BBC chief responds to landmark report exposing bias on Gaza
A BBC chief has responded to a landmark report which exposed the broadcaster's double standards in reporting on Gaza.
The corporation's director of news content was confronted about the findings of a report by the Centre of Media Monitoring which showed vast discrepancies in how the BBC reported on Israel versus how it reported on Palestine.
BBC chief Richard Burgess appeared at the launch of the report in Parliament this week, where he was forced to defend the corporation's record.
Asked why the corporation had not focused more attention on British spy planes flying over Gaza, Burgess said: 'I don't think we should overplay the UK's contribution to what's happening in Israel'.
The BBC news website has reported on Royal Air Force planes being deployed over the Palestinian territory just four times, reports Declassified, the news site which questioned Burgess.
Speaking at the launch event, Burgess said: 'I think it's important that we investigate stories like that, congratulations for the work that you've done on it.
READ MORE:
'So we have reported it as you say – clearly you feel not enough … There are many angles to cover, I don't think we should overplay the UK's contribution to what's happening in Israel, it's by far and away it's the US that are the prime [contributors].'
Pressed on why the BBC had not investigated a British spy flight over Gaza on the day Israel killed UK aid workers, Burgess said: 'I agree with you that there are important issues to discuss but my point was that we shouldn't – we need to see it in the context of the overall arming of Israel.'
Labour MP Andy McDonald, who was watching the exchange, told Burgess: 'To underplay the role of the UK is an error.'
Peter Oborne (@OborneTweets) confronts Richard Burgess, the BBC's Executive News Editor, about their coverage of the Gaza genocide and the data revealed by @cfmmuk at the Houses of Parliament. Burgess's response: "I'm not an expert on the Middle East". pic.twitter.com/WpwjrW4T0q
— NewsCord (@newscord_org) June 18, 2025
The Centre for Media Monitoring's report analysed a total of 3873 articles and 32,092 TV and radio broadcasts between October 7, 2023 to October 7, 2024.
It found that the word massacre(d) was used 18 times more frequently in the context of Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths in BBC articles.
The word also appeared five times in article headlines – all of which referred to attacks on Israelis.
READ MORE:
Emotive terms such as 'atrocities', 'slaughter', 'barbaric', 'deadly', 'brutal' were used four times more often when reporting on Israeli victims, while 'murder(ed)' was used 220 in the Israeli context and just once for Palestinians.
Also at the launch was journalist Peter Oborne who called out the broadcaster's failures in reporting on the genocide in Gaza.
He said: "You never educated your audience about the genocidal remarks, and according to this report on 100 occasions, 100 occasions, you've closed down the references to genocide by your guests.
"This makes you complicit."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
34 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
UK lawmakers approve assisted-dying law
Advertisement 'I do not underestimate the significance of this day,' Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party lawmaker and main champion of the bill, said Friday as she opened the debate. 'This is not a choice for living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.' While assisted dying is illegal in most countries, a growing number of nations and jurisdictions have adopted legislation or are considering it. In England and Wales, assisting a death remains illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A poll published this week found that 73 percent of Britons backed the assisted-dying bill. While lawmakers voted in favor of the bill in November, at an earlier stage in the legislative process, uncertainty lingered ahead of Friday's vote. Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides gathered outside Parliament. Some carried placards that read, 'Let Us Choose.' Others held signs saying, 'Don't make doctors killers.' Advertisement Many of those who spoke during the debate shared personal stories. Mark Garnier, a Conservative Party politician, spoke about witnessing the dying days of his mother, who had pancreatic cancer and endured a 'huge amount of pain.' Garnier compared her ordeal to that of a constituent who also had pancreatic cancer but went through a state-provided assisted-dying program in Spain that made her 'suffering much less.' Josh Babarinde, a Liberal Democrat, read out a letter from a constituent traumatized by the death of her partner, who struggled to breathe, was incontinent, and repeatedly asked for her help to end his life. He then 'stuffed yards of his top sheet into his mouth' in an attempt to die,' Babarinde said, adding: 'This could have been avoided with an assisted-dying' law. Support for the measure ebbed in recent months, with a handful of politicians saying that they were going to switch their vote due to concerns about inadequate safeguards or insufficient end-of-life care. Steve Darling, a Liberal Democrat, told The Washington Post that while he was 'sympathetic' to the bill, he had changed his view because of 'inadequate' palliative care funding, which in Britain depends heavily on charitable donations. 'People might think, 'I could bite the bullet and get out of this situation because I'm not receiving a service that gives me a decent quality of life toward the end,'' Darling said. Others who said they agreed with the principle of letting people choose to die but could not back the bill included Labour member Vicky Foxcroft, who cited her work with disabled people. 'They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die,' Foxcroft told Parliament. Advertisement The issue remains divisive even within parties. Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, whose departments will each be impacted if the change becomes law, both opposed the bill. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made it clear that he supports the measure, citing his experience as the country's former chief prosecutor. Over the past two decades, more than 3,900 Britons have ended their lives with the Switzerland-based organization Dignitas. A few people who helped them were investigated or arrested. The vote Friday was a free vote, meaning that lawmakers could decide based on their own conscience rather than along party lines. It was the second time this week that Parliament held a free vote, which is often allowed on issues of ethics or conscience. Earlier this week, lawmakers voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion in England and Wales. One major revision to the bill in recent months was to eliminate the need for approval from a high court judge. No other country or jurisdiction with legalized assisted dying has that kind of stringent judicial oversight, and it was initially sold to some wavering lawmakers as a reason to back the bill. That requirement was dropped in favor of a three-person expert panel — a lawyer, social worker, and psychiatrist — that will oversee applications. Leadbeater said this would make the bill stronger, as members of the panel would have more relevant expertise and would be better able to spot red flags. Spain uses a similar kind of expert panel. Some professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying but opposed the legislation as written. Their concerns included the shortage of qualified staff for the expert panels. Advertisement The government's own 'impact assessment' found that the law could lead to 7,500 requests a year within a decade. Some campaigners had hoped for greater eligibility, to include patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, or allowing a doctor to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs. This bill allows assisted dying only for terminally ill patients who can administer the medication themselves. Speaking in Parliament, Peter Prinsley, a Labour lawmaker, said that 'as a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable.' However, he added, 'now that I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' 'We are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death,' Prinsley said. 'And fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: A union should stand up for its members, not a foreign regime hostile to organized labour
Earlier this week, a flyer began circulating online promoting a June 22 rally against the war between Israel and Iran. 'Hands off Iran,' the flyer said, and invited protesters to gather outside the U.S. consulate in Toronto. An accompanying social media post called for 'building and preserving unity in confronting Zionism' and pledged support for the Palestinian and Iranian people, and 'all people across the world who continue to resist imperialist and Zionist domination.' The lead sponsor of the event, it turns out, is the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). The union drew immediate criticism and condemnation from politicians, the media and many of its own members. The flyer was taken down, and CUPE issued a statement saying it was 'an early unapproved draft version' and that an approved flyer 'would be shared shortly.' However, they have issued no such new version, and the demonstration is going ahead. The mishandling of promotional material for such an obviously contentious event (if it was mishandled, which I question), should alone raise alarm bells about CUPE's leadership. But the fact that the union is involved in this event at all is beyond the pale. Iran has the world's worst human rights record, and a well-known history of torturing and murdering its dissidents, raping female prisoners, persecuting minorities and sponsoring terrorism around the world. It is also famously opposed to organized labour, and CUPE itself has previously condemned the Iranian regime for persecuting labour activists. So why is Ontario CUPE organizing a rally in support of Iran, a country recognized by Canada (and others) as a state supporter of terrorism? Does it hate Jews so much that it would ally itself with a regime that, other than antisemitism, opposes everything the union ostensibly stands for? For years, I have had Jewish union members complaining to me about antisemitism in their unions, particularly public sector ones. This dramatically exacerbated after Oct. 7 when unions, along with universities and the radical left, organized and came out to support the pro-Hamas rallies that ubiquitously took over Canadian streets. Their Jewish members, unsurprisingly, felt discriminated against, disenfranchised by their unions' public position supporting groups calling for their extermination. Remember, CUPE's legal obligation is to represent its members, not discriminate against them. Similarly, as unions conducted DEI seminars, Jewish members felt excluded — not only because the seminars failed to recognize them as a group that, according to Statistics Canada, experienced dramatically more discrimination than any other, but because the DEI trainers characterized Jews as residing at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, part of the 'white oppressor class.' This is similar to the experience of Jewish employees compelled to attend corporate DEI seminars with the same anti-semitic messaging, but seemed even worse because their unions were ostensibly there to protect them against just such discrimination. Ontario CUPE's sponsorship of this weekend's rally supporting Iran takes this to ludicrous heights. Why are unions permitted to use their Jewish members' monies to oppress them and to organize around a regime that poses such an obvious existential threat? CUPE and its leader, Fred Hahn, are already being sued by Jewish members for antisemitic conduct. That lawsuit has obviously not dissuaded them. This is the same Fred Hahn who tweeted his support of Oct. 7 at the time, and the same CUPE that asked one of its locals at York University to hijack their classes and teach on 'Israeli oppression' instead. We do not see CUPE or other unions concerning themselves with states that have no democratic foundation at all and routinely violate human rights. If they did, the world's most egregious violator is Iran. What is telling is that, when it came time to put its foot on the scale to