Meticulous analysis of BBC’s systemic bias on Israeli/Palestine confirms its link to the deep state

23 June 2025

Early this year the PSC-Stop the War coalition responsible for the great monthly marches for Palestine in London requested permission to march to – or past – the BBC headquarters on Upper Regent Street. The police, no doubt on the advice of the Home Secretary (pictured), absolutely refused to grant it. And to doubly ensure this did not happen, on the day of the march the police bottled up the vast crowd in Whitehall, refusing to allow it to march at all, and then as the speeches ended sought to arrest the march organisers. If you have ever wondered why the organisers made their request and why the police, acting on behalf of the government, were so determined to oppose it, the meticulous analysis of the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli assault on Gaza since October 2023 just published by the Centre for Media Monitoring offers some clues. The Executive Summary along with some readers’ comments is printed below.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Published by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), this report examines the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza primarily between 7 October 2023 and 6 October 2024. For this 12-month window of study, a total of 3,873 articles and 32,092 broadcast segments (TV/radio) were analysed.

It is important to note that CfMM respects and values the BBC as the UK’s public service broadcaster as well as the work of many of its journalists in the UK and those operating in the region to cover Israel’s current war on Gaza. Unfortunately, due to Israeli censorship, no Western journalists have been allowed to enter Gaza freely. Meanwhile, Palestinian journalists living in and reporting from Gaza have filled the gaps and, in many cases, have been killed while bearing witness. This report has been produced, not to undermine the BBC or its journalists, but to share data-led insights that reveal serious shortcomings and failures.Whilst there have been improvements in certain areas of coverage, we stand by the findings of this report which should be considered when any internal or independent review of the BBC’s coverage of Israel Palestine is conducted.

For comparative purposes, this study also analysed 7,748 articles on the Ukraine conflict. Through Large Language Model (LLM) classification, keyword detection and case studies – some of which extend beyond our analysis period into 2025 – we identify systematic patterns that raise serious concerns about the BBC’s adherence to its Charter-designated obligations of impartiality. During our analysis period, 42,010 Palestinians and 1,246 Israelis were killed – a 34:1 ratio that provides crucial context for assessing the balance of the BBC’s coverage. As deaths in Gaza now exceed 55,000 people, many of these women and children, we examine whether the BBC has fulfilled its duty to inform the British public about what many describe as a ‘livestreamed genocide’. For over a year, the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court have been investigating Israel and Israeli leaders for genocide and/or other crimes against humanity.

Building on CfMM’s 2024 report, ‘Media Bias: Gaza 2023-24’, we investigate the BBC’s treatment of crucial factors including: language used, the disproportionate number of casualties, Palestinian and Israeli voices, Israeli hostages versus the 10,000+ Palestinians detained without charge (many of them children), the systematic destruction of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, and
targeted attacks on medical personnel and journalists. Across the BBC’s coverage, a clear dynamic has emerged: the marginalisation of Palestinian suffering and the amplification of Israeli narratives. The data shows that the BBC has consistently failed to report Israel’s war on Gaza with required impartiality.
|
KEY FINDINGS

1. FOR THE BBC, PALESTINIANS DEATHS ARE LESS NEWSWORTHY
   The evidence clearly suggests that within the BBC’s editorial framework, Palestinian lives simply do not matter equally.
   In an asymmetric conflict, responsible journalism demands not only neutrality of tone, but rigour in representing the scale and severity of harm – especially to those whose voices are already marginalised in the broader media narrative. The following findings beg the question: does the BBC find Palestinian suffering less newsworthy than Israeli suffering, or is Israeli violence less shocking and newsworthy than Palestinian violence?
   Israeli names, Israeli faces: Despite Gaza enduring 34x more deaths than Israel since the start of the war, the BBC ran an almost equal number of articles profiling personal and humanising stories about specific Israeli or Palestinian victims (279 for Palestinians vs. 201 for Israelis).
   Outpouring of sympathy: Despite Gaza enduring mass civilian casualties for many months, sympathetic articles with emotive, humanising or personal stories of Palestinians appeared only twice as often as those for Israelis.
   Palestinian death make fewer headlines: BBC article headlines mentioned Palestinian casualties just two times more than Israeli casualties, despite 34x more Gazan deaths.
   Extreme imbalance in reporting fatalities: The BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage across articles, and 19 times more across TV/radio, when measured on a per-fatality basis in proportion to the 34:1 Gazan-Israeli death toll.
   Delegitimising casualty numbers: the BBC attached the ‘Hamas-run’ qualifier (i.e., ‘Hamas run health ministry’) to Palestinian casualty figures in 1,155 articles – almost as many times as the Palestinian death toll was mentioned across BBC articles – thereby undermining Gazan casualties and Palestinian suffering, more generally.
   
2. THE BBC DEPLOYS A HIERARCHY OF LANGUAGE FOR ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS
   The BBC’s use of language appears systematic and varies according to the identity of victims and perpetrators.
   Linguistic patterns, whether deliberate editorial policy or unconscious bias, fundamentally betray the BBC’s commitment to impartiality by constructing a moral universe where Israeli suffering is inherently more tragic, more deliberate, and more worthy of human empathy than Palestinian deaths.
   ‘Massacre’ applied to attacks against Israelis: The word ‘massacre(d)’ was applied almost 18 times more frequently to Israeli victims than Palestinian victims in BBC articles. Meanwhile, it appeared in article headlines five times – all exclusively for attacks on Israelis. Despite numerous mass casualty attacks against Palestinians, the term never appeared in headlines describing Palestinian deaths.
   More emotive language for Israeli victims: BBC articles used emotive terms (‘atrocities’, ‘slaughter’, ‘barbaric’, ‘deadly’, ‘brutal’) almost four times as much when describing Israeli victims. In TV/radio, 70% of all emotive terms used by BBC correspondents and presenters referred to Israeli victims of attacks. Israelis are ‘butchered’, Palestinians simply ‘die’: The words ‘butchered’, ‘butcher’, ‘butchering’ were used exclusively for Israeli victims by BBC correspondents and presenters. Similarly, ‘murder(ed)’ was referenced 220 times for actions against Israelis and just once for Palestinians.
   Masking the perpetrator: When reporting attacks on Palestinians, the BBC consistently obscured Israeli responsibility through passive language in headlines (e.g., ‘Air strike on Gaza school kills at least 15 people’ rather than identifying Israel as the perpetrator). –
3. INTERVIEWEES WITH INDEPENDENT OR PALESTINIAN PERSPECTIVES ARE NOT TREATED FAIRLY AT THE BBC
   Palestinian perspectives face significant barriers to being heard on BBC platforms. These patterns represent a serious departure from the BBC’s stated commitment to impartiality, which requires giving ‘due weight to events, opinion and the main strands of argument’ across its output.
   Disparity in platforming voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio.
   ‘Israeli self-defence’: BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217), even when interviewing neutral third parties like humanitarian organisations.
   Uneven application of the “do you condemn” test: While the BBC pressed a total of 38 interviewees to condemn Hamas’s 7 October attacks, equivalent questioning to condemn Israel’s actions took place zero times, despite Israel’s actions resulting in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths.
   |
4. HISTORY STARTS ON 7 OCTOBER 2023 AT THE BBC
   The systematic omission of key historical and contemporary context has acquired an institutional quality at the BBC. Whilst the attacks of 7 October 2023 which led to the killing of over 1,200 Israelis has rightly been condemned, the context given around the attack has been small, if not non-existent, thereby reinforcing the Israeli government’s narrative of self-defence.
   7 October as the ‘starting point’: The 7 October attacks were referenced in at least 40% of the BBC’s online coverage. Yet only 0.5% of articles referenced any historical or contemporary context, namely: Israel’s occupation and violence against Palestinians in the months, years and decades before 7 October, as documented by many organisations, such as the UN and
   Amnesty International.
   History erased from reporting: The BBC only mentioned ‘occupation’ 14 times in news articles when providing context to 7 October (0.3% of articles); ‘blockade’ 3 times (0.08%), and ‘settlements’ just once (0.03%) – while across TV/radio, ‘occupation’ appeared in only 33 clips (0.3%), ‘blockade’ in 20 (0.2%), and ‘settlements’ in 8 (0.07%).
   Strategic contextual omission: Despite being essential context for understanding the 7 October attack, Palestinian fatalities of Israeli violence (pre-7 October) appeared in just 1 article (0.03%), references to international law violations in just 1 article (0.03%), and Palestinian expulsions-from-homes in just 1 article (0.03%).
   Apartheid reality obscured: Despite numerous human rights organisations identifying Israel’s policies as apartheid, only 2% of articles mentioned the term, thereby concealing a crucial framework through which to understand the structural nature of Israel’s current war on Gaza and Palestine more generally.
   Military doctrine blackout: In its coverage of Gaza, the BBC completely omitted Israeli military doctrines like the Dahiya Doctrine (deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure) and the Hannibal Directive (risking hostages’ lives to prevent captures), despite these being essential for understanding Israeli operations.
   
5. THE BBC SUPPRESSES OR MINIMISES ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE
   The BBC’s approach to allegations of genocide against the Palestinians represents perhaps the most profound and egregious failure in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict. Our research has found a systematic pattern of the BBC suppressing claims about a ‘plausible genocide’ and failing to properly investigate and report on Israeli actions contributing to these claims.
   Ignoring genocidal intent: BBC articles made zero mention of Israel’s genocidal rhetoric, such as Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference or President Herzog’s claim of Palestinian collective responsibility. The BBC barely acknowledged (in 12 out of 3873 articles) former defence minister Gallant’s statement in which he referred to Palestinians as ‘human animals’ and ordered ‘a complete siege on the Gaza strip’, stating that: ‘We will eliminate everything’.
   Suppressing genocide claims: BBC presenters actively shut down interviewees’ genocide claims – in over 100 documented instances – despite human rights organisations such as Amnesty International concluding that a genocide is taking place, and legal bodies, such as the ICJ, which not only refused to dismiss South Africa’s case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza but also issued provisional measures to protect Palestinians against the irreparable damage to their rights to be protected from genocide.
   Downplaying war crimes: The term ‘war crimes’ in relation to Israeli violence against Palestinians was mentioned in only 121 BBC articles (3%). –
6. ILLEGALLY HELD ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS ARE REPRESENTED DIFFERENTLY BY THE BBC
   The BBC has established a clear double standard in how it portrays forcibly detained individuals. No Palestinian detainees are referenced as ‘hostages’, other than one reference by a presenter in 2025, which was swiftly retracted.
   Contrasting terminology: Israelis taken by Hamas and other groups into Gaza were consistently described as ‘hostages’ whilst Palestinians detained by Israel, even those held without charge, were labelled as ‘prisoners’, thereby implying criminality and reinforcing Israeli government narratives.
   Extreme disparity in coverage of detainees: Despite a significantly larger number of Palestinians being detained over a longer period of time (10,000 v 251, a ratio of 40:1), including many more children, Israeli hostages were mentioned 5.3 times more than Palestinian detainees (1238 vs 231).
   Concealing administrative detention: Only six BBC articles referenced ‘administrative detention’, Israel’s practice of holding Palestinians without charge, despite it affecting thousands, including hundreds of children.
   Contrasting human experiences: During the January 2025 hostage exchanges, 70% of articles focused on Israeli hostages despite 90 Palestinians being released compared to just three Israelis. BBC TV/radio ran emotionally engaging and humanising stories about Israeli hostages returning home, while Palestinian detainees remained nameless, with coverage focusing on procedural aspects rather than personal narratives.
   |
7. THE BBC UNDERREPORTS ATTACKS ON PRESS FREEDOM IN GAZA
   The BBC’s coverage of Palestinian journalist casualties represents a quantifiable failure to report on attacks on journalists in Palestine compared to other conflict zones.
   Attacks on Palestinian journalists: The BBC reported the deaths of just 6% of the 176 journalists killed by the IDF.
   Comparing attacks on journalists in Ukraine: Meanwhile, 62% of the journalists killed in the Russia-Ukraine war (and listed by the Committee to Protect Journalists) were reported by the BBC.
   Failure to hold Israel accountable for press freedom violations: The BBC routinely obscures Israeli responsibility for journalist deaths through passive language and fails to fact check demonstrably false Israeli claims about press freedom, applying weaker scrutiny than it would to similar violations by other nations. – –
8. THE BBC IS MORE WILLING TO COVER THE FULL FACTS IN UKRAINE THAN GAZA
   When comparing BBC coverage of Gaza with its reporting on Ukraine, we found significant disparities in attribution, language, and moral framing.
   Unequal conflict reporting standards: In articles covering attacks and humanitarian conditions, the BBC privileged Israeli narratives (16.4% of coverage) more than twice as much as Russian perspectives (7.2%), while Ukrainian narratives received higher coverage (40.7%) than Palestinian (32.9%) narratives.
   Selective justification of military actions: In articles covering military attacks or humanitarian suffering in Gaza, the BBC provided rationale for Israeli military actions in 75% of articles, compared to 17% for Russian actions in Ukraine. The BBC challenged these Israeli justifications in only 41% of cases, compared to 55% for Russians.
   Asymmetric reporting of ‘war crimes’: The BBC discussed ‘war crimes’ in Ukraine almost 2.6x as much as in Gaza, mentioning Russia as the perpetrator 2.7x as often as it mentioned Israel as the perpetrator.
   Sympathy for Ukrainians: When looking at articles reporting on military attacks or humanitarian impact in Gaza, the BBC published almost twice as many articles showing sympathy (emotive language, humanising details, or personal stories about victims) for Ukrainian victims compared to Palestinians.
   Coverage disparity: There are twice the number of articles relating to Ukraine vs Gaza approximately 10 articles per day for Gaza and 20 per day for Ukraine.
   
