I guess not strictly news - but with all of the vitriol I have seen in discussions on the Israel situation, that have boiled down to arguments over wording, I feel that this take from the BBC is worthy of some discussion.
Mods, feel free to remove if this is not newsy enough.
Article: Why BBC doesn’t call Hamas militants ‘terrorists’ - John Simpson
Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they’re all asking why the BBC doesn’t say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.
The answer goes right back to the BBC’s founding principles.
Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that’s their business. We also run interviews with guests and quote contributors who describe Hamas as terrorists.
The key point is that we don’t say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who’ve attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it’s not as though we’re hiding the truth in any way - far from it.
Any reasonable person would be appalled by the kind of thing we’ve seen. It’s perfectly reasonable to call the incidents that have occurred “atrocities”, because that’s exactly what they are.
No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.
During the 50 years I’ve been reporting on events in the Middle East, I’ve seen for myself the aftermath of attacks like this one in Israel, and I’ve also seen the aftermath of Israeli bomb and artillery attacks on civilian targets in Lebanon and Gaza. The horror of things like that stay in your mind forever.
But this doesn’t mean that we should start saying that the organisation whose supporters have carried them out is a terrorist organisation, because that would mean we were abandoning our duty to stay objective.
And it’s always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them “the enemy”.
“Above all,” said a BBC document about all this, “there must be no room for ranting”. Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured.
But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
We don’t take sides. We don’t use loaded words like “evil” or “cowardly”. We don’t talk about “terrorists”. And we’re not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world’s most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy.
But the BBC gets particular attention, partly because we’ve got strong critics in politics and in the press, and partly because we’re rightly held to an especially high standard. But part of keeping to that high standard is to be as objective as it’s possible to be.
That’s why people in Britain and right round the world, in huge numbers, watch, read and listen to what we say, every single day.
As is appropriate for journalism.
No its not, they are legally considered terrorists and are on the same list as ISIS or the Taliban.
The well known phrase is “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I Imagine from their point of view, Israel is the ‘terrorist’ group, routinely bombing apartment buildings etc and that their actions are a proportionate counter (recent events nonwithstanding!)
Both sides of the current conflict have/are committing atrocities, but the reporting of those atrocities should be as factual and unbiased as possible.
The best way I’ve heard it described is that they both view the other group of people as existential evil. Far beyond enemies, something which is evil just for existing. Not just the militaries, but the nation, race, state, religion, whatever classification. With that viewpoint, any action you take can be justified. Just as nobody would think twice about killing a million mosquito larvae in a country that has thousands die from malaria, killing a few thousand of the other side is morally neutral at worst.
This is going to continue to be horrific for a while.
The freedom fighters that behead babies, rape woman and abduct people… Oh and also rocketstrike civilians in general…
If you believe in their “freedom” feel free to go there.
So do you call the Israeli army terrorists? Because they’ve done all of those things to an even greater extent than Hamas has.
You know, they BOTH do that shit, right? It’s important that you know this.
…whataboutism sucks. Regardless if it’s true.
But complaining about whataboutism while you ignore the problem everytime somoeone powerfull or ally does sucks the same. A war of suckers.
But redirecting attention away from the topic being discussed just so you can whine about someone else doing the same makes it appear as if you’re justifying it so long as someone else does it.
Stop doing this. It’s juvenile and muddies the water. You want to discuss how shitty America is, do it in its own post where that can be discussed in full. Here, it doesn’t belong.
Removed by mod
And while you have every right to your opinion, your opinion isn’t a newsworthy or relevant fact.
Journalists should never label a group of people with an adjective. It’s Journalism 101. Your writing should be free of personal bias and report the facts and quoted statements. No assumptions are allowed.
Removed by mod
Alright, buddy… quit while you’re behind.
“Hamas is a terrorist organization”. Help me spot the adjective there, cowboy.
It is an adjective.
Sorry that my source did not invent the usage, the word or language itself.
deleted by creator
They have the right to call them whatever they want, that doesn’t make it correct.
Neither does your opinion
Removed by mod
Lmao, you’re seriously linking to a deleted comment to try to make your case?
Laws are, by definition, a legal opinion— which can be overturned, by the way, by another legal opinion. The only fact here is that it is, is some jurisdiction, a law.
That just is not the point. I mean, if you are involved in the conflict you can totally believe in anything, but the point is in the moment you call them terrorist and call it a day you lost any possibility to analyze the situation and understand WTF is happening and why.
BBC is not saying they are NOT terrorists, but it does not matter in this context.
