Pro-Israel Bias in UK Newsrooms Revealed

Journalists from five British media outlets speaking anonymously tell Hamza Yusuf about the way their own organisations cover Israel-Palestine.

By Hamza Yusuf
Declassified UK

Journalists working at Britain’s most prestigious newspapers and TV channels have expressed concern at pro-Israel bias inside their organisations. Speaking exclusively to Declassified, half a dozen current and former staff at the BBC, Sky, ITN, the Guardian and The Times have disclosed the extent of anti-Palestinian prejudice in their newsrooms.

All of the journalists requested anonymity for fear of professional reprisals. Despite working for a range of outlets from across the political spectrum, they painted a consistent picture of the obstacles faced by reporters who want to humanise Palestinians or scrutinise Israeli government narratives.

A reporter from the right-wing Times newspaper said: “I literally cried in the bathroom so many times because of the uphill battle of trying to get things reported.” Disgruntled staff at the liberal Guardian have compiled an “exhaustive spreadsheet” with a “mountain of examples” of the paper “amplifying unchallenged Israeli propaganda … or treating clearly false statements by Israeli spokespeople as credible.”

Journalists working in TV studios face a similar struggle, with swift repercussions if guests from the Israeli government are asked difficult questions on air. Declassified was told: “The Israeli narrative always reigned supreme and instructed the coverage at Sky News, no matter how inaccurate.” 

At the BBC, when it comes to reporting accurately on the nature of Israeli conduct in Gaza, a journalist said:

“the use of the word genocide is effectively banned, and any contributor who uses this word is immediately shut down.”

At ITN, which produces news programmes for three British TV channels, the focus is on “clicks not ethical clarity,” a member of staff lamented. “Tragic footage [from Gaza] is often met with … remarks about how much traffic it will generate, as if it’s not real lives being impacted.”

Sky’s ‘Skewed’ News

Across all the mainstream media outlets where Declassified gained access to insiders, a recurring theme was the challenge of reporting on Israel’s war crimes, despite them being caught on camera. 

One journalist at Sky News suggested there are a whole set of unwritten journalistic rules that apply exclusively to Israel. “It’s a continuous battle to report the truth,” the journalist said.

“We would see the raw footage being sent to us from Gaza — we’re all well aware of the carnage. Yet you can’t describe what your eyes are seeing. 

I remember when [Israel’s then Defence Minister] Yoav Gallant announced the ‘complete siege’ immediately after Oct. 7. It was a blockade on top of an already crippling blockade. It was a violation of international law that was going to have catastrophic consequences, and yet this wasn’t allowed to be conveyed in the coverage.”

Since Israel began its onslaught in Gaza, Sky News has been criticised on social media for not attributing blame when Palestinians were killed, in contrast to vivid, humanising reporting on Israeli victims. Inside the newsroom, there is unease at how much prominence is given to the Israeli military’s version of events. 

“We would see the raw footage being sent to us from Gaza …. Yet you can’t describe what your eyes are seeing.” 

“Myself and other colleagues found ourselves frequently frustrated at how nothing could be reported unless there was a response or confirmation from the Israeli army,” the Sky journalist told Declassified. “We know who’s doing the killing, we know who’s responsible, so why must we wait for Israel to confirm or deny before we attribute? We never wait for the Russians; we take Ukrainian claims at face value as the victims. Why is this any different?

“Nor was any version Israel provided ever challenged. It was taken as fact, always. I remember challenging senior members of staff, reminding them that Israel repeatedly lies and has a history of doing so. But it was pointless and fell on deaf ears. The Israeli narrative always reigned supreme and instructed the coverage at Sky News, no matter how inaccurate.” 

Speaking up and trying to shift the direction of coverage was not without consequence, the Sky News journalist added. “To adopt a stance other than Israel having the right to defend itself, to push back against the skewed coverage would earn you the label of being difficult or rigid.”

‘Avalanche of Phone Calls’

The choice of which guests to book, and how hard to scrutinise them, has been another issue of concern inside the newsroom. Sky News frequently treated Palestinian guests with hostility, including muting them. For Israeli guests, that was a line that could not be crossed. 

“If we had an interview with the Palestinian ambassador that comprehensively conveyed the Palestinian side, or a presenter challenged an IDF spokesperson, or even a news report that humanised Palestinians and explicitly named Israel as the perpetrator, there’d be an avalanche of phone calls and complaints promptly,” the Sky source said.

Who exactly was responsible for some of the phone calls — and what their intent was — also became apparent.

“Israeli spokespeople or officials who had access to senior figures would pressure Sky News and often threaten to pull access to correspondents on the ground as a result. This clearly impacted what was and wasn’t said on air.” 

Sky News did not respond to requests for comment.

There are similar concerns at ITN, which makes the news programmes for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. A journalist employed by ITN, who wished not to disclose the exact programme they worked on, highlighted the callous attitude towards reporting on Palestine.

