Devastating BBC Memo in Full(web.archive.org)
web.archive.org
Devastating BBC Memo in Full
https://web.archive.org/web/20251108152816/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/
9 comments
Everything here seems to fall in the category of "The BBC should bias their reporting to portray issues from a more conservative lens.", and my favorite criticism "It's biased against conservatives to quote them directly."
In another thread, the edits of Trump’s Jan 6 speech by Panorama were called “fake news”. Seems to me that the more-problematic edit was showing the Proud Boys after Trump’s speech, when in fact they left before.
But it’s not like Trump is being taken out of context. It’s not like he was acting with incomplete information.
But it’s not like Trump is being taken out of context. It’s not like he was acting with incomplete information.
Source links in submissions please. Archive links in comments.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45869749
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45869749
thanks, i found that main link to be a paywall
do you still put source links in that case -- since many will click and not be able to access it?
do you still put source links in that case -- since many will click and not be able to access it?
Yes, because then it can be found from the url and/or if submitted again it will match the other submissions and show up as a dupe etc.
I don't see a paywall on that article right now either? Most are pretty used to finding the archive/no-paywall link in the comments if there is one.
I don't see a paywall on that article right now either? Most are pretty used to finding the archive/no-paywall link in the comments if there is one.
by no means an overview of the situations, but good to give quick excerpts from one of the issues in the report:
This was not the first or last time the BBC has reported stories about starvation in Gaza without telling audiences that the person highlighted has pre-existing medical conditions that might explain their emaciated appearance
... The same programme also featured images of baby Siwar Ashour who suffered from allergies and required specialist formula. She also had a congenital oesophageal condition, which had been reported in The Guardian.
By the time of broadcast, the BBC already knew the story was out of date and that baby Siwar had received the necessary formula a week earlier, she was maintaining weight and had been discharged from hospital. None of that was revealed in the programme - meaning the BBC had broadcast another inaccurate story.
--
Former ICJ President Joan Donoghue told BBC’s HardTalk programme the media had widely misinterpreted its findings. She said it was not correct to say the ICJ had ruled there was a “plausible case of genocide” in Gaza.
But a report to the EGSC flagged “numerous instances” of the phrase being used on BBC reports, analysis and live two-ways on both television and radio. It was also cited by International Editor Jeremy Bowen and on Newsnight.
The report said there were too many instances of the BBC misrepresenting the ICJ’s ruling to be listed in full.
--
The strong implication in the coverage was that Israeli forces had buried hundreds of bodies at both sites prior to withdrawing from the area. The source for both stories was the Hamas controlled Gaza Civil Defence Agency. This was not reflected in the coverage.
The internal report to the EGSC flagged: “There was no independent corroboration of allegations of war crimes, including alleged evidence of summary executions, torture and bodies found with their hands tied together”.
One online story incorrectly implied a UN official had corroborated the reports of hands being tied.
It seems that the most likely explanation was the graves at both hospitals were dug by Palestinians and the people buried there had died or been killed prior to the arrival of Israel ground forces.
The EGSC was reminded that the BBC had itself reported extensively on Palestinians digging these graves at the time. These reports had topped its bulletins.
How could this then be forgotten in the subsequent BBC coverage that suggested something more sinister had occurred? The EGSC was offered no explanation.
The question becomes even more pressing when you learn the journalists responsible for the first set of stories were the same journalists who wrote the second set of stories suggesting the graves were evidence of Israeli war crimes
This was not the first or last time the BBC has reported stories about starvation in Gaza without telling audiences that the person highlighted has pre-existing medical conditions that might explain their emaciated appearance
... The same programme also featured images of baby Siwar Ashour who suffered from allergies and required specialist formula. She also had a congenital oesophageal condition, which had been reported in The Guardian.
By the time of broadcast, the BBC already knew the story was out of date and that baby Siwar had received the necessary formula a week earlier, she was maintaining weight and had been discharged from hospital. None of that was revealed in the programme - meaning the BBC had broadcast another inaccurate story.
--
Former ICJ President Joan Donoghue told BBC’s HardTalk programme the media had widely misinterpreted its findings. She said it was not correct to say the ICJ had ruled there was a “plausible case of genocide” in Gaza.
But a report to the EGSC flagged “numerous instances” of the phrase being used on BBC reports, analysis and live two-ways on both television and radio. It was also cited by International Editor Jeremy Bowen and on Newsnight.
The report said there were too many instances of the BBC misrepresenting the ICJ’s ruling to be listed in full.
--
The strong implication in the coverage was that Israeli forces had buried hundreds of bodies at both sites prior to withdrawing from the area. The source for both stories was the Hamas controlled Gaza Civil Defence Agency. This was not reflected in the coverage.
The internal report to the EGSC flagged: “There was no independent corroboration of allegations of war crimes, including alleged evidence of summary executions, torture and bodies found with their hands tied together”.
One online story incorrectly implied a UN official had corroborated the reports of hands being tied.
It seems that the most likely explanation was the graves at both hospitals were dug by Palestinians and the people buried there had died or been killed prior to the arrival of Israel ground forces.
The EGSC was reminded that the BBC had itself reported extensively on Palestinians digging these graves at the time. These reports had topped its bulletins.
How could this then be forgotten in the subsequent BBC coverage that suggested something more sinister had occurred? The EGSC was offered no explanation.
The question becomes even more pressing when you learn the journalists responsible for the first set of stories were the same journalists who wrote the second set of stories suggesting the graves were evidence of Israeli war crimes
'The internal report to the EGSC flagged: “There was no independent corroboration of allegations of war crimes, including alleged evidence of summary executions, torture and bodies found with their hands tied together”.'
Meanwhile, Israeli military itself is saying it's committing war crimes:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-intel-found-israeli-mili...
So ask yourself, which direction is the BBC bias truly happening?
Meanwhile, Israeli military itself is saying it's committing war crimes:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-intel-found-israeli-mili...
So ask yourself, which direction is the BBC bias truly happening?
thanks for the reply
ive lived a large part of my life in the Middle East, so my opinion of bias is formed from seeing news outlets write about situations ive lived in
> So ask yourself, which direction is the BBC bias truly happening?
i have. im not asking who is committing war crimes. im saying bias needs to be fixed -- the issues presented in the report are massive irrespective of who committed war crimes!!
and if we desire to truly and correctly ascribe war crimes, then we must start with removing bias. else we lay error ontop of error
ive lived a large part of my life in the Middle East, so my opinion of bias is formed from seeing news outlets write about situations ive lived in
> So ask yourself, which direction is the BBC bias truly happening?
i have. im not asking who is committing war crimes. im saying bias needs to be fixed -- the issues presented in the report are massive irrespective of who committed war crimes!!
and if we desire to truly and correctly ascribe war crimes, then we must start with removing bias. else we lay error ontop of error
As to the matter of structural bias in the 4th estate relating establishment political objectives and policy, the national press is a complex instrument of great power, so of course it will play bias to the hilt, and occasionally its management will become roiled by "controversy" over the positions of the levers of machinery of opinion.