The media we consume, particularly the source of our media, matters.  The news organisation we choose to receive our information from acts as a lens from which we view the world through.  If that lens becomes distorted, or biased, it contorts to favour a certain viewpoint over another; leading to the exclusion or prejudice of one group of people.

In this article, I will shine a light on the BBC - a global media organisation, which markets itself as ‘impartial’,  to uncover if this is truly the case.  I will discuss the power of boycotting before finally suggesting some alternatives. 

Disclaimers

Although this article focuses on the BBC, it applies to all mainstream news organisations which claim to be ‘neutral’.  I simply chose the BBC due to the widespread view that it is unbiased.

In order to determine if the BBC is neutral, I have selected two attacks to focus on: the 2026 Golders Green attack and the 2026 Islamic Centre of San Diego shooting. 

I’d like to make it clear that both incidents are horrific in their own right and, in highlighting the unfair reporting of one incident, I do not intend to diminish the severity of the other. 

I recognise that both circumstances are unique but for the purpose of this article, I will compare the differences in language used when reporting each attack to determine if the BBC fulfils its claims of neutrality.

1.      Golders Green attack

In the subheading of this article, the subject of the sentence is the ‘two Jewish men’, rightly so, as they were the victims of this attack.  However, did you know that the first victim of this horrific incident was a Muslim man?

I suppose that this did not fit into the narrative: that according to the BBC, a Muslim man cannot be the victim of a terrorist incident.

2.   San Diego attack

The aforementioned sentiment rings true, with the San Diego shooting reported as merely the consequence of ‘a “broad hatred” of multiple religions and racial groups’.

In the subheading of this article, the ‘two teenage suspects’ are the subject of the sentence.  There is no mention of any victims.  Instead of being labelled as ‘extremists’ or ‘terrorists’, the perpetrators are deliberately infantilised.

3.  The verdict

Upon first glance, both articles appear to have some similarities - they begin with the same few words and there appears to be a level of consistency in reporting.  However, there is undoubtedly a huge disparity regarding the language used.  The BBC is a biased news organisation.

4.  Boycotting & alternative recommendations

Due to its nature as a public service broadcaster, the BBC heavily relies on qualitative measures to prove its worth to taxpayers.  It is judged on viewership metrics such as public reach and audience satisfaction.  By boycotting, you are rejecting biased reporting.  Below are some alternative recommendations:

•  Zeteo is a news organisation founded by Mehdi Hasssan to combat this issue.  It features many reputable journalists, some of whom have left large mainstream organisations (such as ITV) to join the movement towards unbiased journalism.

• Cair is a California-based civil rights and advocacy organisation for American Muslims.  They are committed to maintaining an accurate portrayal of Muslims in the media.

• The Cradle describes itself as an online news magazine covering the politics of West Asia.  It is not owned by any of its donors so has freedom to choose what to write.

To conclude, media bias is highly prevalent in mainstream news organisations like the BBC, resulting in unfair reporting and a distorted perception of reality for its readers. 

So the next time a news article about Muslims pops up on your feed, see for yourself if you can spot any biases in reporting.