I’m not sure I agree with their decision, but I’m just saying that their logic is at least somewhat valid. I wouldn’t write it off as just an excuse.
The U.S., U.K., E.U., and others designate them as a terrorist group but the U.N. does not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
The reality is that they’re the militant faction of the de facto government of a quasi-state under Israeli occupation. It is complicated so the BBC just says who thinks they’re a terrorist group. That seems reasonable for journalists striving to be neutral.
“Everybody wants to occupy ‘the holy land’ and everyone who is taking part of that sucks”
While Israel has been basically a terrorist state, attacking Palestinians nonchalant, bombing civilian districts, and Hamas has grown in number, also basically being a terrorist state (the iron dome exists for a reason), it feels like we are forgetting that this whole argument comes down to religious rights. The argument will never end. The conflict will never end. Both groups are thumping their book claiming it’s their land. The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim. That’s how religious war works, unless some other great motivator stops it.
The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim
The US is older than Israel. My grandfather is older than Israel and he’s still alive. There was no state of Israel in 1920 and the Jewish population in the region was ~11%. This hasn’t been going on for centuries. It’s been going on for century.
The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has its origins in the 2nd millennium BCE, when Israelites emerged as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, During biblical times, a postulated United Kingdom of Israel existed before splitting into two Israelite kingdoms occupying the highland zone
The Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, thankfully those only lasted a century and that’s when we determined who got what.
Yes I’m sure that since they didn’t have it before, they wouldn’t try to have it again. My point is not about nations that rise and fall. It’s that they will continue to rise and fall for this holy war on what they consider to be “their land”
Are you really sure that without US intervention, and the nation of Israel starting, there wouldn’t be orthodox Jewish terrorists on the other side of the border claiming it was “their land?”
Those claiming it’s “their land” will continue to fight, until everyone is dead. That’s my point.
What list is this?
Removed by mod
It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
I miss when this was the standard for news. Now most (e: major) outlets don’t even try to pretend they have no bias and instead push a subjective point. Even when I agree with the point, I don’t like it when my “news” pushes it instead of just, you know, reporting.
Give me the info and let me form my own opinions.
The news in Australia literally adds dramatic music to their edits. They’re disgraceful, and manipulative.
I think your confusing a current affair/today tonight with actual news programs. I channel surf from 5-7:30pm and have never heard the main news programs of 7, 9, 10, SBS, nor the ABC editorialise like that in my 38yrs on this planet. At a stretch, they play clips of articles they’ve already covered at the end with the shows theme song over the top.
Interesting. I see it every time I visit my parents nearly. Doom drama music plays. ‘Journalist’ creates drama. I recommend John Simpson’s book
I see it all the time on aca and TT. Never on the main news shows, like I said, never in my 38yrs of being alive - and for the last 15yrs I’ve been watching the news between 5-7:30 unless I’m out. I seriously think you’re conflating current affairs shows with the news. Current affairs shows are held to a different (read: lower) standards and ethics levels than that of the news. Not to say there isn’t any bias or manipulation of the viewer, but they aren’t doing it with music. That’s aca and TTs domain.
It could well be that. I’ll pay attention next time I’m there.
While us Brits love to complain about the BBC being biased (probably an actual issue for internal UK politics) its good to remember that it’s still a world leading media outlet, and one of very few that can be considered not to be push an agenda. (I imagine I can find a lot of people that can probably disagree with that too…)
Even Routers has started editorialising, and I thought they were just meant to be raw facts!
Regardless of their wording, BBC news has a super Israel bias, and they even got called out on live TV during the news for it. They are not the place for unbiased reporting of this specific issue. The UK will always pretend Israel can do no wrong because they created them.
BBC news has a super Israel bias, … The UK will always pretend Israel can do no wrong because they created them.
I went on the BBC’s news site just now and looked at the top stories from the middle-east.
Here’s a BBC article which suggests that Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, despite Netenyahu denying it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67082047
Here’s an article which features the video diary of a (crying) Palestinian girl. “Gaza: Children screamed in the street”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67077224
Here’s another video. Title: “Gaza: ‘I wish I could be a normal child living with no war’”
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-67058592
Does the BBC have a ‘super Israel bias’?
Or are you biased which makes you mistakenly think the BBC is ‘super’ biased in favour of Israel and claim the UK ‘will always pretend Israel can do no wrong’?
