The Jewish Chronicle, on UK Politics, 28 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

BBC Verify accused of ‘bad faith’ in its reporting on

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

BBC Verify has been accused of “bad faith” reporting in an investigation covering . Although an initial deadline of just seven days for Israeli officials to respond was extended to several weeks, .

Critics claim the short amount of time given to respond shows the corporation’s coverage of Israel’s military lacks “impartiality”. A former director of BBC Television, Danny Cohen, claims the BBC Verify report published earlier this month is “an act of bad faith”. Shadow Culture Secretary Rebecca Paul warned the BBC must ensure its reporting “does not contribute to hostility” towards Jews in Britain. The BBC has long faced accusations of bias against Israel in its coverage, highlighted in the leaked report by independent adviser Michael Prescott last year.

comes as recently installed director general Matt Brittin is arguing for the renewal of the licence fee as being in the public interest as a way to provide accurate journalism that combats “disinformation”. The investigation by BBC Verify published on October 15 claims “hundreds of IDF investigations into killings still have no public outcome”. The piece covered 300 cases in which Israeli military forces were accused of “killing or injuring people in Gaza, Lebanon, the occupied West Bank and Israel”.

The Verify investigation claimed that for 254 of these there was “no public outcome”. It added that for 28 of the incidents the IDF had published “outcomes”, while in 18 instances it was “unclear”. The JC understands that the initial request by the BBC for comment on these hundreds of cases was made on August 20, asking for information to be provided within seven days. The deadline was subsequently extended by four days, until August 31.

Further extensions for follow-up questions were granted in the next weeks. Writing for the JC, former Parachute Regiment Major Andrew Fox accused BBC Verify of producing “a remarkably selective standard of scrutiny” when it came to Israel. The veteran, who served several tours of Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, said he believed that the IDF’s own investigative process was similar to that used by other militaries across the world. He also cited cases involving the British Army that still took a significant amount of time to investigate: “The British murder of Baha Mousa [Iraq] in 2003 saw charges brought in 2005 and a conviction in 2006 after a guilty plea.

"In 2013, Sgt Alexander Blackman, Marine A, was convicted of murder 14 months after footage of him killing a wounded Taliban fighter was found.” Cohen, who served as director of BBC Television between 2013-2015, told the JC: “The BBC must know that providing reliable, detailed responses on over 300 incidents of this kind is simply not possible in the time provided.

"This is an act of bad faith on the part of BBC Verify, which appears less interested in establishing the facts than once again presenting Israel in a negative light. "BBC Verify continues to cause significant damage to the BBC's reputation.” A spokesperson for Israel’s embassy in London told the JC they found BBC Verify’s report to be “vindictive, disproportionate and lacking the professionalism and impartiality the BBC should demand”.

The spokesperson said: “The IDF is investigating incidents that occurred during the war. "Those investigations should be thorough and establish accountability where wrongdoing occurred. "But the time they take must also be considered in the context of an ongoing war. “The comparison with Britain matters. Investigations into British military conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland have taken many years. Yet when it comes to Israel, the audience is encouraged to regard the passage of three years as inherently suspicious, even while the conflict continues.

Where is the proportion? Where is the context? “The BBC should subject Verify’s journalism to the same scrutiny that Verify so readily applies to others.” Earlier this month, Verify was accused of focusing on Israel to “obsessive levels”. that since BBC Verify’s launch in May 2023, nearly a quarter of all articles written by it had been about Israel, Gaza and the regional war – almost double the number of articles written about Russia and Ukraine.

Since the start of the conflict in Gaza, the BBC has faced significant questions about its output on the conflict. Last year, a report by Michael Prescott, the independent adviser to the corporation’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, said that the corporation “pushed Hamas lies” and “minimised Israeli suffering” in its coverage of the Gaza War. The corporation was criticised by Jewish communal organisations after it was revealed that a senior official favourably compared the BBC’s Arabic outfit to Al Jazeera.

Prescott’s document was also scathing of BBC Arabic, and accused it of giving “unjustifiable weight” to Hamas’ claims and of demonstrating “a desire always to believe the worst about Israel”. Rebecca Paul, the shadow culture secretary, told the JC that the BBC News’ reporting “must be impartial, evidence-based and fair. "Investigating incidents across the Middle East is an inherently complex process, and those approached must be given sufficient time to provide thorough and considered responses”.

Addressing claims that the BBC gives a disproportionate amount of attention to Israel, she said: “There are legitimate questions to be asked about the level of focus BBC Verify applies to Israel, and whether that focus is driven by evidence rather than opinion. “Impartiality means giving all parties a meaningful opportunity to respond and ensuring allegations are not presented as established fact. “The Conservatives support high-quality journalism and robust scrutiny.

