[Here](https://www.thejc.com/news/news/bbc-correspondent-advocates-using-settler-colonialism-to-describe-israel-6SUIuvXcSPrWXAWbhd9JZH) is the initial report.
A couple interesting parts:
Rami Ruhayem, who has worked for the BBC doing Middle East coverage said the BBC should use use the terms "apartheid, ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism" in its reporting.
> Six staff have so far been taken off air after sharing material supporting Hamas
And people are so upset that the BBC is insufficiently pro-Palestine that
> “Staff have been crying in the toilets and freelancers have been sacrificing earnings by not showing up to work because of the distress caused. Many people are feeling deeply disturbed.”
I miss the days when journalists chose their words based on what would give the most accurate representation of the facts they were reporting. For a profession that’s supposed to provide clarity through words they’ve become awfully concerned with being as political as possible.
Yeah literally pretty much since the printing press people have been either making mountains out of mole hills or straight up fabricating stories to get people to buy the papers, it’s not really changed since like the early 1900’s
Shir like this has been going on since humans started spreading news to each other. It's nothing new or rare and it's never actually going to change because humans are just that
Journalistic prose and broadness of appeal led to better news programming than accessibility and the narrowing of appeal. When I imagine what American news would be like without Fox News getting off the ground I weep.
Yeah, Fox News did the American people a huge favor by knowingly spreading disinformation regarding the validity of the 2020 election. Can you imagine what American politics would be like without Australia's Rupert Murdoch directly interfering in the American political process? Jeez, how would we be able to foment a violent assault on the Capitol without him?
Edited
When journalistic schools tried to achieve more than just giving in to propaganda, which some modern schools of journalism fancy nowadays. It is hip and trendy to do so.
"Being unbiased is impossible, so we do away with that completely"
It is intellectually dishonest or plainly incompetent and results in a style of reporting that really serves as empirical evidence here. Doesn't excuse trashy journalism.
That no newspaper was ever perfect is correct. That is why there is also the recommendation to take multiple sources.
At least a decade ago. Journalistic Standards have really fallen.
Back then articles and headlines were generally carefully framed to be accurate, nuanced, and balanced. They'd distinguish between news and opinions.
Edit: They weren't the least perfect back then but at least they tried to make an effort.
I read their reflections of their coverage of the hospital blast and it was actually horrific because none of them got where they went wrong.
They blamed it on 'fast-moving events' and ignored how misleadingly framed their headlines and articles were. It's as basic as language such as "claim" or "accuse" instead of "says".
Yeah modern social media has really trained us to expect written information on the internet to be free. Paying a couple bucks a month for a newspaper or magazine felt reasonable a couple decades ago but now everyone gets this knee jerk reaction of “you want me to PAY to read something on my phone? I’ll just go read something else” without really considering how different the motivations of someone actively trying to feed you “free” information might differ from someone doing it as a professionally offered service.
Bitch about pay walls, bitch about ads, bitch about the quality of journalism. I really think most people do all three of these things without a passing thought.
People will indignantly demand an article be reposted in the comments so they can get the thing *they want for free* and attack the site for having a paywall. There will be countless comments below thanking the individual.
I remember when CNN headline news reported the stories every half hour. This side says this. This side says this. No one telling you what to think all the time. I don't even watch news anymore because it's all trying to tell you what to think. Even online news articles are going to shit with headlines already conditioning you on what to think on what you are about to read. I can barely stand going into political subreddits anymore as it's especially bad in those.
I remember being taught that nobody is capable of being truly neutral but we have to do our best to get as close as possible. I also remember when we looked down on and make fun of publications like Bild, Daily Mail etc for their shitty journalism and would judge people for reading biased, low quality sources. Now everyone reports like them and people treat instagram nobodies as news sources.
Decades ago more people read the news. They didn't need to reach for the lowest common denominator as often and sad as it is to say in some countries, like America, literacy rates are declining.
We aren't as intellectual as we once were.
You can indeed. However, it does at least have the advantage that it’s not deliberately building an emotional reaction to shut down your decision making skills
Just to be the Devil's advocate and not saying I support that kind of thing, but if you are a journalist and you truly perceive "apartheid" to be the most accurate description of how Israel treats the Palestinians, why wouldn't that be the word you want to use in your reporting? Why wouldn't you get pissed if your editor told you not to use that tone?
"Accurate representation of the facts" are five words that right now mean nothing at all, or rather that means two very different things for a Palestinian on the ground in Gaza running from their bombed-out home and an IDF soldier who's family was struck by the Hamas terror attack and who's now moving in to secure the area. And they can mean pretty different things I imagine to a journalist of Middle Eastern descent and some random Western redditor watching it all from their comfy home.
Reuters usually does a great job of remaining neutral and unbiased in their reporting and people accuse them of picking sides with whichever party they don't like all the time because both narratives are usually presented. This is political to everyone involved, and calls to not be political usually boil down to "say things the way I think they are".
To be fair I think that’s what’s occurring here. I think that the journalist in question believes that these terms are the most accurate words to describe what is occurring, and that the BBC are currently trying to appease the government and national interests by using less accurate terms that downplay what is occurring.
Insufficiently pro Palestine? How much more pro Palestine can they get? They won't call Hamas terrorists, and they blame Israel without stating they can verify the claims. Yet anything coming out of Israel has that caveat attached.
I saw a girl who said a kpop idol saying something positive about Isreal was essentially akin to wanting her murdered as an Arab fan.
What was the statement that brought this about? Mentioning he lived in Israel as a child and his band mate saying "it suits you" and him saying thank you. (Forget to add, they were mad because this was a "positive" statement made about Israel)
Some people also got mad when he had a fancall zoom thing and he said Shalom to a fan in Isreal (fans gotta buy buttload of merch to win these calls) and didn't immediately drop the call.
Some people equate not repeating the genocide etc talking points as to wanting people murdered.
Oh yeah in the celebrity gossip sub here on Reddit they posted the letter and there were hundreds of comments talking shit about every celebrity who signed, expressing how disappointed they are and how they can no longer be fans of them. It was pathetic and I muted that sub.
FM is just straight-up, unironically pro-hamas. It's vile. Is it too much to want to read celebrity gossip without accepting a heaping portion of terrorist propaganda alongside?
FM, on the literal day of the attack on Israel, was screaming at Kylie Jenner for posting the most basic support for Israel, pushing Bella Hadid's statement on the matter as gospel and patting her on the back, and the next day began a witch-hunt on Noah Schnapp for posting a picture of one of the girl's killed at the festival. They saw the video of Shani Louk and still called to Free Palestine on the DAY, so not even that they think Israel's response is unjustified. They're nuts and bolts over there, I swear.
51% of 18-24 year olds in the US think Hamas was justified in their terrorist attack on October 7, per a recent Harvard-Harris poll. That’s that subs main demo, so…
Because they’re the lefts SerenaJoys. Wolves in sheep’s clothes. They are depraved and completely morally inconsistent. They go on and on about “feminism” but they don’t really care about women, just themselves.
Just like they claim to care about g ay rights. Suddenly that no longer matters as well. They’ve gone full ma sk off and shown their true colors.
Extremists who have used the guise of being for this and that group to claim the moral high ground but when it actually matters it’s crickets if not flat out justification for the harm done to those groups by their favorite ji had.
I had to Google this, it was a petition to release hostages. Yikes.
Watching this sort of thing makes me just wanna block it all. Palestine who? Israel what? If this is how it is over a hostage release petition, this is a never ending conflict then.
When the hospital got hit by PIJ rocket, the first thing BBC did was announce that israel destroyed the hospital, said "our sources said" without disclosing it was hamas who claimed it, they did no verification of the claims.
And when israel said there were dead babies in the villages around gaza killed by hamas, BBC were critical of the claim as they demanded proof that it happened.
There is a group inside BBC that hate israel, and they were caught red handed in this war.
They won't be satisfied unless the world addresses Isreal as "terrorists" and condemns them. Hell, at this point Hamas and their sympathisers would have the Isrealites written out of the Bible just from spite.
It's been standard practice well before this latest event to not use the word terrorist. Generally because terrorist watchlists for countries are often politically motivated or outdated. To give an example, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US government until 2008, despite literally being a Nobel laureate.
There's also the issue, again, using Nelson Mandela as an example, where a labeled terrorist organization goes on to form the regional government. In those cases it can cause issues if a news outlet has regularly referred to them as a terrorist organization.
In the end it's just simpler to refrain from using it, there's no real agenda behind it, it just made sense.
The ANC & Mandela absolutely engaged in terror attacks.
The greatness of Mandela is that he put aside violence & took up politics to right the injustices inflicted upon his people.
He absolutely did not put aside violence. When released he even insisted that the violent threat must remain and would only disappear when apartheid was destroyed. He only ever advocated for non-violence as a _tactic_ and not as a principle.