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
On the front page of the BBC News website right now:
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-67074435 - Hiding at home, blinded and choked by dust - life in Gaza
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67078664 - Israel-Gaza attacks: Humza Yousaf’s wife fears for ‘terrified’ family
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047 - Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, US committee chairman says
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67077224 - Gaza: Children screamed in street as we fled 2am air strike
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67073970 - Push for lifesaving access to Gaza as Israel cuts off power and supplies
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
-
Well yeah, but like you say that’s more of a UK thing than a BBC thing. And in any case, the BBC refraining from calling Hamas terrorists shows that they do at least have some limits on their biases, where they do have them.
Pretty much all news sources are good for something, so long as it’s outside of their bias’ sphere of influence. A fully state run national news outlet can potentially give very unbiased news about events in another country - maybe even better than local news sources - so long as there isn’t some conflict of interest.
Absolutely.
It’s also a testament to the terrifying numbing that the passage of time has on events.
They describe WW2 where they called the Nazis, “the enemy”, then in the next sentence compare The IRA to the fucking Nazis.
Not even remotely close.
then in the next sentence compare The IRA to the fucking Nazis.
What? Did we read the same article? Maybe I’m suffering from a reading comprehension deficit, here, but that wasn’t my interpretation at all. Could you quote where you think they draw that comparison?
It is biased and wrong, you can see by the obvious problem in their research, like Hamas is considered terrorists by the entire western world, therefore saying that you don’t call them that because you don’t want people to tell what to think is terrorism support.
I disagree; it’s a loaded, politicized word. Even if you say that the “entire western world” considers Hamas a terrorist organization, that’s a sweeping generalization which, even if it could be called 100% true, does not represent the whole world.
Tell me the facts without giving me those loaded words. I’m smart enough to draw my own conclusions.
Removed by mod
You’re not objectively correct, “designated as terrorist by current and former national governments, and inter-governmental organizations” - they’ve expressed an opinion. You’re taking that opinion and presenting it as objective fact.
Removed by mod
Do you understand how the world works?
Yes I do. I just explained it to you. Is there some part of what I said that you’re struggling with?
Removed by mod
In addition to the word “adjective”, you should also look up the definition of “objective”. Because you keep digging and digging and it’s making you look silly.
You are wrong. Whether it’s because you don’t understand what is being said or you are intentionally ignoring it, what you are saying is inaccurate and factually incorrect.
A man’s called a terrorist or liberator
A rich man’s a thief or philanthropist
Is one a crusader or ruthless invader?
It’s all in which label is able to persist
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don’t exist
It does sound wonderful.
Removed by mod
For most of german people at the time, yes
Removed by mod
That is the argument I’m making. Which label was able to persist? To many conservatives they still see him as a liberator.
Removed by mod
Now do all the people that were in the German army and that showed up to his rallies. Go ahead… we’ll wait…
You know Donald Trump slept with Mein Kampf next to him, right? Trump loves Hitler.
You misunderstand.
Proper old-school journalists, like John Simpson, won’t be quick to call someone a terrorist. They will however report on someone who called them a terrorist.
It is their job to report the facts. That means that they report what they see and what they hear. Nothing more. That is journalism.
Coming to the conclusion that someone is a terrorist, isn’t news or journalism. It’s analysis or opinion. Often the journalist is in no position to form an opinion either way, and it’s not really his job anyway.
The reason this sounds weird to many, is because journalism has gone down the shitter. This used to be standard. Reuters for example, is still quite rigorous in this. But most news organisations now mix factual reporting with analysis. Some ‘news’ organisations remove the news/facts entirely. Basically, reading an article written by a good journalist, you should not be able to tell what side of the argument they are.
Eg.
Good: According to Mr. X, the apple was red and tasty. -> the journalist is simply reporting on what Mr. X said. The reader can decide if Mr. X was telling the truth.
Bad: According to Mr. X, the red apple was tasty. -> the journalist wasn’t there to see if the apple was red, Mr. X could be mistaken. The reader doesn’t realise that the colour of the apple was described as being red by Mr. X and can’t form their own opinion on whether to believe Mr. X.
The journalist doesn’t avoid mentioning the apple is allegedly red. They just make it clear that they themselves aren’t saying what colour it is, as they weren’t there to witness what colour it was and because their opinion doesn’t matter
And I know this may sound stupid, but it helps avoid (inadvertent) bias or accusations thereof.
It’s spelled “Xitter” now… as in “going down the Xitter”.
The same thing’s happening in Canada with the CBC; bunch of people calling them out for not saying “terrorist” implying it means they’re in favour of the attacks, when CBC simply has a policy of not saying that about anyone, because it’s not their job.
