Why does the BBC refer to dead terrorists as 'journalists'?

[EnoughIsEnoughSortThisOut]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/10/01/why-does-the-bbc-refer-to-dead-terrorists-as-journalists/

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Would you prefer a right-wing fascist cult?

Let's take a different angle. Let's say that Russian military or Ukrainian military allowed "independent" international journalists to report on the conflict in Ukraine provided that they were under their supervision the whole time for "safety " reasons and that anything they wished to publish would be "vetted" for military security reasons would people take this as independent journalism?

The same applies to Gaza and "independent journalism" but a few differences - if you try to report something the IDF doesn't like, you will get thrown out of the country and if you try to report something Hamas doesn't like, then you will simply disappear.

Not Hamas!

Listening to Hamas has harmed the BBC's reputation.

They could have reported what Hamas said but referring to them as "terrorists" or "the terrorist organisation Hamas" every time would have been a clue to the ill informed that they were not to be believed unquestioningly.

The BBC has never referred to any proscribed terrorist groups as terrorists when reporting on a conflict, not just Hamas. During the troubles, they never referred to the IRA as terrorists. As John Simpson said, it is not a journalist’s role to use moralizing words that tell audiences who to support and who to condemn. Following pressure by groups in the UK they have now acceded and dropped the word militant and have added the term "a group proscribed as a terror organization by the UK government and others". So the fact they didn't refer to Hamas as terrorists was not an indication of bias.

Israel have repeatedly blocked external media and journalists from entering Gaza. And many of those there have been killed. If you want fucking independent journalism then you kinda have to let the journalists in, keep them safe and allow them to do their job. But that isn’t possible when the Israeli government refuse to let them in.
So it’s hardly surprising that there is a few unscrupulous journalists not always providing impartial information.

You want an accurate picture of the devastation in Gaza - go look at the recently updated Google Maps images. That will show you the destruction done by Israel!

No it hasn’t! It is important to listen to all sides of a conflict. No matter how unpalatable their position is. You have to listen to all points of view.
We hear more than enough of the Israeli governments views.

yes it's important to hear all sides but not to act as though Hamas affiliated media organisations or journalists are reputable - they are not.

They shouldn't have needed pressure from groups in the UK.

Anyway, that was just one example.

Okay. Let's try this. Tell me one positive thing that Israel has done which the BBC should have reported on and didn't. I'd love to see an example of how you think they are so biased against Israel.

And the Israeli side are? Come on!!! By now I think it’s a given that neither side will present the facts in an unbiased manner. And those in Gaza have just as much of a right to present what is happening to them as anyone else.

It's naive to assume and simply impossible to have independent foreign journalists in Gaza right now.
They either need to be kept safe by the Israeli military which will raise doubts on their independence. Or kept safe by Hamas which will equally raise doubts on their independence.

The notion that independent foreign journalists can freely wander around an active war zone like they can covering a crime story in say Basingstoke is simply dumb and shows no understanding of what an active war zone involves.

Where did the information that they were journalists come from is the question, were they just reported as dead journalists or were credentials checked against news organisations? 131 of the names seem to have been journalists (or at least haven't been challenged), and 53 not, of those I suppose some may have been posing as journalists to avoid being identified as terrorists and some may have been filming propaganda, etc, so were assumed to be journalists when they were killed. I'd never heard of the list so if it was meant to be some sort of political statement it passed me by. I assume it was just highlighting how dangerous it is to be a journalist on whatever side in a war zone.

No Hamas do not have as much of a right to present what is happening as anyone else. Not by the UK's publicly funded broadcaster.

A reminder that Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. The IDF or Israel government are not (even if some argue they should be, they factually are not.)

Not followed the story, but followed this thread. I get what you are saying here,

It's like Tommy Robinson ( Yaxley-Lennon) has described himself as a journalist, and really in this day of social media, pretty much anyone can. So if something happens to someone while they are claiming to be a journalist, how should MSM report it ? I have seen the term " Citizen Journalist" used in a couple of cases. Then there is "Activist Journalist". I can't recall seeing that used on MSM, but I have seen it used on other outlets.

You could have Journalists working for.... lets make something up.. " God is Great weekly", who is also an activist. Something happens, what to call them ? Journalist seems most impartial to me.

The same way a Journalist working for "Russia today", would be described as a journalist, and not a Putin Propaganda Shill.

In fact, on that, there is Cheng Lei. The Australian journalist who was jailed in China for 3 years. She was, and is, described as a journalist, even though she worked for Chinese State Broadcaster/ Propaganda outlet. She is rightly, and properly, described as a journalist. But I would imagine there are loads of people who would call her something else.

I didn’t say Hamas - I said those in Gaza. Please do not twist my words to suit your agenda.

Your post replied to my post where I said yes it's important to hear all sides but not to act as though Hamas affiliated media organisations or journalists are reputable - they are not.

I was talking about Hamas affiliated media organisations & journalists.

You changed that to "those in Gaza" which sounds so much nicer and more innocent than Hamas affiliated journalists. Almost like you were twisting my words to suit your agenda (as you would say).

I bought it back to what I had said Hamas affiliated media organisations & journalists to point out that no, they don't have as much of a right to present what is happening as anyone else. Not by the UK's publicly funded broadcaster.

Why not open Gaza to multiple news agencies???? Genocide genocide genocide

Yes they do! Because otherwise nothing would be coming out of Gaza! And the story’s of those within that hellhole need to be told.
It seems to me you just want to silence those stories from ever being told. Erase them in the same way that Israel is aiming at erasing Palestine.

You are entitled to your opinion of course but I do not want to silence stories from coming out of Gaza. I just think the BBC (& other sources) should make it clear that a lot of the information coming out of Gaza is from Hamas affiliated media organisations or "journalists" with links to Hamas.

You may think - that's obvious. But it won't be obvious to everyone.

Basically @notwhingingjuststatingfacts we have a difference of opinion on this that we are not going to resolve. And I don't care to engage with posters who sink to insults so I'll leave it there re discussing this with you.

I used to worked for an international media organisation. The BBC was routinely referred to as the government news station. To many people elsewhere in the world, that is what it is - we may not always see the bias from here but that doesn’t mean it does not exist.
The BBC also can also come under heavy government pressure on how it should report the news. Sometimes it shows.
(The news organisation I worked for took a decision many years ago never to use the word ‘terrorist’ unless it was a direct quote, and it has taken some considerable flack for that.)

That's interesting.

Can't let them in yet, they haven't finished bulldozing away all of the evidence of their war crimes. The devil works hard but the IDF work harder.

Just stop this. Any normal, fair minded person understands that the BBC is doing the very best it can to report on what is happening whilst treading an impossible line. The truth is unpalatable for both sides but Israel are undoubtedly controlling the narrative. The unholy alliance determined to destroy the BBC will make us all poorer. They are not above criticism but be very careful what you wish for.

Who are the "unholy alliance" that want to destroy the BBC?

I don't want to see the BBC destroyed (I read it/watch it every day). But it is not above criticism.