“Even when Gaza was covered, it was driven by ‘clicks’, not ethical clarity,” the journalist confided. “With the sheer scale of loss in Gaza, stories with dramatic visuals — like explosions or Israeli soldiers on the ground — were often chosen over humanitarian stories. 

“Tragic footage is often met with comments like, ‘That’s really good footage,’ or remarks about how much traffic it will generate, as if it’s not real lives being impacted. Working in an environment where colleagues seem detached — or even excited — about these tragedies is incredibly difficult.”

ITN declined to comment.

BBC Bias

Over at the BBC, two former journalists told Declassified that the playbook from Sky and ITN sounded very familiar. One went on to describe how after Oct. 7 the systemic bias was clear to see, with the BBC overtly “dehumanising Palestinians across TV, radio and online output.” 

They suggested there was an unmistakable hierarchy of human life in the coverage, with “a deliberate focus on Israelis who lost their lives and their hostages, with reporters naming them and developing narratives about them which were very sympathetic and humanising, yet there was no such treatment for the Palestinians.”

“The reporters suggested there was an unmistakable hierarchy of human life in the coverage.” 

Trying to amplify stories centred around Palestinians was challenging because “despite the disproportionality in the conflict, programme editors would insist on ‘balancing’ Palestinian voices with Israeli ones. When I pitched a piece about a Palestinian whose family was caught up in the destruction of Gaza, I was immediately told we also had to find an equivalent Israeli story. It was an admission that focusing on the suffering of Palestinians didn’t merit a story item of its own.” 

That journalist recalled how unwritten rules coming from senior staff engendered a culture of censorship: “The use of the word genocide is effectively banned, and any contributor who uses this word is immediately shut down.”

Amnesty International and U.N. human rights experts have concluded Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. 

In some instances BBC staff made comments privately which were indicative of the dehumanising attitudes that existed among the very people responsible for telling the story to the public.

“In November 2023, as footage was coming into the office of the Israeli siege on Al-Shifa hospital, I was having training with a colleague and remarked to them ‘I can’t believe they [the Israeli army] are allowed to do this.’ My colleague retorted, ‘I can’t believe Hamas uses kids as human shields.’ I was speechless. A war crime in front of our eyes being dismissed like this.”

The journalist was keen to emphasise that such attitudes are a function and not an error: “These attitudes don’t just exist at an individual level – the bias in the corporation runs much deeper.” Nor was this a culture that emerged exclusively after Oct. 7,  ober 2023. 

“In 2021, I remember attending an impartiality training session and someone brought up reportage on Israel and Palestine and how best to navigate it,” the reporter reflected. “The trainer described the situation as ‘complicated’, without any recognition of the huge imbalance of power and capabilities.”

Backlash Inside BBC

The journalist who provided this testimony resigned from the BBC at the end of 2023, stating that their “principles and values did not align with the organisation or the people who work there.” 

In November 2023, eight U.K.-based journalists at the BBC wrote a detailed letter accusing the broadcaster of “failing to tell the story of Israel-Palestine accurately.” They said that through omission and lack of critical engagement with Israel’s claims, the BBC “failed to help the public engage with and understand the human rights abuses unfolding in Gaza.”

The author of that letter – who also quit the BBC – outlined to Declassified how more than a year later they were “appalled to see how many of the issues highlighted have not been addressed. The BBC has uncritically amplified and legitimised Israel’s perspective even as the Israeli military continues to attack schools and hospitals.”

They felt that as a public service broadcaster, “the BBC has a grave responsibility, and its dehumanisation of Palestinian life – in numerous ways, such as lack of pushback in interviews with Israeli officials, entire articles framed around Israeli right of reply, or lack of crucial context — has had grave consequences.”

Declassified’s own research recently revealed the extent to which the broadcaster has failed to inform the public about U.K. military support for Israel.

[See :‘National Scandal’: The BBC’s Gaza Cover-Up]

Asked to respond to claims made by their journalists who spoke to Declassified, the BBC said:

“This conflict is one of the most polarising stories to report on, and we know people feel very strongly about how this is being reported. The BBC holds itself to very high standards and we strive to live up [to] our responsibility to deliver the most trusted and impartial news — reporting without fear or favour, and hearing from the widest range of voices.”

Yet the testimonies of these two journalists adds to a growing number of BBC insiders — some interviewed by Owen Jones —  who are increasingly unhappy with how the corporation has reported on Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

When high-profile presenter Mishal Hussein left the corporation in December, colleagues confirmed she held widespread reservations about the way the BBC was covering Gaza and how Israeli-centred it was. Others suggested her refusal to give Israeli guests an easy ride was angering senior management, thereby placing her under scrutiny.

