In years past, the British Broadcasting Corporation, more commonly known by its initials as the BBC, was one of the United Kingdom's strongest brands, alongside iconic symbols like the monarchy, Big Ben, and afternoon tea. The BBC was synonymous with reliability, objectivity, and integrity; the opening music of its news broadcasts drew millions around the world to stop everything and tune in to what was really happening in the world.
Since then, a lot of water has flowed through the Thames. While Big Ben still stands firm, not much remains of the BBC's good name or its commitment to the truth, especially when it comes to its coverage of Israel. After a team of experts led by lawyer Trevor Asserson presented its findings on the BBC's coverage of the Swords of Iron War in London this week, whatever remained of its reputation evaporated into the fog of the British capital.
Asserson (67) is one of the most respected lawyers in the UK, renowned as a brilliant litigator. Many clients, including prominent figures and influential organizations, have benefited from his services over decades of a successful legal career. At the age of 33, Asserson made Aliyah and established a law firm in Tel Aviv specializing in providing legal services focused on British law.
His skills are often utilized by the Jewish community in the UK. For example, about three years ago, when Professor David Miller, a lecturer at the University of Bristol with a long track record of supporting antisemitic conspiracy theories, accused Jewish students of Islamophobia and racism against Arabs. Miller claimed in an online seminar that the Zionist movement is an "enemy of world peace" and that direct action must be taken against anyone who identifies with it, including Jewish students on campus. Asserson led a team of lawyers that threatened to sue the university and demanded Miller's immediate dismissal.
Miller was indeed fired but sued the university in a labor tribunal, demanding to be reinstated. After about two years, the tribunal found flaws in the dismissal process. Despite determining that Miller's conduct warranted disciplinary action, it criticized his dismissal – indicating that the battle against antisemitism on campus is far from over.
Meanwhile, Trevor Asserson has launched another battle, beginning with a detailed report presented this week to British MPs and journalists. His team examined how the BBC covered the events that began with the massacre perpetrated by Gazan terrorists on October 7, focusing on the first four months of the war. They team employed artificial intelligence tools and meticulously analyzed over 9 million words from network broadcasts in both English and Arabic. The findings revealed a clear bias against Israel in both languages.
"The BBC lies; it distorts news reports. Don't believe what you see on the BBC," Asserson said in an exclusive interview with Israel Hayom this week. "As a public broadcaster, the BBC is obligated to standards of accuracy and impartiality, but it completely fails to meet them. It receives a budget of £4 billion from the public, yet no one properly checks or supervises the BBC. In its coverage of Israel's war against Hamas, the BBC unequivocally sided with Hamas; this raises questions about its continued public funding. … we must engage in a media battle against the distortion of facts, and my report is part of this fight. I am doing what I can as a British lawyer."
The Grammar of Bias
In 2000, Asserson founded BBC Watch, an organization aimed at monitoring the British public broadcaster's coverage of Israel and exposing inaccuracies, misrepresentation and bias. Even then, the BBC's record was questionable, to say the least, and its reports in various languages (primarily Arabic and English) began to appear as if their authors had learned their journalism from Soviet-era propaganda manuals.
Over time, things have only got worse. "The claims I raised regarding the BBC's failures at the start of the century had some impact," says Asserson, but notes that after moving to Israel, he could no longer devote the necessary time to continuing to monitor its activities. "Recently, when I saw that the flaws in the coverage of the current war are particularly severe, I decided to conduct a comprehensive study to verify my feelings."
This time, Asserson had a full team at his disposal, composed of lawyers, data analysts, and professors from leading universities in Israel and the UK, who contributed their skills and time pro bono. Their findings shocked even those already accustomed to Israel being unfairly attacked in the international media. The issue, of course, is not confined to the BBC (Asserson says he was also contacted by employees at Sky News who asked him to conduct a similar study on its broadcasts), but the problem there is particularly severe.
Asserson's study found that leading BBC television programs (BBC Breakfast, News at Ten, Newsnight) exhibit a clear bias against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians. The bias is so pronounced that hostility toward the Jewish state and sympathy for its enemies were found in over 90% of cases. On Newsnight, the situation is even more clear-cut: there was not a single expression of even the slightest sympathy for Israel or Israelis. Not even immediately after the massacre on October 7, when the scale of the horrors committed against the Gaza the border communities became clear, and the brutality of the attacks, reminiscent of Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust, was revealed. In all instances where the program reported on the war – and its reporting was extensive – the program's sympathies lay entirely with the Palestinian side.
This, according to Asserson, is not the only method the BBC employs to create a distorted news picture for its viewers, readers, and listeners. An unwritten rule across the network essentially adopts two different languages for the two sides of the Gaza war. When BBC journalists describe the actions of Hamas, including the very worst of them, they always downplay their severity, carefully avoid placing blame, and use sanitized terms devoid of any emotion or judgment.
