Despite Britain being a liberal democracy with a free press, there have been recent instances where journalists have questioned the integrity of Britain’s broadcasting networks when it comes to reporting on the Middle East. For example in November, more than 100 BBC staff accused the BBC of being biased towards Israel in its coverage of Gaza, in a letter sent to the director-general of the BBC. The letter condemns the corporation for not holding itself to its own editorial standard of “consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism”. The BBC responded to the letter by stating their commitment to transparent reporting, noting challenges such as restricted access to Gaza and parts of Lebanon, and affirmed ongoing efforts to provide balanced coverage.
Recently, there have been additional claims that western media outlets, such as the BBC, have covered up Israeli atrocities. The journalist Owen Jones has written several in depth articles, drawing significant attention, claiming that “western media Israel’s genocidal intent from day one”. For example, Jones argues that the BBC buried key statements from Israeli leaders, such as Defence Minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration that “we are fighting human animals.”
I had the privilege of interviewing a former BBC employee who spent over two decades specialising in covering the Middle East. In order to protect their identity, they have chosen to remain anonymous. With extensive experience and firsthand knowledge of the region, they offered invaluable insights into the contentious topic of Western media bias with regards to the conflict in Israel and Palestine.
Do you believe that mainstream Western media outlets, such as the BBC, exhibit an inherent bias toward Israel in their coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Yes, there is no doubt about the strong pro-Israel bias pervading mainstream media in Britain, the US, and other countries that we think of as “Western.” This fact became clearer to me over 30 years working in and around BBC newsrooms. You often hear Israel’s supporters complaining of media bias against Israel. They may believe it, thanks to humans’ unrelenting capacity for self-interested self-deception, but whenever the question is tested independently, objectively, scientifically, the answer comes back: our media boosts Israel’s narratives and under-represents its political and military adversaries in Palestine, Lebanon, and elsewhere.
Look at Greg Philo and Mike Berry’s work with Glasgow University Media Group in the mid-2000s, all the way to studies commissioned since 7 October 2023. You invariably find the differences in choices of language, framing, how much context is provided, and who gets humanised. You know it’s true that mainstream media is biased if you reflect on a simple question; how would the media portray today’s events in Gaza if Palestinians were plausibly committing genocide against Israeli Jews? Would the media be so detached? Obviously not.
I can’t top Philo and Berry’s finding 20 years ago, that people who used BBC TV as their source for news during the Second Intifada were more likely to believe Palestinians occupied Israeli land rather than vice versa. It wasn’t surprising because BBC News bulletins wouldn’t clarify the context or the dynamics of the Israel-Palestine conflict; they just focused on the latest violent outbreak.
Invariably, that would be Palestinian militants on the offensive and Israeli Jews as the victims. The facts of Israel’s settler-colonialism and the structural violence of apartheid weren’t addressed. Lawful resistance against occupation was never part of the discourse. Social media today has changed everything by allowing people countless ways to understand the conflict – including a history never addressed by the mainstream media – and the power of the underdog’s narrative is now coming through.
If access to a live-streamed genocide can no longer be controlled, it doesn’t mean traditional newsrooms will change their approach; they’re probably incapable of that. Hence the eye-opening disconnect between the reality, for example, of Israeli football thuggery in Amsterdam in November, visible on all social platforms, and the mainstream media’s version of it as an antisemitic pogrom. That false version remains proudly on the BBC website, as testimony to the BBC’s failure to separate its reporting from Israel’s narrative, even when that narrative falls apart.
During your time at the BBC, did you observe any editorial practices or policies that you felt influenced how stories on Israel and Palestine were framed?
It was always practice not policy. The BBC rulebook is clear: Don’t take sides on political issues and leave personal views at the door. But there’s one perspective that is exempt – not surprisingly perhaps – and that’s a pervasive culture of Eurocentric whiteness. Part and parcel of that has been an approval of political Zionism, the establishment of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine needed to achieve it. So while “normal” BBC staffers supported Israel’s “right to exist,” someone like me, who developed anti-Zionist views, from years engaging with the subject as a neutral outsider, (as often happens), had to keep their views on the inside.
