THE BBC has told its reporters not to use the word “kidnapped” when describing the US government’s allegedly illegal abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
The directive was revealed by The National contributor Owen Jones, who said it had been passed to him by a member of BBC staff.
I will defend the BBC here. The BBC is supposed to be impartial and objective, so that viewers can draw their own conclusions. So they try to avoid terms which seem to come with a moral judgement attached. One such term is “terrorist”. They instead say “militant”, because as one of their journalists said, “calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides”.
It’s not the BBC’s job to denounce developments in the news, or tell viewers what a moral outrage some piece of news is. The BBC’s job is essentially “here is some newsworthy information that our audience might find interesting, and they can judge it however they wish”.
I guess it’s how the BBC retains public support. If the BBC became partisan and only represented the views of half the British population, the other half would call for it to be dismantled.
Except this is a complete lie and the BBC very frequently calls Hamas a terrorist organisation.
And the BBC very frequently engages in exactly the type of language which is forbidden here. For example it will call Israelis, even IDF soldier captives “kidnapped” or “hostages” but refuses to call Palestinian children who are kidnapped by Israel “kidnapped” and instead says they are arrested or detained.
This excuse of “impartiality” is a proven fraud.
I don’t think the BBC do call Hamas a terrorist organisation. They might say something like “Hamas, designated by the UK government as a terrorist organisation” which is true - the UK government does have that designation. That isn’t the same thing as the BBC calling Hamas a terrorist organisation.
Also the BBC might not always get it right but I think they do aim for impartiality, and I think they do a good job most of the time. People on the far-right think the BBC is too much on the left, and people on the far-left think the BBC is too much on the right.
Literally the same thing. Does the BBC also say “Israel, which according to the UN is committing Genocide”?
Does it say “Israel ran healthcare ministry” like it does for the Palestinian “Hamas ran” healthcare ministry? (Which it started doing almost exclusively only after Oct 7).
What does it call the October 7 resistance? That’s right a “massacare”. What does it call Israel genociding 100.000 people in a concentration camp?
The BBC did report on a UN commission saying that Israel committed genocide. Here’s the headline:
As for the “Hamas-run health ministry”, Hamas of course is not the government of all of Palestine. Some people might think the health ministry in Gaza is run by the Palestinian Authority, so the BBC is making clear that it’s Hamas who runs it.
In the article I just linked to, the BBC refers to October 7th as “the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks”, not as a “massacre”. I don’t know whether other articles use the word “massacre”. As for “resistance”, I’m not sure that killing civilians is a justified act of “resistance”. Surely it is wrong to kill any civilian, whether they are Palestinian, or Israeli, or any nationality. Of course Palestine has faced conditions they shouldn’t have faced (Israel shouldn’t be blockading Gaza, Israel should recognise Palestinian statehood with the Palestinian Authority leading it), but I don’t think the right answer to that is killing civilians.
Anyway I originally just wanted to explain why the BBC doesn’t condemn events in the news; they try to not morally judge the news they are reporting on. They might not always get it right though.
Care to provide a single example?
I remember there was a small fuss a couple of years ago because the BBC refused to call Hamas a terrorist organisation. So it would seem strange if they were calling Hamas terrorists now, after making such a big thing of it.
Read the bold text and tell me with a straight face that is neutral language.
Also the BBC calls Hamas terrorists in plenty of articles.
Then it will be very straightforward for you to find one. Not “the UK government has designated as terrorists”, but them actually calling Hamas terrorists.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I couldn’t find one example in my cursory search. It’s your claim, back it up or piss off.
Maybe you’re mistaking me for someone else? I never said I thought the BBC is neutral. Me asking for a source for your unlikely claim doesn’t mean I’m attacking everything you said. Stick to the point.
Scroll down instead of pretending that this hasn’t been debunked in this thread.
I get a notification on my app, I reply. Funnily enough I’m not actually keeping up-to-date with what you have to say elsewhere.
