In recent months, BBC coverage of Gaza has itself become a major news story. The broadcaster attracted condemnation following the airing of a documentary narrated by the son of a Hamas agriculture minister, and the livestreaming of a Glastonbury performance in which rapper Bob Vylan led chants of “death to the IDF.” Across mainstream and social media, the BBC was accused of promoting extremism. In an emergency debate in Parliament, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy called for sackings – surely an unacceptable interference in the independence of public broadcasting. The BBC issued public apologies, launched an internal review and pulled the original documentary – as well as, months later, another unrelated documentary on Israel’s systematic attacks on Gaza’s healthcare system (subsequently shown on Channel 4). This all fed the perception that the organisation’s coverage of the conflict is hopelessly biased in favour of the Palestinians.
There are understandable sensitivities around how the conflict is covered, so some caution is justified. Nonetheless, it worries me that swathes of British parliamentarians and journalists treat alleged editorial missteps as more worthy of condemnation than Israel’s mass killing and dispossession of the Palestinian people. In any case, the accusation of pro-Palestinian bias simply does not stand up. A significant report published in June by the Centre for Media Monitoring, with the assistance of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, Caabu, received little mainstream media or political attention. But the year-long analysis of 40,000 BBC news items, covering the period October 2023–2024, reveals a systematic skew in the opposite direction. It provides damning evidence that in its language, framing, its coverage – and what it chooses not to cover – the BBC overwhelmingly favours pro-Israel viewpoints and repeatedly minimises Palestinian suffering.
The most immediate example is the treatment of casualties. Attacks on Palestinians were typically reported in the passive voice, with Israeli responsibility obscured or omitted altogether. Descriptions of Israeli deaths were markedly more emotive, with words like “atrocity,” “slaughter,” and “barbaric” used four times as often as for Palestinian victims. BBC correspondents used terms like “butchered” exclusively for Israelis. “Murdered” appeared 220 times in describing Israeli deaths and just once for Palestinians. 34 times as many Gazans as Israelis have been killed since the start of the war, yet BBC headlines mentioned Palestinian deaths only twice as frequently as Israeli ones.
The analysis also revealed a persistent under-representation of Palestinian voices. On TV and radio, Israelis were interviewed more than twice as often as Palestinians. The Israeli framing of action as “self-defence” was echoed eleven times more frequently than any equivalent from the Palestinian side. (For the avoidance of doubt, no, the murder of festival-goers cannot be excused as ‘anti-colonialism’ or ‘self-defence’ any more than the deliberate starvation of civilians can be.) While 38 interviewees were pressed to condemn Hamas’ 7th October attacks, there was no equivalent questioning of Israel’s actions.
A similar asymmetry can be seen in the BBC’s selective omission of relevant historical and legal context. Although the 7th October attacks were referenced in over 40% of online coverage, just 0.5% of articles mentioned Israel’s occupation and violence against Palestinians prior to that date. Terms like “war crimes” appeared in just 3% of articles. Interviewees referencing “genocide” were shut down in over 100 documented cases – despite the ICJ’s ruling that South Africa’s case against Israel is reasonable. There is, rightly, no such reluctance to use these terms when describing Russian actions in Ukraine, so it is not that the words themselves are taboo.
The problem extends far beyond the BBC, with journalists describing a systematic culture of pro-Israel censorship and editorial pressure across UK newsrooms – but as the national public service broadcaster, the BBC’s failings carry particular weight. Parliament isn’t much better, with references to 7th October tangentially tacked onto even the briefest interventions. And contrast the plight of Israeli hostages (which rightly remains a priority) with the deafening silence around the thousands of Palestinians – many of them children – that Israel has seized from Gaza and the West Bank and unlawfully imprisoned without trial or due process. Ministers tie themselves in knots to avoid acknowledging Israel’s violations of international law, avoiding clear, legally-defined terms like “war crimes”, “genocide” and “apartheid”, opting instead for vague allusions to “risks of violations” or “concerns”.