This is why we need CBC and can’t let the Conservative Party of Canada destroy them.
I generally don’t like the CBC, but I personally find their international political reporting top tier due to this kind of approach.
I just listened to a cbc segment that had a jew on saying to escalate, innocent civilians be damned. And yes, I hear JT call out Hamas as terrorists. We’re going to support a genocide if that’s what Isreal decides to do.
Opinion and interview pieces are obviously different. I didn’t realize Trudeau worked for the cbc.
As long as they are balanced, if you only ever have opinion pieces from one opinion, your just being biased by proxy.
This can lead to being over balanced though and inviting climate deniers etc.
I have to disagree.
Best example comes to us via the BBC above, during WW2 they never called the Nazis wicked or evil, but they did not and did not need to have Nazi-apologists on air to present a “fair and balanced” view Fox-News style.
As long as you present opinion as opinion and reporting as reporting and refrain from loaded language in your reporting you’re perfectly fine. Could it be better? Yes. But while you might not have arrived at “morally good”, you have clearly left “morally bad”.
It’s so refreshing to see real journalistic integrity once in a while. Thanks for sharing.
I can appreciate that they are making an effort to use neutral language.
John Simpson is a legend. His book, A Mad World, My Masters, is exceptional reading.
The guy has been reporting since before many of us were even born. If you can catch his show on the BBC it’s a great antidote to the sensationalized, biased reporting that passes for journalism these days.
Commendable to resist such pressure and remain as objective as possible
I don’t think you need to call hamas what they are, a far right fundamentalist extremist terrorist organisation. Their actions speak for themselves.
What they mean as that they could also say Israel is a terrorist state. That’s what some people think. And some people, specially those who have friends or family who have been killed in Palestina, might say that Hamas are defending their people and are not terrorists.
But you and me, citizens without voice, can call them terrorists (that’s what they are) but doing so we are somehow chosing a band in a conflict.I’m not sure I’d call Israel a terrorist state, but absolutely an apartheid state.
If you live in Gaza, you really don’t have a lot to lose by attacking Israeli non-combatants, because you have no hope, and the Israeli gov’t keeps going farther and farther to the right. Gaza looks a lot like the Warsaw ghettos prior to rounding all the Jews up and murdering them. The uprisings in the Warsaw ghetto were punished with the same kind of wildly disproportionate force as we’re already seeing Israel use against Gaza.
Hamas and Palestinian militants were, and are, wrong to target and murder non-combatants. And, at the same time, Israel has been doing exactly the same fucking thing for 20-odd years now; from 2008 through 2020, more than 120,000 Palestinians–mostly non-combatants–were wounded or killed by the Israeli military. In that same time period, 6,000 Israelis were wounded or killed by Palestinian militants.
Israel can not claim to be a democracy, because they refuse to give Palestinians a voice in government at all.
As an aside, the parallels between how Israel has treated Palestinians, and how the US has treated Native Americans is uncomfortable.
As an aside, the parallels between how Israel has treated Palestinians, and how the US has treated Native Americans is uncomfortable.
Which is even more ironic when you realise that that’s exactly where a certain mustachioed German dictator got his ideas from.
While I get what you mean, I don’t think it should automatically mean (even a lot of people think it does) that you can either say Hamas is a terrorist group or Israel is a terrorist state.
In my own view both are terrorist, both commit atrocities and the result of that are innocent lives lost from both sides.
I despise centrism so saying that hurts a little bit on the inside, but this is one of the rare cases where fighting at all is meaningless and both sides that are fighting (and commiting atrocities) are in the fault.
Terrorist isn’t really the right word to use. What’s going on over there is bilateral genocide. That’s the appropriate term to use.
Based
And be sure to follow them on the fediverse: @BBC_News_Labs@social.bbc
Is it possible to follow a mastodon account on lemmy?
Not presently, see discussion here.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they’re all asking why the BBC doesn’t say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that’s their business.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who’ve attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it’s not as though we’re hiding the truth in any way - far from it.
No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.
There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured.
That’s why people in Britain and right round the world, in huge numbers, watch, read and listen to what we say, every single day.
The original article contains 595 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Is this true? I was sure when Jeremy Corbyn criticised Israel, he was labelled as a terrorist sympathiser and anti-semite by the state media.
Just as a disclaimer, I can’t really remember and was never particularly interested in English politics at this time, so I have no opinions on Corbyn, or know if he really did make anti-semetic comments or not. I do remember the tabloid papers going wild on this, I was sure the BBC voiced this or allowed guests to voice this all the time.
