BBC shaping anti-Bibi stories before they’re told

It was a bright, cold day in London, and the clocks struck thirteen—perfect timing for the BBC to redefine “impartiality” yet again. The latest revelation that a BBC World Service producer explicitly sought an Israeli guest to criticize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than, say, someone with actual knowledge or relevance, is just another brick in the ever-growing wall of its anti-Zionist bias.

Israeli embassy spokeswoman Orly Goldschmidt laid bare the farcical nature of this request, noting that the BBC does not seek expertise, nor does it pursue balanced reporting. Instead, it merely hunts for voices that neatly align with its preconceived narrative. “There is nothing balanced or impartial about this,” she wrote on social media. It was a rare moment of someone stating the obvious in a world that increasingly pretends not to notice.

The BBC, of course, apologized. It always does. But apologies have become its default setting, a knee-jerk response deployed only when bias becomes too egregious to ignore. Last month, the corporation was forced to pull a documentary about the Gaza war after it emerged that its narrator was none other than the 14-year-old son of a Hamas official. The program, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” was already a masterclass in manipulation, but failing to disclose that its narrator had a direct familial link to Hamas? That was simply breathtaking in its audacity.

Yet this is the same BBC that, time after time, steadfastly refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization, preferring the woolly, morally evasive term “militant.” This linguistic contortionism isn’t accidental. It’s a studied, deliberate choice—one that aligns neatly with the broadcaster’s pattern of downplaying the murder of Israeli civilians while amplifying Palestinian grievances. The broadcaster’s linguistic double standards have been intentional; its Orwellian approach to language consistently frames Israel as the aggressor, regardless of reality.

This institutional bias is not new. From its disgraceful coverage of the Second Intifada to its attempts to equivocate between Hamas and the Israeli government, the BBC has long flirted with the boundaries of journalistic malpractice. In 2004, the Balen Report—a highly secretive internal investigation into the corporation’s Israel coverage—was buried, never to be released to the public. One might wonder why a public broadcaster, supposedly committed to transparency, fought tooth and nail to keep the findings of its own report under wraps. Those who suspect it contained damning evidence of systemic bias would not be wrong.

Recently, the BBC’s descent into anti-Zionist fervor has accelerated. The refusal to describe the October 7 Hamas attack as a “terrorist” act in initial reports was one of the most telling indicators of this. While global media outlets swiftly recognized the scale of the horror—whole families slaughtered, women raped, children burned alive—the BBC hesitated, clinging to its faux-neutrality as if doing so would somehow preserve its credibility. It had the opposite effect.

Even beyond the realm of Israel coverage, the BBC’s editorial choices betray an unmistakable ideological slant. It is a broadcaster that selectively amplifies outrage, instinctively siding with certain causes while dismissing others. Its eagerness to platform fringe voices that reinforce its own institutional prejudices is palpable.

And yet, British citizens are still compelled by law to fund this behemoth through the license fee—a regressive, antiquated tax that forces the public to bankroll an institution that has repeatedly betrayed its own standards of impartiality. It is a form of coerced patronage, forcing people to finance a broadcaster that increasingly resembles an activist newsroom rather than a serious journalistic enterprise.

The argument for defunding the BBC is no longer just about economics or technological change—it is now a moral imperative. In an age of media plurality, where audiences can choose from a vast array of independent news sources, there is no justification for obliging citizens to subsidize an organization that has abandoned any pretense of neutrality. Let the BBC compete in the open market, where it will have to answer to its viewers rather than preach to them.

The BBC likes to cast itself as the last bastion of truth in a chaotic media landscape, but its repeated failures suggest otherwise. If it wishes to continue its self-appointed role as the arbiter of morality, let it do so on its own dime. The British public deserves better than to be force-fed propaganda under the guise of public service broadcasting.

The BBC’s take on Israel is so balanced, it must be spinning on an axis only it can see. His superhero vision, brought to you courtesy of your taxes.