Last week – an exclusive on this site detailed major issues with a viral BBC News story about an IDF dog and a Gazan with Down’s Syndrome. The exposé revealed that the BBC not only omitted vitally important context from a story in order to demonise the IDF but had also deliberately butchered the statement the IDF had sent in response to the BBC’s one-sided and deceptive narrative.

This blatant type of unethical student activist journalism is what we would expect from propaganda rags such as Electronic Intifada or Middle East Eye and shows just how completely BBC standards have collapsed.

But today I can reveal that the BBC has doubled-down on the deliberate deception. Not only did BBC journalists go even further to twist the words of the IDF than originally believed, but behind the scenes BBC hierarchy have been busy pushing these lies in an attempt to hold the deception aloft and defend the indefensible.

The original BBC deception

Let’s be clear. In the article about the IDF dog last week the BBC deliberately held back the clear terrorist affiliations of that family home. Information that was all publicly available. The brother who works for Islamic Jihad, the ‘martyr’ father who was affiliated to Hamas – and the fact that active terrorists were actually identified in the house the IDF entered. All of this was omitted from the BBC story.

Instead, the BBC promoted a highly dubious narrative of a loving family and bullied child that BBC journalists simply never bothered to verify. And to cap all that, and to protect its own failings once questioned – the BBC then CHOSE to misrepresent the IDF response by carefully leaving out all the vital context.

If that wasn’t bad enough – this story now gets a whole lot worse.

The IDF ‘admission’

After the IDF had issued a response, the BBC did not just add the (butchered) IDF reply at the end of the piece (normal ethical ‘right to reply’ journalistic practice). The BBC reworked the entire article – adding the butchered statement at the beginning (‘renosed’) to create a whole new angle to the article – leading with the claim the IDF ‘admitted’ the BBC story was true.

Even using the loaded word ‘admitted’ rather than a more passive label such as ‘acknowledged’ highlights just how rancid the BBC has become, but the issue here is far greater than use of bias language.

This is how the renosed BBC article began:

What is of major import here and as astonishing it may be – I can now show that this whole claim about an IDF admission is just not true. When you read the IDF statement in full it becomes clear that the IDF admitted nothing of the sort.

What the IDF stated (quite clearly) is this: “at this point the individual likely remained alone in the building”.

However you read it – the IDF did not admit to anything. They only said such a scenario was ‘likely’ (possible). What can be read from the IDF statement is that in the height of battle, with terrorists inside the house, Hamas fighters outside and a dead soldier nearby – the IDF cannot be certain of the exact nature of what unfolded.

This is NOT THE SAME THING as admitting anything. Which means the BBC renosed the entire article with a statement that is simply untrue.

The BBC has completely misrepresented the IDF statement to include an admission they never actually made. Complaints will now been made to the BBC about this latest factual error and I can only imagine them being stared at by a bunch of rabbits frozen in headlights.

Richard Burgess the arrogant

It gets even worse. Following my research exposing the flaws in the BBC article, numerous complaints were sent asking the BBC to urgently address the problems with the article. Incredibly the BBC batted the complaints away. I have since been forwarded a copy of the BBC’s response – that was actually sent by none other than the BBC’s ‘Director of News Content’, Richard Burgess (uploaded here).

It is full of unforgivable inaccuracy, misrepresentation and factual error (deliberate or otherwise).

Given the article’s factual omissions and lack of context, as well as the manner in which the IDF statement has been butchered and inaccurately used – it is incredible to read such an arrogant, dismissive, and patronising response. The email contains an air of supremacy – and it is heavily weighted with non-relevant sections of international law (as if Richard Burgess is an expert in international law).

There are no simple absolutes on the battlefield. Without having ALL of the precise details Richard Burgess cannot know whether or not IDF soldiers acted as they should have done. But he speaks with the absolute certainty of an anti-Israel activist. It would just be funny or embarrassing if we were not discussing the person responsible for hundreds of BBC Journalists.

Richard Burgess the Hamas shill

The Richard Burgess narrative is entirely reliant on Hamas propaganda – and much of what he says is completely unverified. Is this really the man in charge of BBC content?

Examples? Burgess states that the family were forced to leave at gunpoint, that Muhammed was separated from his family by the IDF, and that Muhammad (the victim) was attacked while he and his family were under arrest.  The IDF statement admits none of this.

• Muhammed was likely attacked before the soldiers even entered the house – so at what point was Muhammed arrested?
• Who says they were forced to leave the house at gunpoint?
• Were the mother and sisters really arrested – or just the two terrorist brothers?

The IDF statement says they ‘urged the family to evacuate to avoid staying in a combat area’. When Burgess claims they were ‘forced’ to leave ‘at gunpoint’, Burgess is simply regurgitating the witness statement of the wife of a dead Hamas terrorist.

And appallingly in the response Burgess has the nerve to call these statements ‘facts’ – and suggest none of them are in dispute.

Absolute poppycock.

There is a lot to dispute about the entire narrative. The IDF may not have left Muhammed alone. Or he may have already been dead. He could have been used as a human shield by his own family. Or numerous other options that exist in the black book of Hamas propaganda or the fog of war. Even the family now admit he probably did not survive the day. Did the IDF medics legitimately leave someone dying on the battlefield who could not be saved (Muhammed) to try to save some who could? Just one of many alternatives the BBC ‘expertly’ refuse to consider.

Richard Burgess defends the indefensible

And just look at how Richard Burgess defends deception and inaccuracy. The IDF statement included a crucial sentence which told the BBC that terrorists were inside the house.

“Inside one of the buildings, the canine detected terrorists and bit an individual”.

The BBC butchered the statement so this vital information is no longer clear. And Richard Burgess actually tries to defend this unforgivable error with an explanation of total nonsense.

It is just a shame the BBC obviously do not care about accuracy. Burgess says the butchered statement ‘clearly reflects’ the IDF statement. It does nothing of the sort.

Saying the action was ‘part of an operation against the terrorists’, is vague and unclear. It could me that the IDF entered a civilian house opposite, or gained access to a rooftop, or any number of other possibilities. This is not what the IDF said. The IDF statement is explicitly clear – the dog identified terrorists INSIDE THE HOUSE.

The BBC editor who deliberately butchered the sentence (cutting it in half) did so in order to demonise the IDF by removing absolutely vital context. Nothing about the truth was going to get in the way of the story that Fergal Keane wanted to tell. And here is the BBC’s Director of News Content Richard Burgess defending such journalistic butchery.

Shameless.

The BBC cannot correct itself

I am an investigative journalist who has been exposing fake news and major flaws in BBC coverage of the Gaza conflict. At times I have caught the BBC spreading inexcusable raw (and very fake) Hamas propaganda (a few examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

It seems as if the BBC in its current form – and with all its flaws – is accountable to nobody. Perhaps this explains the arrogance, carelessness, inaccuracy and patronising attitude with which Richard Burgess deals with complaints.

The bottom line is this: The article as it stands is unsupportable. It is deliberately deceiving readers and has not just omitted vitally important context – but it contains serious factual errors. And it seems as if even the BBC Director of News content does not care.

Help support the fight against antisemitism.

My research is unique and hard hitting.

I battle back against those who seek to revise history, demonise Israel –  and I expose antisemitism wherever it is found. I fight when others don’t. The results speak for themselves and for ten years I have been exposing hate and creating headlines.

Please help If you can, consider making a donation. Your help makes it all possible.

You can make PayPal donations using the donate button below.

Or by using my Paypal.,me account.

If you wish to provide regular monthly support you can also do this via my Patreon page

Every contribution is truly appreciated