The BBC Is Beyond Redemption

Listening to the ranting of the ‘pro-Palestine’ mobs, one could be excused for wondering if they’ve been transported from an alternate reality. As journalist Douglas Murray remarked in the earliest days of the Gaza war, few people are more passionately ignorant than ‘pro-Palestinians’.

How is it possible for so many people to be so passionately convinced of so many lies?

Most likely because they believe the likes of the BBC.

A leaked internal email from a BBC executive editor reveals that the corporation has issued prescriptive instructions to staff on how to cover the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The memo, titled ‘Covering the food crisis in Gaza’, amounts to a top-down editorial diktat that discards impartiality, elevates one side of a deeply contested narrative, and imposes a specific anti-Israel legal-political framing as settled fact. The existence of this email is a telling sign of how the corporation works to ensure its journalists stick to its own ideological angles.

We already know that the BBC is utterly unreliable in its Gaza reporting. Wait, let me correct that: the BBC is utterly reliable to lie and breach its own editorial guidelines – thousands of times to date.

We now also know that the BBC is not just lying, it doesn’t want to tell the truth.

The email, which was sent to BBC staff on Friday, begins by declaring that ‘the argument over how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant’ and instructs staff that ‘we should say’ the current distribution system ‘doesn’t work’.

This is not reporting: this is systematic lying, funded by the unwilling British taxpayer.

The quantity of aid entering Gaza is not irrelevant. If Hamas is hijacking, obstructing, or reselling aid, as Israeli and independent reports suggest, and as documented footage and testimony have supported, then the location, handling, and efficacy of aid delivery become vital indicators of where the problem lies. Blaming Israel alone for the humanitarian breakdown while exonerating or ignoring Hamas is not responsible or fair journalism, especially as Israel argues it is going to extreme lengths to try to mitigate the jihadi terrorists’ efforts to persecute and deprive Gazan citizens.

The BBC is, like most of the legacy media, peddling fake news.

The BBC – which declined to comment on the email – appears content to accept casualty figures and starvation claims from Hamas-linked bodies or sympathetic NGOs as definitive, while dismissing or omitting Israeli data and counterclaims. The email directs staff to reference ‘mounting evidence’ of starvation and deaths around aid centres, yet makes no mention of Hamas operatives looting convoys, obstructing access, or even firing on civilians attempting to collect food – allegations which have been made publicly by Israel and backed at times by video and eyewitness testimony.

Even the photographic evidence used by some UK newspapers has been limited and uncertain: photos clearly taken in the same photo shoot, by one photographer linked to a far from impartial Turkish photo agency, show an emaciated child, but tragic as that is, one child does not indicate a famine. Indeed, it has been speculated by some that the child in question demonstrates visual signs of other pre-existing health conditions which would potentially cause wasting and malnutrition, a possibility backed up by the presence of other healthy and well-fed children appearing alongside him in the same photo set, apparently living in the same family home.

Indeed, even the New York Times has since admitted that it published the photo under false context. It is likely that, like many ‘Palestinians’, the unfortunate child is the result of systematic in-breeding. Thirty per cent of marriages in Gaza are between ‘first-degree relatives’, which means cousins, parents and siblings – anyone with whom they share more than 50 per cent of their DNA. Such in-breeding inevitably has terrible consequences for the offspring.

In asserting the infallibility of its chosen narrative, the BBC omits basic journalistic standards: to interrogate all sides, to distinguish between fact and allegation, and to treat political and legal claims with appropriate scrutiny. Instead, it has opted to police language internally, enforce ideological conformity, and condemn without due diligence.

When the corporation insists that only one party bears responsibility, and instructs its reporters accordingly, it is no longer informing the public.

In which case, the corporation should be immediately stripped of all taxpayer funding. It is no longer – if it ever has been for decades – fit for purpose. If its systematic cover-up of the decades-long predation by one of its own stars, Jimmy Savile, or the industrial-scale rape of white British children by almost entirely Pakistani Muslim gangs wasn’t enough to cover it infamy forever, its deliberate lying over Gaza should be the last straw.