On October 1st – the day after the publication of a second report on the topic of BBC coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas – the BBC’s CEO of News, Deborah Turness, put out a statement titled “October 7th: One Year On” which includes the following:
“But if there is one thing we have learned more than any other in the past year, it’s that such is the depth of the polarisation in this war, so many have come to see impartial reporting as being somehow against them, because it does not solely reflect their view of the conflict.
Much of this is perhaps explained by social media algorithms and echo chambers that serve consumers more of what they already “like”. People mostly follow people whose opinions they agree with, and as more news providers put their journalism behind paywalls, consumers increasingly subscribe to media brands that reflect their own world view. They are increasingly living in an information ecosystem that surrounds them with their own views and opinions.
But BBC News does not and cannot reflect any single world view. In this war, we cannot be a place where any side feels that their perspective prevails. Our job is to report fairly and impartially, to report without fear or favour. Our duty to public service journalism means we will always hear from a range of perspectives – including those you may not agree with.”
On the day that statement was published and on those that followed, BBC audiences did indeed “hear from a range of perspectives”.
On the morning of October 1st, listeners to BBC radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme heard Mishal Husain conduct a softball interview with regular BBC contributor and Iranian regime propagandist Mohammad Marandi.
Reporting on that interview, the Jewish Chronicle’s Stephen Pollard wrote:
“Bear in mind as you read this that not once did Husain interrupt him in this section of the interview, let alone pose a question. The entire screed was broadcast without pause: “Just as the UK supports this Holocaust in Gaza, just as it supports slaughter of the Lebanese and just as it justifies whatever action the Israeli regime takes, we have no doubt they will be with the Israelis until the very last Palestinian.
“Because we are all Amelek – we are inferior, they are the chosen people, they are your allies and it’s basically an extension of the Western empire over the last few hundred years – the civilising mission. Wherever the West has gone, they are civilised and that justifies the destruction of the uncivilised and the barbarians, so this is basically a repeat of history and the only solution is resistance.
“The only way forward is resistance because there is nothing that will stop this Israeli regime because that is the nature of the regime…it believes in ethno-supremacism, it believes they are the chosen people, they have exceptional rights and therefore they have exceptional rights to the whole region. It’s not just Palestine, it goes beyond the borders of Palestine.””
While Deborah Turness and her colleagues may have thought that platforming Marandi fell into the category of presenting “a range of perspectives”, his antisemitic rant and redundant claims of ‘genocide’ prompted considerable criticism, leading the BBC to acknowledge that “we should have continued to challenge his language throughout the interview” and two days later to issue a statement which notes that “[t]his was a lapse in our usual editorial standards”.
Later that day, the Iranian regime launched a massive ballistic missile attack on Israel and the BBC News Channel decided that it would be a good idea to platform Marandi yet again, despite the criticism earlier in the day. BBC audiences once again heard false claims of “genocide” in Gaza and Lebanon and references to “war crimes” and “holocaust” went unchallenged.
The BBC News channel’s coverage of the Iranian attack also included a commentator whom the corporation has used in the past, but without informing viewers that he used to work with the armed forces of the country which hosts, finances and supports Hamas. During that interview, Andreas Krieg told BBC audiences that: [emphasis added]
“The international community has to make sure that whatever Israel does is not upending the regional order as we know it, and the US has a responsibility. So we’ve been in this cause for 12 months now of constantly red lines being crossed, mostly by the Israelis. Hezbollah and Iran have played it fairly rationally trying to always try to be very cautious in how they respond, trying to leave off ramps where they could. The Netanyahu government has kind of lost the opportunity at every junction to use an offramp that was given to them.”
As we see, an hour and a half after millions of Israelis had been forced to scramble for cover from incoming attacks by Iranian ballistic missiles and after almost a year of daily – and often deadly – attacks on Israel by Iranian proxies in Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, the BBC really did choose to promote ‘analysis’ claiming that Iran and Hizballah “have played it fairly rationally” and that it is Israel which is crossing ‘red lines” following the worst ever massacre of its citizens by another Iranian supported terrorist organisation in the Gaza Strip.
On October 4th the BBC News website promoted a video titled “Watch: Jeremy Bowen presses Hamas deputy leader on 7 October attacks”.
The synopsis to that interview reads: [emphasis added]
“The most senior leader of Hamas outside Gaza has told the BBC that the crisis his organisation provoked in the Middle East, which has led to thousands of deaths across the region in the last year, is justified.
Challenged by BBC international editor Jeremy Bowen, Khalil al-Hayya, the deputy leader of Hamas, denied overwhelming evidence that Hamas fighters targeted civilians during the attacks on 7 October last year.
Around 1,200 people, mostly Israeli civilians, were killed and more than 250 taken into Gaza as hostages. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK and other governments.
Al-Hayya said the 7 October attacks last year were necessary to place the issue of Palestinian statehood back on the global agenda.
Without it, he said, the cycle of violence in the Middle East would not end.
Pressed on whether he regretted an offensive that led to the deaths of more than 40,000 Gazans in Israeli attacks, he said Israel’s occupation of land Palestinians believe is theirs was at the root of the violence and killing in the Middle East.
Al-Hayya is the most senior man in Hamas after the leader, Yahya Sinwar, who is believed to be in Gaza.
The interview took place in Doha, where most of the political leadership of Hamas is based. Iran attacked Israel with ballistic missiles around an hour after the interview was recorded.”
Despite the BBC’s claim that Jeremy Bowen ‘pressed’ the Hamas leader, al-Hayya was nevertheless given a worldwide platform from which to disseminate his terrorist organisation’s inadequately challenged propaganda and disinformation. Bowen later justified having asked Hamas for that interview by claiming that “it’s really important to talk to all sides of the story” and that doing so is part of “impartial reporting”.
Also on October 4th, the BBC News channel chose to air over forty minutes of live footage of a speech given by the Iranian leader Ali Khamenei in which he praised Hamas’ October 7th massacre.
A BBC spokesman apparently explained that decision as follows:
“The BBC News channel took rare footage from Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s first public speech since 2020 as part of analysis and scrutiny on the contents of the speech. As Iran’s involvement in the conflict has intensified, it is important and editorially relevant to hear from the key players to aid understanding of developments. Our journalists, including colleagues from BBC Persian, provided context and explanation for audiences.”
As we see, the days following the publication of Deborah Turness’ statement saw the BBC facilitating the mainstreaming of propaganda, disinformation and hate speech from the Iranian regime itself, from its apologists and from one of its terrorist proxies. While Turness, Bowen and others may choose to excuse that as provision of “a range of perspectives” and “a full picture”, many have already taken issue with those editorial decisions.
Contrary to Turness’ gaslighting claim, those criticising BBC coverage of the war do not do so “because it does not solely reflect their view of the conflict” or because of “echo chambers”. They do so because BBC coverage to date has repeatedly fallen short of the standards of accuracy and impartiality to which the corporation is obliged to adhere. The presentation of “a range of perspectives – including those you may not agree with” is one thing. Providing worldwide platforms for the inadequately – if at all – challenged propaganda of a terrorist organisation and a terror enabling theocratic regime is entirely different.
However, as Turness’ latest statement clarifies in no uncertain terms, introspection and accountability to its funding public are clearly not at the top of the BBC’s list of priorities.
