KEIR Starmer has called on the BBC to explain why it does not label the Palestinian militant group Hamas “terrorists”.
Many media outlets refer to Hamas – a combatant in the ongoing war in Israel – as militants, taking the view that the word “terrorist” would be taking sides in a complex historical conflict.
Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson said the broadcaster did not use the word because doing so would mean it was “ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality”.
Starmer told LBC on Wednesday morning: “I think the BBC needs to explain why it isn’t.
“I said ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’, and to me that’s obviously what we are witnessing.
British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it. Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality. The BBC’s job is to…
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) October 10, 2023
“I think other channels may not be either, but I’m not across all the detail of that.”
Simpson, a war correspondent with decades of experience, tweeted: “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it.
“Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.
READ MORE: Gaza under 'complete siege' as Israel brands Hamas 'animals'
“That’s why, in Britain and throughout the world, nearly half a billion people watch, listen to and read us. There’s always someone who would like us to rant. Sorry, it’s not what we do.”
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps (above) said it was “disgraceful” the BBC did not call Hamas terrorists and noted that as a proscribed organisation in Britain it is illegal to demonstrate support for them.
He told LBC: “I actually think it is verging on disgraceful, this idea that there is some sort of equivalence, and they’ll always say well there’s two sides.
“What Hamas have done, as a proscribed terrorist organisation, meaning that they are illegal in Britain, it’s illegal to support them, is to have gone out and slaughtered innocent people, babies, festival-goers, pensioners.
“They are not freedom fighters, they are not militants, they are pure and simple terrorists and it’s remarkable to go to the BBC website and still see them talking about gunmen and militants and not calling them terrorists.
“I don’t know what’s going on there, but I think that it’s time to get the moral compass out at the BBC.”
A BBC spokesperson said: “We always take our use of language very seriously.
“Anyone watching or listening to our coverage will hear the word ‘terrorist’ used many times – we attribute it to those who are using it, for example, the UK Government.
“This is an approach that has been used for decades, and is in line with that of other broadcasters.
“The BBC is an editorially independent broadcaster whose job is to explain precisely what is happening ‘on the ground’ so our audiences can make their own judgment.”
Other senior ministers, including Foreign Secretary James Cleverly and Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, have been among those expressing concern about the BBC’s position.
Internationally, Canadian public broadcaster CBC has also been called on to explain why it is not refering to Hamas as "terrorists", after a leaked executive email told journalists to "ensure the audience understands [the term] is opinion, not fact".
CBC took the same position for the BBC.
READ MORE: Row as Scottish Parliament authority declines to fly Israeli flag
The BBC’s editorial guidelines on terrorism tell reporters and editors: “The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding.
“We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.
“We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.
“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel