In February 2023, following criticism and implied threats to the BBC by the Indian authorities following its broadcasting of “India: the Modi Question,” BBC Director-General Tim Davie asserted: “Nothing is more important than our ability to report without fear or favour … I'd like to be clear: the BBC does not have an agenda—we are driven by purpose. And our first public purpose is to provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” (BBC News, 2023). This was a principled position and Davie, and the BBC, are to be lauded for not pulling this documentary despite the pressure from India to do so.
By contrast, on 9 September, while being questioned by the Culture, Media, and Sports Committee, Tim Davie asserted that not pulling the rapper Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury Festival set in June was “a very significant mistake” after Vylan’s chants of “Death, death to the IDF” which he labelled as “deeply disturbing.” This followed a hue and cry by supporters of Israel and the media writ large on the grounds that it was antisemitic. Davie added that he had done the “right thing” at the time, by pulling Bob Vylan’s set off the iPlayer (BBC News, 2025). This is yet another example of how the IHRA definition of antisemitism and illustrative examples that I recently wrote about (Hasan, 2025) are being used to shield criticism of Israel. Hence, it is an illegitimate attempt at equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism with the aim of curtailing freedom of expression concerning Israel.
It is a pity that Bob Vylan did not sue the BBC for violating his free speech rights because the chant is protected under UK law and various international conventions that the UK is a signatory to. In his defence, Vylan could have argued that there is massive evidence to show that the IDF has committed genocide in Gaza (as provided by various genocide experts as well as the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry in 2025) and myriad crimes in other Palestinian territories and the wider Middle East. He could have further argued that the chant is clearly symbolic and a cry for the IDF to stop its genocidal assault on Gaza. Under the Nuremberg Charter, Article 6 (“Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan”) (emphasis added), the generals and soldiers of the IDF cannot use the defence that they are merely following the Israeli government’s orders. Moreover, the IDF is an organ of the Israeli state.
A further crucial point is that Article 1 of the Genocide Convention asserts that “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish” (emphasis added). Hence, “Death to the IDF” can also be construed as wishing to punish the perpetrators of genocide.
Regarding demands that Israel be banned from partaking in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest, which the BBC televises annually, on 15 September, Tim Davie opined that “Eurovision has never been about politics, it should be a celebration of music and culture that brings people together” (BBC News, 2025). This is false as Russia has been excluded from the contest since 2022 following the invasion of Ukraine—this was blatantly political. What he is hinting at is that Israel’s genocide and myriad crimes can be ignored (unlike Bob Vylan’s chant, Davie has not publicly stated that he finds these “deeply disturbing”), in other words, keep Israel in the contest as usual and enjoy the celebration. This is unbecoming of a BBC Director General, and one questions his fitness for this important post.
In truth, the BBC has long been biased in favour of Israel. An earlier Middle East correspondent was Michael Elkins, a Jewish Zionist—this distinct violation of its supposed impartiality never troubled senior BBC management despite the BBC being a public service broadcaster funded by the TV license. The organisation has improved but it’s hard to imagine that it would ever have considered employing an Arab Islamist as its Middle Eastern correspondent.
The Centre for Media Monitoring’s report in June 2025
In June 2025, the Centre for Media Monitoring published a report that concluded that the BBC is systematically biased against Palestinians in its Gaza war coverage. It analysed more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content which showed Israeli deaths given 33 times more coverage, per fatality, and significantly more emotive language. Its key findings are:
Palestinian deaths treated as less newsworthy: Despite Gaza suffering 34x more casualties than Israel, BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs 201 Israelis).
Systematic language bias favouring Israelis: BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied “massacre” 18x more to Israeli casualties, and used “murder” 220 times for Israelis vs once for Palestinians.
Suppression of genocide allegations: BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference.
Muffling Palestinian voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217).
Open letter to Tim Davie by more than 100 BBC journalists
The incessant pro-Israel bias led more than 100 BBC journalists (and over 300 other journalists) to anonymously write a devastating open letter to Tim Davie on the 2nd of July complaining of “censorship at the BBC on the reporting of Israel/Palestine. We believe the refusal to broadcast the documentary ‘Gaza: Medics Under Fire’ is just one in a long line of agenda driven decisions. It demonstrates, once again, that the BBC is not reporting ‘without fear or favour’ when it comes to Israel.” Rather, the BBC is “an organisation that is crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government.”
