2026-06-29

Park Yuha - 조국선생께서 일본인 혈통이 섞인 이들이 한국에 남아 친일파가 되었다는 식의 말씀을 하셨다 해서... | Facebook

(3) Park Yuha - 조국선생께서 일본인 혈통이 섞인 이들이 한국에 남아 친일파가 되었다는 식의 말씀을 하셨다 해서... | Facebook
Park Yuha's post

Park Yuha

Favourites ·21h ·

조국선생께서 일본인 혈통이 섞인 이들이 한국에 남아 친일파가 되었다는 식의 말씀을 하셨다 해서 해당영상을 봤는데 (소스가 호사카 유지 선생이든 누구든) 잘못 알고 있어 한마디 한다. 내가 10년전에 낸 책이 바로 그렇게 조선반도에서 살다가 일본으로 돌아간 이들의 이야기 였으니까.
 
1)일본인이 남았다?

60만 살다가 5만이 남았다고 했다는데 그 이상 살았지만 대부분 돌아갔다. 그 중엔 3대째 조선에서 산 이들도 있었고 뼈를 묻고 싶어한 이들도 많았지만 몽땅 쫓겨났다.(해방후 곧바로 폭력과 방화로 반일감정 드러낸 조선인들이 일본인들을 받아들여 줬을 리가. 북한에선 공장을 돌리려고 강제로 남게 한 케이스도 있지만.)
북쪽에 살던 일본인들은, 소련이 보호하지 않고 조선인은 방치해 3만명 가까이 동사/아사/병사 했다. 삼팔선 넘어 탈출한 사람들도 있었지만 감춰간 소액 돈은 물론 냄비등 최소한의 도구조차 조선인에게 뺏긴 경우가 많았다.
남쪽에 살던 이들은 미군이 보호했지만 마찬가지로 휴대 허가된 최소한의 돈 말고는 모든 재산은 접수되었다.
물론 그렇게 접수된 집이며 건물이며 공장이며 가게들 중 일부는 해방 직후 어수선한 가운데 조선인의 소유가 되기도 했다.
 
2)혼혈인이 많다?

청일전쟁 직후부터 50년 가까이 수십만 일본인이 들어와 살았으니 결혼을 통해서든 아니든 한일 사이에서 태어난 아이들은 물론 적지 않았다. 공식통계만도 5천쌍이 넘으니 당연한 일이다.
그런데 일본인이 ‘음흉하게’ 씨를 뿌린 게 아니라 그 반대가 훨씬 많았다. 그러니까 조선인남성 일본인여성 커플. 이효석이 쓴 ”아자미“도 그런 커플 이야기를 다룬다. 왜 그런 구성이 많았는지까지는 길어지므로 여기선 생략한다.
 
그렇게 해서 태어난 아이들이 어떻게 되었느냐고?
해방되자 일본에 있던 조선인 남성들은 일본인 여성들을 버리고 오거나 돌아와 전쟁통에 버리거나 했고, 졸지에 호적이 없어지는 바람에 다른 사람 호적을 사서 올려 한국인이 되었지만 ’일본인 혈통‘인데도 징집되어 베트남 전쟁때 울며울며 전쟁터로 떠나야 했던 이도 있었다.
 
해방 80년이 넘도록 반일감정도 강하고 친일파색출에 여념이 없는 나라에서 그들이 친일파가 되었을 거라는 단정은, 조국 선생이 현실도 모르지만 상상력조차 없다는 걸 보여준다.
그들은 한국인으로 살아야 했고 한국인 이상으로 한국인처럼 행동했다. 그건 재일교포 역사를 생각만 해도 알 수 있는 일이다. 차별하는 사회일수록 그런 법이다. 그리고 바로 조국선생 같은 배타의식 때문에 여전히 참정권을 갖지 못하고 있는 것.
배타적 민족주의의 특징중 하나는 경계심과 공포심이다. 그 때문에 끊임없이 그들을 색출하려 하는 것. 관동대지진때 조선인학살도 그래서 일어난 일이다.
이런 위험한 사고를 노골적으로 드러내는 이에게 정치인의 자격은 없다.
조국선생은 「조국 클래스」수준을 자각하고, 한국을 사랑하는 혼혈인들은 물론 또다시 늘어나는 중인 한일커플들과 그 자녀들에게도 사죄하기 바란다.



Park Yuha
·



https://youtu.be/4267NO2geU4?si=U-ew2rRMwajZSpFk
황현필이라는 사람 말하는 걸 처음 봤는데, 이런 이가 역사교육에서 영향력이 있다니 할 말이 없다..
그러니까 이들의 논리는 ‘2,30대 청년이 극우화되었고, 그건 뉴라이트 영향을 받아서이고, 학계등에 그런 친일파 후손이 많아진 건 해방이후 한일 혼혈인들이 눌러앉아 한국인 행세를 하면서 그들의 사고를 전수했기 때문‘ 이다.
이해되지 않는 일은 뭐든 ’친일파‘탓으로 돌리는 구멍 뻥뻥 뚫린 논리를 보자니, 갑자기 조국의 입시부정까지 도 막 이해되려고 한다는.


YOUTUBE.COM
“피해자의 아픔에 공감 못 하는 게 패륜, 그들이 뉴라이트다” 역사학자 황현필 X 정치인 조국, 32분간 쏟아낸 폭탄 발언
“피해자의 아픔에 공감 못 하는 게 패륜, 그들이 뉴라이트다” 역사학자 황현필 X 정치인 조국, 32분간 쏟아낸 폭탄 발언




고재석
·

·

by author

저렇게 닫힌 생각으로 어케
정치하는지 모르겠습니다





Reply



Byun Hyunjin
·

·

by author

우장춘 박사, 신중현 모두 한일 혼혈일 텐데 말입니다.





Reply



김용세
·

·

by author

그냥 저는 이제 이렇게 생각합니다.
조국이니 저렇게 생각하는구나...
사실 이젠 놀랍지도 않습니다.





Reply

Edited



강성곤
·


선거 떨어지고나서 수치심 방향전환하려는 몸부림입니다.





Reply



Alexander Park
·

·

by author

인종주의 파시스트 인증입니다





Reply



Seong Hwan Park
·

·

by author

조국은 그렇다고 쳐도 황현필은 역사 전공자가 어떻게 저럴 수 있나요?





Reply



Alex J Hur
·

·

by author

수준이 한참 떨어져요… 어케 교수를 한건지 정말… 저딴 인간이었다는게 참나 어이가 없어요





Reply



명진숙
·

·

by author

모르면 알려고 공부하려 하지 않는 사람!





Reply



Sanghoon Lee
·

·

by author

조선생 이 발언은 넘 저열해서 할 말을 잃게만들 정도 입니다. 조국당 내 성추행 사건 대응도 그렇고 이제 지지자들이 환상에서 벗어나길 바랄 뿐입니다





Reply



Gwang-hong Park
·

·

by author

안타깝습니다. 조 선생이 시대와 지역만 잘 만났다면 내부로부터의 중상 운운하던 위대한 대독일제국 국가사회주의 정권 아래서 크게 쓰임 받았을텐데, 하필 21세기 한국에서 정치하시려니 노고가 많으시겠어요.





Reply



김생기
·


황현필이라는 자는 그저
전라남도 역사 선생님일뿐이에요^^





Reply


Sanghoon Lee
·

·

by author

20대 우경화?(우경화라기 보다 반민주당 성향)의 가장 큰 원인 제공자는 조국 선생 본인이란 사실을 정말 모른다는게 안타깝네요.





Reply



이용애
·

·

by author

순수 혈통만 따지는 저 지순한 순혈주의가 극우라는걸 본인만 모르는건지? 21세기에 저런 발언을 서슴없이 한다는게 무지의 소치인지? 안타깝네요.





Reply



Okjin Park
·

·

by author

조국, 황현필 둘다 위험한 사고방식을 가진 작자들이죠...





