Transcription
Hello and welcome to ME Live. I'm Matilda Malinsson. It's Thursday, the 23rd of April, 2026.
Today, sanitizing genocide. New data exposes pro-Israeli bias in UK mainstream media. Out today, an investigation using AI to analyze hundreds of news articles claims to show how the UK mainstream media systematically sanitizes genocide and dehumanizes Palestinians. News cord, a media monitoring organization, fed its AI model 11,295 classified excerpts from Al Jazzer, BBC, The Guardian, Sky News, comparing parallel stories about Israel's war on Gaza, in which at least 72,000 Palestinians were killed.
The report found the BBC failed to name Israel as the perpetrator in Israeli attacks where civilians were killed in 50% of all analyzed cases. Sky News and The Guardian did so in only 54% of reports. According to its linguistic metrics, the BBC and The Guardian humanized Israeli captives twice as often as they did Palestinian ones. Sky News gave Israeli perspectives nearly double the word count they did Palestinians. And across all four outlets, only Alazer gave Palestinian voices slightly more coverage.
The report also goes into what is not mentioned. Sky News mentioned the word genocide just 12 times across the entire data set, the BBC 15 times and the Guardian 21. Across all media, the veracity of Palestinian death tolls was consistently undermined. The BBC labeled Gaza's Health Ministry Hamas affiliated in 60% of death toll citations, but mentioned the UN finds these sources credible in only 0.6%. Those casualty estimates have now been accepted by the Israeli military.
The BBC says that it receives complaints of both pro-Israeli and pro Palestinian bias. In a statement on their website, the public broadcaster says, "Careful consideration has been given to all aspects of our coverage to ensure that we report on developments accurately and with due impartiality in line with the BBC editorial guidelines."
Now here to take us through the methodology and the findings of today's report is data scientist Nema Aram the founder of News. Nema thank you so much for being here today. I want to start just by understanding the process here. Talk us through your method. How does News cord's AI linguistic model work?
>> Yeah. So at its core, it's essentially just like a big data processing engine. we you know in real time as soon as uh a news outlet such as the BBC reports on a story we scan the article and we store it in our database. Uh the same goes for Alzer um Middle East I all news outlets across the world regardless of the language even then what we do is we ask our um large language model a series of questions and this is how this is what we call classifying the excerpts. So we say you know um we after prompting the LLM we say okay this excerpt is it written in the passive frame or active frame uh is the perpetrator named we try to ask it really objective questions that are not going to lean into the AI's own biases uh and importantly I think with um artificial intelligence uh it still can't be 100% reliable you should never really publish a report that is completely AIdriven I think that's quite dangerous uh especially especially if it starts to hallucinate um and all the other problems that AI comes with.
So this is actually what the bulk of building this report um the time investment was was uh trying to manually go through every single excerpt. So you can imagine we had a team of volunteers uh go through 11,000 excerpts and manually basically ask themselves okay is this classification correct? Is this indeed humanization? Is this indeed in the passive uh frame? uh has the perpetrator indeed not been named? So these were actually just volunteers uh going through every single example and that took months and months as you can imagine.
>> Yeah, I can imagine. Wow. And I understand that you're using quantifiable metrics and you're trying to keep this as objective as possible. Some would say look the news cord organization is part of the tech for Palestine incubator. So on the spectrum of Israel to Palestine, if we have to see it like that, it it's it seems to sit in the Palestine corner. It may be an AI model, but AI is programmed by by humans. How would you respond to those who say, well, this is pretending to be objective by using data, but it's clearly not objective.
Yeah, I mean it's a it's a good point and obviously I would say it is objective but um this is a fair like critique that one could make that is not necessarily in the same space as us. Um and my response to that would be uh what we've done which I think is quite unique to other reports is the entire data set is publicly available. You can even download it as a CSV if you wish and you can man manually yourself go through and interrogate our data set and say oh you know they're saying um for example in 70% of cases is um BBC does not use the active framing for example uh you know what what's the data that makes this number up and then they can go through and see for themselves.
Uh and I think what we've tried to do to be as fair as possible and I think actually this is um more fair to western mainstream media such as the three that are in the in the report than it is to Alazer because Al Jazzer I think is well known that they report a lot more frequently on the genocide throughout whereas uh the BBC and uh Sky News and the Guardian would only report you could say on key you know bigger events for example. Um, so by us saying we will only count in the report cases where all four outlets covered the same story, that actually ensures that it's apple apples for apples comparison. It's not like we've um kind of uh used coverage gaps to make Alazer look really good and the BBC look really bad. Uh we've ensured that they're only covering the same stories and only that is in the data set.
>> Okay. Now let's talk about some of the findings. A lot of weight is given to how casualties are reported and you've used the terms just speaking now. Um was it in the passive voice or the active voice that these killings are described by the headlines? Was it an indirect or a direct attribution? Just talk us through quickly what those terms mean and why those distinctions are important.
>> Sure. I think like passive versus active is probably the most the one that goes under the radar the most is really subtle. Uh and an example of uh passive voice which I think is one of the most notorious cases that the BBC used was uh when Israel uh fired 335 bullets at Hindu Rajab uh killing her and also killing the medics that tried to save her. Uh the way the BBC and this headline still exists to this day. You can go and find it and screenshot it for yourselves. Um, they the BBC said Hindu Rajab found dead. Like there's no Israel is not in the headline. They don't say um so that's perpetrator unnamed and the passive part is found dead. They don't say Israel kills Hindra. They say Hindra found dead. A more subtle form of passive voice is um and the Guardian is notorious for this. They will say uh Israeli forces attack uh no refugee camp as 70 Palestinians are killed. So it's kind of the two the the action and the outcome are disconnected. It's kind of Israel does the attack, Palestinians are killed. It it doesn't say Israel kills Palestinians. So, this almost detaches the attacker from from those that have been killed. Uh, and this is a way to kind of just subdue the public and kind of not because Israel kills 70 Palestinians is a lot more direct, right? And and evokes a lot more emotion. And so this is how we end up with the finding that the BBC only attributes half of Israeli killings to Israel in any of its reports.
>> Now, another um question I want to put to you is about this metric humanization. News Chord's report found that the BBC and the Guardian humanized Israeli captives twice as often as they did Palestinian ones. How can AI measure whether reporting is humanizing?
>> Yes, and this is a really good point. Uh this is probably one of the most contentious metrics because humanization is you know it can be subjective right you know you could argue this is humanization and I could argue no that's not really we took the form like we took that word very literally when you just treat them as human so we ask uh our LLM have they given any context about these people other than the fact that they are hostages or prisoners as western media would call them have you talked about their family or their condition like literally the most basic thing we say okay that's humanization at it most basic form and you will see that across the board like Israeli hostages almost always they will be spoken about with in a humanizing way you know their family is expecting them to come home uh you know the they they have been released and they are battered and bruised and you know they'll say all of these all of these terms to make it really emotional whereas uh especially during the hostage exchange uh time period the the the Western media would would rarely ever go beyond just saying Palestinian prisoners and it'll just leave it at that.
>> Now, a much less disputable metric is the question of representation. Um, the BBC, The Guardian, and Sky all gave substantially more of their platform to Israeli voices than to Palestinian ones. Do you think that this disparity affects policy debates or public opinion in any meaningful way?
>> I I genuinely believe so. I think this is a really powerful tool that Western media uses and it's a form of dehumanization because you're taking the voice away from Palestinians. Uh and by the way, the BBC have um have responded to this in the past, not just from us, but from other uh watchd dogss and and parties that have posed this question to them. And the reason they always give is that, you know, we don't have access to to Palestinians. We don't, you know, we and then and then when you keep probing, they will end up saying, "Oh, but we can't trust them because they may be Hamas affiliated." And this is a classic form. And I'm sure you saw when the BBC documentary was pulled um because of you know a loose connection to uh someone working in agriculture uh in uh in in Gaza.
>> This was a surviving war zone. It was about Palestinian children exactly surviving the war and yeah one of the the boy narrating he had a parent in the agricultural department of the of course Hamasled civil administration of Gaza.
>> Yes. Exactly. So is this is their this is their rebuttals. Um, so when you do when you do go down to like when you do start um digging in you see that okay actually they there are Palestinians that want to talk but it's just that the BBC decide not to because they have all of these strict criteria and that in itself is dehumanization. It's saying you're not even allowed to talk because of XY Z reason that we've made up that means that you can't have a voice. So this I think is, you know, it's very predictable what what Sky News would say, what the Guardian and and the BBC would say, but actually if you drill down even deeper, um it actually makes them even more complicit because they're refusing to talk to these Palestinians.
>> Okay, so this report is out now. What next? What practical steps would you like to see implemented in response to the problems that you have not just identified, but quant quantified?
Yeah, this is a really good question and this is what I'm most excited about because I didn't want this to just be another report that kind of create some noise and then starts to die down. Importantly, I wanted the public to to become part of the report. And the way they can do this is by taking part in our action campaigns. So, what we've done is we've built a really easy way for you, the public, to send these numbers and metrics directly to the Guardian, to the BBC and Sky News with just one button click. uh just asking them the question, you know, uh have you seen these numbers? Is it as intended? Is this your like your editorial policy? Uh if so, then then why? Uh if not, then what steps will you take to correct them? Uh and it really is just um effectively the public trying to mount pressure on Western media to get them to correct course.
Uh another thing that we're going to do is this report will be living and breathing. Every 3 months we'll update it with the with new numbers from recent data. So it won't just be, you know, 2023 to 2025. It will be ongoing. Um, and that really the point of that is to see if they correct course. Um, and to be honest, my desire or the purpose of this report is not to get Western media to correct course. It's actually to just make people realize, have something reliable and credible that they can show maybe their parents, people that are less aware that look like, you know, maybe you don't care about um the Gaza genocide. Sadly, there are people that don't. But can you really trust a public broadcaster that seemingly has a vested interest in in protecting one side, a foreign entity that has nothing to do with the UK um and is basically just get people to rely on better media or alternative outlets.
>> Nemo Akram, thank you so much for joining us and for taking us through that report today. Now, something that stands out in the report when you read it is that while most media outlets over represent Israeli voices, they under represent even emit certain Israeli perspectives. Israeli leaders including President Isaac Herdzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Israel Catz, former Minister of Defense UF Galant have all made public statements identified by scholars as potentially, if not unequivocally, genocidal. The BBC has reported just one statement by an Israeli leader. It's an article here in which they say that finance minister Betsmotric talked of creating a situation where Gaza's population will be reduced to half its current size in 2 years. We've compiled some of what was omitted.
>> It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true. This rhetoric about civilians notware, not aware, not involved, it's absolutely not true. Our next guest was a BBC journalist and presenter for 5 years, but she quit over its coverage of Gaza. Karishma Patel left the BBC in October 2024 and is now running as a counselor for the Green Party. Karishma, welcome to ME Live. We've just learned about this news court report. Tell us your reaction.
Well, thank you for having me. Firstly, uh this report is it's absolutely brilliant. Honestly, it's a databacked comparative report. Um and honestly, it can't be argued against. Um and it it sort of comes along and corroborates uh work that was done as well uh last year by the center for media monitoring um by a number of others. So, you know, the data is coming together to paint a really clear picture and all of it really all of it really corroborates what I saw honestly um you know over over a year or so at the BBC covering Gaza.
>> and and when you were at the BBC was there a specific turning point at which you felt that it was untenable for you to continue in your role as a reporter? Can you describe to us where that change came from?
>> Yeah, I mean there were a couple of turning points honestly. uh the ones that really come to mind. Um, so I remember seeing a BBC correspondent embed with the Israeli military and go into alsha hospital. Um, and you know that that really broke me because that flew in the face of really basic journalistic ethics. you know, it's not possible to do to do good robust journalism if you're following the Israeli military into a hospital that's attacked um and then looking at so-called evidence that um that's that's there in front of you.
>> And what >> so there was that >> Sorry, continue. Continue.
>> Well, there was a there was also Hindra Jab's story. Um, and I think that was a that was an incredibly painful breaking point because I really really pushed for her story to be covered um as soon as I knew about it. And I didn't feel it should have been difficult uh to to sort of push for her story to be covered. And it was at that point that I was asked if I might be too emotional. Um, if I might be too close to the story, uh, if perhaps I needed to take a step back. And um you know it was very clear to me at that point that covering the genocide accurately um and comprehensively just wasn't the goal.
>> Were you quite isolated in these feelings? Just what kind of internal conversations were happening among your colleagues? Did did you find that others were expressing similar concerns to you privately or not at all?
There were plenty of people who agreed with me and could see what I was seeing and um you know we came together and we we absolutely did what we could to ensure that editorially the coverage was um was accurate and was fair. These are you know these are very basic things in in the world of journalism. So there were people who um who absolutely also notice but I would say that there are a number of people who perhaps noticed issues but didn't didn't do anything about it, didn't say anything, didn't feel they could say anything. Um, and that's also a large number of people. But I think even now a lot of people I speak to at the BBC will agree that coverage of the genocide was appalling and uh didn't didn't live up to all of the self-stated editorial standards.
Why would people feel like they they couldn't speak about this? You you've spoken about a culture of fear in the newsroom that prevents journalists from reporting ethically. Just explain this practically. What were reporters afraid of and how was this fear implemented in the newsroom?
So reporters were afraid of uh a number of things but largely I think of being told off. Um, and the culture of fear was created by various factors including you know sort of coordinated complaint campaigns against particular journalists. Um calls that I imagine were made to people further up the chain that would then result in you getting told off for um accurately reporting on something. Things like that. I think I realized in the newsroom that talking about certain things, raising certain issues, pushing back um when it came to Palestine related coverage would land you in trouble and the moment you are getting in trouble um you you know you become a bit of a problem in the newsroom. A lot of people are going to want to avoid that. But you know when we're talking about influence being exerted, it gets exerted in so many different ways. you know there there were definitely lots of pressures on the BBC. Uh there always are. You know our government, foreign embassies, foreign governments, lobby groups. Um, you know, especially when it comes to Palestine related coverage, all of those things are there. And um we were seeing people at the top really really fail to insulate against that pressure. Um, and we were seeing it filter down into the organization. And that manifests as journalists sat there on their shift choosing to sort of take the path of least resistance, let's say, choosing not to report accurately because it becomes more difficult because it becomes more of a fight to report accurately. Um, which is what makes it really insidious because it can be really hard to pinpoint. Um, and then of course you do also have people who who are definitely more aligned with Israel and are bringing those biases to to their coverage. Um, which also definitely happens.
>> Can the BBC change for the better? I mean, you left. Do you think that internal reform is is possible?
>> I think under the current conditions, no. I think the people the people at the top of the organization need to go. We need to see quite radical media reform. You know, we need to see a more democratized BBC. I would love to see a version of the BBC that really feels like it belongs to the public, that is accountable to the public, one that we can really feed into, you know, potentially alongside the existing board. We also have a board of uh you know, members of the public um or you know, a board of media professors um you know, we just need we need more layers of accountability and we need to be more involved. And it's also the case that you know the BBC's purse strings can't get threatened all the time. So that needs to be more protected so that we've got an actual independent public broadcaster. So a lot would have to happen to make the BBC better. I think it's possible under different conditions.
>> Kishma, looking forward, you've decided to run as a Green Party candidate in upcoming local elections. The Daily Mail recently did a hit piece on the party in which they spotlighted your position on BBC bias. I hope you don't mind us displaying it. as visually it sort of reveals itself. Um, what were your thoughts when you saw this Daily Mail article?
>> I honestly laughed. Um, they think that it is an insult to me to say that I left the BBC over its coverage of the genocide. And that's because they think that the BBC has been quote unquote anti-Israel. Um, and obviously as far as I'm concerned, um, as far as many Green voters are concerned, as far as anybody who cares about social justice is concerned, the BBC's coverage has been very anti-Palestinian. Um, and this News Court report really, really backs that up. You can't argue with the numbers. You can't argue with the really, really stark figures. You know, the BBC failing to name Israel as a perpetrator in half of their reports on civilian casualties. you know, that is conjuring a really blurry picture of events in the minds of uh audiences and it's intended to and it means that people forget um and it doesn't stick in the mind and it's not meant to. So, you know, the data clearly the data clearly backs me up. And I I think what they were trying to do with um with that image was to to sort of suggest that I'm I'm unserious um because, you know, I like to get dressed up on the odd Friday night.
>> You look great, by the way.
>> Thank you. But um you know I might put to them that it's possible to it's possible to be fun. It's possible to wear a top where your shoulders are out. Um and and also to be a serious political contender and to also be somebody who's really robust with values um you know that is entirely possible but you know presumably they can only keep one thing in their minds at once. Karishma Patel, thank you so much for joining us. And to everyone watching, thank you for tuning in. Make sure you're following us on social media at Middle East. You can email me live at middle east.net. Hit subscribe to stay on top of all of our coverage.