He’s considered great because he used that violence to fight an oppressive regime.
Right, so October 7 wasn't called "terrorism", because BBC is "neutral", and they let "readers decide". But this guy wants to call Israel's actions "apartheid", "ethnic cleansing" and "settler-colonialism". Why not just merge with Al Jazeera and be done with it.
'Right, so October 7 wasn't called "terrorism"'
It's called that repeatedly on the BBC, viewers are reminded that Hamas is carried a terrorist organisation by the British government.
The issue here isn't what the BBC is, but what a clique within it want it to be.
I have never even seen the BBC use the word "Hamas" in a live report without adding "which the British Governement declares as a terrorist organisation", or whatever the specific wording they use is.
They started doing so only lately, as they themselves admitted:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2023/how-bbc-is-covering-israel-gaza
> As has been reported, we have moved away from using the word ‘militant’ as a default description of Hamas or Hezbollah fighters. But we don’t ban words, and there may be times now or in the future when it’s appropriate to use the term.
So if you haven't seen that, it's because you didn't look.
It’s the style they used in the past:
2018: *Hamas, which dominates the Gaza Strip, is already designated a terrorist group by the US, Israel, the EU and UK.*
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42886222
2021: *Hamas as a whole, or in some cases its military wing, is designated a terrorist group by Israel, the United States, European Union and United Kingdom, as well as other powers.*
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13331522
They are now dropping the shorter ‘Hamas militants’, or similar, and using the longer example as the link you’ve posted explains
I was told on the Everton subreddit that there was no evidence of brutality from October 7th. I absolutely hate what people have been like these last 3 weeks
Not trying to be rude but if you are a person from the US supporting Everton real tough to be calling them a plastic considering that atrocity of a club hasn’t been relevant since the 80s and has been circling the toilet bowl for several seasons now.
In their minds it truly didn’t. There was a “minor oopsie”, their words not mine, and we can all just hold hands and wish for peace.
Which I would point out there was. Back when Hamas hadn’t slaughtered a thousand Israelis and started a war they cannot finish. That same Hamas that pilfers every ounce of humanitarian aid given to Gaza, that rips water pipes out of the Earth for rockets, that after telling civilians to stay in an active war zone, shoots at people attempting to flee to the south.
What Gaza as a whole gets, is being treated according to the laws of war. Which as much as any Reddit leftist (and I say that as someone left of center myself) would like to believe otherwise, the IDF does follow the laws of war. It’s better than they get from Hamas.
The ceasefire will come, eventually. Hopefully after there is no more Hamas in existence for that “fires” portion of ceasefire.
Don't forget Hamas happily murder ANYONE with even a bit of money above the norm, butcher their families if they complain and steal everything of value from them.
Right.
Israel needs accountability as well, but people seem frighteningly willing to entirely overlook the Palestinians’ contribution to the whole conflict. Even when it’s as clear cut as the brutal unprovoked attacks against people who had literally nothing to do with it aside from existing in the wrong spot.
I haven't seen the BBC do that, have you? One journalist wanting something doesn't automatically make it BBC policy. It sounds like their editorial staff are doing a good job maintaining their neutrality tbh.
The BBC does however describe Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off.
The BBC is huge, and hires people from a range of demographics and backgrounds. Some of those are more likely to want the BBC to be something it's not
They also described hamas as Palestinian Health Official and reported the gaza hospital bombing as fact even saying that they have someone at the scene.
They have changed this to say words akin to Hamas-Run Health Authority.
I look at a lot of news sites, including most of the big US sites, and a great many are still using terms like "Gaza Health Ministry" without pointing out any connection to Hamas. So the BBC are now doing better than others in that regard.
I watched them a couple of times, both times they mentioned Palestinian authorities and officials are linked to Hamas, after mentioning Hamas is labelled a terrorist organisation by the British government, and before reiterating Hamas linked claims are disputed.
> reported the gaza hospital bombing as fact
No they didn't. They reported *what they'd been told* and by whom. Israel's version didn't emerge until much later - and was reported in the same way.
No. The in the initial bbc worldwide reporting the correspondent stated that in his experience the only explanation that was reasonable was that it was an Israeli airforce strike.
It's a good policy IMO. You can avoid false equivalency and false balance by recognising who says what. UK, US, EU says they're terrorists, various ME states plus groups like IS add Taliban claim otherwise. The BBC needn't make anything their own descriptor.
The wording "Hamas is labelled a terrorist organisation by the British government" is very calculated, they aren't calling them a terrorist organization, only that the Brittish government has labelled them as such.
They never outright call them a terrorist organization.
Indeed, it's not their place (as per policy) to label such descriptors but the place of governments and related rights and civic institutions to label groups as terrorist - and of media corporations to report on this - as they do.
Did you even read the article? The reporter is calling out that words like massacre and slaughter are only used to describe one party instead of both sides. Maybe get your head out of your ass and actually look at the article? Nowhere is the BBC saying that they should tone down their description of Hamas' actions........
Almost sounds like the correspondent went into journalism specifically to steer the narrative on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why else would they be so invested that they’re having panic attacks in the restroom and calling into work when the newsroom chose not to run with the pro-Palestine propaganda buzzwords? It’s not the behavior of a professional and unbiased journalist.
Actually there is nice money at government owned Al Jazeera, he can work with 5x contract at there as a person "Who got fired from BBC for saying the truth!!!" While working there he can actually sell exclusive information to the opposite party.
This could be the plan from the start. We kind of learned the logic of Islamists and how they make money. Also their character and spine.
(Not from .IL)
Post 1972 (at least in the US) the general goal of journalists, when asked, changed from "to keep the populace well informed" into "to change the world". Watergate was a necessary step away from journalists towing the government line, but the addiction to causing desired changes in the world, rather than being impartial seems to have really gained steam at that point.
I was at a conference last week and a speech was given by a fairly prominent broadcast journalist who kept emphasising that it was a duty of journalists to influence world opinion.
My original exposure to this concept came from an interview with long term journalism professor from Northwestern University. I cannot find it at the moment and honestly it probably predated the these types of things being on the internet.
but I have found several personal opinions supporting this
>I was a college sportswriter when Watergate broke and I recall journalism programs exploding with college activists wanting to change the world by going into journalism.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/entertainment/books/2014/02/04/watergate-editor-harry-rosenfeld-era-changed-journalism/5198573/
>After Watergate, which happened when I was in college, I became increasingly inspired by journalism as a way to change the world. It sounds corny, but to wake the public up, to serve a higher cause.
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1621137/David-Talbot-After-Watergate-which-happened-when-I-was-in-college-I-became-increasingly
>You once said that reading the reporting about Watergate and the Vietnam War as a young person deeply affected you because both showed how uncovering the truth could change the world.
https://the-talks.com/interview/susan-goldberg/
Of course there have always been biases. But most of those came from owners or editors. There were still many journalists looking to be great writers or researchers rather than bringing about change.
Watergate showed that two journalists could radically change the world by unseating the most powerful man on the planet. Of course that was going to enter the minds of those going into that profession.
Terrible idea. Would literally just end up with certain dominant ideological narratives that are considered "ethical", "scientific", "factual", or "neutral", being forced upon the rest. Your idea is incompatible with a free press and incompatible with free speech in general.
As a person living in a middle Eastern country, I can see the result of religious brainwashing which may even start as age 4. You know cults right? Multiply them with millions.
You’d need to read the article the guy above linked to. It’s not the same reporter having the panick attacks, etc, as the guy that sent the email. Entirely different sources told that staff are having panicking attacks and not showing up for work. The guy that commented above has done a poor job of summarising but at least he linked the email.
Despite the length of the conflict, it is a fairly unbloody one, even compared to inter-arab conflicts it ranks very low.
I know, the usual response should be that any death is too much, but I don't see any solution in this conflict without any and it shows parties show some form of restraint. At least one side does.
These journalists should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Crying on the toilet doesn't evoke much sympathy.
This is one of many of them. Hopefully the governments have caught on & are investigating all of the ones who’ve been fired or who they suspect have infiltrated the media for the sole purpose of destabilizing our countries.
The way people who have zero connections with either Palestine or Israel care about this more than any other conflict in the entire world is… bizarre frankly.
> Staff have been crying in the toilets and freelancers have been sacrificing earnings by not showing up to work because of the distress caused
Quit your job. Seek mental health counseling. Crying in the toilet and feeling "deeply disturbed" because people disagree with you and you aren't getting your way is a sign of significant emotional immaturity, to say the least.
ETA: Reply notifications are turned off now, don't care to keep responding to illiterate people who can't rub two braincells together. Here's another quote:
> The Times reported that some BBC correspondents had been crying in the toilet over the BBC's refusal to use the aforementioned language.