‘Muzzled’ by the Times

Away from the TV screens, similar patterns of systemic bias can be found in the British press, at both liberal and conservative titles. A journalist at the right-wing Times newspaper recalled the language that was always used to shape understanding. “In all my reports, phrases like ‘since October 2023’ were changed and edited to ‘since the Hamas attacks’. Was it to emphasise the element of self-defence? Maybe.”  The journalist said:

“I wanted to be dispatched to the Middle East to do some stories that centre Palestinians, having had some prior experience doing so. But I was denied, with ‘budgetary constraints’ cited as the reason. I later found out that a reporter who ordinarily covered Ukraine had instead been sent, despite little experience in the region. They knew I didn’t attend the IDF briefings or regurgitate Israeli talking points like the other Times reporters, so instead let someone else go who would publish all the ‘right things.’”

The culture at the top of Britain’s “newspaper of record” is such that, “at one point, an editor was heard saying ‘Well I just don’t understand why they don’t get in buses and cars and get to safety,’ commenting on the Israeli military siege and extermination of Northern Gaza. This was the type of ignorance and indifference that was structurally embedded; there was zero awareness, zero attempts at even understanding the scale of Israel’s onslaught or conveying it to readers.”

To work in such an environment had a profound emotional toll, the Times journalist added. “I literally cried in the bathroom so many times because of the uphill battle of trying to get things reported and covered but facing an avalanche of obstacles. I felt like I was going crazy.”

“There was zero awareness, zero attempts, at even understanding the scale of Israel’s onslaught or conveying it to readers.”

They revealed how they were not alone in Rupert Murdoch’s News UK establishment in feeling dejected at the nature of the coverage on Gaza. “It was only after speaking with other colleagues, whether at The Times or Talk TV and Times Radio, that it dawned on me how many of us were feeling the same exasperation at being consistently muzzled.”

The Times did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Amplifying Israeli Propaganda’ at The Guardian

This culture of censorship and diluting coverage does not appear exclusive to right-wing newspapers. A journalist at the left-leaning Guardian, speaking anonymously to Declassified, revealed the challenges when it came to covering Israel’s assault on Gaza. “An exhaustive spreadsheet has been created by staff from the collective U.S. and U.K. team to document egregious reporting from the Guardian and an internal network of staff was set up in October 2023 to coordinate any dissent,” they revealed. 

“There is a mountain of examples logged; whether it’s amplifying unchallenged Israeli propaganda in the reporting or treating clearly false statements by Israeli spokespeople as credible. It’s actually rather damning that such mechanisms would be required at the Guardian. Worse still, there’s little contrition. Management is very defensive and dismissive about it and the responses are often inadequate.”

One major point of contention that kept surfacing in copy, the journalist pointed out, is the newspaper’s application of the phrase “Hamas-run health ministry” when mentioning the death toll in Gaza. “There is no reason for The Guardian to be using language tools that downplay the death toll, especially when credible sources exist that suggest the death toll is higher than reported.” 

But when it comes to omitting information from reportage that might sharpen readers’ understanding of reality, The Guardian is ostensibly a repeat offender.

“There’s been frequent discussions in the office about the failure to print some of the transparently genocidal statements issued by Israel’s leadership at the very start. One simply needs to read through multiple examples of intent in South Africa’s submission to the International Court of Justice. 

When some of those statements were printed, they were several paragraphs down and stripped of legal context. Might this admission of war crimes not be crucial information to help The Guardian readership understand why Israel operated as it did? Likewise, when The Guardian reports on Israel’s evacuation orders, why is the fact it’s a violation of international law repeatedly left out of these reports?”

These are just two examples from a catalogue, the journalist pointed out. But the strategy of suppression is clear, they insist: “Deceit by omission.” The wider role of The Guardian within the British media is also a source of concern to staff inside the newsroom. 

“Did the Guardian do enough? It positions itself as an independent, progressive paper, courageously mounting challenges to the consensus” the journalist noted. “It often compares itself to other newspapers, priding itself on being supposedly better than other right-wing broadsheets, particularly on Gaza. That is an extremely low bar. 

“But can the Guardian categorically say it stood up as a genocide unfolded and did everything in its power to report accurately? Certainly not. If Haaretz, a newspaper in a country with military censorship of the media, can have editorials openly using words like ethnic cleansing, what’s stopping The Guardian?”

Their concluding line is a sobering one: “It’s no secret that the coverage of the international and foreign desk of The Guardian follows the line of the British establishment anyway.”

The Guardian did not respond to requests for comment.

Hamza Yusuf is a British-Palestinian writer and journalist whose work focuses on Palestine. He has reported on daily life under occupation for Palestinians including home demolitions and forced expulsion and the conditions for Palestinians in Israeli prisons. He has also extensively covered the British political establishment’s legislation and policies towards Palestine. He has also contributed to Tribune Magazine, Jacobin, +972 Magazine and New Internationalist.

Views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.