Bad journalism has bad consequences.

Traduce Israel, and you bring Jew-hating angry mobs onto the street. That is a step away from acts of racial hatred. Journalists know this, yet they willingly act as cheerleaders for such hatred, whipping it up with distorted, manipulative and sometimes dishonest journalism.

They should know better.

THE BBC BREACHED EDITORIAL GUIDELINES OVER 1,500 TIMES IN ISRAEL-HAMAS CONFLICT, REPORT CLAIMS

The BBC is the largest and most ‘trusted’ brand in journalism. We know this, because the BBC tells us. It earns this sobriquet by dint of its past glories, and the fact that it is legally obliged to produce ‘impartial’ news. In return for this promise, it is paid more than $5 billion per year by the British public.

The Asserson Report, which I published earlier this month, takes a deep dive into four months of BBC news coverage of the Israel–Hamas war. We look at some 9 million words of output using a traditional litigation style analysis. In parallel, a team of data scientists (operating as the Research for Impartial media – RIMe) conducted a series of experiments using cutting-edge AI techniques. Working independently, yet collaboratively, these two disciplines found strikingly similar results, exposing the myth of BBC impartiality.

‘CORROSIVELY WOKE’ BBC CONTINUES TO BE PLAGUED BY RETRACTIONS, APOLOGIES RELATED TO ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

We analyzed BBC English language TV output. While some programs were neutral, the remainder were between 90% and 100% pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli.

The BBC broke almost every rule in its own rule-book - the ‘Editorial Guidelines.’ They use BBC as a platform for Hamas sympathizers, and Hamas members; they report death figures they know to be wrong without adequately conveying their unreliability to audiences; they air reports from Gaza without mentioning that Hamas controls journalistic output; their own 
journalists express personal opinions. Each of these is a separate breach of the BBC’s own guidelines on impartiality.

While we found that BBC English was disappointingly bad, we found that BBC Arabic was significantly worse. In a ‘sympathy analysis’ conducted by the RIMe data scientists across global media, BBC Arabic was snuggled up with such outlets as Al Jazeera; Palestine Chronicle and Iraqi News. It must surely degrade trust in the BBC to discover that it is being used to peddle extremist views.

The BBC News machine displays a strong anti-Israel view from almost every angle we analyzed. Any pretense at impartiality seems to have been abandoned. Indeed, its lead Middle East journalist, Jeremy Bowen, recently boasted that he considers impartiality means him telling the audience what he considers to be ‘the truth.' This is the precise opposite of what the Editorial Guidelines dictate.

So, how has the BBC drifted so far from its roots? There are two answers. Firstly – the BBC has been captured by an institutional bias on many issues. Journalists who insist on expressing their own opinions should be shifted to somewhere less harmful – Gardener’s Question Time, comes to mind - or they should be removed altogether. This seems rarely, if ever, to happen.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Secondly, and more fundamentally, BBC management needs to get a grip on their most sacred product - news. They need to set targets; monitor output, adjust when targets are not hit; and take steps against recalcitrant journalists and editors. At present, the BBC senior management sets no KPI’s; sets no goals; conducts no systematic monitoring of output and is essentially running blind. They hope their journalists will achieve impartiality, but take no effective steps to ensure they do. They have let go of the rudder, and are allowing the BBC to be blown where the winds take it. That means that a bunch of very self-opinionated journalists, many of whom display deeply malevolent views about Israel, control the output.

The Asserson Report blows the myth of impartiality out of the water. The BBC doesn’t achieve impartiality and is not remotely close to achieving it. BBC management must either take back control of the ship, or the British people should demand a refund.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confidently predicted on Thursday that Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, will win the popular vote in November and referenced her own popular vote victory in 2016. 

"I think that the challenge, as it has been for a number of elections now, is winning the Electoral College. I have no doubt that the Harris-Walz campaign, like my campaign, will win the popular vote, but I think, as we all know, that doesn’t get you the election. You’ve got to win 270 electoral votes," Clinton said during an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." 

Clinton has made multiple recent media appearances to promote her new book, "Something Lost, Something Gained." She also recently told podcast host Kara Swisher that it was a "double standard" for people to ask Harris about policies. 

She elaborated further during the interview on MSNBC and said, "I had more policy than anybody had."

CBS REPORTER FINDS ONLY 3 HARRIS SUPPORTERS IN 3 NEVADA RESTAURANTS: ‘PEOPLE ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT TRUMP’

"I gave speeches about it. It was on our website. I wrote a book with Tim Kaine about it. We had lots of policy. At the end of the day, that’s not what caused people to vote for me or against me, and I think the Harris campaign knows that. They know that you’ve got to, you know, cross a threshold which they have more than done in terms of what kind of governance you’re promising," Clinton said. 

Clinton said Harris' policies were on her website. 

During her interview with Swisher, Clinton said the double standard was about her being a female candidate for president. 

"I think it's, um, you know, it's a double standard, and it's a double standard that is partly because they are still getting to know her. But also because they're still grappling with the idea like, ‘Oh, am I really going to vote for a woman to be president and commander in chief?’" she said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

Clinton then took aim at Trump, and praised MSNBC for highlighting the "stakes" of the election. 

"This is a contest between freedom and oppression, between democracy and autocracy, between bringing people together and further dividing us, and that’s what has to be communicated every single day between now and the election, and I want to just add that I think you all do an excellent job of talking about the stakes. Not just the horse race, but the stakes of the election, and painting a picture for people about what Trump is promising to do," Clinton said. 

Clinton suggested Harris focus on the "choice" between Trump and herself, and if she did, she would win the election.