The BBC, Gaza, and Owen Jones: A Rebuttal to a Delusional Diagnosis

Original article by Owen Jones in The Guardian (15 July 2025)

In his latest piece, Owen Jones claims the BBC has alienated everyone through its Gaza coverage because its idea of balance is “fatally flawed”. On some principles, he’s right. But his application of them is utterly delusional. The BBC’s problem isn’t that it’s too cautious or pro-Israel — it’s that it has surrendered to a progressive worldview that distorts reality and undermines trust.

Here’s a point-by-point response, comparing Jones’s argument to what’s actually going on.

1. False Equivalence? No — False Narrative

“By giving both sides equal weight in a vastly unequal conflict, the BBC distorts reality.”

Jones claims the BBC’s “balance” falsely equates oppressor with oppressed. But in reality, the BBC has equated the IDF — a state army operating under legal constraints — with Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group that raped, murdered, and kidnapped civilians on 7 October.

Meanwhile, the BBC routinely downplays Hamas atrocities, sometimes failing even to use the word “terrorist”. This isn’t “bothsidesism”. It’s a clear bias against Israel, masked as balance.

2. Pursue Truth? Yes — But Start with the Right One

“Impartiality should not mean neutrality. It should mean pursuing the truth.”

Agreed. But the truth is: Hamas is evil. It targets civilians, glorifies martyrdom, and openly calls for genocide. Israel, by contrast, often warns civilians before strikes, investigates alleged misconduct, and seeks to minimise collateral damage — even as it defends itself.

Calling for “truth” is meaningless if you refuse to see what it is.

3. Political Pressure? Yes — But Not from the Right

“The BBC is cowed by right-wing government pressure, leading to soft coverage of Israeli crimes.”

Again, Owen flips reality on its head. The BBC — especially its World Service — has made numerous corrections after wrongly suggesting Israeli responsibility for attacks later shown to be caused by Hamas or Islamic Jihad. These were not minor errors. They reflected a reflexive assumption of Israeli guilt, later disproved.

The pressure is real — but it’s from the progressive left, not the right.

4. The ‘View from Nowhere’ Is Journalism, Not Cowardice

“Pretending to be neutral in the face of injustice is dishonest.”

This is dangerous. Neutrality is a cornerstone of journalism. The moment reporters start “taking sides” in conflicts, they become activists, not journalists. Truth matters — but truth must be discovered, not declared in advance.

Owen assumes his view of the conflict is the only moral one. But journalism’s job is to report first, interpret later.

5. Public Mistrust? Absolutely — But for the Opposite Reason

“Audiences are right to distrust a broadcaster that won’t clearly call out Israeli atrocities.”

Yes, people are losing faith in the BBC — but not because it’s too pro-Israel. It’s because it has become ideologically captured, often advancing anti-Israel narratives uncritically.

Audiences are tired of selective outrage, double standards, and editorial choices that clearly lean left. Distrust is rational — just not for the reasons Owen thinks.

6. A Track Record of Bias — Just Not the One He Claims

“The BBC has a history of sanitising colonial violence and imperialism.”

If anything, the opposite is true. The modern BBC leans heavily into postcolonial guilt and progressive grievance. Its coverage often casts Western democracies — including Israel — as inherently suspect or oppressive.

This ideological slant doesn’t just skew Gaza coverage. It affects how the BBC talks about race, religion, gender, and history more broadly.

7. Sanitised Language? That’s Not Bias Toward Power — It’s Woke Caution

“Hesitant phrasing and euphemism reveal a bias towards the powerful.”

This is laughable. The BBC is not hesitant because it’s trying to protect governments. It’s hesitant because it’s afraid of offending progressive orthodoxy — especially around Islam, race, and colonialism.

When it avoids calling Hamas terrorists, or refuses to acknowledge clear antisemitism at protests, it’s not protecting the state. It’s protecting its own ideological allies.

8. A Crisis of Purpose? Yes — But It’s Woke Capture, Not Paralysis

“The BBC doesn’t know whether to be a neutral facilitator or a moral voice. That’s why it’s lost relevance.”

Correct diagnosis, wrong disease. The BBC has already chosen: it speaks in the voice of progressive moral certainty, just without the honesty to admit it.

It’s not neutral. It’s activist-lite, dressing ideology up as balance. The result? Everyone sees the bias — but Owen Jones still thinks it’s not going far enough.

Conclusion: The BBC Doesn’t Need to Be More Like Owen. It Needs to Be a Broadcaster Again.

Owen Jones sees the BBC as a cowardly, conservative institution. But in reality, it’s progressively slanted, deeply afraid of offending its activist base, and far more comfortable criticising Israel than Hamas. His article is a textbook case of projection — and a reminder of how far removed parts of the commentariat are from reality.

The BBC doesn’t need more moral clarity from the likes of Owen Jones. It needs actual impartiality, serious fact-checking, and the courage to say things that might upset its own bubble.