   KEY STATISTICS –
   279 v 201 The BBC ran an almost equal number of articles with humanising stories about specific Israeli or Palestinian victims, despite 34x more Palestinian deaths in Gaza. –
   18x The word ‘massacre(d)’ was applied almost 18 times more frequently to Israeli victims than Palestinian victims in BBC
   articles. –
   4x BBC articles used emotive terms (‘atrocities’, ‘slaughter’, ‘barbaric’, ‘deadly’, ‘brutal’ and others) almost four times as
   much when describing Israeli victims. –
   70% In TV/radio, 70% of all emotive terms used by BBC journalists referred to Israeli victims of attacks. –
   33x The BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage across articles, when measured on a per-fatality basis. – –
   1,085 v 2,350 The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio. –
   11x BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217). –
   0x While the BBC pressed a total of 38 interviewees to condemn Hamas’s 7 October attacks, equivalent questioning to condemn Israel’s actions took place zero times.
   |
   40% vs 0.5% While the 7 October attacks were referenced in at least 40% of the BBC’s online coverage, just 0.5% of articles referenced Israel’s occupation and violence against Palestinians in the months, years and decades before 7 October. –
   2% Despite human rights organisations identifying Israel’s policies as apartheid, only 2% of articles mentioned the term. –
   0 BBC articles made zero mention of Netanyahu’s genocidal Amalek reference or President Herzog’s claim of Palestinian collective responsibility. –
   100 + 3% BBC presenters actively shut down guests’ genocide claims in over 100 documented instances.The term ‘war crimes’ in relation to Israeli violence against Palestinians was mentioned in only 121 BBC articles (3%). –
   5.3x Despite a significantly larger number of Palestinians being detained over a longer period of time, including many more children, Israeli hostages were mentioned 5.3 times more than Palestinian detainees (1238 vs 231). –
   70% 6% 2x During the January 2025 hostage exchanges, 70% of articles focused on Israeli hostages despite 90 Palestinians being released compared to just three Israelis. The BBC reported the deaths of just 6% of the 176 journalists killed by the IDF. The BBC published almost twice as many articles showing sympathy (emotive, humanising or personal stories) for Ukrainian victims compared to Palestinians.
   
