Previously we documented a BBC News website report which had not been updated to inform audiences that a person it described as one of the Gaza civil defence agency’s “first responders” was later shown to be a Hamas terrorist who participated in the October 7th 2023 atrocities.
BBC NEWS PRESENTS HAMAS TERRORIST AS ‘FIRST RESPONDER’
CAMERA UK submitted a complaint to the BBC, providing links to the information showing that Hazem al-Aidi and the other two people in the targeted vehicle were all Hamas operatives. We requested that the BBC update its report accordingly in order to facilitate reader understanding of why “Israeli shellfire hit a car”, as well as to ensure the ability of BBC audiences to make up their own minds about the reliability of the Gaza civil defence agency, which is uncritically quoted in so many BBC reports.
With unusual alacrity, BBC Complaints responded the following day:
“You wrote to us about the above report about a fatal attack by Israeli forces in Gaza. You asked us to amend it by adding a claim from the IDF’s [sic] that of [sic] three people killed had been Hamas fighters.
The IDF issued its press release two days after the article was published. It is not our practice to go back and amend published reports two days after publication except when reporting a major new development warranting a new top line.
This was not the case in this instance.”
One might have expected that a media organisation which portrays itself as providing “news you can trust” would consider information explaining the context to a strike on a person it had twice described (without any independent verification) as a first responder to be “a major new development”.
The “top line” of that BBC report is “At least eight Palestinians, including three children, have been killed in two Israeli strikes in the Gaza Strip, according to medics and first responders”. The fact that at least three of those “eight Palestinians” were Hamas terrorists – and that the “first responders” quoted in the report’s headline and opening paragraph did not provide that information – clearly does not align with the BBC’s chosen narrative.
And so, once again, information available in the BBC’s online archive – which it describes as “permanent public record” and “an important source for future reporting and historical research” – remains inaccurate and partial.
Related Articles:
WHY DOES THE BBC’S FOOT-DRAGGING ON AMENDMENT OF ONLINE CONTENT MATTER?