The trouble is, I agree with you about the BBC and neutrality.
But spouting bullshit you refuse to back up (seriously, just one link to an article where the BBC call Hamas terrorists, that’s all I’m asking) lowers the quality of the debate for everyone, and makes the rest of your argument look weak.
With emphasis on supposed to be. I think they got enough heat with that Trump documentary they rather play it safe. If there was no need to stress employees have to use the right words while doing their job like they usually do, there wouldn’t have been an email asking them to.
Sure, the pro-genocide Zionist BBC is avoiding the word “kidnapped” because it would be impartial.
Let’s see the language they were using on Oct 7th?
From October 9th, headline: “Hamas hostages: Stories of the people taken from Israel”
From October 10th: “In Kfar Aza, Israeli soldiers tell the BBC they have uncovered a massacre of civilians, including children and babies.”
As you correctly say, the BBC do use the word “kidnap” when talking about the October 7th attacks. It is trivial to find examples online.
With that in mind, and noting the quotes you have chosen to illustrate this point, and in particular their lack of even one mention of the word “kidnap”, I feel I must ask: are you on crack or something?
I went to the few days after Oct 7th, hopefully it’s not a stretch to assume that the word “massacre” isn’t less sensationalist than “kidnap”.
Neither of those headlines uses the words “kidnap” or “terrorist”. As for the word “massacre”, you could say they’re reporting in that sentence what Israel has told the BBC. So the BBC is reporting Israeli soldiers’ use of the word “massacre”.
You should get banned for defending overt Zionist pro-genocide propaganda
I don’t think the BBC is “pro-genocide”. They reported a lot on the situation in Gaza, and the many people who died there, and Israelis trying to prevent food and medicine getting into Gaza.
BBC staff seems to think otherwise
“We’re writing to express our concerns over opaque editorial decisions and censorship at the BBC on the reporting of Israel/Palestine. We believe the refusal to broadcast the documentary ‘Gaza: Medics Under Fire’ is just one in a long line of agenda driven decisions. It demonstrates, once again, that the BBC is not reporting “without fear or favour” when it comes to Israel.”
“[…]This didn’t happen by accident, rather by design. Much of the BBC’s coverage in this area is defined by anti-Palestinian racism”
“This conflict of interest highlights a double standard for BBC content makers who have themselves experienced censorship in the name of ‘impartiality’. In some instances staff have been accused of having an agenda because they have posted news articles critical of the Israeli government on their social media[…]”
Stop defending pro-genocide Zionist media. Or are you also a “moderatecentrist” regarding the genocide in Gaza?
I really don’t think the BBC is “pro-genocide”. I think it’s fair to criticise their reporting and say they’re not getting the balance right in their reporting. But that doesn’t mean they support genocide which is a very different accusation.
That film, “Gaza: Medics Under Fire”, was controversial. Maybe the BBC should have shown it. But they did allow the film to still be shown, by giving the rights of the film back to its producers, who then managed to air it on Channel 4. So it still appeared on free public TV.
I think Israel’s actions should not have been allowed, whether it’s genocide or not. I think Netanyahu should face a war crimes trial. Also Israel should recognise Palestinian statehood, along the internationally recognised borders, with the Palestinian Authority leading Palestine. Also I think Hamas were morally wrong because I don’t think it’s right to kill civilians, whether they’re Palestinian, Israeli, or any other nationality.
And yet…
Interesting. I don’t think the BBC is always going to be perfect with their reporting. They have extensively reported on suffering in Gaza though. Also I wonder how many of the emotive words, e.g. “murder”, were being quoted from Israelis, rather than being the BBC’s description of events.
Why are they then not quoting Palestinians calling it a genocide, massacre and murder on headlines? You’re being purposefully obtuse, and you’re actually avoiding the word “genocide”. Say it with me: Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians
The BBC has reported on people calling Israel’s actions towards Gaza a “genocide”. Here are some headlines: