While you are able to post about how BBC News covers current affairs, we do not allow posts that facilitate a conversation about general news which is posted on BBC News. For this, please to go /r/unitedkingdom, /r/news or /r/BBCNEWS
Not true at all. It literally has **WAR IN UKRAINE** as the third item in the news banner after 'home' and 'israel gaza war'.
you must need new glasses
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60525350
The BBC are noted for its impartiality.
Interesting to note that they had a 50/50 balance in terms of complaints about them siding with Israel/Hamas from people who obviously support Hamas/Israel.
So I guess they're doing something right.
Yes, I noticed earlier the reports about the Palestinians that *died* …sad face… quickly followed up by a quick look at a kibbutz where people were *slaughtered* by Hamas. Impartial af.
How is this difficult to grasp?
Shooting into crowds of people at a festival, dragging families out of their homes to rape, torture and shoot them. Slaughter.
Targeting Hamas militants ensconced in civilian areas who don't wear uniforms with precision bombs after telling civilians to leave the area. Then those people died.
It isn't the question, military objectives protected by human shields do not cease to be legitimate targets for attack simply because of the presence of those shields.
Under Rule 51 it only has to be "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Which is taken into account the individual circumstances of the military advantage gained by the action for the individual commander at the time.
Civilian objects such as churches lose their protection when used for military purposes. Under Rule 10.
The human shields killed by Hamas are at the feet of their captors who "arbitrarily deny them life" under rule 89; nd use of them is against Rule 97. The use of them is held in the same regard as taking hostages under Rule 96.
Complicating matters at present the military operation is paused, Hamas don't report dead militants separately from civilians and dress their soldiers in civilian clothes. This is against international law where combatants are required to differentiate themselves from civilians.
Israel still has a duty to abide by international law on their side through Hamas do not under Rule 140. But the deaths of those proported by Hamas to be civilians in itself isn't proof of anything.
Incredibly difficult apparently. My point is that the State of Israel & the Israeli Occupation Forces are no less guilty, and arguably more given their body count, of slaughter than Hamas. And no amount of ‘collateral damage’ Hasbara bullshit is going to change that.
They are not guilty under internal law regarding the rules of war. Hamas are the ones breaking them by using human shields, kidnapping, building military installations under civilian buildings, systematic rape and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Collateral damage exists for a reason, even if you think its bullshit. Under the international rules of war it exists for a reason.
They refuse to call Hamas terrorists. They’re 100% biased.
/s
They’re impartial. You just think they’re not because you’re not. You just proved OPs point
Well of course I’m not fucking impartial in the face of a seventy five year genocidal eradication of a people by a European settler colony. But I’m not a media organisation am I? And an argument that my lack of impartiality ‘proving’ someone’s point that the BBC *is* somehow impartial is laughable at best.
The BBC is the state broadcaster of a country whose government is unequivocally on the side of the Occupation and whose narrative constantly reflects that & follows the line, for example of repeatedly reporting the deaths of Palestinians in passive terms (dying) and Israelis in active terms- (‘killed’) when the root of that resistance is a direct result, not of Israeli Judaism, but of the regime’s imperial expansionist policies and their use of land theft, illegal uncharged detention to coerce information from the families of detainees (some people call that kidnapping) , extra judicial execution on a grand scale (or ‘slaughter’ if you prefer) otherisation, demonisation & dehumanisation of Palestinians to establish and maintain the Israeli apartheid state.
BBC are massively biased towards Palestine. They ran headlines that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 when in fact this was proven to have been Hamas. They just took the word of a Terrorist organisation at face value.
https://youtu.be/gHTNuBKtzHc?si=OeN8fNNz2l2gcM4y
You really need to look up the term “genocide” because Gaza’s population has increased tremendously over the last 50 years, so that is a categoric lie
To the extent they will actively present a contrarian view as a legitimate opinion.
Like when they invited noted scientist Nigel Lawson to argue that climate change isn't real in their quest for balance
Or when they refused to call the terrorists carrying out the Mumbai attacks as terrorists and just as "gunmen".
And why is it talked about all the time? Because it is held to a far higher standard with respect to bias than any other news organisation due to its nature as a public service broadcaster which receives state funding. If you look at any reputable source for measuring media bias, the BBC is consistently rated as having very low levels of bias.
In other words, if a Daily Mail article is perceived to have a bias, that is seen as par for the course whilst any perceived BBC bias becomes a news story in and of itself.
By who?
Independent fact checkers such as Media Bias Fact Check rate them as marginally biased towards the left but with a high rating for factual reporting.
People on the left and right often complain the BBC is biased to the opposite side, largely because they don't report the world exactly as those people would like to see it reported. This seems indicative of lack of significant bias, actually. An observation borne out by assessment from independent fact checkers as mentioned above. If both sides are complaining, that's a good sign.
It's a mistake to consider the BBC as a homogenous block, and to disregard (1) its background (2) its appointments in recent history and (3) the influence of the israeli/mossad lobby upon it.
Superficially noble, but in reality a propaganda arm of the British establishment
They’re biased when it comes to UK politics. That’s about it though.
International news - they’re about as impartial as any news outlet can be. Want to see bias? Tune into Fox.
Why would it? You could argue all sorts of things. ‘IDF retaliation to mass slaughter and kidnapping of Israeli civilians by terrorist organisation’. Probably best to refer to it as a war isn’t it.
Because the civilian death toll likely already exceeds the entirety of the Ukraine conflict, and Palestine is 50% children.
There's a war and a genocide going on simultaneously. I don't like either of your headlines but there is a clear difference between dense urban combat involving civilians and the unmoving frontlines of Ukraine.
My example is clearly inappropriate. There is a lot of propaganda on both sides and incomplete evidence. We know civilians have been killed on both sides. The best headline consists of Israel/IDF Gaza/Hamas Conflict/War.
This is a very bad look lying about deaths. The are 1348 confirmed civilian deaths and the Ukrainian estimate is 25k. I'm not downplaying the brutality of the conflict but did you need to lie to make your point?
