[ad_1]
BBC News’ world affairs editor John Simpson, 79, has taken to social media to defend the corporation amid swathes of criticism for its reporting on the Hamas-Israel conflict.
Described as a “Palestinian militant group” by the BBC, Hamas entered a number of Israeli communities near the Gaza Strip on October 7, killing hundreds and taking several more hostage.
John Simpson has backed the BBC’s decision not to label Hamas as “terrorists”
GETTY
Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, Simpson attempted to explain and back the Beeb’s decision, penning: “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it.
“Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.
“That’s why, in Britain and throughout the world, nearly half a billion people watch, listen to and read us.
“There’s always someone who would like us to rant. Sorry, it’s not what we do,” he signed off.
However, X itself implemented a context note to Simpson’s post which seemingly exposed the hypocrisy of the BBC’s stance.
It read: “In 2021 the UK Govt proscribed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. BBC editorial guidelines state ‘due impartiality… does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as… the rule of law.'”
And Simpson’s defence of the BBC only served to anger a vast number of followers and X users, with one replying to his post: “So you were fully impartial during the referendum?
“You have no obvious political bias? Rubbish! You just can’t bring yourselves to describe Hamas as a group of wicked bloodthirsty terrorists due to external pressures & faux loyalties.”
A second also weighed in: “With respect, you’re not taking sides when they’re legally proscribed as terrorists. By law, they are terrorists.”
And a third blasted the correspondent: “No @JohnSimpsonNews: Calling someone a terrorist means you’re calling someone a terrorist. They are proscribed as such. Like when you call someone a murderer.
“It’s legal accuracy; it isn’t picking a side. NOT calling them terrorists – inaccurately – *is* picking a side.”
British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it. Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality. The BBC’s job is to…
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) October 10, 2023
A fourth echoed: “This pious spiel is complete bulls***; the BBC have continuously chosen sides and it’s very clear which side they are on. They neither choose nor show any impartiality and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.”
GB News presenter Darren Grimes was also amongst the furious voices as he typed: “Er, by law they are terrorists. They are a proscribed terrorist organisation here in Britain. It isn’t ’taking sides’ to call them by their name, actually, I’d argue it’s taking a side to refuse to do so.”
As did GB News star Richard Tice who addressed Simpson directly: “John you have this totally wrong and should reflect on your position. BBC often uses word terrorist in its reporting.
“Hamas is proscribed terrorist group under UK law; giving BBC more than enough cover. You are defending the indefensible.” (sic)
Amid the furore sparked by the BBC’s decision and Simpson’s backing, there were some who sympathised with the corporation’s stance, however.
One fan threw their support behind Simpson as they weighed in: “Exactly. It concerns me to see politicians and even former BBC staff attacking the organisation on this point.
“There is also the critical issue of staff safety and access to places like Gaza. The terror is clear without the BBC reporter or presenter saying it.”
