of honesty will stop under new leadership.
>Do you actually watch BBC?
Yes, and I know people who work there too. Which is why found the journalists' revolt over management's orders to push racist Israeli tropes about "avoiding being too pro hamas" to be entirely unsurprising.
> They claim staff have faced accusations of bias for sharing articles critical of Israel on social media
I heard if you work for BBC you can't even mention a toothbrush maker without going through alternatives. yes they are anal about bias.
in this case on one side there is a jihadist organization (and civilians who judging by polls support it) with stated goal of genocide and many examples of attempting it as best they can, currently shooting its own people accused of collaborating with the enemy, vs country that done a bunch of stuff like settling villages outside of its borders and protecting them with violence, fighting that jihadist organization with civilian casualties, blocking borders etc.
if what you are saying is that things are clear and there is no "bias" in painting one side as baddies and the other as goodies, I can't see that. therefore it's important to stick to factual reporting and if you work for a big news org regular people trust you and you should avoid bias even if you publish on your own twitter.
> They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience, but may not express personal views on such matters publicly, including in any BBC-branded output or on personal blogs and social media.
> Achieving due impartiality requires awareness that unintended biases can result from the use of loaded language, from subconscious assumptions and from choices about prominence. For example, a phrase like 'the burden of taxation' might imply a view of taxation that is biased. Advice is available from Editorial Policy
I think BBC is very cool for having this rules. And it sucks they broke their own rules editing Trump speech. And I say that as mostly Trump hater
> accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025...
Ah yes. I have not mentioned race but there we go American white guilt... people from Palestine are ethnically all super similar including Jews, just with different religions/politics.
I didn't watch/read BBC Arabic but on main channel I think they so far had pretty factual coverage and I hope they keep it up...
>I heard if you work for BBC you can't even mention a toothbrush maker without going through alternatives.
It depends on the politics of the BBC at the time. It used to be that being critical of Trump attracted no lashback.
Being supportive of Ukraine on social media will not raise any eyebrows.
So in essence: what youre saying is flatly untrue. BBC policies are not applied indiscriminately.
>in this case on one side there is a jihadist organization
There's that Islamophobic trope again. This is not a war on Hamas. Hamas is nearly irrelevant. It is a racist war on Arab civilians, with Hamas used as the excuse to commit genocide.
There is clear and simple proof of this: Israel has already tried to ethnically cleanse the region. They had their own equivalent of Hitler's Madagascar Plan. Like the Madacascar Plan it failed.
>if what you are saying is that things are clear and there is no "bias" in painting one side as baddies
There are three sides here: Israel committing genocide, Hamas who committed Oct 7th atrocity and civilians.
Im on the side of innocent civilians, you're apparently (if Im reading correctly) on the side of the racists committing (according to the UN) a genocide.
>Ah yes. I have not mentioned race but there we go American white guilt
This has nothing to do with white guilt. If somebody didnt mention race but denied the Holocaust what would they be?
> Being supportive of Ukraine on social media will not raise any eyebrows.
There is no bias and shades of gray when you talk about who attacked whom in Ukrainian war...
> It used to be that being critical of Trump attracted no lashback.
Ah yes, except that literally the CEO got fired totally no pushback,
>>in this case on one side there is a jihadist organization
> There's that Islamophobic trope again.
You can personally attack me all you want but at least read what jihad is first. Islam != jihad.
> This is not a war on Hamas. Hamas is nearly irrelevant. It is a racist war on Arab civilians, with Hamas used as the excuse to commit genocide.
This can't even begin to compute.
You aware that Israel has a lot of Arab Muslim civilians who live in peace, work and own businesses, enjoy social security and all? I guess Israel is really bad at killing Arab civilians because they are right there under their nose
You know how many food trucks were authorized by Israel to enter Gaza (a lot of them were diverted by Hamas but still) to feed civilians, the same civilians you are saying Israel wants to kill? If you don't know here enjoy: https://app.un2720.org/tracking/arrived
There are facts of human rights violations by IDF and then there is parroting propaganda about ethnical cleanse. Why are you excusing the crimes of one side and call rapists and murderers "irrelevant"? why do you say other side commit genocide if they cause civilian casualties fighting terrorist militia that hides in comfy tunnels it built for own protection under hospitals and residentail buildings?
IDF are no goodies but if you want to make call out IDF for doing bad stuff during war you really hurt your ability to do it in the eyes of other people by being so biased for the other side that you make up fantasy. If BBC told its journos off for doing exactly this sort of stuff then they are totally justified...
> This has nothing to do with white guilt.
There's a lot of white colonialist guilt around this issue.
> If somebody didnt mention race but denied the Holocaust what would they be?
They would be what commonly known a Holocaust denier. A racist can deny Holocaust happened but Holocaust denial is not racist outside of context.
Anyway I think IDF and Netanyahu did a lot of things they should be investigated for. But if I wanted to convince people about this I would not put what's happening next to Holocaust. Why? Because then somebody who knows a few facts will not believe my other statements.
It's difficult to show you an unedited one that isn't ridiculously long because the segments that were spliced together in the documentary were 50 minutes apart in real time.
realistically it generally functions more of a bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think rather than as a news outlet.
the cackhanded attempt to smear trump that led to this resignation was part of that and the crackdown signifies that the British establishment has largely shifted from "fervently anti trump" to a policy of appeasement / cordial relations. Two years ago this kind of dishonest editing would probably have been tolerated if not outright encouraged (as it was when done to Jeremy Corbyn).
The way that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy declared powerless "not President Trump" a "tyrant" and "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" but is now keen on cordial relations is another reflection of this narrative shift: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o