either fight discrimination or support antisemitism, CUPE came out unequivocally in favour of the latter. Unions receive taxpayer subsidies and compulsory union dues, ostensibly for the purpose of assisting them in their collective bargaining. One can understand how some expenses beyond those of strict collective bargaining can be justifiable, such as lobbying for worker-friendly political parties, or on behalf of causes supportive of workers' collective bargaining gains. But supporting Hamas or Iran, beyond discriminating against some of their members, cannot possibly assist unions in obtaining higher wages, benefits or other terms of employment for their members, which is a unions' legal purpose, Yet there is no legal restraint on unions' spending membership and taxpayer money on whatever their hearts desire. This is not only of concern to union members but to taxpayers, since we all subsidize unions. Union dues are tax deductible, and strike pay and union investment funds are not taxed. So, what can be legally done? Legislation should be passed limiting money obtained from compulsory union dues or government tax subsidies to non-collective bargaining purposes and have that be audited. If unions wish to spend money for other purposes, it should only use funds collected from their members voluntarily for those purposes. Ideally, CUPE would know that if it were the law, virtually no member would contribute their wages for such union picadilloes. As for the aggrieved union members, they should organize to decertify CUPE for a union that does not violate its obligations to them. In the meantime, expose the union's behaviour on social media, organize against it, make clear that they will not participate in its activities and will continue to work if CUPE calls a strike. They could also commence a lawsuit, potentially a class-action one, against the union for intentional infliction of mental stress, conspiracy to injure, intimidation and defamation. Another option is to petition the union to cease its activities, and, if they do not receive a response, publish the letters on social and other media. They could also file an application with the labour relations board, on the grounds that the union has breached its duty of fair representation in a manner that was discriminatory and in bad faith toward Jewish members. Howard Levitt: Is unionization good for employees? A side-by-side comparison Howard Levitt: When employers play games with severance packages, they often lose There are remedies. It is past time to utilize them and for government to pass the necessary legislation. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Israel may run low on missile interceptors, putting US in a 'bind'
If the U.S. chooses to replenish Israel's missile interceptors, it may have to draw them from other stockpiles. As Israel downs incoming volleys of Iranian missiles, a shortage of its missile interceptors could put both the United States and Israel in a bind. After a week of its aerial war with Iran, Israel's long-range Arrow interceptors are running low, the Wall Street Journal reported on June 18. In addition to Arrow interceptors, which are Israeli-made, Israel also has U.S.-made THAAD systems, which intercept medium-range ballistic missiles. If the United States chooses to replenish Israel's missile interceptors, it would mean drawing from other stockpiles, since Congress wouldn't have time to surge U.S. defense production of more, according to Brandan Buck, a research fellow at the Cato Institute. That could include siphoning off interceptors marked off for delivery to Ukraine, to Taiwan in a possible future conflict, or from the U.S.'s own national stock, Buck said. "If they truly do run out... that's going to put us in a position in which we have to make some serious decisions," Buck said. "It's going to put the U.S. and Israel in a bit of a bind," he added. The U.S. could also position some naval ships off the coast to "augment some of their capacity," according to Buck. The USS Nimitz, a massive aircraft carrier, is en route to the region and will arrive in less than a week, USA TODAY previously reported. It will join the USS Carl Vinson, which moved to the Middle East in April. When Iran launched a volley of ballistic missiles at Israel in October, the U.S. helped to intercept its attacks using interceptors fired from two other U.S. warships. The U.S. spends $3.4 billion to bolster Israel's missile defense every year, including $1.3 billion for its Iron Dome, according to the State Department. Iran could still have thousands of missiles in its arsenal Israel keeps information about its missile interceptor stockpiles tightly under wraps. Its military said on June 16 that it had taken out a third of Iran's missile launchers. Israel says its missile defense success rate stands at greater than 90% against Iran's attacks in the ongoing aerial war. Still, some have evaded Israel's defenses, including the missile that struck a hospital in southern Israel on Thursday. It's also unclear exactly how many missiles Iran has left. The Pentagon estimated in 2021 that Iran just under 3,000 missiles of different ranges. Since Israel attacked Iran on June 12 through June 16, Iran had fired around 370 missiles, meaning thousands could remain. Israel's multilayered air defense system is designed to take down incoming missives from a variety of ranges. The Iron Dome intercepts missiles and rockets fired from a short range of up to around 45 miles, and David's Sling intercepts cruise missiles and rockets at a range of up to about 125 miles. The longer-range missiles fired by Iran are picked up by the Israeli-made Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems, which intercept ballistic missiles at a range of up to around 60 miles and 1,500 miles, respectively. In October, the United States sent Israel a THAAD system – capable of intercepting missiles inside and outside of the atmosphere – including American personnel to operate it. According to news reports, the United States sent a second THAAD to Israel in April, although the Pentagon has not publicly confirmed the transfer. The U.S. Army has just seven THAAD batteries in total – it will get an eighth later this summer.