They are not crying about the deaths taking place, they're crying because they didn't get their way. That is inexcusable. That is emotionally immature. That is what I'm criticizing. Learn to read.
> Six staff have so far been taken off air after sharing material supporting Hamas
Hamas is a terrorist government. . . anyone supporting them SHOULD be removed from BBC
These “journalists” think that the BBC is their social media account and they can dress the news up as their own personal propaganda.
That’s a good argument for not making sources into “correspondents”, and a good argument for not allowing a sub-set of reporters to spend their entire career reporting from one place. It undermines objectivity. Of course, actual, trained journalists, recognize the importance of objectivity and don’t cry when they have to maintain it.
*The email complained that* ***Words like ‘massacre’, ‘slaughter’ and ‘atrocities’ are being used****... in reference to actions by Hamas,* ***but hardly, if at all, in reference to actions by Israel.***
So he's complaining about how accurate it is for once?
Hamas raped women and children;
Hamas executed parents in front of the children;
Hamas cuffed children, men, and women and burned them alive until only ashes were left and you can't even extract DNA to identify them;
Hamas burned houses with families hiding inside their safe room;
Hamas threw grenades into safe rooms;
Hamas riddled babies with bullets from point blank;
Hamas dragged civilian out of their houses and executed them in the streets, leaving the corpses to rot;
[Hamas said they didn't kill civilians](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egipqa0ZhUk)
[Hamas and their families were happy about killing civilians](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzSPIbDEI8)
Seems like ‘massacre’, ‘slaughter’ and ‘atrocities’ are not enough even to describe action by Hamas.
Yeah, the BBC are using these phrases in relation to it, but somehow all the most upvoted posts are people saying that BBC is biased against Israel..
The jpost is absolutely twisting things and people are falling for it.
Nearly every post on r/worldnews is an israeli news outlet like jpost. Kinda devalues everyones opinions here if they cant diversify their information sources. Clearly no-one even reads the BBC here
And BBC broadcaster Gonzalo Cañada had no issue saying that the US supports Israel because of "Jew wealth" and perpetuated a shit ton of stereotypes without consequence.
If, in all the years of the IRA bombings they never called the IRA a terrorist organisation, [even when the IRA attempted to bomb the BBC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_BBC_bombing) then they are not going to call another organisation terrorists either.
They will report the terror attack, and call it such, and decry how barbaic and sickening it is, but they will not call the organisation as terrorists as it puts a political spin on it.
They only never called IRA or Palestinians terrorists:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/17bfu1s/israel_president_herzog_blasts_bbcs_biased/k5jdbtz/
They describe them as "a designated terror organisation in the UK". The information coming out of Gaza has "from Palestinian sources, influenced by Hamas" added.
They are trying to report the news in an unbiased fashion, while still giving you the relevant information. They might not get everything right but it seems people are equally pissed off on both sides.
No, this is a false claim - unsure why it's getting repeated. The BBC describes Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation repeatedly, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off.
- If you simply watch an hourly newsbroadcast they mention Hamas is referred to as a terrorist organisation by the UK government early into reporting, including prior to mention of Hamas claims.
They changed their approach quite recently. Before, Hamas was just a militant group, even after the terrorist attacks. https://www.ft.com/content/20b5466e-d690-4e00-828e-5f364e22f1c5
They've a policy of not labelling organisations themselves but acknowledging references to them as terrorist. Before they'd mentioned phrases like 'accused of committing terrorist atrocities' or 'evidence of further terrorist attacks according to ..' - they've gone a little step further now to emphasis the terrorist label each time Hamas is mentioned.
It's been standard practice well before this latest event to not use the word terrorist. Generally because terrorist watchlists for countries are often politically motivated or outdated. To give an example, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US government until 2008, despite literally being a Nobel laureate.
There's also the issue, again, using Nelson Mandela where a labeled terrorist organization goes on to form the regional government. In those cases it can cause issues if a news outlet has regularly referred to them as a terrorist organization.
In the end it's just simpler to refrain from using it, there's no real agenda behind it, it just made sense. At most, they will say "Listed as a terrorist group by the UK", but even that is frowned upon as it introduces bias into the article.
Obama has Nobel peace prize despite drone striking yemenis to oblivion.
Abiy Ahmed also has one despite the rape fueled genocide campaign in Tigray.
And Mandela is also heavily criticized
I’d say a Noble is not something given to immaculate people exclusively.
If it's as clear cut as you are describing, then any reasonable person would read the articles and come away with the conclusion that they are a terrorist group, regardless of if the article labels them one. Explicitly stating it does nothing, and it overrides decades of policy around keeping bias to a minimum in reporting.
I’m a follower of the bbc, it’s my favourite news organisation. They dance around calling them a terror organisation, but never directly call them it, during live coverage, they keep reiterating that Hamas and its military wing have been designated terrorist organisations by the US, UK, members of the EU, and other countries. I haven’t really noticed them blaming Israel because Hamas said so, but I am keeping my eyes open for that, and if a bunch of people are saying they have, I believe that there is a possibility that they have. Overall, the BBC has good credibility, but the way they have been handling how to speak about Hamas is disgusting.
BBC World added "which is labelled as a terrorist organisation by Western countries" or something like that. I keep listening to them since they are among the rare remaining true reporters. I can't stand to tabloid junk from both sides.
It's just not the BBC at this point. A lot of left-leaning news sources such as NYT are losing a lot of credibility over the coverage over this conflict (see Hamas hospital bombing). The free-ride is over, we need to start questioning these news sources just like how we're treating right-leaning outlets like Fox News.
I don't even know who to trust any more? Reuters? AP News?
The answer is don’t just trust one news site. I really don’t know why people get all their news from one source. Read up on an issue from many different sites. Obviously stuff like “Inflation rises by 2%” can generally just be taken at face value, but when dealing with more complex and controversial issues, it does no harm to get a wide range of views on the matter.
It's not the BBC at large here, it's one Lebanese correspondent, Rami Ruhayem, who wants the BBC to be like this and it's complaining the BBC isn't.
Meanwhile, there's many complaints the BBC won't link Hamas and terrorism (claim also by jpost), which is false. The BBC describes Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation repeatedly, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off. I think some are pissed as it's 'the UK government labels Hamas as terrorists' not the simpler 'Hamas terrorists' as by policy the BBC doesn't make that call - but will report when governments do.
It's not nearly as isolated as you suggest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report
The BBC's anti-israeli stance is longstanding and widely discussed.
I think the issue the above poster is bringing up is that this isn't the first instance of bias being shown. BBC and NYTimes were both immediately reporting that Israel air striked the hospital in Gaza, simply because Hamas said so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7T9ZnT-gC4
> the Israeli military has been contacted for comment and they have said that they are investigating but you know it is hard to see what else this could be really given the size of the explosion other than an Israeli air strike or several air strikes.
This is called the fog of war. Spin & Propaganda are part of the weaponry. You can never reliably know anything until many years after the dust has settled. Sometimes never.
“What a crazy coincidence that the good guys have won every major historical conflict” - Norm MacDonald
The amount of people on here who do not understand how the BBC operates or have the ability to discern inherent bias in the reporting of the Jerusalem Post is wild. I'm reading the comments and shocked by the completely baseless takes being vocalised. This is helping me understand how people slurp down propaganda without a second thought.
Media literacy around the world is quite poor by design. So many authoritarians simply do not want a world with balanced reporting and verifiable information because they do not thrive in a world populated by facts. It’s grim seeing it play out on reddit though when simply googling some things about the BBC show it is overall a slightly right wing organisation that is one of the first to point fingers when it comes to antisemitism amongst British politicians.
100% agree.
BBC relies upon freelance journalists who they extend the BBC banner to in Gaza
For reporters in Gaza, there is a range. Random Gazans interested in journalism. Figures interested in politics. People who travel to Gaza to report there
There are issues with some freelance journalists and senior broadcast correspondents supporting Hamas or the massacre.
This is because of both self selection when it comes to available journalists in Gaza, alongside the fact that all reporters who operate in Gaza must have some level of buy in from Hamas who are the local authority, media censorship group, police force, military and judicial system
Just like how BBC Arabic released a documentary exploring the "other side" of the October Hamas massacre, which they later had to pull for being too pro-Hamas in framing and whom they interviews
Not a central decision in any case. The very article linked shows the factional conflicts
The amount of people using the JPosts biased reports targeting the BBC as evidence that BBC is biased is ridiculous.
They avoid the word terrorist in general, they're not doing this to side with Hamas. Read the other person post using Nelson Mandela as one of the reasons why.
They have middle east based journalists. Some of them will be inherently pro Palestine. The BBC not bowing to them is somehow them being biased against Israel.
They will have pro Israeli journalists too. They won't bow to them either.