Reply



강병호
·

·

by author

친일, 반미, 지역갈등 모든 것이 정치적 필요에 의해서 확대재생산 되는 부분이 큰거 같습니다.
역사적으로 보면 사실 혼혈 아닌 민족이 별로 없을거 같습니다.





Reply



지구인동규
·

·

by author

1995년 그들을 만나 아픔을 직접 들었던 경험이 있습니다. 일본에서 태어난 한국계 후손(부모 모두 한국계)은 한국어를 못했고, 한국에서 태어난 일본계 후손(어머니만 일본계)은 일본어를 못했던 그날이 떠오르네요. 요즘은 당연하게 배우고 장점으로 여기는 부모의 언어를 당시에는 숨기고 살았다고 하더군요. 더 현지인이 되려고...





Reply

Edited



김석영
·

·

by author

파시스트가 국가사회주의지요. 사회주의자가 민족 국가를 강조하면 파시스트가 되는 거라고 봅니다.





Reply



Young Jong Choi
·

·

by author

임진왜란 때 돌아가지 않고 조선에서 가정을 일구고 산 사람들도 꽤나 많지요.





Reply



Dohyung Kim
·

·

by author

NL 민족주의는 곧 죽어도 친일파 카드. 젊은 세대에겐 이젠 안통하죠. 남 탓보다는 윗세대의 위선과 불통에 더 민감하죠.





Reply



박찬형
·

·

by author

해방후 곧바로 폭력과 방화가 일반적이었는가 궁금합니다. 주변 이야기는 일본인이 울며 떠나기는 했지만 그저 조용했다고..





Reply



Troy Troy Ko
·

·

by author

이러한 의식을 가진 자가 어떻게 법대 교수를 했었나...?! 하긴 뭐눈엔 뭐만 보인다고 생각없이 말을 내 뱉는 윗통도 있으니 말입니다.





Reply

Edited



김대학
·

·

by author

2026년에 인종주의적인 발상을 하다니, 조국 씨는 참 한심합니다.





Reply



Dwight Kim
·


근데 쟤가 왜 선생인가요? 면전에서도 너라고 불러주고 싶은 철딱서니 수준인데.





Reply


===


“피해자의 아픔에 공감 못 하는 게 패륜, 그들이 뉴라이트다” 역사학자 황현필 X 정치인 조국, 32분간 쏟아낸 폭탄 발언

조국혁신당

13,563 views Jan 23, 2026 
#역사왜곡 #조국 #청년
인스타: www.instagram.com/rebuilding_k 페이스북: www.facebook.com/RebuildingKorea?locale=ko_KR
===
Transcript

0:02
2 seconds[음악]


0:04
4 seconds역사를 가장 역사답게 황현필입니다. 정치를 가장 정치답게 조국입니다.


0:14
14 seconds반갑습니다. 예. 항상 유튜브을 통해서 많이 뵙고 책을 통해서 뵙님을 뵙게 돼서 너무 감사하고요. 불러


0:22
22 seconds주셔서 영광이고 제가 또 이렇게 마주 앉아서 이렇게 대담을 나눌 수 있다는 거 자체가 제가 감사드립니다.


0:27
27 seconds아이고 아닙니다. 워낙 오랫동안 유라이트라는 그 세력이 학계네 많이 있었습니다만 그 뒤로 점점점


0:36
36 seconds학계를 넘어서 문화계 그리고 정치계까지 진출을 했지 않습니까? 그리고 최근 들어서는 그


0:44
44 seconds뉴라이트 세계관 역사관의 일부 젊은 청년들이 그 오염이 돼 가지고 여러 가지 주장을 온라인


0:52
52 seconds상으로 떠들고 있기 때문에 네. 제가 아무래도 역사를 하다 보니까이 뉴라이트가 우리 사회에 끼치는 폐약이 굉장히 [음악] 큽니다. 네. 네.


