BBC's institutional bias runs deeper than Trump editing scandal

Kua Kia Soong

The BBC’s recent crisis over the editing of Donald Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech – a controversy that has already cost senior executives their jobs and stoked furious political debate – is rightly headline-grabbing.

But it risks distracting from a deeper, longer-running problem: selective frames and institutional bias that consistently flatten some stories and amplify others.

Put bluntly, the same editorial culture that produced an irresponsible edit in a high-profile documentary also helps explain repeated charges that the BBC has leaned pro-Israel in its Gaza coverage and anti-China in its Xinjiang reporting.

Those are not small, symmetrical errors of balance: they shape how a global public understands genocide allegations, war crimes and political movements. 

Editorial process and fact-checking

The Panorama edit of Donald Trump’s 6 January 2021 remarks was presented as adjacent lines when they were separated by nearly an hour, creating an impression of immediacy and incitement that critics said was misleading.

The scandal prompted boardroom upheaval and legal threats, and rightly renewed scrutiny of the editorial process and fact-checking at the BBC. 

That matters because it revealed weakness in the BBC’s internal controls – and those same weaknesses have been complained about for years by journalists, staff and outside analysts when it comes to other politically charged beats.

If a broadcaster can misplace context in a US documentary, the same pressures can distort coverage elsewhere. 

Reluctance to call out Gaza genocide

Since October 2023, the Israel–Gaza war has been one of the most intensively litigated and legally scrutinised conflicts on the planet.

Two concrete international legal developments are especially relevant:

The International Criminal Court’s pre-trial chamber issued arrest warrants (including against Israel’s political leadership) for alleged war crimes related to the Gaza conflict. 

South Africa brought a case to the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention – a high-profile international legal process that remains live and consequential. The ICJ’s docket and filings are public and ongoing. 

Yet many critics – ranging from BBC journalists inside the corporation to outside commentators – have argued the BBC has been unusually reluctant to use the word genocide in its reporting on Gaza or to foreground the human scale of Palestinian suffering, even after these legal steps were taken.

Multiple BBC staff and former correspondents publicly complained about what they saw as the double standards in humanising Israeli victims while not equivalently humanising Palestinian victims.

A group of BBC journalists even wrote about that perceived double standards in 2023.

Independent analyses have also accused the BBC of failing to meet its own impartiality rules repeatedly in Israel–Hamas war reporting. 

That reluctance matters because the language a public broadcaster chooses is an interpretive act.

When the BBC consistently avoids legally freighted terms (or delays their use) while reporting on mass civilian death and forced displacement, viewers reach different conclusions than they might if coverage foregrounded the legal processes, provisional measures and the testimony of Gaza’s civil society.

The result is not neutral reporting – it is a shaping of public perception in ways that align with state narratives or diplomatic caution.

Xinjiang – a different standard

Contrast the BBC’s Gaza posture with its long-running coverage of Xinjiang.

Over the past decade BBC reporting has frequently presented Xinjiang as a grave human rights catastrophe – reporting on mass detention, forced labour, sterilisation allegations and ‘re-education’ camps.

These reports relied on satellite imagery, leaked government documents, interviews with ex-detainees and whistleblowers, and academic and NGO research – and they prompted strong international reaction, including government sanctions and parliamentary findings.

The BBC’s work in this area produced sustained international attention that helped make Xinjiang a topic of global human rights diplomacy. 

What is important here is not whether its Xinjiang reporting was wrong in every respect but that the BBC’s editorial posture has been less cautious in form and tone about Xinjiang than it has been about Gaza.

Where Gaza coverage is described as ‘hesitant’ to use legal terms, Xinjiang reporting has often been forceful.

Thus, while Al Jazeera captions its report under Genocide in Gaza, the BBC reports on the Genocide in Xinjiang as if the facts in both cases were similar in scale and atrocity.

Consequently, the stark reality is that the BBC has failed to produce one single corpse in Xinjiang while the real genocide in Gaza has surpassed 100,000 victims.

That asymmetry feeds the appearance of editorial double standards: tough on China, cautious toward Israel.

Coverage of Jeremy Corbyn, Gary Lineker

The BBC’s coverage of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of Labour – which linked the party to endemic antisemitism – became a major political instrument used against Corbyn.

Some commentators and scholars call the coverage a “propaganda campaign” that disproportionately defined Corbyn’s tenure. 

Gary Lineker’s public interventions on Gaza and the BBC’s subsequent handling of his comments are another revealing episode.

Lineker – a high-profile, non-journalistic presenter – publicly criticised the BBC and described some of the corporation’s choices on Gaza programming as shameful

His stance prompted an internal uproar and high-level scrutiny in Parliament.

The Lineker episode shows how sensitive the BBC’s leadership is to accusations of bias and how quickly management will act to try to contain perceived institutional reputational damage. 

These episodes matter because they illustrate a corporate instinct: remove or mute internal dissent quickly, often by managerial fiat.

That same instinct can translate into editorial caution on politically explosive terms such as genocide when the state being criticised is allied to powerful actors.

Two unequal verification standards?

One of the most striking takeaways of recent years is the apparent difference in evidentiary posture

The BBC’s China reporting often foregrounded witness testimony, leaked documents and investigative detail even when Beijing called those pieces false.

Its Gaza reporting, by critics’ lights, has been more deferential to caveats, diplomatic language and ‘balance’ that privileges official Israeli accounts and Western allied perspectives.

The result is a public narrative in which one set of alleged mass abuses is framed in urgent, uncompromising moral terms, while another – occurring concurrently and prompting international legal action – is treated with cautious, even clinical, restraint.

Scholarly and journalistic audits of BBC output have repeatedly flagged this pattern. 

We expect more from BBC

The BBC is a public broadcaster with global reach.

Its editorial choices do more than irritate politicians – they influence international diplomacy, judicial pressure, humanitarian response and public understanding of whether mass atrocities are happening and who is responsible.

When a single media institution treats similar claims differently depending on the actors involved, it damages its claim to impartiality and, more importantly, contributes to unequal international responses to suffering.

The 6 January 2021 editing scandal is important because it exposed process failures – but those failures are symptoms.

They sit atop a longer history of contested editorial choices about Gaza, extending to staff complaints, internal reports and independent audits, and a very different posture on China that has in turn provoked state countermeasures.

Both trends deserve reform: clearer rules and tougher checks on editing; transparent explanations for choices of loaded legal terminology; and a renewed commitment to apply the same journalistic standards – corroboration, proportionality, humanising the victims and clarity about legal status – across all conflicts.

The real test

The Panorama editing controversy is an urgent accountability moment – but it should be seen as a symptom of broader institutional habits.

The real test for the BBC is not only whether it apologises and fixes a documentary edit, but whether it interrogates the deeper editorial patterns that have produced asymmetrical coverage of Gaza and Xinjiang.

It must also consider whether it puts in place transparent rules to ensure the same standards of evidence, language and humanisation are applied regardless of geography or geopolitical pressure.

Only then will the BBC’s claim to global impartiality be more than a public relations line.

Dr Kua Kia Soong, a former MP, is the director of human rights group Suaram.

...