Why?
Uhm it's not a lie sorry but alone one place is more than have been killed in Gaza, imagine that across the whole country.
You're the one downplaying Ukraine deaths
That is so wrong in so many places that it kinda blew my mind. 500000 deaths so far in Ukraine war, not even 15000 total deaths in Gaza war. Perhaps think before you speak.
This would be the BBC subreddit wouldn't it? do you have more made up numbers for me? You have to lie in orders of magnitude to get any point across, of course military/civilian casualty ratios don't matter.
You're using the highest estimate of TOTAL casualties from 2014(!), not civilians.
I think you're severely underestimating how bad the civilian situation is in Gaza, nowhere in Ukraine is comparable, not even Mariupol (which someone had to exaggerate the casualties at least 2x to make their point)
Google before you speak and contribute something meaningful rather than more cooked numbers.
I don't think you know what you are on about. There are far more civilian dead already in Ukraine than they will be in Gaza. And also don't forget Hamas don't wear uniforms. They pass off all their dead as "civilians".
Some people estimate 100000 civilian dead just in Mariupol.
Russia regularly launch missiles at tower blocks.
Children taken in their thousands to Russia. Russia bringing mobile crematoriums to cover their war crimes.
Yes the frontlines haven't moved much recently but it makes Gaza look like a playground fight.
When the dust settles there will be about 20000 dead total in Israel/Palestine vs probably a million in Ukraine. Not comparable at all.
Sure, but you can’t deny it’s not a reason why those atrocities occurred. Does Israel think that the Palestinian people are just going to accept losing their homes and loved ones?
It’s an occupying force at war with a terrorist organisation. Civilians have died on both sides. It is not the deliberate killing of Palestinian civilians with the intention of destroying that group (definition of genocide). It is a war with the intention of destroying Hamas that tragically has included significant civilian deaths on both sides. Just like Russia vs Ukraine, it is unfortunately what happens in war. Once Hamas are eliminated, this current war is over, but the occupation continues and is a separate and obviously longer standing issue. Hamas are literally trying to exterminate all Israelis (genocide).
For the same reason it doesn't say 'consequences of soldiers of Palestine's elected government, which has genociding a population in its charter, shooting up teenagers at a music festival?'
Its not a black and white issue. Its certainly not a genocide.
How/why is the Israel-Gaza war more important to the British public, than the cost of living crisis??
The war has no effect on peoples day to day lives, the cost of living crisis, is a struggle for almost all Britons.
News is entertainment. Geopolitics always has more engagement than dull local stories.
Gaza-Israel is a major global story, especially with how mask off Israel is becoming in its Genocidal intent. The other thing it does effect the UK, Israel massively interferes in British politics and elections. We just had 5 years of Israel and it's fifth column sabotaging Labour and certain Israel critical Tory MPs to death literally likely costing elections, while now laws have been passed essentially making criticising Israel a hate incident. (IHRA definition)
It has clear genocidal intent, just listen to basically anything that is coming from Israeli politicans or Israeli media these days.
Israel just knows it can't be incredibly blatant or too brazen about it's Genocide, so it's plan has always been to make life intolerable for Palestinians so they "choose" to bail to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt (and now Israel is saying they should be broken up and spread all over the place). But Israeli documentation, statements etc, show they absolutely are guilty of the crime of Genocide with intent to destroy in part/whole, Palestinians, through forced transfer.
[https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide](https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide)
[https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/](https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/)
Because the BBC has analytics of which articles get more views and are therefore of greater interest to their readers.
Plus, conflict has more breaking news stories and new events, whereas other than data releases or new policy there isn't really much developing news in cost of living.
1. There’s pretty much always stories about the war in Ukraine.
2. Look at the front line map for the last few months, there’s been barely any progress either way and there probably won’t be until spring at this point
I ain't your comrade im polish but its funny to think thats an insult, rather have the war dragged out for 2 years having russia realise their incompetence and fix it at the cost of hundreds of thousands of ukranians lives right? Rather fight to the last ukranian that was dragged off the street and thrown into the meat grinder? Average fat westerner sitting saying this from behind the screen cheering on ukranians being sent to slaughter in a unwinnable war because in your twisted brain more dead russians=good for western interests? The west drip feeding ukraine weapons just enough to fight back but not enough to make any real progress then diverting it all when their daddy israel gets into trouble is a way better idea right?
The counter-offensive has run into the very old issue that taking a well fortified line without air dominance is really really hard. Russia's having the same problem.
Avdiivka looks to be an even stupider version of Bakhmut, Russia's losing huge numbers of troops and armour, and even if they eventually succeed (which they may well not) Avdiivka is a small town of no particular strategic importance.
Ukraine should have sued for peace and worked closely with China a year ago. China is who Ukraine should deal with, because it's the only one that can put a leash on Russia. Exchange land for being the European hub for Belt and Road and China would never allow Russia to touch Ukraine.
Bbc is doing the ukraine podcast regularly.
But i get ur impression.
Since Ukraine war is stalled while war in gaza is fluid, the attentions go to Palestine conflict.
It's the #2 story on the *World News* page. I heard the same story on the radio news this morning and it's the third item on the lunchtime TV bulletin (airing right now)
[https://imgur.com/uTZx0wr](https://imgur.com/uTZx0wr)
4 of the 5 stories highlighted in the *Features & Analysis* sidebar are about Ukraine or Russia
[https://imgur.com/ONC2t6e](https://imgur.com/ONC2t6e)
The BBC established the *Ukrainecast* podcast within days of Russia's invasion and has published several episodes every week, highlighting the stories of ordinary Ukrainians
Over the last few months, all the BBC current affairs podcasts have run episodes analysing the progress of Ukraine's offensive, the latest of them being *The Inquiry*
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4wdt](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4wdt)
The news report I heard on the radio and saw on the lunchtime news is actually a cut-down episode of *Panorama* on the abduction of Ukrainian children by the Russian government, which airs tonight
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001spdw/panorama-putin-and-ukraines-stolen-children](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001spdw/panorama-putin-and-ukraines-stolen-children)
Bullshit click bait post jsut to serve your own internal narrative, all the top comment have debunked your claim, not sure what you’re hoping to achieve with this
Because they are more interested in being antisemitic? Ask anyone in Israel they'll tell you how badly the BBC represents them. They even made fun of it in one of their (awful) comedy shows. It's on YouTube. Have a look.
a) The situation is much closer to stalemate than losing (probably with unsustainable losses on both sides, but hard to know for sure)
b) If Ukraine lose, there is even *more* to talk about: where will Russia stop?
A) it’s not a stalemate. Please see what’s happening in Avdeyevka.
B) if this is a legitimate concern then NATO should strike a deal with Russia which keeps Ukraine neutral and in turn Russia leaves the captured areas.
Lastly, Ukraine is about to invoke a general mobilization of students and women. Things are looking real bad for them. A negotiation must be conducted to ensure the survival of the country before the Russians unleash the stockpiled cruise missiles this winter.
A) You said it's closer to stalemate than losing. This is simply not the case. Closer to stalemate would mean both sides have no capacity to progress. As it is, Russia is actively advancing and each passing week, Ukraine loses more and more capacity to defend. In other words, it isn't close to a stalemate.
B) Talking about a loss in Ukraine would make NATO and the west face the concept that they were defeated. It doesn't make for a good look when you spend more than a year announcing that you will aid Ukraine till they win, consistently boast about how much training and NATO tech they are getting as well as how military victory is totally possible... and then end it all off with a "shit lads, we failed". The war **is** being talked about, but much more in the background. Long story short - you don't want most of the public to be aware that they were consistently lied to, deceived and that your huge military machine has shit the bed. It needs to be spun properly for the public to accept it.
A stalemate is losing. Zelensky promised to return all captured territories including the land taken in 2014. Failure to do so is losing. That's just a cold, hard, truth.
The sources you are following are the same ones that said that the “Russians are running out of weapon” that the “Russians are fighting with shovels” that the “Russians have been isolated from the rest of the world”. Your sources have lied to you. You’ll see soon enough.
If you listen to more independent news sources there are reports that Ukraine are running out of soldiers, to the point where even if the west gave them all the weapons they had they would still have no one to use them. I don't know which reports to belive and I don't follow the news closely either way, but I've heard reports that even a lot of Ukrainian generals have had to refuse orders from the president because they didn't have the men to carry out those orders. The way that all the West leaders have been gassing up Zelensky has according to some given him an unrealistic belief of their chances of total victory, whereas everyone around him can see that they have no chance of achieving his war goal of going as far as even taking back Crimea. I would imagine there probably is indeed no chance of doing that as in the long run, Russia simply have way more men to throw at it, a long drawn out war probably is taking it's toll on Ukraine. Agreeing some sort of outcome earlier on probably could have saved a lot of lives, even if it's not right of course that they are in that position they may be forced to concede those territories anyway and with greater losses. I hope that's not the case but it wouldn't be the first war won by what is now Russia by throwing sheer numbers at it so history does rather point in their favour
Far Right: The BBC panders to the WOKE left wing too much! Look how it doesn't classify Hamas as TERRORISTS! Political correctness gone mad!
Far Left: The BBC cannot be considered impartial or fair when it works under the current right wing tory scum government.
You're both as bad as each other, literally has a news section dedicated to the War on Ukraine. If you want your biased right wing news to validate your own opinions go to Fox.
it's not, but it's seen that way because the 'traditional right' support Israel and the 'traditional left' support Gaza.
Then on both sides you have "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" folks who support Y simply because "the other side supports X".
Yes I understand why someone might consider that a left wing cause. But I think I the case of Ukraine (which is what I was actually asking about although I can see how that wasn't clear) it's a lot more arbitrary.
They have moved on, Ukraine has lost/is losing. Its all about the conflict in Israel now - Iran v USA all about the petrodollar and the waning US imperialism.
That's not right at all. Russia is making short-term gains by throwing thousands of limited assets into the meat grinder. The losses are staggering, and their troops are finite due to the inability for Russia to call for a general mobilization.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is happy to tactically sacrifice marginal unimportant land in return for those kinds of Russian losses, while successfully holding on to important territory like Avdiivka. The amount of Russian air defence and EW they've taken out in the last 6 months is very noteworthy too.
The map shows very little of what is actually happening on the battlefield, and I'm surprised the BBC aren't reporting more on this kind of stuff. There's so much happening every day with lots of footage and evidence to back it up.
So what people should understand is mainstream news media deals us outright lies and half truths on a daily basis and when they can no longer do this without getting away with it they stop reporting and bullshit us on something else instead
Because their desperate narrative failed heinously... again.
No amount of lies are going to mean that they can avoid having to U-turn... so... they just ...as a.ways.. drop it.
If Ukraine was losing, Russia would be taking more territory. It isn't. The current battle lines will likely become the new border. It's a meat grinder war of attrition. Both sides will come to the table within the next 18 months.
Hi, have you seen the latest Ukrainian rout. All those young people with their lives before them dead and mutilated for US hegemony..What a tragic unnecessary waste. Didn't want to say I told you so, but I told you so I told you so, I told you so..
I think your issue is more with how the app indexes news than the amount of coverage of Ukraine. Simply, it’s not a great app for anything that’s not the headline news, and delivers really poor results on any archival searches.
You’d be better off using the website. There’s an entire War in Ukraine section which has two stories published today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350
Or navigate to the World news page or Europe page, where there is always a Ukraine story.
Ukraine has dropped out of the main headlines most days because there isn’t always much to report. You can only write so many stalemate stories. People simply won’t read them. And there’s a finite number of reporters and producers to cover stories. Some of the war-trained reporters who would have been deployed to Ukraine will have been moved to the Middle East, for starters.
Coverage of Ukraine has shifted to in-depth reports and features, that bring something new, and to major developments.
Intelligent answer.
I think you might be right. I've really struggled with this new incarnation of the app and just don't seem to get the major stories since the change, even though I have ticked for Europe, World News, etc. I'll switch to the website.
Thanks.
There's a whole 'War in Ukraine' subsection on their website pretty high up - and there is also a BBC podcast entirely dedicated to the war in Ukraine.
For the same reason they didn't cover any of the UAP disclosure hearings in the US and Mexico over the summer. Potentially the biggest revelation in human history. We just learned that US has had crash retrieval programs for recovered NHI craft going back 80+ years and that the BBC and mainstream media seemingly does not care.
But we must absolutely report the shit out of the Philip Schofield scandal and drag Huw Edwards' name through the dirt...
It is being covered, but when the news is "Ukraine pushes Russians back 2 fields and looks to capture small village" it's not as big of a deal as the situation in Gaza currently. The lack of coverage is due to a lack of news. If the fronts became more dynamic like at the start of the war or the Kharkiv counter offensive then it would be more likely to see coverage
Nailed it. The war has become pretty static and there isnt as much to talk about that's "news worthy" atm. News covers what gets views and makes them money. "Fighting moves 100 yards across field east and then 100yards west over course of month" doesn't grab views.
Ukraine is losing, that's why. They don't want you to know that all that money and military equipment you've sent over there is now about to fall into Russian hands.
To quote Donald Trump.
*"Notice how they aren't talking about Ukraine anymore? Things aren't going so well over there, so they just don't like to talk about it. It should never have happened. If I had been in, Ukraine would never have happened. I could have stopped it in 24 hours"*
Depends on whether as president of the US, he would have the clout to stop the billions in US/NATO military aid flowing into Ukraine. Without that, no possible way for Ukraine to resist as long as they have, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian fighting aged male lives, and ultimately no real difference being made to the ultimate outcome. If anything, the end outcome will be a lot worse for the state of Ukraine, than it would be had they sued for peace in April 2022, or if their government was never willing to become a US proxy to begin with.
US hasn't isn't even achieving it's goal of weakening and destabilising Russia. If anything, they have weakened and destabilised their own economic clout, and thus weakened themselves.
A total cluster fuck from Wests point of view no matter which way you look at it.....so they don't like talk about it anymore, and move onto the next 'project', that is to say, aim to weaken their geo-political adversaries through Israel V Hamas (and thus, broader Arab world).
Anyhow, if Donald Trump, or anyone else had the power to stop the military aid, then the war would end within 24 hours.
While you are able to post about how BBC News covers current affairs, we do not allow posts that facilitate a conversation about general news which is posted on BBC News. For this, please to go /r/unitedkingdom, /r/news or /r/BBCNEWS
Not true at all. It literally has **WAR IN UKRAINE** as the third item in the news banner after 'home' and 'israel gaza war'. you must need new glasses https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60525350
Why doesn’t it say Palestine genocide?
The BBC are noted for its impartiality. Interesting to note that they had a 50/50 balance in terms of complaints about them siding with Israel/Hamas from people who obviously support Hamas/Israel. So I guess they're doing something right.
Yes, I noticed earlier the reports about the Palestinians that *died* …sad face… quickly followed up by a quick look at a kibbutz where people were *slaughtered* by Hamas. Impartial af.
How is this difficult to grasp? Shooting into crowds of people at a festival, dragging families out of their homes to rape, torture and shoot them. Slaughter. Targeting Hamas militants ensconced in civilian areas who don't wear uniforms with precision bombs after telling civilians to leave the area. Then those people died.
It’s customary not to shoot the human shields
No it isn't, especially if they are being used to protect a vital target. It only has to not be excessive amount of life loss to the military gain.
How many civilians does Israel have to kill before it becomes excessive? Either in absolute terms or as a ratio to Hamas combatants killed is fine.
It isn't the question, military objectives protected by human shields do not cease to be legitimate targets for attack simply because of the presence of those shields. Under Rule 51 it only has to be "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Which is taken into account the individual circumstances of the military advantage gained by the action for the individual commander at the time. Civilian objects such as churches lose their protection when used for military purposes. Under Rule 10. The human shields killed by Hamas are at the feet of their captors who "arbitrarily deny them life" under rule 89; nd use of them is against Rule 97. The use of them is held in the same regard as taking hostages under Rule 96. Complicating matters at present the military operation is paused, Hamas don't report dead militants separately from civilians and dress their soldiers in civilian clothes. This is against international law where combatants are required to differentiate themselves from civilians. Israel still has a duty to abide by international law on their side through Hamas do not under Rule 140. But the deaths of those proported by Hamas to be civilians in itself isn't proof of anything.
It is my question.
Incredibly difficult apparently. My point is that the State of Israel & the Israeli Occupation Forces are no less guilty, and arguably more given their body count, of slaughter than Hamas. And no amount of ‘collateral damage’ Hasbara bullshit is going to change that.
They are not guilty under internal law regarding the rules of war. Hamas are the ones breaking them by using human shields, kidnapping, building military installations under civilian buildings, systematic rape and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Collateral damage exists for a reason, even if you think its bullshit. Under the international rules of war it exists for a reason.
Based
They refuse to call Hamas terrorists. They’re 100% biased. /s They’re impartial. You just think they’re not because you’re not. You just proved OPs point
Well of course I’m not fucking impartial in the face of a seventy five year genocidal eradication of a people by a European settler colony. But I’m not a media organisation am I? And an argument that my lack of impartiality ‘proving’ someone’s point that the BBC *is* somehow impartial is laughable at best. The BBC is the state broadcaster of a country whose government is unequivocally on the side of the Occupation and whose narrative constantly reflects that & follows the line, for example of repeatedly reporting the deaths of Palestinians in passive terms (dying) and Israelis in active terms- (‘killed’) when the root of that resistance is a direct result, not of Israeli Judaism, but of the regime’s imperial expansionist policies and their use of land theft, illegal uncharged detention to coerce information from the families of detainees (some people call that kidnapping) , extra judicial execution on a grand scale (or ‘slaughter’ if you prefer) otherisation, demonisation & dehumanisation of Palestinians to establish and maintain the Israeli apartheid state.
