Watch as journalist Peter Oborne calls out BBC double standards over Gaza
The 188-page document analysed the broadcaster's coverage between October 7, 2023, and October 6, 2024, and found a 'pattern of bias, double standards and silencing of Palestinian voices' by the BBC.
Despite there being 34 times more Palestinian deaths, the CfMM found this was not reflected in the number of victim profiles the BBC ran for Palestinians (279) and Israelis (201).
READ MORE: Kneecap 'plaster' London with support messages for band member in court
Findings also showed that the BBC interviewed twice as many Israelis as Palestinians when reporting on Gaza, and despite Israel being credibly accused of committing genocide in Gaza, the CfMM said BBC presenters interrupted or dismissed genocide claims more than 100 times, yet made no mention of genocidal rhetoric used by Israeli leaders.
'You never educated your audience about the genocidal remarks, and according to this report on 100 occasions, 100 occasions, you've closed down the references to genocide by your guests,' Oborne said to Burgess.
'This makes you complicit,' he said.
Peter Oborne calls out the BBC's Director of News Content for double standards and dehumanising coverage of Palestinians.
He spoke for the public. pic.twitter.com/1tiTUm7HHf — Hamza Yusuf (@Hamza_a96) June 17, 2025
Obrone argued that it is a 'grotesque omission' by the BBC to only mention the Dahiya doctrine, an Israeli military strategy involving the large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure, in passing once.
He added that people cannot understand what has been going on in Gaza in the last two years without the historical context of the Dahiya doctrine.
The report also showed that when compared with the BBC's coverage of the war in Ukraine, the BBC mentioned Russian war crimes 2.6 times more than Israeli ones and used sympathetic language for Ukrainian victims two times more than for Palestinians.
Oborne added: 'I can't believe what I'm going to say, this figure of 6%, 170 something journalists murdered by Israel.
'The BBC's only bothered to report 6% of them, whereas you duly reported 60% of Ukrainian journalists.'
During the report's launch on Tuesday, the CfMM, which is a project by the Muslim Council of Britain, called for an independent public review of the BBC's reporting on Gaza.
The CfMM said: 'This report is evidence-based, rigorous and damning. The BBC must reform.'
Commenting on the report, Husam Zomlot, Palestinian ambassador to the UK, said: 'In spite of the genocidal rhetoric of the Israeli leadership, the media persisted in projecting an inaccurate equivalence, distorting realities on the ground.'
Following the reports publication a BBC spokesperson said: 'We welcome scrutiny and reflect on all feedback. Throughout our impartial reporting on the conflict we have made clear the devastating human cost to civilians living in Gaza. We will continue to give careful thought to how we do this.
'We believe it is imperative that our journalists have access to Gaza, and we continue to call on the Israeli government to grant this.
'We agree that language is vitally important but we have some questions about what appears to be a reliance on AI to analyse it in this report, and we do not think due impartiality can be measured by counting words. We make our own, independent editorial decisions, and we reject any suggestion otherwise.