However, the BBC must uphold the highest standards of accuracy, fairness and impartiality to maintain public trust and ensure its reporting does not contribute to hostility towards Jewish communities here in the UK.” The BBC said: “We strongly reject the suggestion that the IDF was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to this investigation. “BBC Verify gave the IDF more than six weeks to respond, including multiple deadline extensions and ongoing engagement throughout that period.

The IDF were able to comment at any point during this time. “Our reporting included considerable context on the challenges inherent in investigating incidents arising in military conflict, reflected both in the IDF’s response and comments from a range of experts. “The BBC continues to report on this conflict impartially and without agenda, and has repeatedly called on the Israeli authorities to allow international journalists access to Gaza, to document what is happening.”

Read the original article on thejc.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

The Jewish Chronicle's headline and opening sentence turn a BBC investigation into 300 cases of killing or injuring people into a story about "alleged misconduct", and leave the killings for later in the piece. In its own voice it presents one JC contributor's view as what "military experts" have shown, using a comparison that his own examples undercut. The piece fills most of its space with critics of the BBC and gives the BBC's reply only at the end.

  1. Writes the death out

    Serious

    “alleged IDF misconduct”

    Why this matters
    The headline calls the subject of the BBC investigation "alleged IDF misconduct", a vague term that names no harm.
    The impression it gives
    A reader of the headline thinks the BBC looked at disciplinary or procedural lapses by the army.
    The context
    The article itself says the investigation covered cases in which Israeli forces were accused of killing or injuring people, and asked about IOF investigations into killings that have no outcome.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“accused of “killing or injuring people in Gaza, Lebanon, the occupied West Bank and Israel””
    • Elsewhere in the article“hundreds of IDF investigations into killings still have no public outcome”

    Show it in the article

    “300 incidents of alleged misconduct by the IDF”

    Why this matters
    The opening sentence repeats the euphemism and sets the scale as 300 "incidents of alleged misconduct".
    The impression it gives
    From the first sentence a reader takes the 300 cases as matters of conduct, not deaths and injuries.
    The context
    The 300 cases are accusations of killing or injuring people, and 254 of them have no public outcome, as the article reports only later.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“for 254 of these there was “no public outcome””

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    BBC Verify accused of 'bad faith' over its report on hundreds of IOF investigations into killings and injuries that have no public outcome.

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “military experts have highlighted the stark contrast with the years British Armed Forces sometimes take to establish facts in investigating misconduct allegations, even in relatively straightforward cases”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the JC says that "military experts" have shown a "stark contrast" between the BBC's deadline and the years British investigations take.
    The impression it gives
    A reader thinks a body of independent military experts agrees that the BBC's deadline was unreasonable next to British practice.
    The context
    The only military expert in the article is Andrew Fox, who wrote the comment for the JC itself. His own examples were resolved in 14 months and in about three years. The BBC was asking for the outcomes of IOF investigations that had already been running for years, not asking for an investigation to be completed.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Writing for the JC, former Parachute Regiment Major Andrew Fox”
    • Elsewhere in the article“convicted of murder 14 months after footage”
    • Elsewhere in the article“the passage of three years as inherently suspicious”

    Show it in the article

  3. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “An analysis showed”

    Why this matters
    The JC presents figures on BBC Verify's output as what "an analysis showed", without saying who did the analysis or how.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the figures as an established, neutral finding that supports the charge of obsession.
    The context
    The article names no author, method or source for the analysis, and the charge it supports comes from an unnamed accuser.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Verify was accused of focusing on Israel”

    Show it in the article

  4. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “The revelation”

    Why this matters
    The JC calls critics' accusations against BBC Verify a "revelation".
    The impression it gives
    A reader thinks something wrong at the BBC has been uncovered.
    The context
    What the article reports is criticism of a deadline that the BBC says ran over six weeks with several extensions.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“BBC Verify gave the IDF more than six weeks to respond”

    Show it in the article

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “A senior former BBC official also criticised Verify’s conduct in this incident.”

    Why this matters
    The JC lines up critic after critic: Danny Cohen, Andrew Fox, the Israeli embassy, the shadow culture secretary and the Prescott report.
    The impression it gives
    A reader thinks the case against BBC Verify is broadly agreed.
    The context
    No one in the article speaks for the substance of the BBC's findings or for the people killed or injured. The BBC appears only in a closing statement.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Our reporting included considerable context on the challenges”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jewish Chronicle

  1. 28 OctDiversity, equity and inclusion office schemes are failing to protect Jewish workers, survey suggests3.0
  2. 27 OctRAF Fairford ‘plot co-ordinated by handler working on behalf of Iran’0.0
  3. 27 OctCounter terror chief defends decision to bail RAF Fairford ‘plot’ suspects3.0
  4. 27 OctMPs urge Birmingham’s Lib Dem council leader to end power-sharing deal with Greens over ‘Zionism is racism’ policy3.0
  5. 27 OctTwo UK nationals charged over RAF Fairford ‘plot to aid Iran’3.0

Everything we scored from The Jewish Chronicle