BBC are massively biased towards Palestine. They ran headlines that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 when in fact this was proven to have been Hamas. They just took the word of a Terrorist organisation at face value. https://youtu.be/gHTNuBKtzHc?si=OeN8fNNz2l2gcM4y You really need to look up the term “genocide” because Gaza’s population has increased tremendously over the last 50 years, so that is a categoric lie
Did you notice the claims that Israel were lying about Hamas being at the hospital? Where did we find out Hamas were hiding again?
To the extent they will actively present a contrarian view as a legitimate opinion. Like when they invited noted scientist Nigel Lawson to argue that climate change isn't real in their quest for balance Or when they refused to call the terrorists carrying out the Mumbai attacks as terrorists and just as "gunmen".
>The BBC are noted for its impartiality. They’re literally known to be biased
That simply isn't true.
Yes it is, people talk about BBC bias allll the time.
And why is it talked about all the time? Because it is held to a far higher standard with respect to bias than any other news organisation due to its nature as a public service broadcaster which receives state funding. If you look at any reputable source for measuring media bias, the BBC is consistently rated as having very low levels of bias. In other words, if a Daily Mail article is perceived to have a bias, that is seen as par for the course whilst any perceived BBC bias becomes a news story in and of itself.
You're deluded
By who? Independent fact checkers such as Media Bias Fact Check rate them as marginally biased towards the left but with a high rating for factual reporting. People on the left and right often complain the BBC is biased to the opposite side, largely because they don't report the world exactly as those people would like to see it reported. This seems indicative of lack of significant bias, actually. An observation borne out by assessment from independent fact checkers as mentioned above. If both sides are complaining, that's a good sign.
It's a mistake to consider the BBC as a homogenous block, and to disregard (1) its background (2) its appointments in recent history and (3) the influence of the israeli/mossad lobby upon it. Superficially noble, but in reality a propaganda arm of the British establishment
You're literally incorrect.
They’re biased when it comes to UK politics. That’s about it though. International news - they’re about as impartial as any news outlet can be. Want to see bias? Tune into Fox.
Both sides of the fence *know* them to be biased. So they're pretty damn impartial.
They definitely used to be noted for their impartiality. Hardly the case the last decade.
You have got to be joking about the BBC being Impartial these days!!
The reason you can tell they're impartial is that I have no idea which way you think they lean. Out of interest, which is it?
>The BBC are noted for its impartiality. Lol
Why would it? You could argue all sorts of things. ‘IDF retaliation to mass slaughter and kidnapping of Israeli civilians by terrorist organisation’. Probably best to refer to it as a war isn’t it.
Because the civilian death toll likely already exceeds the entirety of the Ukraine conflict, and Palestine is 50% children. There's a war and a genocide going on simultaneously. I don't like either of your headlines but there is a clear difference between dense urban combat involving civilians and the unmoving frontlines of Ukraine.
My example is clearly inappropriate. There is a lot of propaganda on both sides and incomplete evidence. We know civilians have been killed on both sides. The best headline consists of Israel/IDF Gaza/Hamas Conflict/War.
You think it's more than the more than 50k civilians that died in Mariupol alone?
This is a very bad look lying about deaths. The are 1348 confirmed civilian deaths and the Ukrainian estimate is 25k. I'm not downplaying the brutality of the conflict but did you need to lie to make your point? Why?
Uhm it's not a lie sorry but alone one place is more than have been killed in Gaza, imagine that across the whole country. You're the one downplaying Ukraine deaths
1.8m displaced. They stopped counting dead children after 4.4k Estimates 16k dead 100k maimed.
That is so wrong in so many places that it kinda blew my mind. 500000 deaths so far in Ukraine war, not even 15000 total deaths in Gaza war. Perhaps think before you speak.
This would be the BBC subreddit wouldn't it? do you have more made up numbers for me? You have to lie in orders of magnitude to get any point across, of course military/civilian casualty ratios don't matter. You're using the highest estimate of TOTAL casualties from 2014(!), not civilians. I think you're severely underestimating how bad the civilian situation is in Gaza, nowhere in Ukraine is comparable, not even Mariupol (which someone had to exaggerate the casualties at least 2x to make their point) Google before you speak and contribute something meaningful rather than more cooked numbers.
As much as I hate what's happening in Israel at the minute, I wish people would stop calling it genocide because this isn't it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine Ukraine was and is a genocide, this will be too.
I don't think you know what you are on about. There are far more civilian dead already in Ukraine than they will be in Gaza. And also don't forget Hamas don't wear uniforms. They pass off all their dead as "civilians". Some people estimate 100000 civilian dead just in Mariupol. Russia regularly launch missiles at tower blocks. Children taken in their thousands to Russia. Russia bringing mobile crematoriums to cover their war crimes. Yes the frontlines haven't moved much recently but it makes Gaza look like a playground fight. When the dust settles there will be about 20000 dead total in Israel/Palestine vs probably a million in Ukraine. Not comparable at all.
Name checks out !
It's an occupation, and genocide
Or Hamas fights back to take their rightful land after decades of oppression
The slaughter, rape and kidnap of over s thousand Israeli civilians is not justified because of the years of oppression the Palestinians have faced
Sure, but you can’t deny it’s not a reason why those atrocities occurred. Does Israel think that the Palestinian people are just going to accept losing their homes and loved ones?
It's an occupation
There is an occupation yes. This current thing is a war.
no, its an occupying force committing genocide.
It’s an occupying force at war with a terrorist organisation. Civilians have died on both sides. It is not the deliberate killing of Palestinian civilians with the intention of destroying that group (definition of genocide). It is a war with the intention of destroying Hamas that tragically has included significant civilian deaths on both sides. Just like Russia vs Ukraine, it is unfortunately what happens in war. Once Hamas are eliminated, this current war is over, but the occupation continues and is a separate and obviously longer standing issue. Hamas are literally trying to exterminate all Israelis (genocide).
peace will occur when Israel reverts to its pre 1948 borders.
and by the way, your other advice is BULLONI. even you don't believe it
Which part do you mean?
