Strange anti palestinien BBC cover âge.

handlemaster

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44544169

I noticed in the article sentences bolded that would highlight Israeli justification for attack ing. It seems strange the BBC would do this

tomofson

120 Palestinians killed, a couple of israelis lightly injured, and who does the BBC sympathize with?

Assetbacked

BBC, biased? Surely not!

TerrorFirmer

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44544169

I noticed in the article sentences bolded that would highlight Israeli justification for attack ing. It seems strange the BBC would do this

They're links to source material....that's why they're bolded, as is standard practice.

Donald Trump

Victor

The bold bits are clickable links. The story is almost a month old.

handlemaster wrote: »

I noticed in the article sentences bolded that would highlight Israeli justification for attack ing. It seems strange the BBC would do this

Do you mean sentences like "Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum praised the rocket attacks on Israel"?

looks like a balanced article to me, where is it anti Palestinian?

Sonics2k

tomofson wrote: »

120 Palestinians killed, a couple of israelis lightly injured, and who does the BBC sympathize with?

I love that you edited out your little anti-semetic brackets.

Taytoland

Who really gives a ****, let them kill each other.

hatrickpatrick

The BBC were accused a few years ago of having a pro-Palestinian bias (as in, the serious "Ofcom and Parliament getting involved" type of accused) and I think maybe Sky News as well. Nothing came of it, but it's possible that despite not being found to have done anything, they still decided to be extra cautious with their reporting to avoid any further controversy.

Like Ireland, Britain has very strict rules these days on even-handed reporting by the press, particularly press which receives public funding. IMO this is a good thing, and I say this as someone who is as staunchly pro-Palestinian as most political leftists - look at the dumpster fire that is American reporting of current affairs and politics and you'll start to massively appreciate having a media which isn't allowed to flagrantly present a narrative of its own choosing by omitting or over-emphasising some facts and not others. Hell, even the BBC were regarded, as far as I know, as being biased during The Troubles (our history teacher in school told us that they adopted the classic "killed vs murdered" linguistic double standard when referring to people killed by the British forces or loyalists, while murdered if the perpetrators were Republicans) - so if they're having to trip over themselves not to appear biased, that's a good thing in my book.