BBC’s Gaza Coverage: New Report Reveals Deep Bias

So what do we trust? Do we pretend the dead are not dead because you dont believe a source?

The UN is actually of the opinion that they’re underreporting deaths anyway (because of the number of people still under rubble)

Thats fair enough, if you don't understand.
I'll be honest and say I think in the fog of war I don't trust many sources at all, really, I dont think even necessarily through intent to deceive, it's just very very difficult for any party to know the full facts. Hamas lies. The IDF lies. Netanyahu lies. Our politicians lie. Its enough for me to know theres a particularly hate filled war going on. I'm sure war crimes are taking place from both sides. Civilians are dying in horrible ways. Soldiers are fighting, dehumanizing the enemy, becoming hardened to violence. Its war. Its always the same, but with different features.
Personally I prefer to read a well researched book about it afterwards.
I do trust the BBC to at least try to get it right.
I like BBC verify.

Wasn’t it the bbc that did that documentary about kids in Gaza that had to then be pulled because one of the kids’ dads was in Hamas? That doesn’t sound like they are shockingly bias to me. I don’t care what your thoughts about whether that should’ve been pulled or not are, I’m simply pointing out the bbc does do coverage from a Palestinian pov.

There's a clear difference between footage on smart phones to independent journalists reporting on what is happening and verifying reports.

So I really don't much care if journalists get in or not tbh. We're finding out anyway
But most of it is being dismissed as Hamas propaganda. Who are you finding out from? Whose reports are you trusting?

I definitely don't think journalists count bodies or oversee hospital death counts, in any case.
No they don't but they can report from the scene interview those affected. Just like they've been doing in Israel and Iran this week. Independent inspectors are needed to verify deaths and injuries.

I find it unusual that someone would not understand the benefit and importance of independent war correspondents who are signed up to the journalist code of ethics. They are the witnesses to what is going on but maybe that's the problem

I don't take a stance on it.
I think that despite the fact that they are not allowing international journalists in this is by far the most reported on war that I've ever seen in my life. I've seen footage from 7 October live streamed. I've seen tents go up in flames. I've seen hospitals bombed. I've seen maimed children. I've seen starving children in cots. I've read the reports of people getting killed while trying to get food for their families.

I've personally no doubts at all that most people have a pretty good idea what's going on in Gaza. It's all fucking awful.

So I really don't much care if journalists get in or not tbh. We're finding out anyway. At least if journalists aren't allowed in they won't become yet more casualties. I guess thats a good thing.

I definitely don't think journalists count bodies or oversee hospital death counts, in any case.

I’m not sure your report is an unbiased as you think it is.

“The Centre for Media Monitoring is a Muslim Council of Britain project. Academics and specialists across the world recognise that mainstream media reporting of Islam and Muslims is contributing to an atmosphere of rising hostility towards Muslims in Britain.”

They’re probably not going to conclude in favour of Israel. That goes against the narrative.

Good journalists report the facts of what is happening.
I take it you are in agreement with Israel not allowing international journalists in to report on the true facts happening in Gaza @dairydebris ?

Well it’s good to get things off your chest.

I have also noticed the BBC and others unfairly covering the conflict - against the Palestinians. This is sick. It makes me furious.

You can't compare it to Ukraine.

The use of "genocide" is very much disputed; it would be wrong for it to be used by an impartial broadcaster.

Why? Do you think journalists count bodies?

@Twiglets1 , you have obviously missed where i wrote "hamas are a terrorist group that obviously shouldn't be listened to" in my post. You extrapolating that into you "don't understand why people are wary about trusting figures from a terrorist organisation "

I didn't say i trust hamas. I said they are a terrorist group who obviously shouldn't be listened to.

You twisting my words speaks volumes. And it happens a lot and is very noticeable.

Also the issue of Israel not allowing journalists into Gaza is entirely related to us only getting hamas figures. Its not a separate issue at all.

All this thread proves is that humans find it incredibly difficult to look at things they feel highly emotional about objectively.

