How far does bbc impartially go?

[dinodora]

Saw Giles Peterson live with Jamz super nova (well, we missed her unfortunately.)

They fill Saturday afternoons one after the other every week on BBC 6 music. It was not a bbc event though.

He played beautiful song which I then realised was about Palestine. And it specifically included the phrases “from the river to the sea.”several times. Much cheering and whopping afterwards.

I’m just querying if bbc impartially extends to DJs playing publicly but in their own capacity as an artist.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

That's almost exactly what they do say.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here's the problem. All the lies you're attributing to Hamas have not been independently verified. I'm not saying they are not lies but for example, let's take the stealing of aid. I've heard both sides. Israel says Hamas steals most of the aid but the UN denied that Hamas steals the huge percentages of aid cited by Israel. To the contrary, they claim that the majority of the aid intercepted is by desperately hungry civilians. Now I don't want to get into an argument about this subject because, once again, without independent verification, we just don't know what the actual truth is.

What about if the BBC reported like this. "Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group, who have lied in the past, said 'this'. Israel, who don't allow international journalists into Gaza and have lied in the past said 'this'. That would be unbiased and impartial wouldn't it.

This thread isn’t about which side is right or wrong.

its about

1. Is the phrase “from the river to the sea,” sung as part of what was actually a beautiful song, offensive? I’ve seen wide range of opinions about this. Historical context would indicate its origins being very clearly antisemitic. Has it evolved? I don’t know. It has been chanted at many marches and Jewish people in the U.K. are experiencing open antisemitism.
2. should a bbc DJ be playing it as part of his set at a gig, given the gigs have been openly discussed on air by him and his co DJ? (Supporting small venues.)

the dj does have a twitter which has a disclaimer about personal views and not representative those of the bbc. So it indicates there’s more artistic freedom imo.

however, it’s very clear that there is impartiality in other topics of the bbc, as per recent whistleblowers.

1. is this something we should be able to question and discuss?

yes, absolutely, from all sides. And I’m still not clear on the answer.

freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. We are in certain scrapes at the moment because people were discouraged from speaking out, silenced, not open to critique etc.

Formatting won’t work ffs!

theres 3 points there

Are you saying it has not been 'independently verified' that Hamas fighters committed rape on 7 October?

There is footage of Hamas stealing aid & eyewitness testimony and I think it’s delusional for anyone to think they don’t steal aid when they were effectively running Gaza. The exact amounts can be debated forever & like you, I have no interest in arguing about that. I think most people basically know that Hamas stole a lot of aid intended for innocent civilians, and that Hamas lie about that. The amount of aid they stole may have been exaggerated or not - we don’t know.

The BBC do often state the fact that Israel don’t allow international journalists into Gaza, they also will post reports saying Israel have lied about things.

But they don’t state that Hamas are a terrorist organisation or put much emphasis on the lies they have told. There’s no BBC Verify I’m aware of that exposes Hamas lies which suggests they are only interested in Israeli lies.

This is not what the OP was asking but never mind, if you want to bring it to that, I'll tell what I think. I don't know as I've heard many conflicting reports. You're asking about independent verification. The UN's Special Representative, Pramila Patten, concluded that there was reasonable grounds to believe that rape occurred. Deniers express skepticism regarding the origin and reliability of the evidence presented, especially concerning the impartiality of the initial evidence collectors and the Israeli governments initial fabricated atrocities which have now been debunked. Therefore, from what I have read, rape has not been independently verified or legally proven beyond a doubt, but the evidence that it did occur is there and I can certainly believe Hamas fighters would be more than capable of it.

What an utterly appalling place we have reached. Do you disbelieve all women who say they have been raped or just Jewish women?

There is absolutely no doubt that women were raped and sexually abused on 7 October and any attempt to undermine, cast doubt and delegitimise the testimony of victims and witnesses is in effect shilling for Hamas.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mz8gxzg82o.amp

I didn't and neither do the UN deny that Hamas stole aid, just the quantities which Israel claim, 87% is what they claim I believe.

Pro-Israelis feel the BBC is biased towards the Palestinians and Pro-Palestinians feel the BBC is biased towards Israel. Arguing about this is not going to change anything. The BBC have declared their policy which they have clearly stated is to remain impartial to both sides by not designating either side one way or the or the other. I believe they are genuinely trying; perhaps sometimes not successfully; to simply report on facts without nuance, as I said.

Here is the report ( on the report ) on sexual violence on 7 October from the UN.

When this calling into doubt of rape being a part of 7 October I always imagine these people could only accept actually standing over the women as they are raped as proof.

Its beyond disgusting.

Please note the PP use of the word 'fighters' to describe Hamas.

https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15621.doc.htm

Please please lets consider when we engage with some posters it gives them a platform for their extreme views.

I don’t think the BBC are the worst offenders by any stretch re media bias. That’s why I do still use them as a news source.

But I think they are kidding themselves if they think they are trying as hard as they could be to simply report the facts. They are choosing to leave out the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation in the UK. They are choosing to focus on uncovering Israeli lies with BBC verify. Yet they consistently mention that Israel doesn’t allow independent journalists into Gaza.

Yes that is “fact”. So is Hamas being terrorists a fact.

At what point did I say I disbelieve them. I do question statements made by the Israeli government though, primarily because they have lied too many times. If an actual independent investigation concluded irrevocably that Hamas fighters did rape, not only would I not be surprised, I actually expect it would. As far as shilling for Hamas, I haven't read any witness statements or heard the name of a victim. If you have, I am more than happy to be educated. As I said, it is not that I don't believe it happened, I honestly don't know who to believe because of all the hyperbole and propaganda on both sides.

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

I doubt they will. A BBC spokesperson will say ‘lessons have been learned’ and they’ll carry on as they always do.

Hamas has repeatedly tried to deny that there were rapes on October the 7th. The BBC posted the report as highlighted in the link that @SharonEllis posted. Whose lies does that report try to identify.

Interesting how you're posting a link to the UN report which I already referenced when I first responded to @SharonEllis post on this subject where I was asked if rape was independently verified, in other words proven. What exactly does that report say?