Can we truly expect the BBC to be impartial?

It is depressing to think that none of us were particularly surprised by the revelations by the Telegraph newspaper that the BBC was biased in its reporting.   Yet, the document’s findings are chilling. It singles out an episode of Panorama, the BBC flagship current-affairs show, for special condemnation. Broadcast just a week before the US Presidential election in November 2024, it spliced together two entirely separate remarks by President Trump that were 54minutes apart, giving the impression that Trump was inciting violence.

Another issue that was prominent in the dossier relates to BBC coverage of the war in Gaza as reported by BBC Arabic, the TV and digital news service. It revealed that throughout the Gaza war it gave a platform to contributors known to have made extreme antisemitic comments. One journalist who had said online that Jews should be burned “as Hitler did” appeared as a guest on BBC Arabic 244 times in 18 months. Another, described Israelis as less than human and Jews as “devils,” appeared on the channel 522 times between November 2023 and April 2025. The BBC has been found to have “doctored editorial and proven bias against Israel”. It can be said that the BBC broke the first rule of journalism, which is to be report accurately and truthfully the facts and at the same time trampled all over the first rule of public broadcasting, which is to be neutral in its reporting. To deliberately spread falsehoods regarding a politician is dishonest, sinister inexcusable, but I was wondering if it is truly possible to expect the BBC or any journalism to be truly objective and without any bias? Is it not part of the human psyche that naturally we all have biases and leanings one way or the other?

The Torah recognises this fact and the very real danger posed by bias. It warns judges from taking bribes in no uncertain terms: “. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe will blind the clear sighted and distort the words of the wise” (Shemot 23:8). The Torah reiterates in Devarim, “Don’t slant judgment and don’t show partiality; and don’t accept bribes, for bribes blind the sighted and distort the words of the wise” (Devarim 16:19).

The most basic understanding of this directive is that it forbids a judge from accepting payment to favour one party in the case. The commentator, Rashi, noting the duplicity of this verse, contends that this is a  commandment to forbid accepting money “even to judge truthfully.” The Chinukh expanding on this idea, suggests that bribes are forbidden even for truthful judgment for fear that if they become habitual then it will lead to accepting bribes to distort judgment. The Talmud explains homiletically that bribery is called “shochad” in Hebrew because it makes the judge and bribing litigant like one shehu chad.” A bribed judge thus becomes a party to the case and is legally incapable of presiding. Disqualifying benefits include all valuable goods or services conveyed by a party to a judge while the litigant’s case is docketed in the dayan’s court. Judges are even disqualified for borrowing household goods from neighbours who are also parties to litigation before the judge. Talmudic judges held themselves disqualified in numerous seemingly innocuous circumstances, such as where a litigant brushed a feather from the judge’s robe, where a party kicked some dirt to cover spittle that lay at the judge’s feet, and where a litigant who was also the judge’s sharecropper delivered the year’s crop to the judge shortly before it was actually due. Some authorities even disqualify dayanim to whom a litigant says “good morning” or offers other salutations or compliments unless the comments could be considered ordinary social conventions. The Torah recognises the pernicious effect of a bias and its inevitable compromising on one’s ability to remain neutral and impartial.

The devastation resulting from a bias in reporting was highlighted most vividly by the debacle with the twelve spies. The Spies did not want to enter the Land of Israel with its ensuing spiritual challenges. Their skewed vision and agenda driven report misrepresented the land of Israel to the children of Israel resulting in 40-year sojourn in the wilderness.

But more often than not our personal biases and partiality may not be immediately called into focus. This point was most clearly illustrated in the case of Eliezer the trusted servant of Abraham who was entrusted on the mission of finding a wife for Isaac Abraham’s son. Eliezer himself had a daughter who was of marriageable age, and we are told that subconsciously Eliezer very much wanted his own daughter to marry Isaac. What is striking is this fact is only alluded to towards the end of the second account of the story to Lavan. The Kotzker suggested that the reason it was not mentioned earlier was because as far as Eliezer was concerned, it simply did not exist. It was only after all was said and done and his mission had been accomplished that Eliezer became aware that retrospectively he had subconsciously been holding this bias throughout the mission.

The biases and tinted lens through which we view people and life’s events are part and parcel of life and for that we are blessed to have wise counsel and legislation in the torah to ensure our moral and ethical compass is not thrown off kilter. For the BBC in particular, in its unique and privileged national role,  it has  a heightened responsibility to ensure they do not misrepresent or mislead the public even inadvertently, the damage can be devastating and in  the case of the BBC if Trump has his way it may still prove to be a costly affair.