How far does bbc impartially go?

I don’t disagree with you about the number of casualties @Thedawnchorus

In my opinion they are likely to be at least as high as Hamas say, if not higher as more bodies are discovered under rubble.

It’s everything else they say … like they don’t steal humanitarian aid & they didn’t commit rape on 7/10. Every death by IDF soldiers seems to be of innocent civilians never legitimate targets according to them. They lie about so many things and it would be helpful if the BBC reminded people sometimes that Hamas militants are terrorists.

I agree we're not going to agree but I just want to add this. A lot has been said about the figures Hamas release about the number of casualties with Israel denying them. The thing is, historically, in the many other Gaza conflicts, the casualty figures that Hamas release have been verified as correct after the event. From that historical perspective, I can see no reason to dispute their figures now. Don't get me wrong. I'm not holding Hamas to some high standard. I'm purely saying that without verification that they are lying, the BBC should, rightly, in my opinion, treat statements coming from both sides with equal impartiality.

Thank you for clarifying for the other poster.

Yes it would appear to show a bias if the BBC mentioned Hamas were terrorists every single time they were reported on. But so does never mentioning they are terrorists appear to show a bias.

Sorry. @Twiglets1 is right on this. They literally don't as a policy. In fact, on 15th June, a BBC presenter did refer to Hamas as a terror group. The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit investigated the incident and ruled the phrase breached the BBC's editorial guidelines and rebuked the presenter.

What I'm arguing is that it is not a biased policy. To the contrary. Highlighting they are terrorists every time they are reported on would basically be saying, "Hamas said this but take it with a pinch of salt because they're terrorists". That would be bias.

No they don’t. If you think they do, provide a link. The BBC have acknowledged that they don’t refer to Hamas as terrorists & given their reasons.

@Thedawnchorus I agree that IDF soldiers have also lied on occasion and the Israeli government. However, Hamas lie automatically. They ALWAYS just deny anything they are accused of without any attempt to investigate claims against them. Even when there is drone evidence- for example of them burying hostage remains to supposedly find them again in front of the Red Cross - they still lie about it.

You yourself seem to consider them a decent source if you say just because they are terrorists that doesn’t automatically make them liars. Being terrorists does make them completely untrustworthy in my opinion but if you don’t see that, then we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

That's almost exactly what they do say.

They say all the time "Hamas, a terrorist organisation".

That's the whole point. Who are the BBC or anyone else for that matter to say they are not a particularly reputable source without verification. Terrorists yes, but that doesn't automatically make them liars. We just don't know but then we also don't know how much of what Israel says is true.

It's true they can't please everyone whether they refer to Hamas as terrorists or not, but it does seem as though they have picked a side.

Using a phrase to acknowledge that Hamas are "a terrorist group according to the UK government" would have allowed them to report what Hamas say but also acknowledge they are not a particularly reputable source.

They do understand that. But the reverse is also true.

And this is the problem with impartiality. It is very difficult to defne, not least because different people have different views on what an impartial postion is.

Maybe what the BBC fails to perceive is that by not calling Hamas terrorists they can be perceived to be taking a side.

The point is, the BBC sees that it can be perceived as taking sides by calling Hamas terrorists, even if they have been proscribed so by the UK. Bear in mind the BBC has been heavily criticized about this policy. I know it wouldn't make any difference to both pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis but it could have a subtle effect on people who are undecided so that is why the BBC want to simply explain the facts in an impartial way.

I know that's what they say, but it's a fact that Hamas are labelled a terrorist group by the UK government.

It's not exactly "taking sides" just to call something what it is, factually and without emotion. It seems more "taking sides" to not mention the facts because some people may think Hamas are just militants but they are more than that, according to the UK government. It's a lie of omission (in my opinion, of course).

There is an irony there, I agree with you about that.

Lets try unraveling some of this shall we?

"Oh look another thread with a bunch of genocidal apologists kicking off because the BBC won’t publish more Israeli propaganda."

Who's a genocidal apologist? Someone on here is genocidal? Who? Or did you mean genocide apologist? This is a site mainly for parents, none of whom actually support genocide, but some of whom dont believe Israels actions amount to genocide. Genocide is a legal term, and no court with appropriate jurisdiction has found Israel guilty of genocide. As such, as yet, its purely an opinion one way or the other. So theres no actual grounds for calling anyone a genocide apologist.
The BBC wont publish more Israeli propaganda? What do you mean? They report on both sides. In fact, the BBC has run the same article as the guardian one you linked above. Something the Israeli government has referred to as terrorist propaganda. So the BBC has today run a very damaging to Israel piece, detailing the abuses suffered by Palestinians in Sde T. What youre saying makes no sense at all.

