SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bbc
Leftist Journalist Owen Jones Vindicated in Libel Case Over BBC's Biased Coverage of Gaza Genocide
The BBC has long been accused of centering Israel and dismissing the humanity of Palestinians in its coverage of Gaza.
Mar 12, 2026
British journalist Owen Jones on Thursday celebrated a UK High Court judge's ruling in his favor in a libel lawsuit that a BBC editor brought against him—and said that should the editor choose to move forward with his case despite the decision, he was looking forward "to defending my article in court."
The High Court ruled that Jones was expressing an opinion when he wrote an article for Drop Site News in December 2024 titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza," in which he spoke to BBC staffers about Middle East online editor Raffi Berg's influence over the news outlet's coverage of Israel and Palestine.
The court also said Jones had expressed his opinion and that of his sources based on concrete examples of Berg's editorial role and journalism.
Jones' article described staffers' allegations that "internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside" as Berg "sets the tone" for the outlet's online coverage of Israel's onslaught in the exclave, where more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 in what's been called a genocide by top Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
It noted that the BBC failed to report on Amnesty International's finding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and displayed an on-screen chyron reading, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide.'"
"Journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website," wrote Jones. "Several allege that Berg 'micromanages' this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality."
The BBC has long been criticized for centering Israel and "dehumanizing" Palestinians, as more than 1,000 artists said in a letter last year when they condemned the network for refusing to air a documentary about the impact of Israel's attacks on children in Gaza, on the grounds that it featured the child of the exclave's deputy minister of agriculture—suggesting "that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence."
The article also pointed to Berg's own history of pro-Israel coverage, including a 2002 story "that presented young [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes" documented by human rights groups and the US government.
Berg also presented Israeli settlers in the West Bank as "victims seeking 'a better quality of life' and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal," and wrote about the Mossad "in glowing terms" in a book he wrote with extensive cooperation from the Israeli intelligence agency.
He also posted a photo on social media showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a copy of Berg's book on his bookshelf, Jones reported.
Berg's lawyer said last year that Jones' reporting attacked Berg's "professional reputation as a journalist and editor," and led to death threats.
In order for his case against Jones to proceed, Berg would now need to prove in court that "Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication," Middle East Eye reported.
"I am proud to stand by my journalism," said Jones Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
BBC Vows to Fight Trump's $10 Billion Lawsuit Over Documentary Editing
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said one former BBC official. "So they should definitely fight it."
Dec 16, 2025
The British Broadcasting Corporation vowed to fight back against President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit filed on Monday—the latest legal challenge brought by the president against a media organization over its coverage of him.
A spokesperson for the BBC said in a brief statement on Tuesday, "We will be defending this case" after Trump filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Florida, alleging that the network defamed him and violated the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act when it aired edited comments he made in a speech on January 6, 2021, just before thousands of his supporters attacked the US Capitol.
Before last year's presidential election, the BBC series Panorama aired a documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" The film includes a section featuring Trump's speech to a crowd in Washington, DC on January 6, with two clips of him speaking about 50 minutes apart spliced together, making it appear as though he directly urged people to march to the Capitol.
With his lawsuit, Trump has suggested the edited clip created the impression that he incited violence—though several journalists have noted that those allegations predate the documentary. The edited clip received little attention until recent months when the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by Michael Prescott, a former BBC standards adviser with links to the Conservative Party.
In the memo, Prescott took aim at the documentary's editing and alleged a "pro-transgender bias" and "anti-Israel bias"in the BBC's news coverage.
Trump's lawsuit cites the internal review mentioned in Prescott's memo, alleging “a string of incidents that demonstrate serious bias in the corporation’s reporting.”
The BBC has publicly apologized for the editing of the documentary, but has denied that Trump has a legitimate basis for a defamation claim.
The lawsuit is Trump's latest against a media company over coverage of him. At least two cases—against ABC and CBS and its parent company, Paramount, have ended in settlements, with the companies agreeing to pay the president $16 million each. He also has a defamation case pending against the New York Times.
On Monday, Trump gave a muddled explanation of his latest lawsuit while speaking to the press at the White House, falsely claiming the BBC was accused of using AI to make him say "things [he] never said" in the documentary.