First and foremost, the BBC never uses the term "terrorists" to describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives. Instead, they are referred to using terms that do not evoke antagonism and sometimes even create emotional identification. This is true across the entire network, from television broadcasts to podcast content. "We counted the number of mentions of Hamas in BBC podcasts," says Asserson, "seventeen times the BBC called them 'fighters,' nine times they used the term 'gunmen,' and three times, 'armed men.' How many times did the BBC call them 'terrorists'? Not once."
If anyone thought that this is purely down to British self-restraint and that BBC journalists always avoid harsh adjectives, they would be wrong. When these same journalists describe Israel and its actions, they suddenly have a different vocabulary, one where composure is not in the dictionary. When it comes to Israel, they suddenly do not hesitate to be prosecutors and judges. Here, for example, is a selection of expressions that appeared in just one article, published on November 15, dealing with the IDF operation to clear Shifa Hospital – which, as we all recall, was turned by terrorists into a command and control center, serving them as a shelter and a weapons depot: "massacre," "blatant violation of international law," "crime against humanity," "new levels of horror," "starvation of an entire population," and other gems that star in the Israel hater's lexicon.
Another sophisticated method used by BBC journalists to shape public perception is through the selection of interviewees and speakers. "Of course, they bring in Israeli and Palestinian interviewees, but alongside them, they also bring in other commentators, and this is where the game begins," Asserson explains. "The distribution of these other interviewees, who supposedly do not represent either side, is clear: Pro-Palestinian positions were found in 43% of their quotes, while pro-Israeli positions appeared in only 19%. A bias of more than two to one against Israel."
In Arabic-language broadcasts, this ratio is even more pronounced. Only 3% of the "other" interviewees, those supposedly neutral, expressed sympathy for Israeli positions – 12 times fewer than those showing sympathy for the Palestinians (36%). Even when the BBC producers and editors invite speakers from both sides, there is room for quiet manipulation: Palestinian interviewees are typically "ordinary citizens," whereas Israeli interviewees are more often official spokespeople. Why is this important? The average viewer identifies more with the ordinary person and perceives their words as true and authentic. In contrast, they filter what they hear from official spokespeople or greet their words with skepticism.
Visual Manipulations
The numbers speak for themselves. "Our research found that in BBC reports, Israel was mentioned in connection with war crimes 592 times, while Hamas, which truly committed intolerable crimes, was mentioned only 98 times," says Asserson. "That is the situation with English broadcasts; in Arabic, it's much worse. Our examination of the headlines on the BBC Arabic website found that even on October 7, the day of the massacre, the content showed sympathy for the Palestinians, not Israelis. The raw numbers showed that the main stories on the Arabic website reflected sympathy for the Palestinians and hostility towards Israel in 95% of cases; photos likewise in 92% of cases; videos – in 93% of cases; video titles – in 96% of cases; video content – in 94% of cases. In short, it's disgraceful; the BBC in Arabic is no different from anti-Israel regime mouthpieces like Al Jazeera or Iran Times."
As Asserson suggests, the BBC's overt propaganda is also applied through visual means, and this can be more powerful than words.was accompanied by two photographs, one above the other. In the upper photo, a Gazan is seen holding his young daughter in his arms. In the lower photo, an ultra-Orthodox Jew with side-locks is walking with a rifle slung over his shoulder. Although there was no logical connection between the photographs, the message was clear: The Gazans are the victims, and the Jews are the oppressor soldiers. To reinforce the message, the caption below the photos read: "Settlers tighten their control over the West Bank."
As if that visual manipulation wasn't enough, Asserson's report uncovered further details about the photograph of the armed ultra-Orthodox Jew. It turns out it was actually taken in October 2000, and it shows a Jew returning from the funeral of his friend, who was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist. The fathers of Nazi propaganda, from the Goebbels' school, would be proud of their successors at the BBC.
When it comes to Israel, the BBC's manipulations are not limited to reports from the "killing fields." Asserson recounts how he was astonished by the coverage of the Eurovision Song Contest, held this year in Sweden: "In the report on the competition, after noting who the winner was, within one minute, the reporter repeated three times that the audience booed the Israeli singer and shouted, 'Free Gaza.' What didn't the BBC report? All the relevant facts: They didn't say that Israel came in fifth place in the competition; they didn't note that Israel came in second in the global audience vote; most importantly, they didn't say that in England, Israel came in first in the audience vote!"
"How can you describe something in this way? The British public broadcaster repeats the mention of the booing three times to create the impression that Israel is hated, while maliciously omitting the information that demonstrates that Israel is actually very popular in Britain. That isn't just inaccuracy – this is how the BBC deliberately creates dreadful bias."
The Silent Majority
In reality, says Asserson, contrary to the picture the BBC tries to paint, most people are neutral in their attitude to Israel, and many are supportive of it. But this majority is a silent one, whereas the leftist minority generates a lot of media noise. The problem is that those who hold prominent positions and media visibility are the ones who set the tone, even if they are in the minority.
What do you expect to happen now, following the publication of your report?