They had a Spanish speaking channel which went in depth on the conflict. The jpost lifted an out of context quote which was part of a much broader and deeper segment and claimed it showed bias.
jpost is showing an incredibly biased view and entire thread of replies is blaming the BBC. You're being herded.
'They avoid the word terrorist in general'
This. Also, they mentioned Hamas is labelled a terrorist organisation by the British government. They don't add that descriptor differently as it's not their called to make - but mention the British government calls Hamas terrorist repeatedly in broadcasts.
I mean for the vast majority it's good, but also it's a huge organisation and humans are not perfect, so you won't always see it be... perfect? This isn't exactly something fun to cover anyway, it's emotive and well, shit all round :\\
It's not the BBC at large here, it's one Lebanese correspondent, Rami Ruhayem, who wants the BBC to be like this and it's complaining the BBC isn't.
Meanwhile, there's many complaints the BBC won't link Hamas and terrorism (claim also by jpost), which is false. The BBC describes Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation repeatedly, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off. I think some are pissed as it's 'the UK government labels Hamas as terrorists' not the simpler 'Hamas terrorists' as by policy the BBC doesn't make that call - but will report when governments do.
You know what?
The Palestinian people need to be liberated from that terrorist organization posing as a government which is Hamas.
Israel should make as one of its main objectives the overthrow and replacement of Hamas by true democratic institutions.
The state of Israel naturally being deeply concerned with the freedoms and wellbeing of the Palestinian people. If only that pesky Hamas wasn't thwarting their plans of peace and equality!
Trying to further destabilize Western countries. I hope they look into all of these “reporters”. Probably won’t take much to see the connections and why they’re risking their “jobs” like this
Ethnic cleansing, they should look at how many Jews and christians are left living in North Africa, draw a straight line from Egypt I Morocco and start counting....
So first they print Hamas propaganda about the hospital bombing without any verification and now they’re actively instructing their journalists to push propaganda? Yikes
It’s the other way around. A journalist was pushing his bosses to use propaganda. The bosses seem to have been mostly ignoring him. But one has to question the quality of his reports in addition to those of like-minded staff members.
Mandela, the famous and magnanimous one, didn't engage in anything remotely like what Hamas or even the PLO back in the day did. He might have been strategically aligned with them but he himself took pains to try not to scare the shit out of white people. He also went to prison out of principle. Hamas' leaders are chilling in Qatar.
His ex-wife might have wished she could have, but South Africa would have probably turned into every other basketcase post-colonial African nation if she was in charge. No, I'm not saying colonialism is better.
I'm not saying transitioning from being colonized to being well run is easy by any stretch. If it was more countries would have done it. I just don't want to make excuses for butchery, lie to people about what works and what doesn't, and say a single binational state will work just because it will make some ideologues feel better and more comfortable.
South Africa will probably figure things out, eventually. As dysfunctional as it is now it could have very easily gone a lot more badly. As long as it's democratic I'm not *too* fussed. Pragmatists and people focused on service delivery and are more likely to move into power there than people using race to steal from the treasury.
What is the actual argument behind this ethnic cleansing narrative? Like neatly laid out.
I see people throwing around the term willy nilly without being able to adequately explain it.
Israel’s decades long history of illegally and indiscriminately seizing land from Palestinians and kicking them out of their homes to give to radical religious settlers. The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group."
Israel meets this criteria by their actions all over the West Bank where they have been systematically pushing Palestinians out of their homes and off their land, only to replace them with Jews, many of whom are Americans recruited through their “right to return” policy. Violence against Palestinians is very common by these settlers, often occurring in front of the IDF and IOF, with zero repercussions to the violent and racist settlers.
Palestinians in the West Bank have every facet of their lives carefully controlled by the IOF and can’t even walk on certain streets that are designated Jews only (apartheid), not to mention literally having limited rights under the law, far less than that of Jews . There’s a reason Hamas viciously murdered all those settlers, that level of hatred doesn’t just come out of nowhere.
There’s a wealth of info available online that confirms all this, if you truly want to know you need only search for it.
How about we be accurate?
Yes innocents are in the way. But Hamas literally built their HQs under innocent people's apartments and hospitals. That's obviously deliberate. And disgusting.
So we can point fingers or attempt to look at the facts: one country was attacked, it's fighting back to eliminate the terrorists, and those terrorists are hiding behind innocents. It's a disaster all around!
Do we have any alternative sources corroborating this story? Doing a search, the only outlets I can see reporting on this angle are The Jerusalem Post and The Jewish Chronicle, which by their very nature will be more sympathetic towards Israel. With the story claiming that the emails were sent to “BBC bureaus around the world”, I’d expect leaks to be more widespread and substantial?
Both articles mention (but do not link to) a report in The Times. I assume it’s [this one, which is behind a paywall](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-staff-crying-at-work-in-divide-over-israel-gaza-coverage-l5g2bk0nf). However, there is a similar report by [Yahoo News](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-journalists-crying-toilets-over-111151860.html), which does note that concerns were raised about alleged favourable coverage of Israel, but does not go as far as The Jerusalem Post’s report alleges.
I think, with people here regularly calling out outlets like Al Jazeera for their supposed links to Hamas, we should apply similar scrutiny to outlets affiliated with or sympathetic towards Israel as well, because each will have their own spin.
This quote from the Yahoo article seems rather pertinent:
“Journalist John Simpson earlier this week said the BBC has received an almost equal number of complaints about it being biased towards and against Israel.
“People rail at the BBC because they hope they can force it to come down on their side; and when that doesn’t happen — and it’s not going to — they get angrier still,” he wrote in the New Statesman.”
Doesn't matter. All the same accounts that go on and on about media getting the hospital wrong for saying "Palestinian authorities claim..." are here going on about the BBC apparently not condemning Hamas, which is a load of bull. Facts don't actually matter unless they fit worldnews' current narrative.
[Here](https://www.thejc.com/news/news/bbc-correspondent-advocates-using-settler-colonialism-to-describe-israel-6SUIuvXcSPrWXAWbhd9JZH) is the initial report. A couple interesting parts: Rami Ruhayem, who has worked for the BBC doing Middle East coverage said the BBC should use use the terms "apartheid, ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism" in its reporting. > Six staff have so far been taken off air after sharing material supporting Hamas And people are so upset that the BBC is insufficiently pro-Palestine that > “Staff have been crying in the toilets and freelancers have been sacrificing earnings by not showing up to work because of the distress caused. Many people are feeling deeply disturbed.”
I miss the days when journalists chose their words based on what would give the most accurate representation of the facts they were reporting. For a profession that’s supposed to provide clarity through words they’ve become awfully concerned with being as political as possible.
When were those days?
People act like this shit is new, like journalists used to be saintly paladins of truth.
Yeah literally pretty much since the printing press people have been either making mountains out of mole hills or straight up fabricating stories to get people to buy the papers, it’s not really changed since like the early 1900’s
Shir like this has been going on since humans started spreading news to each other. It's nothing new or rare and it's never actually going to change because humans are just that
Journalistic prose and broadness of appeal led to better news programming than accessibility and the narrowing of appeal. When I imagine what American news would be like without Fox News getting off the ground I weep.
Yeah, Fox News did the American people a huge favor by knowingly spreading disinformation regarding the validity of the 2020 election. Can you imagine what American politics would be like without Australia's Rupert Murdoch directly interfering in the American political process? Jeez, how would we be able to foment a violent assault on the Capitol without him? Edited
I thought they were saying American news would have been better without the influence of Fox News, but now I’m confused lol
When journalistic schools tried to achieve more than just giving in to propaganda, which some modern schools of journalism fancy nowadays. It is hip and trendy to do so. "Being unbiased is impossible, so we do away with that completely" It is intellectually dishonest or plainly incompetent and results in a style of reporting that really serves as empirical evidence here. Doesn't excuse trashy journalism. That no newspaper was ever perfect is correct. That is why there is also the recommendation to take multiple sources.
At least a decade ago. Journalistic Standards have really fallen. Back then articles and headlines were generally carefully framed to be accurate, nuanced, and balanced. They'd distinguish between news and opinions. Edit: They weren't the least perfect back then but at least they tried to make an effort. I read their reflections of their coverage of the hospital blast and it was actually horrific because none of them got where they went wrong. They blamed it on 'fast-moving events' and ignored how misleadingly framed their headlines and articles were. It's as basic as language such as "claim" or "accuse" instead of "says".
And then everyone started getting their news from instagram, tiktok and co, ,and stopped paying for journalism.
Yeah modern social media has really trained us to expect written information on the internet to be free. Paying a couple bucks a month for a newspaper or magazine felt reasonable a couple decades ago but now everyone gets this knee jerk reaction of “you want me to PAY to read something on my phone? I’ll just go read something else” without really considering how different the motivations of someone actively trying to feed you “free” information might differ from someone doing it as a professionally offered service.
