The author of the BBC article is at fault for a) slanting our perspective by planting in readers' minds shock that a shy, autistic, naice middle-class gel (who lives in a lovely house with plants and period features, judging by the photo!) can be caught up in serious trouble, b) not considering that the police might have sensitive intel justifying the extended interrogation which cannot be shared with the BBC and c) shoehorning in that quote from the NUJ, which seems to be there partly to draw an equivalence between journalistic investigation and an attack which involved a member of the police being struck with a sledgehammer on the spine (!!), in order to bolster the framing of Zoe Rogers' case as a politically motivated intervention by a pro-Israel government.
Rogers may well be a very principled woman, but her understanding of justice is moulded to the contours of her own perspective. We can never escape that; we can only try to mitigate it by exposing ourselves to plurality of opinion. That someone believes in justice can never be final proof that their actions are good and can never justify turning away from that plurality of opinion. Yes, we look fondly on the suffragettes now - but we don't have that attitude towards, say, Russian revolutionaries who also fervently believed they were creating a better world. Often it is only by knowing the end result of violent action, years later, that we can reach consensus on how to judge that action.
There may be a free speech issue here, but the article does little to help us judge whether that's the case. The truth about Elbit's supply to Israel is also left completely unclear, unless I'm mistaken?
I have great sympathy for victims of the war in Gaza, victims of attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah, and all those who are targeted by anti-Semites. I do feel very sorry for Rogers and her mum. That I'm baffled at the low quality of the article isn't being triggered by bias.