In a systematically distorted political and media landscape, the Liberal Democrats have a vital role to play in using language to drive action. This is no small task, especially as we receive limited airtime compared to the two larger parties (and Nigel Farage, of course). But that’s precisely why our voice matters. We must ensure Palestinian perspectives receive appropriate coverage and be willing to use clear language increasingly considered by NGOs, historians and lawyers to be appropriate and justified. We should do as Israel’s human rights NGOs and one of the country’s most respected papers, Ha’aretz, has now done: be willing to say that Israel is committing genocide, and demand that the government and our media take their responsibilities seriously.
* Jonathan Brown is a member of the Chichester Liberal Democrats, is Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine and Chairs the Liberal Democrats for Free Syria.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
When the GIs came to Swansea
What's he got?
What remains of the locations where Hue and Cry was filmed
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Peter Martin
Carl Pierce
Roland
Chris Cory
Robert Knight
24 Comments
Excellent, Jonathan. Everything in your article absolutely needs to be said. To be fair to other broadcasters, we should also applaud Channel Four News for keeping up pressure on Israeli spokespeople, in a way no one else dares to do.
Well said both
Well said Jonathan and absolutely right about the deafening silence around Palestinian detainees, consistently ignored and dehumanised. 59 Palestinians have died/been killed in Israeli custody since October 7th 2023, yet their stories are rarely told, and even more rarely described with the humanising language they and their families deserve. While Dr Adnan al-Bursh’s murder in Israeli custody reached international audiences, the plight of Palestinian detainees continues, with Dr Hussam Idris Abu Safiya, since his abduction outside the besieged Kamal Adwan Hospital, remaining detained without charge. His lawyer reported in July that he had lost over 40kg while imprisoned, sustained multiple injuries from a beating on 24 June, and is being kept in solitary confinement and denied medical treatment for a heart condition.
Thanks all.
Yes Anne-Marie, it’s just awful what’s happening. To those being held by Hamas and by Israel, but that’s just the point, isn’t it?
While there is much justifiable attention paid to the plight of those hostages still held by Hamas, there is no equivalent concern – nothing like it – being expressed by world leaders for those taken and held by Israel.
And again, while there are constant – and perfectly reasonable – demands made of Hamas to release its hostages, there is no equivalent pressure being placed on Israel to do the same.
The double-standards are plain for all to see.
I was always under the impression that the BBC should cover the actual facts and not decide which facts it fancies and which facts it needs to hide from the public. It’s a shame that the bbc doesn’t think people in Israel have the right to see the strength of feeling around their army. If I was a journalist and people chanted death to Palestinians I would cover it. It would be heartbreaking and would lead me to ask why people are chanting this. However, I would do the right thing and cover it.
Most world leaders who owe their office to some sort of democratic election have limited experience of national leaders who will do anything that they believe will keep them in power so that they can stay out of jail. Nevertheless they have a moral duty to struggle with the issue, preferably collaboratively.
Yes Geoff, I agree. Netanyahu is hardly the first. The EU hasn’t been able to work out how to deal with Orban, despite the threat he’s obviously long posed to democracy. (Not that he’s carried out a genocide himself, but he’s a vocal supporter of genocidal regimes.)
I think Trump falls in that category too. As someone who tried to launch a coup and is now in the process of dismantling fundamental institutions required for democratic governance, western leaders haven’t worked out how to deal with him either. But I’d put him more in the Orban camp than the Netanyahu camp.
Thank you for an outstandingly important article in its seeking real “ balance”/objectivity/fairness, which is so very often missing from main stream media reports and editorials, not least the B. B C., which, as a state news and comment broadcaster, has a duty, and is paid, to be realistic and accurate in its work.
Not least, your article helps us to get nearer to be a genuine democracy as the quality of a democracy also depends upon what its citizens are persuaded to believe.
‘EU hasn’t been able to work out how to deal with Orban, despite the threat he’s obviously long posed to democracy’…
Orban has been elected on four consecutive occasions. The EU would be better off concentrating on getting EU citizens to vote for it’s parliament every 5 years. Some of the turnouts are utterly dismal. As an organisation it lacks credibility given the apathy amongst many voters in the EU.
I can’t believe Friends Of Palestine doesn’t have an LDV rss feed like other political subgroups…
Jonathan makes very good points in hhis article. However I wonder if part of the problem is that Israel is denying accessby international journalists to occupied Gaza? This means nearly all those reporting on the conflict do so from Jerusalem.
