So after the BBC continues to refuse to call Hamas terrorists, with it's preferred word 'militants', and after backlash from the UK Government that does proscribe Hamas as terrorists and a lot of back lash from other people. Such as throwing red paint 'blood' all over their entrances as a form of protest, they publish a weak non apology 'excuses'. This includes them blaming Israel on the Hospital incident.
It's pathetic. Link and full text below.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2023/how-bbc-is-covering-israel-gaza
How the BBC is covering Israel-Gaza
Deborah TurnessCEO, BBC News and Current Affairs
Published: 25 October 2023
I could not be prouder of the BBC’s journalists and our journalism.
Over the past few days we have produced truly powerful coverage from inside Gaza, from Israel and from the wider region.
Delivering our trusted journalism is vital, and never more so than now. This war is one of the most complex and polarising stories we have ever had to cover. Many people have extremely strong feelings about media coverage - especially the BBC’s. As I’ve said before, it’s because the BBC matters that what we say - and don’t say - matters so much. At times of conflict the BBC becomes a lightning conductor - and this war has once again seen us challenged by all sides.
So I want to take this opportunity to lay out transparently how we are listening to those who criticise our work, and how we are responding.
We have faced criticism and complaints that we are biased both for and against Israel, and for and against the Palestinians. We cannot afford to simply say that if both sides are criticising us, we’re getting things right. That isn’t good enough for the BBC or for our audiences. At the BBC we hold ourselves to a higher standard and rightly challenge ourselves to listen to our critics and consider what changes to make where we think that criticism is fair.
The trust of our audiences must always be our priority - and it’s important that we listen to them. We are constantly monitoring audience feedback on our coverage of this war, and it tells us audiences think the BBC remains the most impartial UK news source. Internationally we have seen hundreds of millions of people come to BBC News for trusted information in a confusing and chaotic time.
Maintaining that trust requires constant care, thoughtfulness and an open mind as we navigate the unique set of challenges reporting on this war places in our path.
And while we strive to hold true to our 100-year commitment to impartiality, we of course sometimes get it wrong. That’s when it’s important to acknowledge where we could have done better, and to learn from any mistakes. This is a fast-moving story, there are claims and counter-claims, and our journalists are reporting in difficult and dangerous conditions, often live on air. In the hundreds of hours we broadcast and millions of words we publish, there will be moments when we fall short and we have already shown that we own our errors and apologise for them. We posted a correction after we wrongly speculated about the likely cause of the Al-Ahli hospital explosion, as we also did when we misleadingly described pro-Palestinian demonstrations as ‘demonstrations…during which people voiced their backing for Hamas’.
Accepting where we have failed to reach our own high standards is important, and we know it protects trust with audiences who have told us that putting it right when we get it wrong is important to them.
In the moments after the Al-Ahli hospital explosion - contrary to many reports - the BBC did not claim that the Israelis were responsible for the attack. We, along with many other reputable media organisations, reported initial claims by Palestinian officials and eye-witnesses at the hospital that this was an Israeli air strike, with hundreds feared dead. We attributed the claim to those making it. We quickly sought a response from the IDF. As soon as the Israeli authorities countered those claims, we prominently and consistently reported their position.
However, we acknowledge there is more we can do to increase clarity and accuracy in breaking news. As a result, we are putting in place some additional safeguards around how we attribute and describe sources and information in our coverage of this war.
How we attribute claims
We increasingly communicate with audiences - at speed - through short digital breaking news alerts and headlines; social media posts; news channel and on-screen tickers and straplines; and live updates, across all our platforms.
Where there is a risk of an incomplete picture, we will work to deliver greater clarity.
This means, wherever possible, starting an alert, strapline or headline with the source of the claim, rather than the claim itself, especially on contentious claims or reports of deaths. So instead of ‘Hundreds killed, X claims’, we will start ‘X claims hundreds killed’.
How we describe sources
We will also give more information around what we know about the source of the claims being made, and any affiliations they might have.
We do not assume that information from every source is accurate, and we will increase transparency in sharing what the BBC knows and does not know, and how we are trying to verify claims or material.
Our use of language
Our use of language is also a hotly-debated topic, and one which is of great importance to our audiences. The BBC uses the word ‘terrorist’ with attribution. When we mention Hamas, we make it clear, where possible, that they are a proscribed terrorist organisation by the UK government and others. We are also using the phrases ‘terror attack’ and ‘act of terror’ with attribution.
As has been reported, we have moved away from using the word ‘militant’ as a default description of Hamas or Hezbollah fighters. But we don’t ban words, and there may be times now or in the future when it’s appropriate to use the term.
We also need to think carefully about how we talk about civilian deaths, and how the language we use may, unintentionally, give the impression we view some deaths as more important than others or treat people on either side differently. A tweet which said people ‘died’ in Gaza and ‘were killed’ in Israel has been widely used as an example of this. It’s important that we all think carefully about the language we use to avoid creating a false impression.
At times like this our audiences need us more than ever, and we are listening and responding as we cover this war. The world desperately needs accurate information and trustworthy reporting. We will continue to do what we have always done: to work without fear or favour and report what we see.