BBC’s Israel Coverage Is Becoming A Liability
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
このコンテンツについて
This isn’t about bias — it’s about erosion. The BBC keeps managing reality over Israel instead of stating it plainly and more people are seeing it. Right, so the BBC has taken another hit over Israel and yet again they’ve asked for it. More and more people can see the move now. Israel signs off nineteen new settlements on occupied land — illegal under international law — and the BBC decides to tell that story as if it’s a planning committee update, as if the law is a matter of opinion and occupation is optional background detail. This isn’t a one-off, and it’s not about just one report this time either. It’s the same mechanism playing out again from the BBC to neutralise what is happening: soften the language, downgrade the law, drain the act of consequence, then look confused when trust drops another notch as people call out the same events but very different language when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. That’s the damage here. Not outrage, not backlash — erosion. Because once audiences realise a broadcaster, especially the state broadcaster keeps managing reality instead of describing events as they are, they stop listening for what’s said and start watching for what’s missing. And that’s a hole the BBC is now digging deeper every time it does this. Right, so this isn’t a misunderstanding, and it isn’t a wording slip caught late on a busy desk. The BBC has once again described an act of territorial expansion by Israel as if it were a planning decision, a process update, something administrative that just happens, rather than what it is in law and effect. Israel’s cabinet has approved nineteen new settlements in the occupied West Bank, a move that materially entrenches control over land it does not legally own, and the BBC has chosen to present that as “approving new settlements” while quietly draining away the legal status that gives the act its meaning. That choice didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it didn’t land as neutral. It landed as another credibility hit because it sits in a long, visible chain of the same behaviour.