The BBC would never have labelled him that. They might have quote other saying it. Big difference
deleted by creator
Got a link or a citation?
I’m almost certain I remember there being more “”“both sides are valid/we’re just being informative”“” articles about trans people more recently, but here’s an example of one from a couple years ago that was so controversial it got its own Wikipedia article: “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”
You claim the BBC are “suggesting that trans people are deviants who are going to ruin the moral fabric of society”, yet this is the best example you can find? Such bold claims require proof, are you sure you’re almost certain you remember the articles, or could you have read a comment parroting this narrative with no actual proof?
That article has been edited multiple times due to an influx of complaints. A fuller timeline can be found documented in videos here: https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg
The original article is based on poor premises, elevates the voices of explicitly hateful people, mislead the reader to a false conclusion that trans women are coercing lesbians into sex, platformed a known sexual-assaulter who called for the execution of all trans women. And finally the BBC also just straight up lied about if they interviewed trans people for the article.
It’s genuinely a terrible piece of journalism that the BBC should be utterly ashamed of.
From the wiki:
…On 31 May 2022, the BBC released rulings from the Head of the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) that stated that the article was a “legitimate piece of journalism overall” but that it had breached the BBC’s standards of accuracy in two ways. Firstly, the headline “gave the misleading impression that the focus of the article would be on pressure applied by trans women” when the actual article focused to an equal degree on “internalised pressure experienced by some lesbians as a result of a climate of opinion … within the LGBT community”.[5] As a result, the title of the article was changed to “The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women”.[7] Secondly, the head of the ECU found that the coverage of the Get the L Out survey “did not make sufficiently clear that it lacked statistical validity”. The wording of the article surrounding the survey was subsequently altered.
I’m aware of the history of the article. The original article was significantly worse, as my comment stated.
But even above that, the article still should not have seen the light of day. It was based on a terrible premise to start with. A similar article would not have been written about other marginalised groups, and if it had it would have rightly been lambasted as absurdly bigoted. The BBC does not write articles like “do people of X race commit crimes?!”
And the fact that the BBC found Lily Cade to be a worthy contributor, even after they were informed of her history of sexual assault, raises so many red flags.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/b4buJMMiwcg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I literally replied to two other comments with an example. I’ve deleted the original post because I’m starting to get nasty DMs and I’m really not interested in continuing this now. Here’s the link if you want it, unless you’re just here to be a shithead, in which case fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/“We’re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women”
I’ve asked for examples of these articles, and nobody has ever been able to produce them.
It was an article that implied that trans women were coercing sex from lesbians.
Now the article was based on a poor premise to start with, “Do some \ do ?” is almost always going to be “yes” because there are bad people in basically every demographic. That doesn’t mean we go around writing fearmongering articles about those groups. But it gets far, far worse.
The article was based on a survey of 88 women from a group called “Get the L out”, whose entire purpose is trans exclusion. So heavily sampling bias to start, to say the least. The group, and the survey, also considered things like saying that trans women are women or can be lesbians to count as “being coerced into having sex with trans women”, because implying that trans women are women means that they can be lesbians means that they are within the broader dating pool of lesbians, and to them that amounts to coercing lesbians to date men. Which is obviously absurd and not what a normal person would think of when hearing “coerce into sex”. So the survey was deeply misleading and not at all what the headline implied.
The second main contributor to the article was adult actress Lily Cade. Who has admitted to sexually assaulting multiple women. Which makes her an odd choice for an article about sexual assault, don’t you think? These assaults were known long before the article was written, and came up with a Google search. Odd that it slipped through the BBC’s rigorous editorial process. Cade also went on a rant a few days after the article was published, where she called for all trans women to be executed, and called for several named trans women to be lynched. The BBC cut her contribution with a vague message not explaining why.
The BBC also claimed to have reached out to prominent trans women who speak about sex, and claimed that nobody agreed to speak with them. Which was proven to be a lie when Chelsea Poe, a high-profile trans woman who speaks about sex and relationships, revealed that she had in fact been interviewed.
Genuinely one of the most disgustingly biased pieces of “journalism” I’ve ever seen.
Part of the problem is that when you have a significant number of news sites fueling anti-trans hate, either directly or indirectly, it all starts to blend together. Nevertheless, here’s an example from a couple years ago, though I’m almost certain I’ve seen similar articles more recently.
Wow, this a really weird take from the BBC. I had no idea they would be fearful of inciting violence from uneducated abrahamic cult members by appropriately identifying Hamas as a terrorist org.
Learn how to read
