In early April 2024 we discussed a BBC News website report by the corporation’s Geneva correspondent Imogen Foulkes headlined “Gaza war: UN rights expert accuses Israel of acts of genocide”.
As we noted at the time, despite its promotion of a report presented by UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese to the UNHRC, that article failed to inform BBC audiences about her relevant record of anti-Israel and antisemitic statements and activities.
We also noted Foulkes’ promotion of quotes from representatives of two political NGO’s – the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Addameer – without informing readers that both those organisations are linked to the PFLP terrorist organisation.
BBC NEWS WHITEWASHES ‘UN RIGHTS EXPERT’ BEHIND GENOCIDE ACCUSATIONS
On April 3rd 2024 we submitted a complaint to the BBC on those issues. On April 11th 2024 we were informed that it would take more time to address that complaint and on May 2nd 2024 we were informed that the time-frame had expired.
Over sixteen months after that complaint was submitted – on August 18th 2025 – we received the following response.
“You complain that we did not tell readers of the article about what you called “the highly problematic antisemitic and anti-Israel record of the UN special rapporteur [Francesca Albanese] who wrote the report that is its subject matter.”
The editorial justification for this article was that we considered the release of the report from the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories to UN member states to be a major event, and therefore newsworthy.
Ms Albanese’s report set out to establish whether genocide was being committed and suggested that this was happening, according to some criteria.
As our correspondent noted, it was thought that: the content of her report will add to the pressure on Israel to change its strategy.
However our article took into account how the report’s reasoning and wording might be offensive to many Israelis.
We said: Ms Albanese’s choice of a title for it: ‘Anatomy of a Genocide’ was not exactly diplomatic. Many member states, especially those traditionally supportive of Israel, will be uncomfortable.
We carried the Israeli UN ambassador’s reaction to the report as: “an outrageous distortion of the Genocide Convention”.
And we also said: Many Israelis, too, are likely to be shocked. And the suggestion of genocide, towards a state which was founded as a direct result of Nazi Germany’s genocide of Jews, will cause deep offence. In the wake of 7 October attack, and the fact that so many Israeli families are still waiting for news of loved ones taken hostage, hearing such outspoken condemnation is hard.
We also pointed out that Francesca Albanese has very a critical personal stance towards Israel:
Since Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel on 7 October, Ms Albanese has called for the release of the hostages, and does so again in this report. In it she “firmly condemns the crimes committed by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Israel on 7 October”. But she has also been outspoken in her criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.
We reported the UN ambassador accusing Ms Albanese of questioning Israel’s right to exist.
Therefore, we believe that we provided a balanced article which summarised the contents of an important report while making plain the outrage it caused, or was likely to cause, and pointing out Albanese’s very strong opinions about Israel and Palestine.
You said that we should have pointed out that the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) has alleged links to the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). You also say that we should have said that human rights lawyer Tala Nasir (who we mentioned) worked for a rights organisation, Addameer, which is also allegedly connected with the PFLP.
Given that PCHR and Ms Nasir are two established, widely quoted authorities on human rights and we were only quoting them on matters to do with human rights, we do not think we were misleading our audience by not bringing up these alleged links within this article.
Therefore, we consider the report was in accordance with our Editorial Guidelines.” [emphasis in bold added]
The writer of that response is Jeremy Howell of the BBC News website. Earlier this month we noted a similar response from the same person on the same topic of BBC editorial guidelines concerning “Contributors’ Affiliations”.
“The most remarkable part of the BBC’s response relates to the issue of the report’s failure to clarify ‘contributors’ affiliations’:
“You also say that we should have declared in our reports that Amnesty International and Adalah are “anti-Israel”. The founding purpose of these two organisations is to defend people’s human rights rather than to undermine the state of Israel. Therefore, we do not believe we are breaching our Editorial Guidelines by not stating that they are “anti-Israel”.”
In other words, if an NGO describes itself as ‘defending human rights’, that – at least according to the writer of this response, Jeremy Howell – can be taken at face value and is enough to absolve the BBC from providing audiences with any information about its actual record, despite the existence of editorial guidelines stating:
“It should not be assumed that contributors to BBC output are unbiased or impartial. For those from organisations such as charities, think-tanks or universities, it may be necessary, when relevant, to give appropriate information about affiliations, funding or particular viewpoints. The same applies to individual researchers, journalists, scientists or other experts and, on occasion, to contributors who may be relating their own experiences. The key test is to consider whether the audience would be misled if such information was not made available.””
THE BBC EXPLAINS WHAT ITS EDITORIAL GUIDELINES ON ‘CONTRIBUTORS’ AFFILIATIONS’ REALLY MEAN
The BBC recently announced new editorial guidelines which will come into effect on September 1st 2025. The section on “Contributors’ Affiliations” has an addition:
“2.4.17 It should not be assumed that contributors to BBC output are unbiased or impartial. For those from organisations such as charities, think-tanks or universities, it may be necessary, when relevant, to give appropriate information about affiliations, funding or particular viewpoints. The same applies to individual researchers, journalists, scientists or other experts and, on occasion, to contributors who may be relating their own experiences. The key test is to consider whether the audience would be misled if such information was not made available. It may also be necessary to consider whether such affiliations might risk undermining trust in the contributor’s professional credentials or in the perceived authenticity of their experiences.” [emphasis added]
As we stated in our contribution to the BBC consultation on those new editorial guidelines:
“The sentence relating to “undermining trust in the contributor’s professional credentials” is not clear enough. Is the BBC really suggesting that audiences should not be informed of a contributor’s relevant affiliations and viewpoints if doing so would detract from his or her credentials or perceived authenticity?”
Apparently the answer to that question was yes because as we see, the BBC is refusing to apply those editorial guidelines to NGOs that describe themselves as ‘human rights defenders’ – even when they have proven links to terrorist organisations.
Related Articles:
