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/

@Fififerry1Absolutely.

70000 dead out of a population of 2milion (3%) is not 'genocide'.
In WW2 96% of Jews were slaughtered. That was genocide.

Even if you believe that 70k were all innocent civilians and not the majority terrorists as widely reported it wasn't and never will be 'genocide'.

What is this post? You've just pulled percentages and numbers out of no where. I don't think that anything you have said in this post is correct.

The real numbers are
63% of European Jews were slaughtered.
Or 36% of worldwide Jewish people.

Like the numbers are horrific enough without just making things up.

Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered approximately six million Jewish people during World War II, which is about two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. Of the six million victims, approximately 1.5 million were children.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

70,000 dead is an extremely conservative number. That is the official confirmed death toll. But there is thousands missing presumed dead. Harvard university did a study which estimated that there was approximately another 40,000 or so missing - that was over a year ago.

We will not know the true count for years to come if ever.

You do realise that Israel don’t have to kill the same percentages of people in order for them to be committing Genocide don’t you?

Have you actually listened to the rhetoric coming from certain members of the Israeli government?

Yes I do realise that.

I'm the one saying genocide is a complex thing.

63% then.

3% in gaza? That is not genocide. Blame hamas for any civilians sadly killed among the thousands of terrorists.

And many people more experienced and knowledgeable than either of us are now calling it a genocide. Politicians and experts all over the world are doing so. And it is being actively investigated as such

ok if you can't acknowledge that it will be decided by an international court of law not by us or people "more experienced and knowledgeable than either of us" such as politicians (!!) then that's your choice.

Yes 30%in the difference.

Your post clears up the motion that Oct 7th was a genocide as only 0.0125% of the Israeli population was murdered then which is even less than 3%.

While most people don't consider October 7th to have been a genocide, it's still true to say that Hamas have genocidal intent towards Jews/Israel.

That is because while they have not been particularly successful at killing Jews and destroying Israel, that is their stated goal as per their 1988 founding charter.

Can you not see the difference between people being rounded up and murdered en masse in cold blood as opposed to civilian deaths during a conflict because murderers like hamas didn't even attempt to protect their civilians?

Yes yes apparently there's different types of genocide but 3% killed in a conflict doesn't even come close to cattle trucks and mass murder.

Exactly. Isn't their jaunty little catchphrase 'from the river to the sea'? Kind of puts a stop to the silly 'they just want a 2 state solution!' claim doesn't it.

You can have a legitimate occupation eg journalist and be a bad person eg a terrorist, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. The Venn diagram overlap may be small but not impossible. Also remember in these days of 24 hour news and the need to get things on air quickly, some facts end up being incorrect, the bbc corrects them regularly. Deliberate misinformation and accidental mistakes in reporting are equally common

Most people understand that Oct 7th was an atrocity, not genocide. I've certainly never suggested it was genocide.

If hamas and hezbollah had've got their act together they'd certainly have killed many more though.

Trouble with that is it takes too long to act! But yes the courts will rule eventually

The courts will rule eventually and in the meantime it would be more accurate to refer to it as an alleged genocide.

But this has been suggested before and ignored because people think they know it is a genocide now regardless of the court case.

They can think that but are wrong, legally speaking.

I still find it hilarious that no one can seem to agree whether the BBC is a end-to-end Hasbara or Hamas propaganda.

Suggests to me they're probably getting something right. They get things wrong too, for sure, but I think it's a nonsense to suggest that they are massive biased towards one side or another, as this degree of disagreement demonstrates.

Interestingly, the BBC has been accused of bias by both sides.
Eg from The guardian article below:

“BBC figures point out internal complaints come from both directions, with two recent reports each claiming to prove bias either against Israel or Palestinians. Senior journalists say many problems stem from Israel’s refusal to grant international journalists access to Gaza.
Advertisement
“More broadly, we strongly reject the notion – levelled from different sides of this conflict – that we are pro or anti any position,” a BBC source said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jun/29/bbc-reckons-with-bias-accusations-over-israel-and-palestine-coverage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

there is also this, which says the BBC bias is pro-Israel:

https://cfmm.org.uk/resource/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-double-standards/

Honestly, I think BBC is walking on a tightrope and has got it wrong in both directions on a number of occasions. I also think it is probably exceptionally difficult to get it right with this story.

I think you haven't read the thread title question. "Why does the BBC refer to dead terrorists as 'journalists'?"

Regardless of whoever enters Gaza there is no need to assume everyone Hamas calls a 'journalist' is, that's just naive. Proven incorrect since many were Hamas members and some joined in the October 7th attack. Those facts have bugger all to do with who is let in and not. Dead terrorists are dead terrorists.

You completely missed the thread question. "Why does the BBC refer to dead terrorists as 'journalists'?"

Just stop what precisely. Asking that the BBC report facts and not just pass on Hamas news as fact. "Why does the BBC refer to dead terrorists as 'journalists'?" simple question on the thread title. Why do the BBC assume without checking that all journalists are journalists. Many Hamas fighters have been killed in the conflict.

Absolutely this - the BBC is imperfect but it's a watchword across the media and the world for some of the most careful and balanced reporting that there is. Some people opposing Israel are incensed that the BBC will show the human face of Israeli people, whereas other are outraged they dare to humanise Palestinians. There will be no pleasing everyone, there will be errors but the fact is at least its line isn't dictated by billionaires with an agenda and while I suspect there is some government pressure in some directions, that is not a defining feature.