Yeah the BBC suffers badly from this problem, because they are required by Ofcom to have fair and "balanced" reporting, and they interpret that as meaning they always have to get one view from each side of a story. Doesn't matter how batshit or fringe a side is, they'll present them equally.
The other day actually, I saw a newscaster describe the horrors Apartheid in South Africa as though it were happening today. She then closed with "... [Apartheid] is now no longer enforced" and transitioned quickly to the next topic. Not ended or abolished, but merely "not enforced".
> Like when the BBC said all converts to Islam are "reverts"
They didn't. They used their interviewees' own preferred terminology to refer to them in the story, which is fine. "Reverts" is the most common term among Muslims. Sort of like how capitalizing God in a story about Christians doesn't invalidate the beliefs of people who worship multiple gods.
> Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist
The first line: "Scottish Labour has described [...]".
> Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals
This is an insane characterisation of that article, which seems fair to me and not at all what I was talking about. Wanting your race to be represented in politics is a perfectly reasonable view and it doesn't need "calling out".
You should watch the original video, not just the BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kucaq6jkHMg . The reddit thread and other articles also provide context that the BBC article glossed over & excluded.
The way I see it: a politician was intimating to a community, known for its conservative religious practices, that they can one day enforce their ideal in their children's education. If the dogwhistle is too quiet, consider how Muslims, Christians and other non-racial communities drove the US Supreme Court ruling to allow opt-out of LGBTQ education.
IMHO, the insane idea is "a community is a race". As if South Asians getting more votes translates directly to "representing their race", not their culture or religion. It's a similar kind of crazy to "Islamophobia is basically racism" which the UK government has been trying to legislate: https://www.arabnews.com/node/2588955/amp
Obviously there are biased antisemitic news organizations, but of the high-profile ostensibly neutral ones BBC stands head and shoulders above the rest in the level of antisemitism.
(You don't have to take my word for it - a quick Google will find huge numbers of examples. Usually they'll get criticized and then post a correction, so in some sense they themselves acknowledge the problem - yet it keeps happening.)
You're happy to redefine genocide in a ludicrously expansive fashion but pretend to need clarification about what antisemitic means in this context? I know, you're just asking questions.
"Semitic" is a word that includes both hebrews and arabs, because both are classified as descendants of Shem in the Bible.
Despite that, most people who use the word "antisemitic" apply it only to something that is done against hebrews, and not to something done against arabs.
Therefore it makes sense to request clarification about what someone means by that word, i.e. if they meant that BBC is anti-Israel or it is anti-arabs.
It would be much better if everyone who means that something is anti-Israeli, would say it clearly, instead of using the ambiguous word "antisemitic".
The word "Semitic" has been created due to a misunderstanding of the Bible, because there the classification of the people was not based on real descendance from common ancestors, but it was based on the political dependence of those people at the time when the Book of Genesis was written. Unfortunately, nobody has found a suitable replacement for this word.
(In the Bible, the descendants of Shem were those dominated by Assyro-Babylonia, while the descendants of Ham were those dominated by Egypt, regardless of their true ancestors. For instance the Phoenicians were classified as descendants of Ham and the Hebrews as descendants of Shem, despite being 2 extremely closely related populations, separated by little else except their different religions.)
Meanwhile in the pro-Palestine movement, the BBC is seen as being so pro-Israel some people think their editors should be prosecuted[1]! (for what, I am unclear on)
112 BBC journalists recently signed an open letter accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias[2].
Domestically, every single political movement feels the BBC is biased against them. Their dry reporting style is at odds with what many, especially Americans, are used to. Unlike the author of that blogpost I do not really have a problem with them not using the word 'genocide' but I do take issue with some of their selective reporting (of course, every outlet must make a selection and everyone will have a problem with it). For example, Israeli newpaper Haaretz has been doing a lot of reporting on IDF soldiers being ordered to fire on crowds of unarmed civilians at aid sites[3]. The BBC does acknowledge it, but it's buried behind a headline about the IDF starting an investigation[4]. They do this because they always prefer quotes from official sources to eyewitness stuff.