Concealing my personal viewpoints was what you were meant to do, but this condition did not apply to Israel. Zionism was so mainstream no one gave it a second thought. What if I had been as upfront in my politics as pro-Israel folks could be? I would never be let near coverage of Israel for a start. I may not have kept my job at all. However, by following the rules, keeping personal views personal and applying proper professional assessment of the subject, I spent years reporting effectively, critically, and objectively about Israel, as well as the Palestinian and Lebanese sides.
In my day, there were colleagues doing Middle East reporting whose output was clearly not pro-Israeli like mine, while others reported with a patently Israeli-friendly tone. Today, however, the former group has diminished. Several of its best-known members (without mentioning names) now seem to go ever further to reinforce Israeli/American/British narratives, despite ample evidence of their inconsistency and unreliability. I assume such people have caved in to political pressure with a view to protecting and advancing their careers. I didn’t want to take that road and there’s little doubt mine suffered as a result in terms of promotion and development.
This shift helps explain why, after 7 October, BBC reporting instantly seemed to align with Israeli narratives, many of which turned out to be fake, but which served to manufacture consent for the genocidal acts which have followed.
Where do you turn for news on Israel and Palestine, and how do you determine whether these sources are reliable and balanced?
I use X (formerly known as Twitter) and Telegram, where I follow many accounts posting regularly about developments in the region, as well as some YouTube channels and podcasts. I take a very sceptical approach, never assuming anything is true unless it comes from multiple independent sources. There’s no desire in me to be exposed to Israeli propaganda. (Pro-Israeli content is mostly propaganda – I’ve analysed it professionally for decades and don’t waste my time or my sanity on it these days). I also avoid any (other) racist content, taking particular care that anti-Zionist discourse never overlaps with antisemitism and using mute or unfollow when it does. Over time, you develop an extra sense about whether something is true or made up, based on probability, experience, inside knowledge. If something is reported that I want to believe is true, that’s when I try to exercise most caution.
How would you respond to critics who argue that some of your preferred sources may have their own biases?
It’s true! But I’m OK with people’s personal motivations and biases (who among us does not lean to one or other side of a subject we feel passionately about?) Where I draw a line is with accounts that disseminate fiction rather than fact. You need to remain alert and sceptical and unfollow or mute anyone who turns out to be posting unreliable clickbait.
How do you think journalists and media organisations can overcome bias or censorship in covering sensitive topics like this?
Realistically, it’s hard, if not impossible. Could the BBC – supposedly a benchmark for objective reporting – turn a corner and end its institutional bias? It seems unlikely. If conscientious staff took a collective stand and told the unvarnished truth about Israel, the government would revoke the BBC Charter quicker than you could say Abdelmalik Badruddin al-Houthi.
Anyway, I’ve come to the realisation that everyone sees the world differently, filtered through their own history, culture and emotions. Some people watching 7 October saw resistance heroes worthy of any cinematic blockbuster; others saw their worst nightmare incarnate. The meaning to each individual depended on everything that happened in their lives up until that moment. The job of an “unbiased” journalist is to recognise the diversity of those perspectives and frame events in a way that tries to eliminate the prejudices that everyone harbours, including the journalist themself. But there’s the rub. How do you discount your own feelings? You can’t, but being aware of the subjectivity of everyone’s viewpoint helps to an extent.
To sum up, I believe a sincere journalist should try to set aside personal agendas and commit themselves to relevant fact and context. Newsrooms need to foster an atmosphere where the widest variety of perspectives are welcomed and aired. Unfortunately, this is rare to the point of nonexistence. But if it could be achieved, the amalgamation of opposing viewpoints could bring about the most objective framing possible. I have no doubt if my sincere views on Palestine and Israel had been welcomed in newsrooms, rather than suppressed, stigmatised and viewed as career-ending, that would have helped usher in honest editorial discourse and helped shape better coverage. Its absence is what we have today.
When the BBC was asked for comment, they sent this article, including the statement: “BBC News does not and cannot reflect any single world view. In this war, we cannot be a place where any side feels that their perspective prevails… But we recognise that doesn’t mean we get everything right. So we listen to even our harshest critics and engage with representatives from different sides of the conflict – who agree on only one thing: that BBC News has a systemic bias against them and towards their opponents. Some might argue that if both sides think you’re wrong you must be doing something right. But I don’t think this is good enough and neither do my colleagues at BBC News”.