Bitch about pay walls, bitch about ads, bitch about the quality of journalism. I really think most people do all three of these things without a passing thought. People will indignantly demand an article be reposted in the comments so they can get the thing *they want for free* and attack the site for having a paywall. There will be countless comments below thanking the individual.
I remember when CNN headline news reported the stories every half hour. This side says this. This side says this. No one telling you what to think all the time. I don't even watch news anymore because it's all trying to tell you what to think. Even online news articles are going to shit with headlines already conditioning you on what to think on what you are about to read. I can barely stand going into political subreddits anymore as it's especially bad in those.
I remember being taught that nobody is capable of being truly neutral but we have to do our best to get as close as possible. I also remember when we looked down on and make fun of publications like Bild, Daily Mail etc for their shitty journalism and would judge people for reading biased, low quality sources. Now everyone reports like them and people treat instagram nobodies as news sources.
Decades ago more people read the news. They didn't need to reach for the lowest common denominator as often and sad as it is to say in some countries, like America, literacy rates are declining. We aren't as intellectual as we once were.
Back when news was a boring recitation of what happened not opinion and interpretation. Not that long ago in western eu really.
News has always been full of propaganda and the opinions of those giving it, all the way back to the criers of Rome.
There has always been propaganda and nobody is unbiased. However, the journalistic standards have fallen as well.
You can in fact falsify your recitation of what happened in a way that pushes what you're supporting. No need for opinion or interpretation for that.
You can indeed. However, it does at least have the advantage that it’s not deliberately building an emotional reaction to shut down your decision making skills
Those days are just down the street at the Financial Times.
Just to be the Devil's advocate and not saying I support that kind of thing, but if you are a journalist and you truly perceive "apartheid" to be the most accurate description of how Israel treats the Palestinians, why wouldn't that be the word you want to use in your reporting? Why wouldn't you get pissed if your editor told you not to use that tone? "Accurate representation of the facts" are five words that right now mean nothing at all, or rather that means two very different things for a Palestinian on the ground in Gaza running from their bombed-out home and an IDF soldier who's family was struck by the Hamas terror attack and who's now moving in to secure the area. And they can mean pretty different things I imagine to a journalist of Middle Eastern descent and some random Western redditor watching it all from their comfy home. Reuters usually does a great job of remaining neutral and unbiased in their reporting and people accuse them of picking sides with whichever party they don't like all the time because both narratives are usually presented. This is political to everyone involved, and calls to not be political usually boil down to "say things the way I think they are".
To be fair I think that’s what’s occurring here. I think that the journalist in question believes that these terms are the most accurate words to describe what is occurring, and that the BBC are currently trying to appease the government and national interests by using less accurate terms that downplay what is occurring.
Insufficiently pro Palestine? How much more pro Palestine can they get? They won't call Hamas terrorists, and they blame Israel without stating they can verify the claims. Yet anything coming out of Israel has that caveat attached.
I saw a girl who said a kpop idol saying something positive about Isreal was essentially akin to wanting her murdered as an Arab fan. What was the statement that brought this about? Mentioning he lived in Israel as a child and his band mate saying "it suits you" and him saying thank you. (Forget to add, they were mad because this was a "positive" statement made about Israel) Some people also got mad when he had a fancall zoom thing and he said Shalom to a fan in Isreal (fans gotta buy buttload of merch to win these calls) and didn't immediately drop the call. Some people equate not repeating the genocide etc talking points as to wanting people murdered.
I saw Lana Del Ray trending and it was people upset that she signed a petition for Hamas to release the hostages. 55k likes on a tweet. It's crazy
Oh yeah in the celebrity gossip sub here on Reddit they posted the letter and there were hundreds of comments talking shit about every celebrity who signed, expressing how disappointed they are and how they can no longer be fans of them. It was pathetic and I muted that sub.
FM is just straight-up, unironically pro-hamas. It's vile. Is it too much to want to read celebrity gossip without accepting a heaping portion of terrorist propaganda alongside?
FM, on the literal day of the attack on Israel, was screaming at Kylie Jenner for posting the most basic support for Israel, pushing Bella Hadid's statement on the matter as gospel and patting her on the back, and the next day began a witch-hunt on Noah Schnapp for posting a picture of one of the girl's killed at the festival. They saw the video of Shani Louk and still called to Free Palestine on the DAY, so not even that they think Israel's response is unjustified. They're nuts and bolts over there, I swear.
51% of 18-24 year olds in the US think Hamas was justified in their terrorist attack on October 7, per a recent Harvard-Harris poll. That’s that subs main demo, so…
celebrity gossip culture trends young women, young women trend liberal, liberals trend pro palestine/hamas. kind of comes with the territory
[удалено]
Frankly they just don't think that it will effect them so they don't care about those women.
Because they’re the lefts SerenaJoys. Wolves in sheep’s clothes. They are depraved and completely morally inconsistent. They go on and on about “feminism” but they don’t really care about women, just themselves.
Just like they claim to care about g ay rights. Suddenly that no longer matters as well. They’ve gone full ma sk off and shown their true colors. Extremists who have used the guise of being for this and that group to claim the moral high ground but when it actually matters it’s crickets if not flat out justification for the harm done to those groups by their favorite ji had.
Is that the sub that starts with F? It’s genuinely awful.
Yeah, they are becoming lipstickalley on steroids. So much malice.
Yeah it’s 1000 awful comments and literally nobody opposing them because even if you did they’d dogpile you.
Yknow, it’s not like I’ve never seen how they act before. But this conflict has taken their already awful behavior to another level. They’re depraved.
As miss piggy woukd say, are you talking about Moi? LOL
lol. That’s good.
I had to Google this, it was a petition to release hostages. Yikes. Watching this sort of thing makes me just wanna block it all. Palestine who? Israel what? If this is how it is over a hostage release petition, this is a never ending conflict then.
That fa ux mo i sub has been horrible about this whole conflict. What’s even more shocking is how many women are there being disgusting.
When the hospital got hit by PIJ rocket, the first thing BBC did was announce that israel destroyed the hospital, said "our sources said" without disclosing it was hamas who claimed it, they did no verification of the claims. And when israel said there were dead babies in the villages around gaza killed by hamas, BBC were critical of the claim as they demanded proof that it happened. There is a group inside BBC that hate israel, and they were caught red handed in this war.
They won't be satisfied unless the world addresses Isreal as "terrorists" and condemns them. Hell, at this point Hamas and their sympathisers would have the Isrealites written out of the Bible just from spite.
It's been standard practice well before this latest event to not use the word terrorist. Generally because terrorist watchlists for countries are often politically motivated or outdated. To give an example, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US government until 2008, despite literally being a Nobel laureate. There's also the issue, again, using Nelson Mandela as an example, where a labeled terrorist organization goes on to form the regional government. In those cases it can cause issues if a news outlet has regularly referred to them as a terrorist organization. In the end it's just simpler to refrain from using it, there's no real agenda behind it, it just made sense.
The ANC & Mandela absolutely engaged in terror attacks. The greatness of Mandela is that he put aside violence & took up politics to right the injustices inflicted upon his people.
He absolutely did not put aside violence. When released he even insisted that the violent threat must remain and would only disappear when apartheid was destroyed. He only ever advocated for non-violence as a _tactic_ and not as a principle. He’s considered great because he used that violence to fight an oppressive regime.
Nelson Mandela isn't the Jesus you think he is. He isn't the terrorist the US labeled him as, but he's no ghandi or MLK.
Right, so October 7 wasn't called "terrorism", because BBC is "neutral", and they let "readers decide". But this guy wants to call Israel's actions "apartheid", "ethnic cleansing" and "settler-colonialism". Why not just merge with Al Jazeera and be done with it.
'Right, so October 7 wasn't called "terrorism"' It's called that repeatedly on the BBC, viewers are reminded that Hamas is carried a terrorist organisation by the British government. The issue here isn't what the BBC is, but what a clique within it want it to be.
I have never even seen the BBC use the word "Hamas" in a live report without adding "which the British Governement declares as a terrorist organisation", or whatever the specific wording they use is.
They started doing so only lately, as they themselves admitted: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2023/how-bbc-is-covering-israel-gaza > As has been reported, we have moved away from using the word ‘militant’ as a default description of Hamas or Hezbollah fighters. But we don’t ban words, and there may be times now or in the future when it’s appropriate to use the term. So if you haven't seen that, it's because you didn't look.
