The Civil Defense unit in Gaza, voiced by spokesperson Mahmoud Basal, functions under the authority of the Hamas-run Ministry of Interior and National Security. Research into BBC Arabic’s reporting reveals a systemic and uncritical reliance on this unit as an impartial source, a practice that overlooks its direct affiliation with the Hamas regime.
The Western media’s failure to assign agency to Palestinians—to the point of effectively erasing Hamas and the impact of their decision to launch the Oct. 7 massacre—is so widespread that even thoughtful commentators on the conflict inevitably succumb to this illiberal framework.
Tucker Carlson insinuated that Hamas' massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, was an Israel "false flag" operation. This outrageous claim has a surprising Israeli source.
As the royal charter comes up for renewal next year, the British public must demand that the BBC launch an investigation into its institutional anti-Israeli bias and antisemitism, and return to its principles as a public service committed to impartiality.
Channel 4 was willing not only to platform NAZA's producers without question, as they deployed genocide libels on the basis of unsubstantiated claims, but also let its own interviewers equivocate on casualty numbers to determine proportionality, despite this being legally untenable.
The main conclusion of the study is that the Gaza Ministry of Health has been the primary media source of statistical information about Gaza casualties, and that journalists used its figures in 100% of all publications, whereas Israeli data on combatants killed in the territory appeared in only 3% of the articles.
CAMERA’s Adam Levick was interviewed in a National Jewish Assembly webinar, examining how one of the root causes of anti-Israel bias involves the media’s refusal to hold Palestinians morally accountable for their actions.
NPR eschewed good journalistic practice and the use of empirical evidence in favor of wholly unsupported, alleged anecdotal evidence. The result was a podcast that demonized Israelis.
In a country that has seen rampant antisemitic attacks, historical and October 7th revisionism, British broadcasters have a duty not to use passive constructions that obfuscate responsibility. They also have a duty not to platform, without due diligence checks, those on the “Palestinian side” who openly support and eulogise the very terrorist groups who committed the October 7th atrocities. If Sky News obsessively coalesces around “the other side” narrative and offers Jewish voices no reprieve, must we conclude that it was never on the side of massacred Jews at all?
On the third anniversary of the October 7 massacre, MS NOW featured an op-ed by reporter Ayman Mohyeldin, who has a history of peddling antisemitic tropes, prominently at the top of its website.