They stress that “As an organisation we have not offered any significant analysis of the UK government's involvement in the war on Palestinians. We have failed to report on weapons sales or their legal implications … This hasn’t happened by accident, rather by design. Much of the BBC’s coverage in this area is defined by anti-Palestinian racism.” The letter points to the role of Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC Board and BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee “with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle, an outlet that has repeatedly published anti-Palestinian and often racist content,” and questions why he “has a say in the BBC's editorial decisions in any capacity.” They could have added how on earth someone with such bias regarding this tinderbox region could even have been considered, let alone appointed, to these roles. The answer to which is straightforward: the BBC’s pro-Israel bias is so ingrained that it does not even recognise it, hence considers it unproblematic, a kind of natural order of things.
The “opinion corridor” on Israel
The BBC is not only crippled by the fear of the Israeli government but also by the Israel Lobby which will doubtless have been relentlessly seeking to minimise any negative portrayal of the country. One can make the case that Robbie Gibb is a lobbyist at the heart of the BBC and acting as a kind of gatekeeper on news concerning Israel.
But the pro-Israel bias is not confined to the BBC—it is the norm for other broadcasters not just in the UK, but throughout the western world. To help understand this, it is worth utilising the insights provided by the concept of “opinion corridor” that has come to prominence in Sweden in the past decade. The concept is simple but insightful as it sheds light on what are considered legitimate opinions for debate among policy makers and the mainstream media and what are not. Hence, ideas and policies that fall within the opinion corridor are deemed acceptable while those outside the corridor are considered unacceptable and so not aired. The concept has similarities with the better known “Overton window” (named after the American political scientist Joseph Overton) which focuses on politicians confining themselves to policy ideas that are widely accepted throughout society while avoiding those that are not (hence, these lie outside the window) as they would be politically costly. Both the opinion corridor and Overton window can and do change over time.
Thus, the BBC has long had a narrow opinion corridor on Israel, and this remains the case till the present day with the consequence that the corporation avoids truth-telling. As the letter states: “We are not asking the BBC to take a side. We are asking to be allowed to do our jobs in delivering facts transparently and with due context.” A narrow opinion corridor means that robust criticisms and critiques of Israel have long been a taboo, that is, lie outside the corridor; a taboo largely brought about by the pressure of Israeli authorities, the Lobby, and the fear of being labelled antisemitic.
This helps explain why the BBC, unlike its investigations of apartheid South Africa, has never, for example, seriously investigated the apartheid that exists in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, the mass arrests of Palestinians without being charged, nor the role of the Isreal Lobby in the west—indeed this powerful phenomenon is never mentioned as if, despite the enormous evidence, it does not exist. It is blindingly obvious that despite committing some of the most heinous crimes since World War 2 including genocide and crimes against humanity, both the Democrats and Republicans in the US agree on resolute support for Israel (but not much else) showering it with billions of dollars of American taxpayers’ money in military aid and providing unflinching diplomatic cover. The BBC, with its army of reporters in the US, never interrogates why this is the case thereby giving the impression that it is some kind of natural phenomenon that just exists.
One hopes that the signatories to the open letter to Tim Davie keep pressing for the BBC to start telling the truth about Israel, “delivering facts transparently and with due context.” And one wishes that the BBC comes to its senses, listens, and acts accordingly—pushing wide open the opinion corridor. If this necessitates a new management, then so be it. Otherwise, it should remove the statue of George Orwell outside its headquarters in London with his poignant quote: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear,” because the corporation is not worthy of Orwell’s ideals.
References
An Open Letter to BBC Management, Written by BBC Journalists and Signed by Media Industry Professionals (2025) July 2, An Open Letter to BBC Management - Google Docs
BBC News (2023) February 23, BBC India: Director general tells staff to report without fear - BBC News
BBC News (2025) 15 September, Eurovision has never been about politics, says BBC boss Tim Davie - BBC News
BBC News (2025) 9 September, BBC chief Tim Davie says no-one is irreplaceable after scandals - BBC News
Centre for Media Monitoring (2025) June 16, BBC On Gaza-Israel: One Story, Double Standards - Centre For Media Monitoring
Genocide Convention (1948; 1951) Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf
Hasan R (2025) 8 September, An Assault on Free Speech - by Rumy Hasan - Savage Minds
Nuremberg Charter (1945) Charter of the International Military Tribunal, http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/2/35/00003709.pdf
UN (2025) 16 September, Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission finds | OHCHR
 | A guest post by
|