How far does bbc impartially go?

Some people will deny it no matter who writes the report, even though its proven true and every news outlet is running with it. Doesn't confirm the bias they hold so deny, deny, deflect, etc...... yawn

So I read your first paragraph. Obviously
I mean seriously yes you stated the bleeding obvious. Yes. So to be honest I didn't read the rest.

Sorry I meant to quote your post. I meant that I couldn't be bothered to comment on each bullet point.

No one is expecting them to write pro- Israel stories there is just an expectation that they should report stories factually and without obvious bias. They don't need to be pro Israel or pro Palestinian and they are getting into trouble for not being more neutral in their reporting of Gaza (especially BBC Arabic) as well as other issues.

Make your mind up. You keep saying you don't want to interact with me, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, but then you keep coming back. Please make up your mind.

This is why there is no point debating with you @Thedawnchorus

You're always asking for evidence of this and that but never believe anything that isn't anti Israel so it's a waste of time really.

@Twiglets1 Bias is never justified in a news organisation that makes a big thing out of being neutral and impartial.

People don't seem to understand that the BBC does not need to be neutral in reporting a conflict such as the war in Gaza or the war in Ukraine. The only subject where it has to remain totally neutral is in reporting UK politics.

Nobody is suggesting it should be writing pro-Russian stories when covering the war in Ukraine.

Every time Israel mowed the grass in Gaza the figures were verified as correct and when they were questioned in this war, Hamas published the Israeli ID numbers and names of all the victims but you want us to believe the Israeli propaganda about not targeting civilians which has been shown to be absolute nonsense. What if I told you there was a whistleblower who said that the IDF were eating the cats in Gaza. Just because it was written down, would you believe it on that alone.

Who decided that the weight given to Hamas casualty figures is unjustifiable? From the dossier:

In this war, Hamas has based its figures both on hospital records and on “media reports” from the Gaza Government Media Office. Hamas, which runs the GMO, has never explained how this number has been calculated but the majority of deaths from “media reports” are women and children.

Despite growing concerns that this new methodology was unreliable, the UN and media outlets, including the BBC, reported that 70 per cent of all those killed in Gaza were women and children. Eventually the UN reviewed and revised down the figure to 52 per cent.

In the report to the EGSC, we were warned that for too long the BBC had given “unjustifiable weight” to the 70 per cent claim, even though concerns about its credibility were well known.

Why just them. What about the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, etc, etc. There are lots of entities that think Israel are genocidal maniacs.

Tell me how I can trust the veracity of the dossier. It just looks like a lot of unsubstantiated accusations. Who decided that the weight given to Hamas casualty figures is unjustifiable.

I am loving the bbc finally being held to account for all the bollocks they spout.

I look forward to the UN and Tom Selfie Fletcher being next.

This is a lot of words to basically say, I dont care about anything else other than I think Israel is the baddie and cannot entertain any other information in my head.

Thoroughly depressing post.

No they really haven't but as I said before, there is no point arguing with people like yourself and Cross who say you can't be bothered to read summaries of the dossier but wish to discredit the findings anyway.

Reading the dossier gives the impression that there are big problems with the neutrality of BBC Arabic in particular. That wouldn't be such a problem if the journalists worked for Al Jazeera say as we all expect them to be biased in a certain direction.

People don't expect obvious bias from the BBC though, hence the dossier is quite damaging to the BBC brand.

CrossChecking has done a nice job of answering some of those points. As I said earlier, I can't really say much about BBC Arabic as I don't watch it and it would require a bit too much research than I've got time for. As for mainstream BBC, there are a lot of people who feel it is biased towards Israel. I personally feel they try to be impartial. The thing is, we know Camera are very pro-Israel. We know the initial whistleblower is pro-Israeli. I have no idea about Michael Prescott in terms of his political leanings or motives as I have no idea about the man and had only just heard of him now. Done a bit of research on his history but not really found anything so I am open to the fact that he is genuinely worried about journalistic integrity. On the other hand, he may be another Douglas Murray in which case I wouldn't believe a word he says. My problem is that Israel has openly declared it is in a media war and must up their game in terms of improving their image in the media. They're doing this by attacking various entities in order to benefit their cause which is why, when I hear a story like this, I have reservations about the actual veracity of the contents of the dossier. I may be wrong, I'm open to that, but I'm not convinced yet.

Bias is never justified in a news organisation that makes a big thing out of being neutral and impartial.

If it was a non story that the BBC have been caught displaying bias in several areas (not just on the subject of Gaza) then the organisation wouldn't be making headlines right now for all the wrong reasons. Including being sued by Trump for a billion dollars over the bias they clearly showed in their reporting of his speech.

Two of the BBCs top people wouldn't have been forced to resign over the dossier and this "non story" is by no means finished yet.

I think the BBC was broadly in line with public opinion on the conflict in the Middle East, so in that regard the apparent bias towards the Palestinian people was completely justified. This is a non story.

It really is pointless even to try to argue with people who openly admit they can't be bothered to read the report or even summary of the report yet are quick to reject the findings anyway. So I won't.

I can't be arsed going through the full post but
BBC Arabic had very little reporting on Israeli suffering at the hands of Hamas or criticism of the terror group.

Well that's because when you compare the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel to the suffering of Israelis at the hands of Hamas there was far less.

BBC Arabic devoted huge swathes of articles to statements from Hamas and Hezbollah, denying factually accurate stories.

BBC has spent a lot of time letting Israeli abassadors spout bullshit and denying factually accurate stories.

The BBC as a whole gave ‘unjustifiable weight’ to Hamas casualty figures.

Unjustifiable to who? The people who believed that Israel were blowing people up because of Hamas cams and defended the execution of aid workers?

BBC Arabic published fake news, such as Iranian and Syrian claims that Israel had staged an attack on children in the Golan as a pretext for attacking Hezbollah.

40 beheaded babies and babies in ovens, those fake news stories spurred half of the world into a blood thirsty rage.

The same people bitching and whining about this are the same people who have defended blocking international journalists and observers from entering Gaza. The same people bitching and whining about this are the same people who hate that people have seen Israels disgusting violence and no longer support them because of that. If people really cared about 'impartiality' then they would be just as up in arms about the BBC spreading Israeli propaganda but they couldn't give a crap about that.

If you want people to start supporting Israel then turn your attention on getting Israel to behave in a humane manner. Nothing else is going to work at this point certainly not this nonsense. All it is doing is giving the same pro Israel heads something new to gibber on about while everyone thinks who cares, Israel are a violent occupying country who have slaughter 10s of 1000s of people so what if the BBC didn't make it clear that 'if' and that's a big 'if' Hamas were in every hospital in Gaza it's OK to attack them, Israel still left premature babies to rot and made patients on drips go up in flames and nothing can ever excuse that fucked up behaviour.

Spiked is just the organisation that did a nice little summary of all the things in the dossier. They didn't have anything to do with writing the dossier as you know.

You cling to the "biased source" criticism because you want to detract from the content of the dossier for some reason.

It must be difficult, however, they correct them later so obviously do find out facts later

It must be nigh on impossible to fact check what is going on in Gaza. There are no journalists allowed in there for starters.

It is perfectly acceptable to print things based on what Hamas has said, so long as the source of the information is made clear in the report.

The Trump issue I absolutely agree. God knows what, whoever edited that, was thinking. It wasn't just bias but lying by someone and I'm guessing it slipped through the net when it was checked. It is right heads rolled.

Also doesn't make it untrue but does need verifying. The multiple reports from independent international doctors in Gaza reporting the same thing though, that seems verified to me.