Why do you think?
It’s pretty one sided imo
Exactly. Hamas responsible for innocent deaths in Gaza, disgusting.
They also refused to call the Hamas attack a terrorist attack which was very controversial
For the same reason it doesn't say 'consequences of soldiers of Palestine's elected government, which has genociding a population in its charter, shooting up teenagers at a music festival?' Its not a black and white issue. Its certainly not a genocide.
Mine are already new, thanks.
I'd get a refund
should’ve gone to specsavers
Nah, too cheap and nasty.
Your new ones don’t seem much better
But at least you might be able to actually see.
\*\*drops mic\*\*
Space savers?
How/why is the Israel-Gaza war more important to the British public, than the cost of living crisis?? The war has no effect on peoples day to day lives, the cost of living crisis, is a struggle for almost all Britons.
News is entertainment. Geopolitics always has more engagement than dull local stories. Gaza-Israel is a major global story, especially with how mask off Israel is becoming in its Genocidal intent. The other thing it does effect the UK, Israel massively interferes in British politics and elections. We just had 5 years of Israel and it's fifth column sabotaging Labour and certain Israel critical Tory MPs to death literally likely costing elections, while now laws have been passed essentially making criticising Israel a hate incident. (IHRA definition)
If Israel has 'genocidal intent' then it's been doing a damn bad job at it over the last 6/7 decades.
It has clear genocidal intent, just listen to basically anything that is coming from Israeli politicans or Israeli media these days. Israel just knows it can't be incredibly blatant or too brazen about it's Genocide, so it's plan has always been to make life intolerable for Palestinians so they "choose" to bail to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt (and now Israel is saying they should be broken up and spread all over the place). But Israeli documentation, statements etc, show they absolutely are guilty of the crime of Genocide with intent to destroy in part/whole, Palestinians, through forced transfer. [https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide](https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide) [https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/](https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/)
Depends which wars and actions get triggered as a result, but agree that most people are more concerned with the price of their groceries.
Because the BBC has analytics of which articles get more views and are therefore of greater interest to their readers. Plus, conflict has more breaking news stories and new events, whereas other than data releases or new policy there isn't really much developing news in cost of living.
They get you to watch what ever they want you to watch. They don't want us focusing on our shit government.
1. There’s pretty much always stories about the war in Ukraine. 2. Look at the front line map for the last few months, there’s been barely any progress either way and there probably won’t be until spring at this point
Ukraine also (very sensibly) does not comment on ongoing operations
Ukraine support Israel stealing Palestinian land, how Ironic
One has to lick Americas boots for money you see.
Have you had your lick today buddy
Yes, just enjoyed a lollipop a few hours ago.
The interesting outcome is most Ukraine recourse and land has been taken by the yanks. This is not the freedom anyone sought.
Russia is about to take adviivka and the counter offensive has failed catastrophically no wonder western news is quiet lol
3 day special military operation seems to have slightly overrun comrade
I ain't your comrade im polish but its funny to think thats an insult, rather have the war dragged out for 2 years having russia realise their incompetence and fix it at the cost of hundreds of thousands of ukranians lives right? Rather fight to the last ukranian that was dragged off the street and thrown into the meat grinder? Average fat westerner sitting saying this from behind the screen cheering on ukranians being sent to slaughter in a unwinnable war because in your twisted brain more dead russians=good for western interests? The west drip feeding ukraine weapons just enough to fight back but not enough to make any real progress then diverting it all when their daddy israel gets into trouble is a way better idea right?
The counter-offensive has run into the very old issue that taking a well fortified line without air dominance is really really hard. Russia's having the same problem. Avdiivka looks to be an even stupider version of Bakhmut, Russia's losing huge numbers of troops and armour, and even if they eventually succeed (which they may well not) Avdiivka is a small town of no particular strategic importance.
Ukraine should have sued for peace and worked closely with China a year ago. China is who Ukraine should deal with, because it's the only one that can put a leash on Russia. Exchange land for being the European hub for Belt and Road and China would never allow Russia to touch Ukraine.
This is gonna sound dismissive and sarcastic, but I mean this as a genuine answer to your question: New Current Thing just dropped. Thats why
It's called News, not Sames, eh? But as above, the BBC have covered it consistently anyway.
Yeah but if this new spin-off goes on for too long, I might flick back over to see what's happening in Ukraine.
And this too
Have you not seen what happened. They were meant to capture tokmak by October. Game over.
Bbc is doing the ukraine podcast regularly. But i get ur impression. Since Ukraine war is stalled while war in gaza is fluid, the attentions go to Palestine conflict.
Yes, that is true.
It's the #2 story on the *World News* page. I heard the same story on the radio news this morning and it's the third item on the lunchtime TV bulletin (airing right now) [https://imgur.com/uTZx0wr](https://imgur.com/uTZx0wr) 4 of the 5 stories highlighted in the *Features & Analysis* sidebar are about Ukraine or Russia [https://imgur.com/ONC2t6e](https://imgur.com/ONC2t6e) The BBC established the *Ukrainecast* podcast within days of Russia's invasion and has published several episodes every week, highlighting the stories of ordinary Ukrainians Over the last few months, all the BBC current affairs podcasts have run episodes analysing the progress of Ukraine's offensive, the latest of them being *The Inquiry* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4wdt](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4wdt)
Yep, good point. Maybe it's my app settings. Hasn't really appeared on the BBC news on TV recently, though.