Some BBC reporters like Jeremy Bowen do understand the region and are trying to report impartially, but others are showing a bias to Israel (either conscious or un conscious bias).
And in recent years Israel (and Netanyahu especially) hgave successfully conflated oppostion to their government with anti-semitism, and too many have bought that.On the Today programme this mornning Lisa Nandy described the Bob Vylan chant of “death to the IDF” as anti-semitic which it is not. It is like saying a chant of “death to the Foreign Legion” is anti-French.
How SHOULD the BBC strike a healthy balance between reporting on those committing ethnic cleansing and genocide and their victims?
“It is like saying a chant of “death to the Foreign Legion” is anti-French.”
Steve, I don’t think it’s quite the same. The French Foreign Legion is French, obviously, but it isn’t France… The IDF isn’t synonymous with Israel either (and it’s important to note that the chants were quite specifically NOT “death to Israel”), but it is the country’s entire military, one in which most Jewish Israeli citizens serve. So allegations made about the IDF’s conduct strike at something much, much more representative of society than if they’d been made about a specific regiment.
It’s tricky… The IDF is clearly engaging in systematic war crimes, so I don’t think anyone can say that criticisms are unwarranted, in bad faith and / or are motivated by antisemitism. But… I can also see why people acting in good faith who have served in the IDF or who have friends or family serving in it or even just who identify strongly as Israeli were chilled to the bone to witness such chants.
I agree the Israeli government and its supporters deliberately conflate criticism of its actions with antisemitism, although that doesn’t mean none of the criticism of Israel is motivated by racism, subconscious if not conscious (although obviously there is _some_ of the latter).
If nothing else, it’s an example of the enormous damage Netanyahu and the current Israeli government are doing to Israel – they are corrupting the country, dragging citizens into complicity with horrible crimes and making it hard, perhaps impossible, to identify where the line is between justified criticism and prejudice.
I don’t know to what extent Israel’s refusal to allow reporters in to Gaza promotes biased coverage. Professional journalists ought to understand that the restrictions placed on them (not to mention the widescale slaughter of Palestinian journalists) is in itself evidence of a problem… Those who allow their lack of contact with Palestinians to influence their (lack of) coverage are perhaps those who wouldn’t do a good job even if they could see first hand what’s happening… But I’m sure you’re right that it can’t help.
@Ian Leeds – I’m not sure I follow…
The Lib Dem Friends of Palestine have a newsletter that you can subscribe to here: https://ldfp.org.uk/join-us/ (you can join as a member or just scroll down and join the mailing list).
I know you can subscribe to get notifications from LDV. Are you saying it’s possible to specify that you want notifications on a particular subject / by a particular author?
Or are you saying that content from members of LDFP should be made available by an RSS run independently of LDV? I’m sorry, I’m not quite sure how this tech works, even though I know it’s been around for ages…
We should do as Israel’s human rights NGOs
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-committing-genocide-gaza-say-two-major-israeli-ngos
and one of the country’s most respected papers, Ha’aretz,
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2025-07-30/ty-article-opinion/.premium/its-not-just-war-its-genocide-and-its-being-done-in-our-name/00000198-5c7c-d843-af99-de7d5dfd0000
has now done: be willing to say that Israel is committing genocide, and demand that the government and our media take their responsibilities seriously.
@ Jonathan Brown: ‘In recent months, BBC coverage of Gaza has itself become a major news story.’
My son, the Financial Director of one of the world’s largest banks in an overseas country, has since 2023 been sending me articles from the BBC, Al-Jazeera and other news sources. He has consistently argued BBC’s news coverage has been biased. Today he sent me this link:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMvcPppKE3J/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Jonathan, today 9.36am “chilled to the bone”. Come off it Jonathan, you’re beginning to sound like the BBC yourself. Netanyahu and his supporters loved hearing that chant (they knew the BBC would get it in the neck) and as for Israelis who don’t support him, and anyone else who identifies with Israelis, no one thought the Glastonbury crowd were encouraging people to actually go to Israel or Palestine and try to kill a heavily armed IDF soldier. It was simply a chant of support for the Palestinians. If that got under a few people’s skin, maybe they should be putting pressure on Netanyahu to end the genocide.
@Andy I have no doubt that Netanyahu’s supporters were delighted at the opportunity to attack the BBC and distract from the atrocities being carried out by his government.