"it isn’t black and white …. It’s incredible complex’ an entire generation has managed to unravel you’re alleged complex situation and mobilised to protest, divest and boycott Israel so it’s not that hard to get to the bottom of."

You honestly dont think its a complex situation? You dont think the many layers of crimes, hatreds, loyalties, emotions, history, culture on both sides makes for a very complex situation? That beggars belief to be honest. I guess youre welcome to your opinion but I dont think many would agree. It doesn't sound very credible.

"Israel has lost and is continuing to lose support internationally."

Israel has the same allies it had before this war. Do you mean lots of people have marched? Or are you referring to the rise in antisemitism? Its not exactly something we should be proud of is it? However, its factually wrong to say Israel is losing support with allies.

'Let me invite you however to read up on the below which the media has barely reported. Btw the alleged abuse is rape but don’t rush to make a thread on that."

The BBC reported it today along with the Guardian and others. So this statement is a lie.

"Which shows the U.K. media is still very much stifling fair reporting when it comes to Israel’s crime. The U.K. media manufactured consent for the genocide it’s only now when it’s got to a point you can no longer make excuses that they’re forced to do their job and even then just barely."

Again, not true, being reported by mainstream media is hardly 'stifling' is it?
And where exactly did the UK media manufacture consent for genocide? Because we all know thats pure hyperbole. Feel free to link any article that gives consent to genocide, given that no official finding of genocide has been made, and as far as Im aware the IDF doesn't take its command from The Sun. Utter nonsense.

So. Your post is basically:

'Mistakes' in phrasing.
Wrongly referring to your opinion as a fact.
Lies.
Statements completely contradicted by facts.
Oversimplification.
Another lie.
Another lie.
Some more totally made up stuff.
A bit of nonsense.

Theres plenty to criticize Israel for about this case. The abuse itself, the way it has been referred to by the Israeli government. The attempts to hush things up. The spilt between left and right in Israeli society. All that would have been of interest. Instead you've just posted an absolute load of guff.

I’ve seen public figures on both “sides” of this divide claiming that the BBC is biased in favour of the other. That tells me that it’s probably getting it about right.

Ironically the BBC doesn't use terms like terrorist organisation particularly so it can be seen as impartial and not taking sides as per their policy guidelines.

Oh look another thread with a bunch of genocidal apologists kicking off because the BBC won’t publish more Israeli propaganda.
’it isn’t black and white …. It’s incredible complex’ an entire generation has managed to unravel you’re alleged complex situation and mobilised to protest, divest and boycott Israel so it’s not that hard to get to the bottom of.

Israel has lost and is continuing to lose support internationally.

Let me invite you however to read up on the below which the media has barely reported. Btw the alleged abuse is rape but don’t rush to make a thread on that.

www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/03/israels-top-military-lawyer-arrested-after-she-admitted-leaking-video-of-soldiers-abuse

Which shows the U.K. media is still very much stifling fair reporting when it comes to Israel’s crime. The U.K. media manufactured consent for the genocide it’s only now when it’s got to a point you can no longer make excuses that they’re forced to do their job and even then just barely.

Speaking for myself I think it would be fair for the BBC to report Hamas information as long as they also acknowledge that they are a proscribed terrorist group in the UK. That is a fact they choose not to include in their reports.

I suppose there are a million “facts” of this war so every news source is pretty much choosing which facts to mention & which to ignore. Also there is a lot of propaganda especially (in my opinion) from Hamas & their supporters.

I think the BBC decision not to label Hamas as terrorists makes it look as though they consider them a legitimate source when they repeat Hamas given “facts.” That one decision really undermines their attempts to come across as neutral.

Are you saying that the BBC should dismiss whatever a terrorist organisation says as lies without any actual evidence other than the fact they are a terrorist organisation.

Agreed. I think the key phrase in your post is "all facts". By making editorial choices that only discloses "some" facts and taking the word of terrorists as "facts", the BBC's news coverage has not been neutral and has misled viewers/listeners/readers about the true nature of this war.

You've confused me here. Are you saying that the BBC should ignore certain facts in order to appear neutral? My understanding of news is that they should report all facts, truthfully, without trying to manipulate opinion with nuance or, in the case of some so called news outlets, outright lies.

Where it gets really interesting is when someone with a biased agenda accuses a news outlet of bias because what they reported didn't align with their biased agenda.

Normally I'd agree with you @Aaron95 . News is often partisan, depending on the owner / journalist / agenda, etc. and 'consumers' of the news should know the bias of a particular media source (notwithstanding the general public's general lack of critical thinking skills). However, the BBC is an exception to this given its mandate and the fact that the British public has to fund it.

No it shouldn't. It should be factual. There is a big difference.

Yes, I think they may get into trouble over that.

Bias is a difficult thing to prove sometimes but that was clear evidence.