You're viewing a single thread.
To be fair to the BBC, they're 'supposed' to report the facts without judgement. How successful they are at that is debated endlessly, you can find anyone of any political flavour who will swear blind the BBC is 'obviously' biased against 'them'. They can't win no matter what they do.
See: More than 100 BBC staff accuse broadcaster of Israel bias in Gaza coverage
They're not trying to be fair, they're trying to be pro-israel.
Nah, I remember back when Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party and the BBC gleefully participated in the campaign to slander him, including in a news program having as a background a large picture of him digitally altered to put a Soviet hood on his head.
I also remember countless "two side" discussions hosted by the BBC on things like worker rights or the Environment were they put a professional politician on the side against it facing a total amateur on the side for it.
The BBC's "two sides" has always been a multi-layered propaganda format, starting by the small detail that any social and political subject which is not ridiculously simple has more than 2 options to interpret and tackle it - in other words, more than 2 sides - and going into the above mentioned point that their supposedly open "giving equal voice to both sides" is actually controlled by their choice of the subject matter, who represents each side and even the interviewer's take on each side and accompanying materials (a typical example would be them reporting as event as "such and such happened" when the source is IDF versus "According to Hamas such and such happened" when the source is Hamas).
The BBC are very sophisticated in how they do it, but their output is heavily spinned and propagandistic.
That this is a very poor excuse at propaganda because the BBC goes out of its way to use "loaded terms" when it comes to adversaries of the empire.
Here is an example from yesterday. https://youtu.be/34Ta0IcQi-E?t=85
Impartiality goes out of the window when the BBC needs to remind everyone that "the Palestinian health ministry is ran by Hamas which is designated as a terrorist organisation in America, the UK and Europe" every single time the death toll in Gaza is brought up as well.
"The unprecedented attack on October 7th." is here to justify Israel slaughtering tens of thousands of starving civilians.
They had a bazillion complaints (and still get them) that they report the figures at all and that they don't treat Hamas being a terrorist organisation as a statement of fact. For a couple of weeks after the October the 7th attack, the reporting was more neutral, and the whole rest of the British press was up in arms about the BBC being antisemitic, and the current situation was the compromise that calmed it down. In a world where Israel having done nothing wrong ever is somehow part of the Overton window, this is what counts as impartial. Impartiality is a bad thing when it's forced to apply to viewpoints divorced from reality.
Watch the video I linked if you are not convinced. I considered the introduction to be rather long so I timestamped over it. But it sounds like you might need to watch it from the beginning. The video is not about Hamas by the way. That is only another example.
It's not factual reporting when one side refuses to interact with the truth
I'm all for impartiality. But if a dude says "We should kill everyone who isn't like me!" You don't have to say "Before you judge, let's hear his side." You can start judging immediately.
They are not impartial on this one