On the 19 May episode of the BBC podcast “The Global Story,” Middle East correspondent Hugo Bachega talked for around 20 minutes with presenters Asma Khalid and Tristan Redman about the ongoing violence in Lebanon despite the ceasefire agreement between the Israeli and Lebanese governments. What was most fascinating about this deep dive was how close Bachega came to the core issue, yet still managed to swerve away into the well-worn tread of anti-Israel bias.
The segment opened with an analysis of the state of the ceasefire. Bachega acknowledged that the Lebanese health ministry does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, which is an important point to make, but then went to discuss how people in Lebanon feel: “Yes, it’s, it’s a ceasefire, but it’s really one-sided because if you read the terms of the ceasefire, it gives Israel the right to attack in self-defense.”
The idea that the nature of a one-sided ceasefire is one that allows Israel to defend itself is a somewhat astonishing argument to make. The implication is, of course, that a true ceasefire would involve Israel passively absorbing Hezbollah attacks because Hezbollah, for their part, cannot be expected to cease firing at all.
Of course, Bachega could argue he was just reporting the view of people he encountered in Lebanon. However, choosing which voices you elevate and how you present them is not a passive process; doing so consciously is a fundamental part of journalism. This pattern repeats throughout the episode: solid factual reporting, followed by a carefully chosen anti-Israel vox pop, in order to create a biased and, frankly, illogical conclusion.
Take Bachega’s unequivocal reporting on Hezbollah’s embedment in the civilian population in southern Lebanon:
This isn’t a place where you go as a journalist and you just arrive and “I am going to interview people.” You need to let them know that you’re going to show up, because if you go to those places without a level of coordination, almost instantly, you’re going to have some Hezbollah members, operatives, people affiliated with the group asking questions about what you’re doing, where do you work …
When you go to those places, they don’t wear uniforms, they don’t wear any kind of badges, and it’s impossible for you to say, “Well, look, this is a fighter, this is a member, this is an operative,” because they are, you know, embedded in those neighborhoods and in those areas, and they also rely on what you may call reservists, let’s say. So it is your neighbor, it is the guy who owns, I don’t know, the pharmacy in your town or, you know, the vendor in your town. But you know, this is the thing, I mean you can’t really see their presence on the ground. Obviously you feel the presence, because again, let’s say if you show up in a village as a journalist, almost instantly, you’re going to have half a dozen men coming to you asking questions, but if you go to a place, you’re not going to see men wearing uniforms or identifying themselves as members of the group.
And yet, after acknowledging his pre-organized interviews with people in areas where he admitted he cannot tell who is or is not Hezbollah, he reported their words entirely uncritically, stating, for example:”We met a man and his grocery had been destroyed after an Israeli missile hit a building next door, and this building was targeted back in April, when you know, the Israeli military carried out that massive attack across the country for 10 minutes, more than a 100 targets were hit.”
A translator’s voicever then stated: “We are all civilians here, but the community supports Hezbollah because they’re defending us.”
Bachega followed up: “And I thought it was very interesting that essentially he said, ‘Look, we are supporting Hezbollah here because there’s nobody else to protect us.'”
The translator then stated:
We’re the ones putting Hezbollah flags over destroyed shops and buildings here in the village, not them. They’re the only ones keeping us on our land.
Hugo Bachega, as an experienced correspondent who was forced to coordinate this interview with Hezbollah and knows the background to the current round of fighting, failed to point out to his audience that the logic here is flawed.
Hezbollah chose to start a fresh war with Israel after a long period of ceasefire on behalf of the Islamic regime in Iran. This man, whom by Bachega’s own admission, may or may not be affiliated with Hezbollah in some way himself, is promoting an argument that makes no sense in order to invert reality and make Israel the aggressor. The simple truth, that Hezbollah’s war of choice is the reason that there is a single Israeli soldier in southern Lebanon at all, comes nowhere near the narrative.
Again, in a report about paramedics operating in southern Lebanon, the initial reporting was solid. The point was right there, but Bachega left it lying in the dust. He reported:
This is not an accusation, this is a fact that Hezbollah does embed its infrastructure, some of its military infrastructure, even in civilian parts of the country, civilian neighborhoods. This is something that I’ve heard from residents during my reporting trips in the south of the country. And again, it goes back to the point that you don’t see a Hezbollah member wearing a uniform, so you don’t really know who is a Hezbollah member and who isn’t.
Interview audio: Ali takes us to what is left of the paramedic station, destroyed by an Israeli airstrike. “So I’ll show you here. A colleague was killed, he was here, and Israel says some ambulances and some health facilities are being used by Hezbollah.”
Paramedic: “This is a false claim. This is not true. They’re trying to hide what they did by saying this. This is the only explanation.”
Bachega: “They’ve been saying this repeatedly.”
Paramedic: “They don’t have any evidence.”
Bachega (In Conclusion): “The frequent allegation is that ambulances are being used for military purposes by Hezbollah, and medical facilities are being used for military purposes as well. We haven’t seen any evidence.”
Bachega did not have any evidence to disprove the allegation either, but a simple denial by a carefully chosen interviewee, allowed by prior negotiation with Hezbollah, was enough to condemn Israel. Meanwhile, the cynical use of civilian infrastructure, and ultimately civilian death, by Hezbollah in order to create propaganda against Israel is a set of dots left unconnected.
True to the BBC’s continued inability to ascribe agency or intention to terrorists, Bachega treated Hezbollah as perpetually reactive, viewing the terror organization’s actions, and more importantly their consequences for the Lebanese people, as naturally occurring phenomena. The idea that Hezbollah may use carefully curated press trips to southern Lebanon as part of a propaganda machine first requires you to believe that the terror group is capable of that level of operational complexity. The BBC appears to not believe they have that.
BBC also does not seem to believe that Hezbollah has any responsibility for its own refusal to disarm. Agreement after agreement has demanded they do so, the Lebanese government demands it, and the Lebanese people demand it. Yet, Bachega ignored the possibility that Hezbollah should, and that it might be the terror group’s fault that they continue to refuse:
Because Hezbollah is supported by Iran, has been funded by Iran, no decision about Hezbollah’s future will be made without Iran’s consent. So, you have a lot of talk about, “Okay, we need to disarm Hezbollah,” which is something that the vast majority of the Lebanese support. But this is not going to happen by force, and this is something that the government cannot deliver. So you’re talking about Hezbollah’s disarmament without the participation of Hezbollah, and this is something that is impossible to be achieved.
What Bachega described is an occupying Iranian force in Lebanon refusing to follow the wishes of the government or the people in pursuit of its goal, which Bachega himself clearly named: “One of Hezbollah’s official goals to this day is the destruction of Israel.”
Once again, he left the dots unconnected. The audience is left with an image of hopelessness: if the occupying Iranian proxy wants to stay committed to the destruction of Israel, there is nothing anyone can do about it. It creates an impression of zero accountability. Israel is always accountable, even when, by Bachega’s own admission, he had no idea if the targets were Hezbollah or not. Conversely, Hezbollah, holding an entire country hostage and launching openly genocidal war after war under the control of a foreign power, has no responsibilities, and in the BBC’s formulation, couldn’t possibly be operating at the level of complexity required to recruit the broadcaster into its propaganda production.
Bachega came so close to direct contact with the point here, but the BBC’s institutional infantilization of terrorists wins the day.