Here is an article by Jonathan Cook, about media reporting of Gaza, including detail about the accuracy of media reporting of Hamas’ 7 October attack: How the Western media helped build the case for genocide in Gaza
I've seen more reported about the BBC than other media outlets. I don't know if that is because they are worse than the others, or just because we expect better of them. Anyway, here goes:
Here are some recent articles from Media Lens, Jonathan Cook, and others:
So here is an ever-increasing list of reasons to doubt the BBC's neutrality.
(February 2025): Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone. This documentary was shown on the BBC, and at first made available on BBC iPlayer (a video on demand service), but then withdrawn:
A campaign has sought to discredit the documentary using the father of 14-year-old Abdullah Al-Yazouri, one of the film’s child protagonists. Dr Ayman Al-Yazouri served as Gaza’s Deputy Minister of Agriculture, a civil service role concerned with food production.(see the open letter from 900+ media workers, 600+ leading British Jews call on BBC to restore documentary it deleted to please Israel lobby groups and a further response to the BBC).
UPDATE (July 2025): The BBC has now published a review of the affair: BBC Review of Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone published
I’m a former BBC newsreader – Gaza is the reason I resigned: Karishma Patel writes "The controversy over the pulling of the ‘How to Survive a Warzone’ documentary is a distraction from a much bigger problem my old employer has with impartiality", and is interviewed by Owen Jones here
UPDATE Dec 2025: interviewed again by Owen Jones here, partly about the Prescott document. I must say, having glanced at it, it seemed weird:
And it is not a new issue: this article is about the media generally, not just the BBC: Al-Aqsa attacks: How the media gives Israel a free pass, referencing this CfMM report
(June 2025): A film, "Gaza: Medics Under Fire" was produced for the BBC, but they sat on it for months, and are now not going to show it. Apparently it is being made available to the producers, Basement Films, to show.
UPDATE: Latest news (28 June 2025): Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC: It will be shown on Channel 4 at 10pm GMT on Wednesday, 2 July. (3 July) It is now described in "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack" shows the IDF is the world's most immoral army, archived here
UPDATE May 2026: it has just won the Current Affairs prize at the BAFTAs, see It is a national disgrace that the BBC pulled a BAFTA-winning documentary to >appease Israel, archived here
In The BBC is in crisis - for all the wrong reasons, archived here, Owen Jones points out
The facts are that Donald Trump did incite an insurrection against those election results. It was completely stupid of Panorama to completely unnecessarily produce a misleading edit when there was more than enough evidence to establish this incontrovertible fact. And their misleading edit did not actually mislead audiences about that basic fact.
The basic fact is - Trump incited an insurrection which sought to overturn the presidential election. Panorama did not mislead viewers in the sense of making them believe he did something he didn’t do.
BBC news has a long record of disinformation. But this time it chose the wrong target, archived here, an article by Jonathan Cook about the BBC and what else it has done far worse, in which he wrote
But Panorama, and the BBC more generally, have been exposed peddling far worse misinformation. In those cases, there have been precisely no consequences for such out-in-the-open journalistic abuses.
The reason heads have rolled at the BBC this time are not because it made a journalistic blunder – it makes them all the time. It is because the corporation foolishly offered an open goal to the billionaire right and its media outlets.
If anyone is falling for the manufactured “furore” over Panorama’s latest journalistic gaffe, there are examples of far graver malpractice by Panorama – especially on issues related to Israel and Palestine. These editorial crimes have barely caused a ripple, even after they were exposed.
This item doesn't really belong on this page, but it gives an example of the BBC in the past.
On 11 and 12 December 1948 a Scots Guards patrol murdered 24 unarmed civilians in the village of Batang Kali, in Selangor, Malaysia (then Malaya). And I'm not going to indulge in b/s like "allegedly", rather I quote Lord Kerr in the Supreme Court case Keyu & Ors v Secretary of State for ... [2015] UKSC 69, who says (par 204)
[the] shocking circumstances in which, according to the overwhelming preponderance of currently available evidence, wholly innocent men were mercilessly murdered and the failure of the authorities of this state to conduct an effective inquiry into their deaths
So what does the BBC have to do with this? Well, as recounted in the Supreme Court judgment,
So all this activity since 1992 seems to have been triggered by the BBC.
And, though a bit off-topic, the article Suella Braverman demands former colonies pay reparations to London, archived here, reminds me of something I read in connection with Batang Kali, the gist of which is here Britain’s forgotten war for rubber:
A Colonial Office report from 1950 noted that Malaya’s rubber and tin mining industries were the biggest earners in the British Commonwealth.
Malaya was described by one British Lord in 1952 as the “greatest material prize in South-East Asia”, mainly due to its rubber and tin. These resources were “very fortunate” for Britain, another Lord declared, since “they have very largely supported the standard of living of the people of this country and the sterling area ever since the war ended”.
This article, Discontent Deepens Among Guardian Staff Over Palestine ‘Double Standard’ discusses its topic at length, including the Guardian's rejection of an article by Susan Abulhawa, now available here, and she is interviewed here, and writes on the same theme here, and also at an Oxford Union debate
This article concerns an article which was "nixed" from the Guardian at the last minute. It is now available here, A Surge in Suppression, by Dylan Saba.
An article analysing media methods by Jonathan Cook, How the media tears up its own rulebook to hide Israel's atrocities, archived here
In this article, Breaking free of media group-think is a scary, lonely journey. I know. I was forced to do it, archived here, Jonathan writes of his own experiences trying to get his writings published, and also those of others. Here are some of the specific articles his article mentions:
Sometimes the biggest news story of the day is the fact that all mainstream news outlets are completely ignoring a major news story. It is interesting how often such instances involve the state of Israel.
In the article Genocide isn't a mistake. Which is why the media can't tell you the truth about Gaza, archived here, Jonathan Cook discussed the film The Voice of Hind Rajab, "a devastating dramatised retelling of Israel’s slow-motion murder of a five-year-old in Gaza", would not be touched by movie distributors in the USA.
UPDATE Jan 2026: Gaza war docudrama The Voice of Hind Rajab nominated for Academy Award
In that article, he also discusses his experience reporting on Israel for the Guardian.
See also I Heard “The Voice of Hind Rajab”, archived here
Likewise The Voice of Hind Rajab: The Film They Don’t Want You to See, archived here
I'm guessing that this is the movie which is referred to in this article, 11 Palestinians injured as Israeli forces raid Birzeit University in occupied West Bank, which suggests that the raid was to prevent a screening of the movie.
Once Skydance bought CBS News, David Ellison installed Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief, a self-described “Zionist Fanatic” who has boasted that “my Zionist activism is connected to my journalism”.and the article describes other staff changes.
... some reflections of mine on the 4-year war in Ukraine. Interestingly enough, no one in the UK would publish it. It’s still taboo to argue that the West had any responsibility for either starting the war or continuing it at incredible human cost.