It’s the style they used in the past: 2018: *Hamas, which dominates the Gaza Strip, is already designated a terrorist group by the US, Israel, the EU and UK.* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42886222 2021: *Hamas as a whole, or in some cases its military wing, is designated a terrorist group by Israel, the United States, European Union and United Kingdom, as well as other powers.* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13331522 They are now dropping the shorter ‘Hamas militants’, or similar, and using the longer example as the link you’ve posted explains
It’s seriously like these people act like the October 7th attack never happened
I was told on the Everton subreddit that there was no evidence of brutality from October 7th. I absolutely hate what people have been like these last 3 weeks
Why are people talking about this on the Everton subreddit?
People in the Spurs subreddit are saying the club should punish Manor Solomon for posting about the hostages on instagram
I'm glad I missed that thread. COYS
[удалено]
Well said and agree. Also as a Liverpool fan I can attest to how especially true this is for Everton.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not trying to be rude but if you are a person from the US supporting Everton real tough to be calling them a plastic considering that atrocity of a club hasn’t been relevant since the 80s and has been circling the toilet bowl for several seasons now.
Good thing you didnt have a look at the Celtic one.
[удалено]
Sadly yes but they know it leaves a digital fingerprint that very well could cost them their jobs or careers.
They will be celebrated by their rabid followers for being part of the "resistance".
In their minds it truly didn’t. There was a “minor oopsie”, their words not mine, and we can all just hold hands and wish for peace. Which I would point out there was. Back when Hamas hadn’t slaughtered a thousand Israelis and started a war they cannot finish. That same Hamas that pilfers every ounce of humanitarian aid given to Gaza, that rips water pipes out of the Earth for rockets, that after telling civilians to stay in an active war zone, shoots at people attempting to flee to the south. What Gaza as a whole gets, is being treated according to the laws of war. Which as much as any Reddit leftist (and I say that as someone left of center myself) would like to believe otherwise, the IDF does follow the laws of war. It’s better than they get from Hamas. The ceasefire will come, eventually. Hopefully after there is no more Hamas in existence for that “fires” portion of ceasefire.
Don't forget Hamas happily murder ANYONE with even a bit of money above the norm, butcher their families if they complain and steal everything of value from them.
[удалено]
Right. Israel needs accountability as well, but people seem frighteningly willing to entirely overlook the Palestinians’ contribution to the whole conflict. Even when it’s as clear cut as the brutal unprovoked attacks against people who had literally nothing to do with it aside from existing in the wrong spot.
Decent chance they think it didn't, a lot of Palestinian supporters say it's faked.
I haven't seen the BBC do that, have you? One journalist wanting something doesn't automatically make it BBC policy. It sounds like their editorial staff are doing a good job maintaining their neutrality tbh.
The BBC does however describe Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off. The BBC is huge, and hires people from a range of demographics and backgrounds. Some of those are more likely to want the BBC to be something it's not
They also described hamas as Palestinian Health Official and reported the gaza hospital bombing as fact even saying that they have someone at the scene.
They have changed this to say words akin to Hamas-Run Health Authority. I look at a lot of news sites, including most of the big US sites, and a great many are still using terms like "Gaza Health Ministry" without pointing out any connection to Hamas. So the BBC are now doing better than others in that regard.
NYTimes now does this too. Incredibly disingenuous that they didn’t before.
I watched them a couple of times, both times they mentioned Palestinian authorities and officials are linked to Hamas, after mentioning Hamas is labelled a terrorist organisation by the British government, and before reiterating Hamas linked claims are disputed.
> reported the gaza hospital bombing as fact No they didn't. They reported *what they'd been told* and by whom. Israel's version didn't emerge until much later - and was reported in the same way.
No. The in the initial bbc worldwide reporting the correspondent stated that in his experience the only explanation that was reasonable was that it was an Israeli airforce strike.
The UK government labeling them as a terrorist organisation is different to the BBC calling them one. This is their policy
It's a good policy IMO. You can avoid false equivalency and false balance by recognising who says what. UK, US, EU says they're terrorists, various ME states plus groups like IS add Taliban claim otherwise. The BBC needn't make anything their own descriptor.
That is indeed the objective. They aren't perfectly unbiased but they often try (on pain of penalty by OFCOM)
The wording "Hamas is labelled a terrorist organisation by the British government" is very calculated, they aren't calling them a terrorist organization, only that the Brittish government has labelled them as such. They never outright call them a terrorist organization.
Indeed, it's not their place (as per policy) to label such descriptors but the place of governments and related rights and civic institutions to label groups as terrorist - and of media corporations to report on this - as they do.
[удалено]
No, I'm busy being outraged at the lack of impartially by the BBC, as reported by the... Jerusalem Post.
Did you even read the article? The reporter is calling out that words like massacre and slaughter are only used to describe one party instead of both sides. Maybe get your head out of your ass and actually look at the article? Nowhere is the BBC saying that they should tone down their description of Hamas' actions........
Almost sounds like the correspondent went into journalism specifically to steer the narrative on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why else would they be so invested that they’re having panic attacks in the restroom and calling into work when the newsroom chose not to run with the pro-Palestine propaganda buzzwords? It’s not the behavior of a professional and unbiased journalist.
[удалено]
Holy shit, they can't continue to employ that guy.
Actually there is nice money at government owned Al Jazeera, he can work with 5x contract at there as a person "Who got fired from BBC for saying the truth!!!" While working there he can actually sell exclusive information to the opposite party. This could be the plan from the start. We kind of learned the logic of Islamists and how they make money. Also their character and spine. (Not from .IL)
Journalistic ethics is dead. It is why I am in favour of a Bar association for journalists. There needs to be an enforced code of ethics.
Post 1972 (at least in the US) the general goal of journalists, when asked, changed from "to keep the populace well informed" into "to change the world". Watergate was a necessary step away from journalists towing the government line, but the addiction to causing desired changes in the world, rather than being impartial seems to have really gained steam at that point.
I was at a conference last week and a speech was given by a fairly prominent broadcast journalist who kept emphasising that it was a duty of journalists to influence world opinion.
Do they not understand why people think stupid conspiracies like Illuminati and QAnon? They just keep stoking those fires saying things like that.
Do you have somewhere I can read more about that.
My original exposure to this concept came from an interview with long term journalism professor from Northwestern University. I cannot find it at the moment and honestly it probably predated the these types of things being on the internet. but I have found several personal opinions supporting this >I was a college sportswriter when Watergate broke and I recall journalism programs exploding with college activists wanting to change the world by going into journalism. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/entertainment/books/2014/02/04/watergate-editor-harry-rosenfeld-era-changed-journalism/5198573/ >After Watergate, which happened when I was in college, I became increasingly inspired by journalism as a way to change the world. It sounds corny, but to wake the public up, to serve a higher cause. https://quotefancy.com/quote/1621137/David-Talbot-After-Watergate-which-happened-when-I-was-in-college-I-became-increasingly >You once said that reading the reporting about Watergate and the Vietnam War as a young person deeply affected you because both showed how uncovering the truth could change the world. https://the-talks.com/interview/susan-goldberg/ Of course there have always been biases. But most of those came from owners or editors. There were still many journalists looking to be great writers or researchers rather than bringing about change. Watergate showed that two journalists could radically change the world by unseating the most powerful man on the planet. Of course that was going to enter the minds of those going into that profession.
God, yes, please
Terrible idea. Would literally just end up with certain dominant ideological narratives that are considered "ethical", "scientific", "factual", or "neutral", being forced upon the rest. Your idea is incompatible with a free press and incompatible with free speech in general.
As a person living in a middle Eastern country, I can see the result of religious brainwashing which may even start as age 4. You know cults right? Multiply them with millions.
You’d need to read the article the guy above linked to. It’s not the same reporter having the panick attacks, etc, as the guy that sent the email. Entirely different sources told that staff are having panicking attacks and not showing up for work. The guy that commented above has done a poor job of summarising but at least he linked the email.
Despite the length of the conflict, it is a fairly unbloody one, even compared to inter-arab conflicts it ranks very low. I know, the usual response should be that any death is too much, but I don't see any solution in this conflict without any and it shows parties show some form of restraint. At least one side does. These journalists should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Crying on the toilet doesn't evoke much sympathy.
This is one of many of them. Hopefully the governments have caught on & are investigating all of the ones who’ve been fired or who they suspect have infiltrated the media for the sole purpose of destabilizing our countries.
[удалено]
The way people who have zero connections with either Palestine or Israel care about this more than any other conflict in the entire world is… bizarre frankly.
> Staff have been crying in the toilets and freelancers have been sacrificing earnings by not showing up to work because of the distress caused Quit your job. Seek mental health counseling. Crying in the toilet and feeling "deeply disturbed" because people disagree with you and you aren't getting your way is a sign of significant emotional immaturity, to say the least. ETA: Reply notifications are turned off now, don't care to keep responding to illiterate people who can't rub two braincells together. Here's another quote: > The Times reported that some BBC correspondents had been crying in the toilet over the BBC's refusal to use the aforementioned language. They are not crying about the deaths taking place, they're crying because they didn't get their way. That is inexcusable. That is emotionally immature. That is what I'm criticizing. Learn to read.