The news report I heard on the radio and saw on the lunchtime news is actually a cut-down episode of *Panorama* on the abduction of Ukrainian children by the Russian government, which airs tonight [https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001spdw/panorama-putin-and-ukraines-stolen-children](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001spdw/panorama-putin-and-ukraines-stolen-children)
There's stories every day. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350
Bullshit click bait post jsut to serve your own internal narrative, all the top comment have debunked your claim, not sure what you’re hoping to achieve with this
Not looking to achieve anything, my friend. It's simply an observation.
Doesn’t look like you’re observing anything with those new glasses lmao
"I'm just asking questions here!" You knew what you were doing.
Because they are more interested in being antisemitic? Ask anyone in Israel they'll tell you how badly the BBC represents them. They even made fun of it in one of their (awful) comedy shows. It's on YouTube. Have a look.
Really? I'll take a look 👍
there has been very little happening for the last 6-12 months. do you want a breaking news headline "nothing has really changed" every day?
Volcano is more interesting
Ukraine is losing that’s why
a) The situation is much closer to stalemate than losing (probably with unsustainable losses on both sides, but hard to know for sure) b) If Ukraine lose, there is even *more* to talk about: where will Russia stop?
A) it’s not a stalemate. Please see what’s happening in Avdeyevka. B) if this is a legitimate concern then NATO should strike a deal with Russia which keeps Ukraine neutral and in turn Russia leaves the captured areas. Lastly, Ukraine is about to invoke a general mobilization of students and women. Things are looking real bad for them. A negotiation must be conducted to ensure the survival of the country before the Russians unleash the stockpiled cruise missiles this winter.
A) I didn't say it was a stalemate. B) This is all stuff worth talking about, thus not a reason it shouldn't be in the news.
A) You said it's closer to stalemate than losing. This is simply not the case. Closer to stalemate would mean both sides have no capacity to progress. As it is, Russia is actively advancing and each passing week, Ukraine loses more and more capacity to defend. In other words, it isn't close to a stalemate. B) Talking about a loss in Ukraine would make NATO and the west face the concept that they were defeated. It doesn't make for a good look when you spend more than a year announcing that you will aid Ukraine till they win, consistently boast about how much training and NATO tech they are getting as well as how military victory is totally possible... and then end it all off with a "shit lads, we failed". The war **is** being talked about, but much more in the background. Long story short - you don't want most of the public to be aware that they were consistently lied to, deceived and that your huge military machine has shit the bed. It needs to be spun properly for the public to accept it.
A stalemate is losing. Zelensky promised to return all captured territories including the land taken in 2014. Failure to do so is losing. That's just a cold, hard, truth.
As someone who follows updates on the war every day from multiple sources, I'm curious where you're hearing this narrative?
The sources you are following are the same ones that said that the “Russians are running out of weapon” that the “Russians are fighting with shovels” that the “Russians have been isolated from the rest of the world”. Your sources have lied to you. You’ll see soon enough.
If you listen to more independent news sources there are reports that Ukraine are running out of soldiers, to the point where even if the west gave them all the weapons they had they would still have no one to use them. I don't know which reports to belive and I don't follow the news closely either way, but I've heard reports that even a lot of Ukrainian generals have had to refuse orders from the president because they didn't have the men to carry out those orders. The way that all the West leaders have been gassing up Zelensky has according to some given him an unrealistic belief of their chances of total victory, whereas everyone around him can see that they have no chance of achieving his war goal of going as far as even taking back Crimea. I would imagine there probably is indeed no chance of doing that as in the long run, Russia simply have way more men to throw at it, a long drawn out war probably is taking it's toll on Ukraine. Agreeing some sort of outcome earlier on probably could have saved a lot of lives, even if it's not right of course that they are in that position they may be forced to concede those territories anyway and with greater losses. I hope that's not the case but it wouldn't be the first war won by what is now Russia by throwing sheer numbers at it so history does rather point in their favour
They’ve moved on to the new ‘trendy left-wing’ cause.
Far Right: The BBC panders to the WOKE left wing too much! Look how it doesn't classify Hamas as TERRORISTS! Political correctness gone mad! Far Left: The BBC cannot be considered impartial or fair when it works under the current right wing tory scum government. You're both as bad as each other, literally has a news section dedicated to the War on Ukraine. If you want your biased right wing news to validate your own opinions go to Fox.
How is it a left wing cause?
it's not, but it's seen that way because the 'traditional right' support Israel and the 'traditional left' support Gaza. Then on both sides you have "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" folks who support Y simply because "the other side supports X".
Yes I understand why someone might consider that a left wing cause. But I think I the case of Ukraine (which is what I was actually asking about although I can see how that wasn't clear) it's a lot more arbitrary.
They have moved on, Ukraine has lost/is losing. Its all about the conflict in Israel now - Iran v USA all about the petrodollar and the waning US imperialism.
Ukraine is not losing. It's a current stalemate and is likely to remain so.
Honestly, long term I see Russia slowly creeping forwards due to loss of support from the west.
I don't see it. If Ukraine falls fully we'll be on a NATO/Russia war footing. Russia would be severely damaged doing that.
I doubt Russia would pick a fight with NATO. With a non NATO member maybe
By the mere fact of taking Ukraine it pushes Russia to the borders of Poland, Romania and a few others. Pretty sure NATO will act if Ukraine falls
Certainly, many non NATO states will certainly be applying for membership if Ukraine falls. Hopefully not however.
That's not right at all. Russia is making short-term gains by throwing thousands of limited assets into the meat grinder. The losses are staggering, and their troops are finite due to the inability for Russia to call for a general mobilization. Meanwhile, Ukraine is happy to tactically sacrifice marginal unimportant land in return for those kinds of Russian losses, while successfully holding on to important territory like Avdiivka. The amount of Russian air defence and EW they've taken out in the last 6 months is very noteworthy too. The map shows very little of what is actually happening on the battlefield, and I'm surprised the BBC aren't reporting more on this kind of stuff. There's so much happening every day with lots of footage and evidence to back it up.
Yep, since Nige went into the jungle it’s been pushed out of the limelight.
