Last month we documented a BBC News website report by Hugo Bachega and Emma Rossiter which opened by telling BBC audiences that:
“An Israeli air strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs has killed a Hezbollah official and three other people, Lebanon’s health ministry says, putting further pressure on a fragile ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese armed group.”
As was noted at the time:
“Contrary to the BBC’s claim, the “fragile ceasefire” which came into effect in November 2024 was signed by Israel and Lebanon rather than by Israel and “the Lebanese armed group”, as the BBC euphemistically chooses to describe the widely designated Hizballah terrorist organisation.”
CAMERA UK submitted a complaint to the BBC on that issue. The response received from the BBC News website via BBC Complaints includes the following: [emphasis in the original]
“I understand you are alleging that we incorrectly stated the ceasefire in Lebanon was between Israel and Hezbollah. You say that a correction is in order.
We used the words: putting further pressure on a fragile ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese armed group.
You point out that the ceasefire was agreed between the governments of Israel and Lebanon, and not between Israel and Hezbollah.
We made exactly this point in our reporting in November 2024, when the agreement was made: US President Joe Biden told reporters on Tuesday night that it was “designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities”.
The 13-point agreement between the governments of Israel and Lebanon – and not Hezbollah – also says both countries are “prepared to take steps to promote conditions for a permanent and comprehensive solution” – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d3gj9ewxo
However, while the ceasefire agreement was made between the governments of Israel and Lebanon, the ceasefire itself was between Israel and Hezbollah. That is to say, the ceasefire stopped the fighting between those two sides.
Therefore, I would say that our reporting was accurate, and no correction is needed.”
The agreement as documented by the UNSC states that “From 04:00 hours (IST/EET), November 27, 2024 forward, the Government of Lebanon will prevent Hezbollah and all other armed groups in the territory of Lebanon from carrying out any operations against Israel…”
The BBC’s response also includes the following:
“You question why we call Hezbollah “the Lebanese armed group” rather than “terrorists”.
Our style guide tells BBC journalists: The word “terrorist” is not banned, but its use can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should not use the term without attribution. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent and militant – https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/all#t
It also says: Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
Hezbollah are designated as terrorists by several countries, and we have reported that. In our profile of Hezbollah (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67307858) we say: The group is considered a terrorist organisation by Israel and many other nations, including the UK and US.
However, it is not our role as an objective and impartial news organisation to make a call on which groups deserve to be labelled terrorists and which do not.”
As readers may recall, the BBC employed a similar argument in October 2023 when John Simpson was called in to do damage control following considerable criticism of the BBC’s failure to describe Hamas as terrorists. As we noted at the time:
“Contrary to Simpson’s claim, the term terrorism is not a label of disapproval but a description of methods and actions. The term describes the use violence as a means – rather than end aims of which one may approve or disapprove – as explained by the philosopher William Vallicella in 2009:
“So there are two reasons to avoid ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, I describe his means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, I describe his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn’t matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs.””
The BBC is not being asked “to make a call on which groups deserve to be labelled terrorists and which do not” but rather to inform BBC audiences that an individual or an organisation is proscribed by states or intergovernmental bodies. The fact that Hizballah is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by dozens of countries, including the UK, is not mentioned even once in Bachega and Rossiter’s report and that omission clearly hinders audience understanding.
Related Articles:
DOES THE BBC REALLY WANT TO BE KNOWN AS ‘OBJECTIVE’ ABOUT THE MASS SLAUGHTER OF ISRAELIS?
