It is a debate that has preoccupied the BBC for decades and is revived every time a jolt of violence, wherever it occurs, strikes at the sensibilities of citizens or institutions. The editorial standards to which British public sector journalists are held recommend that they avoid using the word “terrorist” when reporting on conflicts or events. The constant labeling of Hamas members as “militants” has angered four of Britain’s most prominent lawyers, who have sent a letter to the chairman of Britain’s media regulator Ofcom denouncing the public body’s “lack of impartiality.”
“As far as impartiality is concerned, there is no doubt that the BBC has shown no respect at all for using the term ‘militant’ to refer to Hamas,” David Wolfson, Jeremy Brier, Stuart Polak and David Pannick have written. They all have different backgrounds and ideological affiliations – Polak is honorary president of the conservative Friends of Israel; Pannick was the lawyer who overturned former prime minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament during the Brexit dispute at the Supreme Court – the four agree to express their anger at the public company’s refusal To define what the UK government, the EU and UK laws themselves are doing as terrorism define it as such. “It is absolutely fair and right to label someone a ‘murderer’ after they have been convicted by a court. It doesn’t mean taking sides with anyone. “This is a fact-based definition,” emphasize the lawyers.
Hamas was classified as a terrorist organization in the 2000 Terrorism Law, which detailed what these violent activities consisted of. “The legal situation in this country [el Reino Unido] is that Hamas is a banned terrorist organization. This is not a debate or discussion. “It is a legal fact,” the lawyers say in their letter.
The BBC’s response
The BCC’s editorial guidelines make it clear that “the word ‘terrorist’ can be a hindrance rather than a help to understanding things” and the network strongly recommends avoiding its use: “We should try to avoid this term .” if we cannot attribute its use to a specific source. We have to let others characterize us [hechos o personas]. It is up to us to report the facts as we know them,” the company’s most recent internal document from 2005 said, clarifying an issue that keeps cropping up at critical moments.
“Calling someone a terrorist means taking sides and not treating any situation with due impartiality. “The BBC’s job is to present the facts to the audience and allow them to decide for themselves what they think, honestly and without speaking loudly,” John Simpson, the BBC’s international editor-in-chief, responded the lawyers’ letter. “Many of those who criticize us for not using the word ‘terrorist’ have seen our pictures, listened to our audios or read our articles and, thanks to this, have made a summary of what happened. It’s not that we hide the truth. Quite the opposite,” defends Simpson, who has no problem describing last weekend’s violence by Hamas in Israel as “atrocities.”
The four lawyers, on the other hand, refer in their text to information from the BBC in which express reference is made to “terrorist acts”, such as the bombing in the Manchester Arena in 2017 or the stabbings in London in 2019. And they even point out how The public body that produces its data manuals – Bitesizes or information pills – for students taking high school exams has defined in this text the IRA or Al-Qaeda as terrorist organizations.
You can follow EL PAÍS Television on X or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
Get the TV newsletter
All the latest news from broadcasters and platforms, with interviews, news and analyses, as well as recommendations and reviews from our journalists
LOG IN