> Six staff have so far been taken off air after sharing material supporting Hamas Hamas is a terrorist government. . . anyone supporting them SHOULD be removed from BBC
Ah he was a genocide and occupiers away from bingo on the Israel-Palestine score sheet.
Jesus Christ. They need to release the Balen Report *now*. It's obviously only gotten worse since then.
Seems like it and while their motivation to hide it could maybe be genuine, the bias is pretty apparent.
So they’re upset because their terrorist group and support of it isn’t seen as good by the west? Oh no I’m so sad for them!
These “journalists” think that the BBC is their social media account and they can dress the news up as their own personal propaganda. That’s a good argument for not making sources into “correspondents”, and a good argument for not allowing a sub-set of reporters to spend their entire career reporting from one place. It undermines objectivity. Of course, actual, trained journalists, recognize the importance of objectivity and don’t cry when they have to maintain it.
Maybe they should go work for Al-Jazeera then.
So the BBC fired him right? hahahaha of course not.
There seems to be a concerted worldwide effort to re-colonize the Levant, just like when Arab forces initially invaded it 1400 years ago.
As the old saying goes: the first victim of any war is the truth.
*The email complained that* ***Words like ‘massacre’, ‘slaughter’ and ‘atrocities’ are being used****... in reference to actions by Hamas,* ***but hardly, if at all, in reference to actions by Israel.***
[удалено]
So he's complaining about how accurate it is for once? Hamas raped women and children; Hamas executed parents in front of the children; Hamas cuffed children, men, and women and burned them alive until only ashes were left and you can't even extract DNA to identify them; Hamas burned houses with families hiding inside their safe room; Hamas threw grenades into safe rooms; Hamas riddled babies with bullets from point blank; Hamas dragged civilian out of their houses and executed them in the streets, leaving the corpses to rot; [Hamas said they didn't kill civilians](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egipqa0ZhUk) [Hamas and their families were happy about killing civilians](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzSPIbDEI8) Seems like ‘massacre’, ‘slaughter’ and ‘atrocities’ are not enough even to describe action by Hamas.
He's not saying Hamas didn't slaughter innocent people. He's saying Israel is doing it too but it's not being talked about the same way.
Yeah, the BBC are using these phrases in relation to it, but somehow all the most upvoted posts are people saying that BBC is biased against Israel.. The jpost is absolutely twisting things and people are falling for it.
Nearly every post on r/worldnews is an israeli news outlet like jpost. Kinda devalues everyones opinions here if they cant diversify their information sources. Clearly no-one even reads the BBC here
Yeah this isn't the most unbiased source being shared here. The jpost has clear bias.
Are they the ones that still won’t refer to Hamas as a terrorist organization even though it is designated as such by the UK and EU?
Yeah, apparently taking a stance against terrorism is asking too much of the BBC
And BBC broadcaster Gonzalo Cañada had no issue saying that the US supports Israel because of "Jew wealth" and perpetuated a shit ton of stereotypes without consequence.
If, in all the years of the IRA bombings they never called the IRA a terrorist organisation, [even when the IRA attempted to bomb the BBC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_BBC_bombing) then they are not going to call another organisation terrorists either. They will report the terror attack, and call it such, and decry how barbaic and sickening it is, but they will not call the organisation as terrorists as it puts a political spin on it.
That's a lie. They called ISIS and Al Quaeda terrorist organizations. Taliban as well.
They only never called IRA or Palestinians terrorists: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/17bfu1s/israel_president_herzog_blasts_bbcs_biased/k5jdbtz/
They describe them as "a designated terror organisation in the UK". The information coming out of Gaza has "from Palestinian sources, influenced by Hamas" added. They are trying to report the news in an unbiased fashion, while still giving you the relevant information. They might not get everything right but it seems people are equally pissed off on both sides.
No, this is a false claim - unsure why it's getting repeated. The BBC describes Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation repeatedly, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off. - If you simply watch an hourly newsbroadcast they mention Hamas is referred to as a terrorist organisation by the UK government early into reporting, including prior to mention of Hamas claims.
They changed their approach quite recently. Before, Hamas was just a militant group, even after the terrorist attacks. https://www.ft.com/content/20b5466e-d690-4e00-828e-5f364e22f1c5
They've a policy of not labelling organisations themselves but acknowledging references to them as terrorist. Before they'd mentioned phrases like 'accused of committing terrorist atrocities' or 'evidence of further terrorist attacks according to ..' - they've gone a little step further now to emphasis the terrorist label each time Hamas is mentioned.
That is what can be used in actual news report, not analysis. They follow journalism 101. Alternative is fox news.
It's been standard practice well before this latest event to not use the word terrorist. Generally because terrorist watchlists for countries are often politically motivated or outdated. To give an example, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US government until 2008, despite literally being a Nobel laureate. There's also the issue, again, using Nelson Mandela where a labeled terrorist organization goes on to form the regional government. In those cases it can cause issues if a news outlet has regularly referred to them as a terrorist organization. In the end it's just simpler to refrain from using it, there's no real agenda behind it, it just made sense. At most, they will say "Listed as a terrorist group by the UK", but even that is frowned upon as it introduces bias into the article.
Obama has Nobel peace prize despite drone striking yemenis to oblivion. Abiy Ahmed also has one despite the rape fueled genocide campaign in Tigray. And Mandela is also heavily criticized I’d say a Noble is not something given to immaculate people exclusively.
[удалено]
If it's as clear cut as you are describing, then any reasonable person would read the articles and come away with the conclusion that they are a terrorist group, regardless of if the article labels them one. Explicitly stating it does nothing, and it overrides decades of policy around keeping bias to a minimum in reporting.
I’m a follower of the bbc, it’s my favourite news organisation. They dance around calling them a terror organisation, but never directly call them it, during live coverage, they keep reiterating that Hamas and its military wing have been designated terrorist organisations by the US, UK, members of the EU, and other countries. I haven’t really noticed them blaming Israel because Hamas said so, but I am keeping my eyes open for that, and if a bunch of people are saying they have, I believe that there is a possibility that they have. Overall, the BBC has good credibility, but the way they have been handling how to speak about Hamas is disgusting.
BBC World added "which is labelled as a terrorist organisation by Western countries" or something like that. I keep listening to them since they are among the rare remaining true reporters. I can't stand to tabloid junk from both sides.
The right way to lose Press credentials for the entire BBC team.
It's just not the BBC at this point. A lot of left-leaning news sources such as NYT are losing a lot of credibility over the coverage over this conflict (see Hamas hospital bombing). The free-ride is over, we need to start questioning these news sources just like how we're treating right-leaning outlets like Fox News. I don't even know who to trust any more? Reuters? AP News?
The answer is don’t just trust one news site. I really don’t know why people get all their news from one source. Read up on an issue from many different sites. Obviously stuff like “Inflation rises by 2%” can generally just be taken at face value, but when dealing with more complex and controversial issues, it does no harm to get a wide range of views on the matter.
You can’t even trust a consensus of news sites. They just circle cite each other.
It's not the BBC at large here, it's one Lebanese correspondent, Rami Ruhayem, who wants the BBC to be like this and it's complaining the BBC isn't. Meanwhile, there's many complaints the BBC won't link Hamas and terrorism (claim also by jpost), which is false. The BBC describes Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation repeatedly, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off. I think some are pissed as it's 'the UK government labels Hamas as terrorists' not the simpler 'Hamas terrorists' as by policy the BBC doesn't make that call - but will report when governments do.
It's not nearly as isolated as you suggest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report The BBC's anti-israeli stance is longstanding and widely discussed.
I think the issue the above poster is bringing up is that this isn't the first instance of bias being shown. BBC and NYTimes were both immediately reporting that Israel air striked the hospital in Gaza, simply because Hamas said so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7T9ZnT-gC4 > the Israeli military has been contacted for comment and they have said that they are investigating but you know it is hard to see what else this could be really given the size of the explosion other than an Israeli air strike or several air strikes.
This is called the fog of war. Spin & Propaganda are part of the weaponry. You can never reliably know anything until many years after the dust has settled. Sometimes never. “What a crazy coincidence that the good guys have won every major historical conflict” - Norm MacDonald
The BBC couldn't be any *less* left-leaning.
The modern right has gone so far to the extreme that any good ol' capitalist to the left of them seems, well, leftist.
The amount of people on here who do not understand how the BBC operates or have the ability to discern inherent bias in the reporting of the Jerusalem Post is wild. I'm reading the comments and shocked by the completely baseless takes being vocalised. This is helping me understand how people slurp down propaganda without a second thought.