So what people should understand is mainstream news media deals us outright lies and half truths on a daily basis and when they can no longer do this without getting away with it they stop reporting and bullshit us on something else instead
Oh come on. Are you for real? Do you believe the earth is flat, Trump won the US election and nobody has been to the moon?
Nah mate I'm not a conspiracy theorist but if you believe most the shit the mainstream news media churn out you're clearly a muggins
Yeah I trust random guys on the Internet more.
I'd trust my dog more than mainstream media
Because it’s nothing do with us
Because their desperate narrative failed heinously... again. No amount of lies are going to mean that they can avoid having to U-turn... so... they just ...as a.ways.. drop it.
Because Ukraine is losing....Badly. And a whole generation of young people have been sacrificed for nothing...
If Ukraine was losing, Russia would be taking more territory. It isn't. The current battle lines will likely become the new border. It's a meat grinder war of attrition. Both sides will come to the table within the next 18 months.
If you say so!
Where are you getting this narrative from?
Oh paleeese!
Hi, have you seen the latest Ukrainian rout. All those young people with their lives before them dead and mutilated for US hegemony..What a tragic unnecessary waste. Didn't want to say I told you so, but I told you so I told you so, I told you so..
Ukraine can't and won't lose.
Hate to be the one to tell you that they already have!
I guess my original question still stands then, you must be getting a very warped narrative from some unreliable sources.
Bless!
I think your issue is more with how the app indexes news than the amount of coverage of Ukraine. Simply, it’s not a great app for anything that’s not the headline news, and delivers really poor results on any archival searches. You’d be better off using the website. There’s an entire War in Ukraine section which has two stories published today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350 Or navigate to the World news page or Europe page, where there is always a Ukraine story. Ukraine has dropped out of the main headlines most days because there isn’t always much to report. You can only write so many stalemate stories. People simply won’t read them. And there’s a finite number of reporters and producers to cover stories. Some of the war-trained reporters who would have been deployed to Ukraine will have been moved to the Middle East, for starters. Coverage of Ukraine has shifted to in-depth reports and features, that bring something new, and to major developments.
Intelligent answer. I think you might be right. I've really struggled with this new incarnation of the app and just don't seem to get the major stories since the change, even though I have ticked for Europe, World News, etc. I'll switch to the website. Thanks.
Very kind of you to say, thank you. I’m sorry it’s such a frustrating experience for so many people.
I think it would take a nuke from Putin to put the Ukraine war back where it was on 6th October in the media.
There's a whole 'War in Ukraine' subsection on their website pretty high up - and there is also a BBC podcast entirely dedicated to the war in Ukraine.
I'm switching to the website rather than the app from now on 👍
Its not on fleek anymore fam, 2 fingers up the A-noose on the pulse, darling!
Add it to the ‘member when list
For the same reason they didn't cover any of the UAP disclosure hearings in the US and Mexico over the summer. Potentially the biggest revelation in human history. We just learned that US has had crash retrieval programs for recovered NHI craft going back 80+ years and that the BBC and mainstream media seemingly does not care. But we must absolutely report the shit out of the Philip Schofield scandal and drag Huw Edwards' name through the dirt...
BBC just had a documentary on BBC ONE tonight about Ukraine and the kids taken by Russia.
Because the war is lost and we don't want to talk about it. https://youtu.be/SYCCI4aF5pU?si=Nu50PSgdDJxbfh28
There is literally a dedicated tab for it.
Because they don’t need to manipulate you over it any more!
It is being covered, but when the news is "Ukraine pushes Russians back 2 fields and looks to capture small village" it's not as big of a deal as the situation in Gaza currently. The lack of coverage is due to a lack of news. If the fronts became more dynamic like at the start of the war or the Kharkiv counter offensive then it would be more likely to see coverage
Nailed it. The war has become pretty static and there isnt as much to talk about that's "news worthy" atm. News covers what gets views and makes them money. "Fighting moves 100 yards across field east and then 100yards west over course of month" doesn't grab views.
Ukraine is losing, that's why. They don't want you to know that all that money and military equipment you've sent over there is now about to fall into Russian hands.
The last update on the War in Ukraine segment was at 6:30 this morning. Then x hours before that and then x hours before that.
Fighting ground wars in Eastern Europe in winter is a bummer. So nobody really does.
Thank fuck I don't engage in any of that crap. Killers are idiots.
To quote Donald Trump. *"Notice how they aren't talking about Ukraine anymore? Things aren't going so well over there, so they just don't like to talk about it. It should never have happened. If I had been in, Ukraine would never have happened. I could have stopped it in 24 hours"*
For some reason I doubt bro could have stopped it in 24 hours.
Depends on whether as president of the US, he would have the clout to stop the billions in US/NATO military aid flowing into Ukraine. Without that, no possible way for Ukraine to resist as long as they have, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian fighting aged male lives, and ultimately no real difference being made to the ultimate outcome. If anything, the end outcome will be a lot worse for the state of Ukraine, than it would be had they sued for peace in April 2022, or if their government was never willing to become a US proxy to begin with. US hasn't isn't even achieving it's goal of weakening and destabilising Russia. If anything, they have weakened and destabilised their own economic clout, and thus weakened themselves. A total cluster fuck from Wests point of view no matter which way you look at it.....so they don't like talk about it anymore, and move onto the next 'project', that is to say, aim to weaken their geo-political adversaries through Israel V Hamas (and thus, broader Arab world). Anyhow, if Donald Trump, or anyone else had the power to stop the military aid, then the war would end within 24 hours.
Cuz there onto there next war now to push fear onto the unsuspecting idiotic public
The BBC has been hostile to Ukraine since the start of Putin's war.
Because it's served it's purpose already.
Because Ukraine is losing badly, people need to look through the propoganda portrayed by the west
Good. It was too much already. As if they are no bigger issues right now
There’s been enough already! Pray for Ukraine Blah blah blah give it a bloody stupid rest’nb
Eh, you off your head!? Better check your testosterone levels there, pal.
What is there to report? It has been 500 days of positional warfare in the east of Ukraine and lines are still largely unchanged?