'However, we will consider the report carefully and study its findings in detail.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the BBC's future: the broadcaster's independence and funding face challenges
The BBC will soon charge US users for full news access. In Britain, it may seem a distant prospect, but if universality can be dropped abroad, how long before it's tested at home? With the BBC's charter due for renewal in 2027, the funding debate is intensifying. What becomes of the licence fee will define the broadcaster's future. There is increased scrutiny of Auntie's independence and impartiality after political pressure was applied through censure, funding freezes and contentious board appointments. What the BBC should look like in a fragmented media landscape is uncertain. A big question is whether the licence fee levied on households should be replaced by subscription, limited advertising or public funding. The last option is surely a non-starter, opening the door to more direct political control. Carrying adverts would force the BBC to compete with other broadcasters for cash, and destabilise existing providers. A subscription-style BBC, even if technical hurdles were overcome, wouldn't be a national institution. Those most in need of public-service media – navigating disinformation, political alienation or regional marginalisation – would be left out. Once you charge, the question isn't how to inform, educate and entertain the public; it's who can afford to be included. Partial subscription might keep some core services – like news – free, while others are paywalled. This would entrench a two-tier public service. The BBC is a large organisation and not without its faults. But critics with vested interests often exaggerate them. What began as commercial pressure has been inflamed by culture wars. Success – from Peaky Blinders to Blue Planet – has not shielded it from attack. No wonder the director-general, Tim Davie, warned in May of a looming 'trust crisis'. It's now easier to list the political groups at war with BBC News than those who trust it. The row over Glastonbury – and the BBC's retreat – underscores the pressure on Mr Davie. But the broadcaster's fight isn't just with critics. It's also battling for attention in an ecosystem flooded by algorithmic noise. Since the last charter renewal in 2016, streamers, podcasts and AI have disrupted the landscape, collapsing trust in 'legacy' media. When outrage spreads faster than facts, and filter bubbles shape belief, the BBC's global stature as a respected public institution matters more than ever. Every government leans on the BBC – at a price. The BBC pulled a documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, citing vague concerns about 'partiality'. Channel 4 aired it instead. Meanwhile, Robbie Gibb, a controversial Johnson-era appointee, helps shape BBC editorial priorities as a board member. A former Tory spin doctor, he became the Jewish Chronicle's owner, appointing an editor who pushed a hardline pro-Israel stance and oversaw multiple scandals. He refused to reveal who was funding the paper. His role in guiding how the BBC reviews its Middle East coverage raises concerns about impartiality. More than 400 media figures last week called for his removal. His departure is long overdue. In 1977, the Annan committee reimagined broadcasting for a changing Britain. Channel 4 was the result. The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, who has sensibly called for a modern Annan‑style review, is chary of backing Mr Davie. But broader reform is needed in a time of distrust and disruption. For the BBC, this could offer not just a funding fix but a democratic roadmap. The charter review must rebuild a trusted civic platform – a public good, not a private preserve.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
This is a party I'm looking forward to
A new party focused on poverty, inequality and 'a foreign policy based on peace rather than war' (Report, 3 July). Oh Jeremy Corbyn, sign me up now. If you build it, we will HeleyBrighton, East Sussex When I did a politics course back in the 1970s, the lecturer told us that a large majority was just as difficult, and often more so, to handle than a small one (Welfare climbdown lets genie out of the bottle, and no one knows what happens next, 2 July). How right he was. Elizabeth GoaterSalisbury Kevin Ward (Letters, 2 July) should know that Royal Mail has a long history of inspired delivery. In 1967, I received my first (and only) piece of fanmail. Addressed to Dave the Folk Singer, Westward Ho!, the letter was personally delivered by the head postmaster, who was also my CooperNafferton, East Riding of Yorkshire Re the cost of Glastonbury (Letters, 2 July), go to the Proms instead. Promming (standing) tickets are £8. Who runs it? The BBC, of FullerBedford Regarding what makes someone cool ('You know it when you see it': experts size up scientists' attempt to define cool, 5 July), if you think you are cool, you probably aren' Campbell Bristol Alison McIntosh is right – it is what it is (Letters, 3 July).Marilyn RowleyDidsbury, Manchester We have just received our first Christmas catalogue!Mary HuttyBath Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
No age limit on law, says Met Police chief as 83-year-old arrested at protest
The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, who was sat in a camp chair with placards at her feet, appeared to have been taken away by officers. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, was arrested on Saturday (Jeff Moore/PA) A woman seen lying on the ground in handcuffs was lifted by officers and put in a police van. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether it was a good use of police time after the priest was pictured being taken away from the demonstration. He said: 'The law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. 'If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced. 'Officers, you could see, did it with great care and tried to preserve that person's dignity, but they're breaking a serious law. 'Palestine Action have over the last 18 months, I have to be careful what I say, because there's cases coming to trial, but some really serious criminal offences that they're accused of. There are millions of pounds worth of damage on multiple occasions. There are assaults, there are weapons used. 'It is not about protest. This is about an organisation committing serious criminality and obviously the Home Secretary was persuaded by the papers on her desk to proscribe them, that law has come into force, and if people want to defy that law, then we have to enforce it.' Sir Mark Rowley said the law would be enforced on anyone supporting proscribed organisations (Jeff Moore/PA) Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight. The designation as a terror group means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A group had earlier said it was set to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction, but we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.' The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident at RAF Brize Norton. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