For example, theres many ways to explain the findings that dont actually indicate pro Israel bias at all -

Israeli deaths were mentioned 33 times more per person than Palestinian deaths in BBC articles

• yes, obviously. Because there has been relatively speaking so much more Palestinian death than Israeli. Its a pp count. If you were mentioning per capita so to speak, then Israeli deaths would only get mentioned very, very rarely 55k / 2k and then people wpuld complain about pro Palestinian bias. Which they also do 🙄.

The word “murdered” was used over 200 times for Israelis, but just once for Palestinians.

-Well yes. Because the Israeli deaths on 7 October were murders, and war deaths are not generally known as murders because the intent was different.

Presenters echoed Israeli perspectives 11 times more than Palestinian ones

-Why was this? Was it because Israeli perspectives are easier to come by given how many Israelis freely travel here? Jews living here? I would imagine its much more difficult to interview a Palestinian than an Israeli?

Historical context like occupation or blockade was mentioned in less than 1% of coverage

-Possibly because a lot of those terms are not universally agreed upon and the BBC is genuinely commited to impartiality? Also on its own this 1% data point is meaningless. It doesn't tell us anything about the slant of the coverage.

Genocide claims were repeatedly shut down or ignored, despite being raised in international courts

-Again, see above. Just like the BBC refuses to call Hamas terrorists 'terrorists'. Its a politically loaded term that the BBC consciously avoids.

You think I'm biased. I think you're biased. Its incredibly difficult for our brains to step outside of our pre conceived ideas to see anyone else's viewpoint.

I think the BBC does an excellent job despite what I feel about its bias.

Nothing that challenges your view seems to interest you.

@purpletablet 🙄

@purpletablet as Ive already suggested, there is nothing we can do to change each others opinion so I’ll leave it at that as circular discussions don’t interest me.

As I said it’s best for us not to trust either source since we can’t possibly know the truth.

Or you can blindly trust Hamas figures or blindly trust IDF figures. Neither have independent verification but some people choose to believe them anyway.

Yes I believe that you are trusting figures that come out of a Hamas run organisation and I’m not prepared to do that & neither are lots of others. That is why the BBC now always state “according to figures from the Hamas run health authorities” rather than just saying health authorities. It’s a coded way of saying it’s Hamas figures. They do the same thing with figures the IDF report “according to the IDF” so people can make their own judgement about whether they trust the source or not.

You don’t need to keep repeating the insults. I saw them the first time and they add exactly zero to the validity of your argument.

What are they meant to be using, numbers providing by a government commiting a genocide?

We are not trusting terrorist organisations are we. We are trusting the Hamas run health ministry you know like civil servants they are not the military wing. You are being intentionally inflammatory here. Some people includes majority of Western governments, NGOs, UN in fact Israel has not even questioned the figures but you do you. I for one believe the figures are conservative and way higher. As I said it is so lazy, convenient and misinformed to dismiss everything coming out of Gaza.

At the end of the day, I think we will all just have to accept that some people trust terrorist organisations to tell the truth and some don't. And there's nothing we can do to change each others opinion on that.

the most important thing is not who funds the research, but whether the methodology is sound and the findings are verifiable.

Think you missed out this bit. You can not accept it that is fine but tbh there is nothing in that research that most of us have not noticed anecdotally over the past 20 months

This, it drives me mad when people claim everything comes for Hamas, the figures that are provided are analysed externally and NGOs said they have nothing to suggest they are not accurate. It is so lazy, convenient and misinformed to dismiss everything coming out of Gaza. The view in general is that figures are more likely to be under rather than over estimated. But if people are going to continually dismiss and deny the evidence there is nothing much you can do about it.
International reporters were all over the hospital site in Israel that was bombed. Reporting from it, interviewing patients and doctors we can get a true accurate picture of what was happened yet the same critical reporting is not afforded to Palestinians in Gaza and then everything is dismissed it is nauseating.