That’s no reason not to be open to the fact that everyone sees things from their own experiences and perspectives. I think it’s a big mistake to just assume that everyone who sees things differently is being cynical or duplicitous.
If you’re someone who’s primed – for good reasons or for bad – to see prejudice against your community, then yes, I can absolutely see why some people felt horrified to see something that reminded them of mob violence that has taken place throughout history.
That doesn’t mean that it was antisemitism motivating either the performers or the crowd, consciously or even unconsciously. But as well being the empathetic thing, I think it’s also strategically the right thing to do. We know there’s a link between fear and hatred. We know that extremism flourishes when people feel divided and suspicious of each other. If we want things to get better – if we want Israel’s leaders held to account then some element of that will have to come from within Israel and from Jewish communities around the world – especially those who feel represented by the Israeli state which claims to speak for them with or without their consent.
We don’t have to agree with the analysis of any one person or any one group’s leaders, but we should always be trying to empathise. Doing so can help lower barriers and win people over.
In the article I call for us – and our leaders – to be willing to use language that appropriately describes what Israel is doing. To use shocking language, not for the purpose of shocking, but because what Israel is doing is itself shocking. We can do that while still always trying to understand those who resist criticism of Israel. At least some of those people will be reevaluating what they believe.
It is pretty weak stuff to treat all the accusations against Israel as Gospel and then shout bias when some of them (not enough) are reported as mere accusations.
Meanwhile claims by Israel are (rightly) reported as claims if they are reported at all.
Let’s not forget who started this war, and why, who has a tight grip on all the information coming out of Gaza with broken legs and killing for anyone who defies the message. We are shown daily the picture they want to paint. War crimes by Hamas against the people of Gaza are part of the strategy and articles like this cheer them on.
Only this week, for the first time, have we seen some reporting from non-Israeli sources of Hamas stealing large quantities of aid intended for the civilian population. Maybe their iron grip on the message is at last breaking down.
We are a party of peace between Israel and Palestine, the two state solution, etc. The goal of Hamas information machine (the information warfare element of the Al Aqsa flood) is to justify their forever war against the existence of Israel. Supporters of peace do not buy it.
@Joe – To say this article ‘cheers Hamas on’ is not worthy of you.
Hamas commits war crimes. Against Israelis and against Palestinians. Its strategy relies upon war crimes being committed against Palestinians – by the organisation as well as by Israel.
I agree, “We are a party of peace between Israel and Palestine, the two state solution…” but it’s clear from their statements and actions that the current Israeli government is no more interested in a two state solution than is the leadership of Hamas.
Even leaving aside the decades-long occupation of Gaza, to say that we shouldn’t forget who started this (by which I presume you mean Hamas and its allies on 7th October 2023), war crimes are crimes, no matter who commits them.
We rightly condemn Hamas for its war crimes. UK government policy is to treat Hamas as a terrorist group that carries out atrocities against civilians. It’s well past time the UK government stopped trying to pretend that the Israeli government is also carrying out war crimes. It’s well past time the UK government started acting like it expects Israel to comply with international law.
Apologies – the above comment posted by “Liberal Democrat Fri” is posted by me, Jonathan, the author of this piece. Auto-complete must have intervened, but for the sake of transparency, I wanted to be clear that the comment in reply to Joe Otten is mine.
Whoops… When I said “It’s well past time the UK government stopped trying to pretend that the Israeli government is also carrying out war crimes….”
I did, of course, mean to write:
“It’s well past time the UK government stopped trying to pretend that the Israeli government is NOT also carrying out war crimes…”
Jonathan’s forgivable slip (leaving out the word ‘not’) highlights, to me, an important distinction. The UK government isn’t trying to actively convince anyone that Israel isn’t committing war crimes. That would be pointless; we all know they are. Instead they are refusing to commit the government to a decision either way, and effectively saying time will tell whether or not genocide is being committed. Meanwhile the killing goes on.
Part of the issue is confusion between the terms Israel, the Israeli government and Hamas and the Palestinian people. Inflammatory language and misleading use of terms and descriptions did not help. There was not a level playing field between the two sides in terms of media representatives and their use of language that was not always challenged by interviewers in the media that I was exposed to.