"There are two possibilities: either the BBC admits it acted improperly, apologizes, and begins to put things right – which I don't think will happen – or we will have to take the BBC to court. In any case, BBC executives must acknowledge the problem and seek solutions. First and foremost, they must abandon the myth that BBC journalists are capable of leaving their private opinions out of the workplace. In about a week, another report is expected to be published, vastly different from mine, but it will also attack the BBC for biased coverage of the war. The cumulative impact of the two reports will lay a solid foundation for future judicial review of the BBC. I hope the British courts will recognize our findings and draw the necessary conclusions."
Are there precedents for court intervention in the wake of biased coverage on public broadcasts?
"My legal career is filled with cases where British courts have intervened in the conduct of government departments or public bodies because they found their conduct to be contrary to the standards set by law. I once petitioned against the BBC on behalf of two political parties, and it backed down when it saw it was going to lose. However, there is no precedent for what we are attempting now, as this is the first time such a comprehensive study has been conducted."
How do you explain the BBC's biased coverage?
"On paper, the BBC has a strong commitment to objectivity and impartiality, but BBC management has no operational rules to ensure that the BBC meets this commitment. We can now show, following the research we conducted, how many interviewees leaned towards the Palestinians and how many towards Israel, how much of the content was empathetic to Hamas – but the corporation itself has no idea. It has no data, it does not control its productions, and so it allows itself to evade its own standards."
"The second reason is that attacking Israel has become the main sport of groups on the left that call themselves 'progressive.' Over the years, this tendency has gotten worse. BBC journalists have adopted classic left-wing views concerning Israel, and they – including the most extreme among them – feel that management is not supervising them and gives them a free hand to create manipulation, and even to create fake news instead of reporting real news. The BBC has been taken hostage by people who are fully part of this trend of hatred towards Israel."
Your report identifies the BBC as being a leading actor in this trend.
"Unfortunately, that is true. As the most influential media corporation in the world, the BBC leads and encourages biased coverage against Israel. Israel is under attack on seven different fronts and is in existential danger. It faces people who seek to destroy it and murder its citizens, and Israel, a peace-loving state, is forced to wage a defensive war against them to survive. The BBC refuses to tell this story."
Could it be that Israel bears at least some responsibility for this situation?
Israel has not managed the media battle properly. We have planes, we have tanks, we have wonderful soldiers, and a fantastic army, but in the media arena, the situation is far from great. We must treat the media as a real front, we must utilize the support of our natural allies in leading Western countries and start fighting back. If we don't do this, Israel will be in danger because we face a serious threat. This is not a political issue of right or left: all Israeli governments have failed for decades to seriously confront the media threat. We must present good arguments with good spokespeople and maintain consistency, which is what our enemies know how to do."
In Israel, the prevailing view is that this battle is lost...
"I believe that in an open democratic society, it is possible to change people's opinions, at least those who are accustomed to forming opinions based on rational thought. Those who are tainted by blind hatred or are committed to one side will not change. But the decisive majority is in the middle. Remember the British referendum on leaving the European Union? The battle was close; the result could have gone either way, and if the campaign of the 'Remain' supporters had been better managed, Britain would still be in the EU today. Years earlier, Britain was offered to give up the pound and adopt the euro. This was also the subject of a media battle, and I know the person who led the campaign against it. Initially, the chances seemed slim, but proper campaign management caused people to significantly change their opinion on the matter, resulting in the UK keeping the pound."
Israel has not managed the media battle properly. We have planes, we have tanks, we have wonderful soldiers, and a fantastic army, but in the media arena, the situation is far from great. We must treat the media as a real front, we must utilize the support of our natural allies in leading Western countries and start fighting back. If we don't do this, Israel will be in danger because we face a serious threat. This is not a political issue of right or left: all Israeli governments have failed for decades to seriously confront the media threat. We must present good arguments with good spokespeople and maintain consistency, which is what our enemies know how to do."
"I am sure it is possible to influence public opinion, but for that, a long-term strategy must be formulated, adhered to, and entrusted to a body with power, authority, and sufficient resources. If you do that, you can create change. The BBC has been doing this against us for years, the Palestinians have been doing it against us for years with enormous success – yet we do nothing."
The BBC issued the following response to the article:
"We have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on AI to analyze impartiality and its interpretation of the BBC's editorial guidelines. We don't think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context. We are required to achieve due impartiality, rather than the 'balance of sympathy' proposed in the report, and we believe our knowledgeable and dedicated correspondents are achieving this, despite the highly complex, challenging, and polarising nature of the conflict. However, we will consider the report carefully and respond directly to the authors once we have had time to study it in detail.
"The most recent research shows that audiences are significantly more likely to turn to the BBC for impartial coverage than to any other provider. Independent research from More in Common found that the highest proportion of people thought BBC coverage of this story was mostly neutral.
"We strongly reject the claims that our reporters 'celebrated acts of terror' and we strongly reject the attack on individual members of BBC staff, all of whom are working to the same editorial guidelines."
