Think the BBC’s coverage of Gaza is unbalanced? Check out the Guardian

Three hours after the end of the 72-hour ceasefire, Israeli finally retaliated with air strikes.  Hamas missiles were fired at a range of different target’s in southern parts of Israel.

The BBC headline at the moment reads:

Gaza rockets fired as ceasefire ends
Palestinian militant group Hamas rejects any extension of the three-day Gaza ceasefire, with rockets fired at Israel as the truce ends.

That seems a fair statement of things. But here’s what the Guardian leads with:

Israel orders response to rockets fired from Gaza
A rocket trail over the northern Gaza Strip after the expiration of the 72-hour ceasefire with Israel.
LIVE Israel claims at least 10 rockets were fired by Hamas after temporary truce expired on Friday morning
“The Israel Defence Force has confirmed it has renewed strikes on Gaza:”
Gaza ceasefire ends

Now, Hamas has been threatening to break the ceasefire since it began on Tuesday, so it’s hardly a surprise.

From the BBC account, you’d learn that Hamas is responsible for the renewal of violence.

But from the Guardian, you’d think that the Gaza ceasefire ended because the IDF renewed strikes.

Though it does says that “Israel claims at least 10 rockets were fired”.

The use of the word “claims” in this context is deliberate; while the IDF’s decision to bomb Gaza is taken as a fact, the rocket attacks on Israel (which at least the BBC thinks are real) are cited as “Israeli claims”.

It’s this kind of totally unfair, biased and inaccurate reporting that it helping to whip up anti-Israel (and anti-Jewish) hysteria to new levels in Britain — something which, ironically, is the subject of a top Guardian news story today.

3 Comments on "Think the BBC’s coverage of Gaza is unbalanced? Check out the Guardian"

  1. Eric, the BBC headline is more to the point and better, but I don’t see The Guardian’s framing as outrageous. In general, it wouldn’t surprise me if many of its news stories and opinion pieces are problematic, but it’s not “ironic” that The Guardian would have a long story on European antisemitism; this proves that it has no antisemitic intent.

  2. Why is it an untenable thought that Israel could have renewed hostilities Eric?

  3. The fact that Hamas renewed hostilities following the end of the cease fire is not in doubt. Even the Guardian story concedes this point. It was the way the Guardian spun the story — with what I thought was a deceptive and inaccurate headline — that was the problem.

Comments are closed.