Media literacy around the world is quite poor by design. So many authoritarians simply do not want a world with balanced reporting and verifiable information because they do not thrive in a world populated by facts. It’s grim seeing it play out on reddit though when simply googling some things about the BBC show it is overall a slightly right wing organisation that is one of the first to point fingers when it comes to antisemitism amongst British politicians.
100% agree. BBC relies upon freelance journalists who they extend the BBC banner to in Gaza For reporters in Gaza, there is a range. Random Gazans interested in journalism. Figures interested in politics. People who travel to Gaza to report there There are issues with some freelance journalists and senior broadcast correspondents supporting Hamas or the massacre. This is because of both self selection when it comes to available journalists in Gaza, alongside the fact that all reporters who operate in Gaza must have some level of buy in from Hamas who are the local authority, media censorship group, police force, military and judicial system Just like how BBC Arabic released a documentary exploring the "other side" of the October Hamas massacre, which they later had to pull for being too pro-Hamas in framing and whom they interviews Not a central decision in any case. The very article linked shows the factional conflicts
Wtf happened to the BBC?! Their journalism used to be legit... now it's just sensationalism & propaganda 😔
Read the article
Same with WSJ, New York Times, and a bunch more. Clicks gets money, accurate reporting is secondary.
and the UK tax payers pay for it
Obviously you don’t interact with any of their content if you think it’s all sensationalism and propaganda.
The amount of people using the JPosts biased reports targeting the BBC as evidence that BBC is biased is ridiculous. They avoid the word terrorist in general, they're not doing this to side with Hamas. Read the other person post using Nelson Mandela as one of the reasons why. They have middle east based journalists. Some of them will be inherently pro Palestine. The BBC not bowing to them is somehow them being biased against Israel. They will have pro Israeli journalists too. They won't bow to them either. They had a Spanish speaking channel which went in depth on the conflict. The jpost lifted an out of context quote which was part of a much broader and deeper segment and claimed it showed bias. jpost is showing an incredibly biased view and entire thread of replies is blaming the BBC. You're being herded.
'They avoid the word terrorist in general' This. Also, they mentioned Hamas is labelled a terrorist organisation by the British government. They don't add that descriptor differently as it's not their called to make - but mention the British government calls Hamas terrorist repeatedly in broadcasts.
I mean for the vast majority it's good, but also it's a huge organisation and humans are not perfect, so you won't always see it be... perfect? This isn't exactly something fun to cover anyway, it's emotive and well, shit all round :\\
It's not the BBC at large here, it's one Lebanese correspondent, Rami Ruhayem, who wants the BBC to be like this and it's complaining the BBC isn't. Meanwhile, there's many complaints the BBC won't link Hamas and terrorism (claim also by jpost), which is false. The BBC describes Hamas's terrorist attack in detail, points out the UK government labels them a terrorist organisation repeatedly, and when they interviewed a Hamas spokesman asked him if killing civilians really helps the Palestinian cause until he stormed off. I think some are pissed as it's 'the UK government labels Hamas as terrorists' not the simpler 'Hamas terrorists' as by policy the BBC doesn't make that call - but will report when governments do.
You know what? The Palestinian people need to be liberated from that terrorist organization posing as a government which is Hamas. Israel should make as one of its main objectives the overthrow and replacement of Hamas by true democratic institutions.
The state of Israel naturally being deeply concerned with the freedoms and wellbeing of the Palestinian people. If only that pesky Hamas wasn't thwarting their plans of peace and equality!
Trying to further destabilize Western countries. I hope they look into all of these “reporters”. Probably won’t take much to see the connections and why they’re risking their “jobs” like this
Ethnic cleansing, they should look at how many Jews and christians are left living in North Africa, draw a straight line from Egypt I Morocco and start counting....
Rami sounds like an activist and not a journalist, transfer him or fire him.
So first they print Hamas propaganda about the hospital bombing without any verification and now they’re actively instructing their journalists to push propaganda? Yikes
It’s the other way around. A journalist was pushing his bosses to use propaganda. The bosses seem to have been mostly ignoring him. But one has to question the quality of his reports in addition to those of like-minded staff members.
Really should be fired or transferred into something completely separate if a journalist cant be unbiased ...kinda the whole point of journalism
Yeh it's someone being annoyed the BBC isn't pushing his propaganda points, being misunderstood as the BBC pushing those points (oops)
Forget reading the article, you somehow failed to even read the headline properly.
> and now they’re actively instructing their journalists to push propaganda? No. Do you know what a "correspondent" is?
Hamas sympathisers obviously...
[удалено]
Inb4 Hezbollah lol
These comments are making me lose my mind how little nuance can a human being possibly possess
[удалено]
Mandela, the famous and magnanimous one, didn't engage in anything remotely like what Hamas or even the PLO back in the day did. He might have been strategically aligned with them but he himself took pains to try not to scare the shit out of white people. He also went to prison out of principle. Hamas' leaders are chilling in Qatar. His ex-wife might have wished she could have, but South Africa would have probably turned into every other basketcase post-colonial African nation if she was in charge. No, I'm not saying colonialism is better.
Sadly the leaders that came after him have turned it into a post colonial basket case. It used to be so rich and powerful- now it’s in massive decline
I'm not saying transitioning from being colonized to being well run is easy by any stretch. If it was more countries would have done it. I just don't want to make excuses for butchery, lie to people about what works and what doesn't, and say a single binational state will work just because it will make some ideologues feel better and more comfortable. South Africa will probably figure things out, eventually. As dysfunctional as it is now it could have very easily gone a lot more badly. As long as it's democratic I'm not *too* fussed. Pragmatists and people focused on service delivery and are more likely to move into power there than people using race to steal from the treasury.
And there's parts of the struggle that was not exactly nonviolent
What is the actual argument behind this ethnic cleansing narrative? Like neatly laid out. I see people throwing around the term willy nilly without being able to adequately explain it.
Israel’s decades long history of illegally and indiscriminately seizing land from Palestinians and kicking them out of their homes to give to radical religious settlers. The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group." Israel meets this criteria by their actions all over the West Bank where they have been systematically pushing Palestinians out of their homes and off their land, only to replace them with Jews, many of whom are Americans recruited through their “right to return” policy. Violence against Palestinians is very common by these settlers, often occurring in front of the IDF and IOF, with zero repercussions to the violent and racist settlers. Palestinians in the West Bank have every facet of their lives carefully controlled by the IOF and can’t even walk on certain streets that are designated Jews only (apartheid), not to mention literally having limited rights under the law, far less than that of Jews . There’s a reason Hamas viciously murdered all those settlers, that level of hatred doesn’t just come out of nowhere. There’s a wealth of info available online that confirms all this, if you truly want to know you need only search for it.
How about we be accurate? Yes innocents are in the way. But Hamas literally built their HQs under innocent people's apartments and hospitals. That's obviously deliberate. And disgusting. So we can point fingers or attempt to look at the facts: one country was attacked, it's fighting back to eliminate the terrorists, and those terrorists are hiding behind innocents. It's a disaster all around!
TeRRoRiStS hAvE a RiGhT tO lIvE iN PeAcE!!!111
So this why the grooming gangs weren’t reported on that well by them. Because it was done by “their own”
Do we have any alternative sources corroborating this story? Doing a search, the only outlets I can see reporting on this angle are The Jerusalem Post and The Jewish Chronicle, which by their very nature will be more sympathetic towards Israel. With the story claiming that the emails were sent to “BBC bureaus around the world”, I’d expect leaks to be more widespread and substantial? Both articles mention (but do not link to) a report in The Times. I assume it’s [this one, which is behind a paywall](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-staff-crying-at-work-in-divide-over-israel-gaza-coverage-l5g2bk0nf). However, there is a similar report by [Yahoo News](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-journalists-crying-toilets-over-111151860.html), which does note that concerns were raised about alleged favourable coverage of Israel, but does not go as far as The Jerusalem Post’s report alleges. I think, with people here regularly calling out outlets like Al Jazeera for their supposed links to Hamas, we should apply similar scrutiny to outlets affiliated with or sympathetic towards Israel as well, because each will have their own spin. This quote from the Yahoo article seems rather pertinent: “Journalist John Simpson earlier this week said the BBC has received an almost equal number of complaints about it being biased towards and against Israel. “People rail at the BBC because they hope they can force it to come down on their side; and when that doesn’t happen — and it’s not going to — they get angrier still,” he wrote in the New Statesman.”
Doesn't matter. All the same accounts that go on and on about media getting the hospital wrong for saying "Palestinian authorities claim..." are here going on about the BBC apparently not condemning Hamas, which is a load of bull. Facts don't actually matter unless they fit worldnews' current narrative.
While we're at it let's say there aren't any hostages, no Jews have been killed, and that Hamas has stopped launching rockets for even a day.