   REVIEWER COMMENTS –
   Husam Zomlot, Ambassador, Palestinian Mission to the United Kingdom
   The role of media stands on the frontline of informing and influencing public and policy perspectives. Yet for too long, the mainstream media has systematically obscured and distorted the Palestinian experience from its audiences, projecting a false parity between the occupier and occupied. The full reality of the injustices and oppression faced by the Palestinians never properly conveyed, under the guise of balance and neutrality. For the first time in history the world watched a genocide unfold in real time, and generations to come will rightly question, why it took so long to stop this. In spite of the genocidal rhetoric of the Israeli leadership clearly stating its plans for the erasure of the Palestinian people, the media persisted in projecting an inaccurate equivalence, distorting the realities on the ground. This detailed report by the Centre for Media Monitoring presents compelling evidence that highlights anti Palestinian bias in the media narrative, and puts forward recommendations that are rooted in the principles of fairness, accuracy and integrity. –
   Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories
   The global movement rising for justice in Palestine-including Palestinians and the Israelis who stand firmly against the destruction of Gaza and Apartheid-is not challenging Israel’s security, but its impunity. Yet most mainstream media have failed in their most basic duty: instead of informing the public and holding power to account, they have largely manufactured consent, enabling a genocide in real time. I look forward to reading this report on the subject. –
   Rt Hon Baroness Sayeeda Warsi PC
   This powerful research by the Centre for Media Monitoring exposes how, during Israel’s war on Gaza, the BBC consistently prioritised Israeli pain and perspective – at the expense of Palestinian lives and voices. The BBC should have done better in questioning Israeli talking points and in holding our own government to account for its lack of implementation of UK policy on Israel and Palestine. As a public service broadcaster, it has not read the mood of the public either. This is no cherry-picked critique. It is a comprehensive, evidence-based indictment that cannot be ignored. If the BBC is to maintain any claim to impartiality, it must now engage seriously with these findings and the recommendations that follow. –
   Alastair Campbell Writer, Strategist, Presenter ‘Rest Is Politics’
   All too often, on domestic issues, the BBC’s response to criticism from the right is to accept rather than challenge it and adapt coverage accordingly. This is perhaps best understood in the context of the incessant drumbeat of anti-BBC sentiment in a commercially and politically motivated right-wing press. But we see the same pattern in some of its approach to international issues too, notably Israel and Palestine. The Israelis and the right-wing media do a very good job of persuading people that the BBC is biased in favour of Palestinians. This report suggests otherwise. The criticisms it contains should not detract from our admiration and respect for some of the excellent reporters who do their best to bring the story to BBC viewers and listeners, despite not being allowed into Gaza. But at the leadership level, there seems to be a bias not against Israel but in favour of its talking points and the defence of its actions. And it remains a scandal that a BBC commissioned film on the Israeli destruction of Gaza health facilities has yet to be aired. –
   Karishma Patel Former BBC Journalist
   This report is crucial, providing data driven insights into the BBC’s reporting on Gaza which corroborate editorial failures I witnessed myself as a BBC journalist covering Gaza during this time period. Key findings – such as Palestinian deaths being deemed less newsworthy, or the disparity in language used to speak about Israeli and Palestinian deaths – were identified and deeply felt by various BBC journalists during this period. I could see every editorial failure in this report playing out as it happened, and now the data is utterly clear in supporting what I witnessed. The BBC has failed to uphold its own editorial standards in covering Gaza, and it must urgently implement this report’s recommendations. –
   Owen Jones, Columnist & Commentator
   This devastatingly comprehensive research proves that the critique of the BBC’s reporting of Israel’s genocide is based on facts, not suppositions. This was never about trying to get the BBC to bow to the ideological demands of activists – it was about the Corporation abiding by its own commitment to due impartiality. The dehumanisation of Palestinians, the deference to Israel’s deceitful narratives, the airbrushing of Western-facilitated war crimes: none of these are unique to the BBC, and is part and parcel of the worst scandal of Western journalism of our age. But this is a public service broadcaster, and its global reach has helped consolidate a narrative which erases the reality of the genocide. This crucial study will add to growing pressure on the BBC to do what many of its own staff are demanding of it – which is to do accurate journalism.
   The truth is that Israel’s Western-facilitated genocide would never have been possible if media outlets like the BBC had done their job – and underlines how bad journalism costs lives. –
   Peter Oborne, Journalist & Author
   This thorough and fair-minded report documents beyond reasonable doubt that the BBC has failed professionally and morally in its reporting from Gaza. It has dehumanised Palestinians, failed to challenge Israeli lies, and generally constructed a framework where Israeli suffering is more newsworthy and tragic than Palestinian. Something clearly went terribly wrong at the BBC. This massive and damning analysis from the Centre for Media Monitoring demands
   urgent and detailed answers from the BBC’s management which has clearly failed its statutory duty to provide fair and impartial reporting. It is essential that it does so if it wishes to sustain its once mighty reputation for fairness and integrity. –
   Richard Gizbert, Presenter and Creator, ‘The Listening Post’, Al Jazeera
   This is a vitally important study. It documents, quantifies and reinforces what anyone who has been tracking the BBC’s coverage of Gaza has already concluded; that its journalism is indefensibly biased and one-sided in Israel’s favour. How, after all the images we have seen on our phones, could any network executive justify the fact that only 3% of the BBC’s articles on Gaza dare to use the term ‘war crimes’? One day, the BBC will have to answer for abandoning its principles and betraying its audiences over its coverage of Gaza. When that time comes, studies like the CfMM’s will be entered into the evidence. –
   Sacha Deshmukh, Chief Executive, Amnesty International UK.
   It has arguably never been more important that media here in the UK, and globally, are able to report objectively and impartially on human rights crises around the world, but also that reputable media organisations are clear in their responsibility to avoid bias, and never to apply double standards in their reporting of different countries or communities. Any bias in the media not only affects news reporting, but it also magnifies as it echoes into broader public debate and even the decision making of policy makers at the most senior level. High quality empirical analysis of media coverage can be critical to holding the media itself to account, so that media leaders deliver to their promises of impartiality and can maintain public confidence in our most valued media institutions.