"Trump is suing the BBC. He doesn’t know why. But he’s suing anyway," said BBC presenter Sangita Myska.
Trump: "I'm suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth ... I guess they used AI or something" pic.twitter.com/VxYMDp6oZ2
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 15, 2025
Richard Tice, deputy leader of the right-wing Reform Party, expressed support for Trump's lawsuit on Tuesday and agreed with the push for "wholesale change" at the BBC. Christopher Ruddy of the Trump-aligned network Newsmax also told The Guardian that the BBC should "figure out a quick and easy settlement."
But on the network's "Today" program, former BBC Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said that "it would be extremely damaging to the BBC’s reputation not to fight the case."
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said Damazer. "And, unlike American media organizations which have coughed up the money, the BBC doesn’t have commercial business interests that depend on President Trump’s beneficence in the White House. So they should definitely fight it."
"The BBC has likely an extremely strong case," he added. "The 1960s established a very wide margin of press freedom in a case called Sullivan v. The New York Times, from which the BBC would undoubtedly benefit... President Trump was not harmed by what the BBC mistakenly did in its Panorama edit. The program wasn’t shown in the United States. He was neither financially nor politically hurt, and the BBC should definitely fight this case."
Zoe Gardner, a researcher and commentator on migration policy in the UK, denounced "far-right politicians and pundits" for "cheering" Trump's lawsuit.
"Given the BBC is publicly funded, this is Donald Trump suing you and me," Gardner said. "It’s a pathetic cry-bully attack on journalism by a wannabe dictator and an attack on every British person."
Keep ReadingShow Less
BBC Rebuked for Censoring Historian Who Called Trump ‘Most Openly Corrupt President in American History’
The Dutch historian said the BBC's edit of his lecture shows what happens "when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
Nov 25, 2025
The BBC is being accused of bending to pressure from the White House once again after it removed a historian's claim that President Donald Trump was “the most openly corrupt president in American history” from one of its broadcasts.
Rutger Bregman, a Dutch author and historian, said Tuesday that Britain's flagship news broadcaster cut the "key line" out of a speech he gave as part of its prestigious Reith Lecture series.
The broadcast had included Bregman's descriptions of Trump as "a convicted reality star" and a "modern-day Caligula." It also included his criticism of the "establishment propping up" former President Joe Biden, whom he called "an elderly man in obvious mental decline."
But the BBC admits it cut out the line referring to Trump's corruption.
“The BBC has decided to censor my first Reith lecture,” Bregman said. “This sentence was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre."
In a subsequent BBC radio broadcast discussing the controversy, the host said Bregman's assessment of Trump's corruption was removed "on legal advice."
"That same BBC legal advice means I can't tell you what was removed," he continued.
Bregman said he "was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC.”
The decision to pull Bregman's quote came as the network faces threats of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from Trump over its edit of one of his speeches leading up to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, which was fueled by the president's false assertions that his defeat in the 2020 election was the result of widespread voter fraud.
A documentary for the network's Panorama series, released days before the 2024 US election, had spliced together three clips of the president's speech to those assembled at the Capitol, which had occurred about 50 minutes apart. The statements made it appear as if Trump had urged supporters to march with him and called for violence.
Trump has since pardoned everyone who committed acts of violence on January 6, referring to them as “patriots,” and has purged investigators within the Justice Department who pursued cases against them.
The BBC issued an apology for its edit of Trump's comments, and its director general, Tim Davie, and the BBC News chief, Deborah Turness, have both resigned. However, it has insisted it did not defame Trump and that it would not settle any lawsuit with him.
In comments to the Guardian, a BBC spokesperson said it removed Bregman's comments because "all of our programs are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”
On social media, Bregman said the network's explanation did not make sense.
"The edit was made at the last minute, after editorial approval and four weeks after the live recording," he said. "A standard editorial edit doesn’t require days of high-level legal review or the involvement of many people at the top level."
He said the real reason was the network's fear of drawing Trump's ire.
"The truth is that the sentence wasn’t inaccurate—it was removed because of legal fears," he said. "And that’s exactly the concern my lecture raises: when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular