The BBC is under fire for allowing a Green Party activist who was accused of legitimising the October 7 massacre 'free rein' to lambast a Jewish journalist on its flagship politics show. Ashok Kumar, a professor at Birkbeck, University of London , had been invited to appear on Politics Live to discuss the controversial 'Zionism is racism' motion adopted at the Greens' conference this month. During the debate with Rachel Cunliffe, of The New Statesman magazine, Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Hannan, Dr Kumar claimed it was 'anti–Semitic' to connect Zionism – the belief in a state for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland – with the Jewish religion.
Challenging him, Ms Cunliffe said: 'I am a Jewish woman being called an antiSemite by somebody who…' But Dr Kumar interrupted her before she had made her point. Baroness Chakrabarti was heard to say his comments were 'appalling'. Ms Cunliffe later said: 'I don't think you would sit here and lecture somebody of any other religion or race on what counted as bigotry or racism towards them in the way that you have explicitly called me anti–Semitic.'
Dr Kumar then appeared to gloat on X that the show's host Alex Forsyth and the other guests 'looked like they were about to cry at the end'. It comes after he provoked outrage on October 7, 2023, by posting an image from the Nova festival where 378 Israelis were killed, with the caption: 'Sometimes partying on stolen land next to a concentration camp where a million people are starved has consequences.' The BBC has faced criticism for inviting Ashok Kumar (pictured), a Green Party activist, onto Politics Live, where he clashed with Jewish journalist Rachel Cunliffe over Zionism Alex Hearn, of Labour Against Antisemitism, said: 'It is staggering that the BBC invited him to come on air and then gave him free rein to launch a disgusting attack against a Jewish guest and tell her she was wrong about her identity and experiences of anti–Semitism.'
The BBC said: 'The BBC features a range of voices from across the political spectrum to talk about topical issues – their policies are scrutinised and their views appropriately challenged.' Last night Dr Kumar said he did not support Hamas, nor did he condone violence against civilians. He said his post about crying was 'a figure of speech describing not specifically Ms Cunliffe, but all of the other participants appearing frustrated that they had run out of arguments against my points'.
The Daily Mail reports a Politics Live row over the Green Party's 'Zionism is racism' motion almost entirely through Dr Ashok Kumar's critics, and gives his argument a single paraphrased sentence. In its own voice it says he 'appeared to gloat', and its headline wraps a paraphrase in quotation marks. It does carry responses from the BBC and from Dr Kumar.
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“appeared to gloat”
Why this matters
The Mail says in its own voice that Dr Kumar 'appeared to gloat' about the other guests looking close to tears.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it as fact that he was gloating over a Jewish guest's distress.
The context
The article quotes only his post saying the guests 'looked like they were about to cry'. It later carries his account that the post was a figure of speech about guests who had run out of arguments. 'Gloat' is the outlet's own verdict on that post.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“a figure of speech describing not specifically Ms Cunliffe”
The headline puts 'free rein by BBC' inside quotation marks, as if someone said those words, and attaches it to no one.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it that the phrase is a quoted finding about the BBC.
The context
Nobody in the article says 'free rein by BBC'. The words come from Alex Hearn of Labour Against Antisemitism, who said the BBC 'gave him free rein'. That is one campaign group's complaint, and the BBC rejects it.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“then gave him free rein to launch a disgusting attack”
Elsewhere in the article“their views appropriately challenged”
“Dr Kumar claimed it was 'anti–Semitic' to connect Zionism – the belief in a state for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland – with the Jewish religion”
Why this matters
The Mail gives Dr Kumar's case on the motion in one paraphrased clause. It sets its own definition of Zionism right beside that clause.
The impression it gives
A reader is left with no idea why the motion's supporters hold their view. All they see is a man telling a Jewish woman what antisemitism is.
The context
Ms Cunliffe, Baroness Chakrabarti and Labour Against Antisemitism are all quoted against him. The article quotes no Palestinian and never mentions Gaza or Palestinians, though the motion it reports is about Israel.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“his comments were 'appalling'”
Elsewhere in the article“lecture somebody of any other religion or race”
On the recordA review of 15 reports on the Green Party's Zionism vote found opponents of the motion were given 5,632 words against 620 for supporters, 13 of the 15 quoted no Palestinian, and none of 22 headlines named Palestinians, Gaza or genocide.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “Palestinian” and “Gaza”.