Back in October 2023 we documented the BBC News website’s publication of a report by BBC Verify titled “Gaza hospital blast: What does new analysis tell us?”. As we noted at the time, that ‘analysis’ of the explosion caused by a shortfall Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket eight days earlier at the Al Ahli hospital included a contribution from an NGO:
“In addition, BBC Verify chose to amplify – and link to – statements from the political NGO ‘Forensic Architecture’ without clarification of that organisation’s record on Israel and without mentioning the fact that its ‘analysis’ was conducted together with another political NGO – Al Haq – which is linked to a terrorist organisation and hence designated by Israel.
“The Forensic Architecture agency, a UK-based organisation which investigates human rights abuses, has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel.
It says that the scarring patterns above the crater are consistent with the shrapnel damage that would be expected from an artillery strike.”
If BBC Verify cannot even do the basic required background research on the sources it quotes and promotes and their records of political activism, then clearly its declared purpose of countering disinformation does not serve the interests of BBC audiences. For example, the use of the term ‘IOF’ – i.e. ‘Israel Occupation Forces’: a term only used by anti-Israel activists – in the Forensic Architecture tweet promoted in this report should have been enough evidence of the partiality of that organisation for BBC Verify to refrain from amplifying its ‘analysis’.”
REVIEWING BBC VERIFY REPORTING ON THE AL AHLI HOSPITAL INCIDENT
In April 2024 we revisited that topic:
RETURNING TO BBC COVERAGE OF THE AL AHLI HOSPITAL EXPLOSION
As we noted at the time:
On July 25th 2024 we were informed by the BBC in two separate emails both that it would take more time to address that January 9th complaint and that the timeframe for doing so had expired.
On August 22nd 2025 – i.e. over twenty months after that complaint had been submitted – we received an email from the BBC which – like several others we have recently received – opens as follows:
“We have been doing an audit of our complaints system and have unfortunately found some complaints that didn’t receive a reply from the newsroom when they were submitted, this one included, for which we would like to offer sincere apologies.
Please be assured that your feedback was logged at the time and shared with senior editors via our overnight reports.
However, we do appreciate that you did not receive an editorial response so even though quite some time has elapsed we would like to provide one now”
The BBC’s response continues with acknowledgment of the fact that the footnote was added the day after our complaint was made:
“In relation to this BBC Verify report, you wrote: “19 days after the publication of BBC Verify’s report, Forensic Architecture admitted that an image from Ukraine that it had used to support its claims concerning “an artillery shell” actually showed rocket impact.”
You said the report had not been updated to mention this.
However, on 10 January, we added a note to the text of the report which said:
(On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.)
We added this note at the end of the report: Clarification, 10 January 2024: Some weeks after the attack, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and said they had been wrong to say the projectile was an artillery shell, instead conceding it was probably a rocket. The organisation stood by its analysis of the direction it had travelled from.”
The BBC’s response continues: [emphasis added]
“You allege that Forensic Architecture has links with an NGO called al Haq, and that al Haq has links with the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine [sic].
The senior editors in BBC Verify say that their reports feature analysis and commentary from a range of people and this piece cited various governments, individual experts and analysts.
The report was concerned with Forensic Architecture’s analysis of the cause of the blast, not its political opinions. Its links with an NGO – which, in turn, is allegedly linked with the PFLP – were not considered relevant in the context of the report.
We believe this BBC Verify report was amended appropriately and promptly, in accordance with our Editorial Guidelines, and is accurate and impartial.”
In fact, that part of CAMERA UK’s complaint did not address the issue of “political opinions” but rather it noted that Al Haq had been partner to the ‘analysis’ quoted and promoted by BBC Verify and provided the BBC with relevant links:
“Despite the BBC editorial guidelines relating to contributors’ affiliations, BBC Verify chose to promote the claims made by Forensic Architecture without clarification of that organisation’s record on Israel and without mentioning the fact that its ‘analysis’ was conducted together with another political NGO – Al Haq – which is linked to a terrorist organisation and hence designated by Israel.”
In other words, this twenty-month late response from the BBC does not address the fact that BBC Verify quoted and promoted a report co-produced by a political NGO with links to a terrorist organisation (which is actually called the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) rather than “the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine” as claimed by the BBC) that less than three weeks before the appearance of BBC Verify’s ‘analysis’ had participated in the October 7th massacre of Israelis.
Moreover, the BBC’s response claims that is “in accordance with our Editorial Guidelines”.
CAMERA UK has submitted a Stage 1b complaint.
Related Articles:
EIGHTEEN MONTHS ON, THE BBC STILL WON’T REPORT WHAT HAPPENED AT AL AHLI
