Palestinian deaths treated as less newsworthy: Despite Gaza suffering 34x more casualties than Israel, BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs 201 Israelis).
Systematic language bias favouring Israelis: BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied ‘massacre’ 18x more to Israeli casualties, and used ‘murder’ 220 times for Israelis vs once for Palestinians.
Suppression of genocide allegations: BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference.
Muffling Palestinian voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217).
Over 400 media figures, including 111 BBC staffers, have signed a letter demanding the BBC remove board member Robbie Gibb over conflict of interest on Gaza and the Middle East and his “consistent efforts to stifle legitimate coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza”
Today Drop Site News is publishing a landmark investigation about the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s unrelenting assault on Gaza by British journalist Owen Jones. His report is based on interviews with 13 journalists and other BBC staffers who offer remarkable insights into how senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers who, throughout the past 14 months, demanded that the network uphold its commitment to impartiality and fairness. Jones’s investigation of the BBC has three main components: a deeply reported look into the internal complaints from BBC journalists, a quantitative assessment of how the BBC characterizes the year-long siege on Gaza, and a review of the histories of the people behind the coverage—and, in particular, one editor, Raffi Berg.
https://cfmm.org.uk/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-double-standards/
https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/3250
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage
You’re not measuring by what percentage of Trump stories are positive/negative, the only metric that matters to him.
Nutrition Label…? Is that just a cute name for the full details?
This just begs the question of who “Newsguard” is and why anyone should trust them.
There’s dozens of conservative sites that do these ratings for right wing crap and give them high scores, too.
They have an About page that links to who they are and the criteria they use.
Just because conservatives have a shitty evil version doesn’t mean every rating is untrustworthy.
Guess your browser doesn’t have the ability to scroll down?
Not on a screenshot, no