1:00
1 minute예를 들어서 이제 뉴라이트는 도대체 왜 저럴까? 왜 저런 역사관을 [음악] 가지고 있을까? 소위 쉽게 이야기하면 입에서 좀 약간 욕이 나올


1:08
1 minute, 8 seconds만한 [음악] 상황인데 이제 좀 고민을 해봤어요. 도대체 저들은 왜 그럴까? 근데 우리가 친일파라고 이야기하면


1:15
1 minute, 15 seconds1세대 친일파는 쉽게 이야기하면 을사 오적, 네. 정미칠, 경술국적 이렇게 나라를


1:23
1 minute, 23 seconds팔아먹는 사람들이 1세대 친일파라면


1:25
1 minute, 25 seconds[음악]


1:26
1 minute, 26 seconds사실상 1세대 친입파들이 일본으로부터 자기를 받고 많은 돈을 받았다고 할지라도 3일운동 이후에 소위 일제 문화통치


1:34
1 minute, 34 seconds이후에 일제가 이제 우리 민족을 회유하고 우리를 분열시키려고 할 때 이렇게 새롭게 친일파들이 많이 양성이 되는데 우리가 그들을 2세대


1:43
1 minute, 43 seconds친일파라고 전 지칭을 합니다. 근데이 세대 친일파들이 해방 이후에 막상 해방이 되니까 자신의 친일


1:50
1 minute, 50 seconds경력은 숨기죠. 그렇죠. 당당 친일했다. 친일이 월다라고 이야기할 수 없는 세상이었습니다. 그런데 왜 지금 와서는 당당하게 친일 매국이


1:59
1 minute, 59 seconds옳았다라고 이야기하는 사람들이 [음악] 정개학계 그리고 젊은 층들에게 그런 역사관이 포진됐을까 하는 부분에서 호사카유지 교수님께서 이런 말씀하셨어요.


2:09
2 minutes, 9 seconds당시 1945년 우리가 해방될 당시에 한반도에 살았던 일본인이 60만 명인데 일정 부분 많은 재산을 조선이 가지고


2:18
2 minutes, 18 seconds있으면 그 재산을 놓고 가야 했기 때문에 일본으로 돌아가지 못했던 일본인이 한 5만 명 가까이 됐다. 어찌 보면


2:26
2 minutes, 26 seconds그래서 이게 친일파들의 아들의 손자 증손자들. 그러니까 2세대 친일파들이 해방되고 자신들의 친일행에 대해서


2:33
2 minutes, 33 seconds창피해서 친일을 숨기려고 했지만 아버지나 할아버지로부터 세뇌된 친일은 창피한 [음악] 줄을 모르더라고.


2:42
2 minutes, 42 seconds그 그분 그 주장은 이제 실제 혈통적으로 일본 혈통이 유지되 [음악] 있는 사람들 즉 어 그런 사람들이 현재 한국인이죠.


2:51
2 minutes, 51 seconds상당히 많을 것 같다는 이야기.


2:55
2 minutes, 55 seconds코사구 유지 선생님 이제 제도 주장을 봤는데 그런 경우 다 있을 것 같긴 합니다. 를 어떻게 실정적으로 검증이 안 됐다 하더라도 어 일본으로


3:03
3 minutes, 3 seconds돌아가지 않고 한국에 있고 한국인으로 되어 있는 거지만 실질적으로 뭐 혈통적으로나 정치적으로나 문화적으로


3:12
3 minutes, 12 seconds일본인 사람이 쭉 살아나가면서 대대로 그런 주장을 한다는 게 이제 그들이 이제 그렇게 왜곡된 주장을 하면 많은 사람들이 그게 옳다라고 생각을 해 버리는게 문젠데이


3:20
3 minutes, 20 seconds뉴라이트가 기본적으로 세 가지를 바꾸려고 한다라고 저는 생각을 합니다. [음악] 식민지 근대화론을 일단 살려야 되죠.


3:28
3 minutes, 28 seconds그래서 식민지 시대 우리가 돼야 됐다라고 이야기하려면 [음악] 기본적으로 조선은 망에 마땅한 나라니다. 조선을 비하하려고 합니다.


3:34
3 minutes, 34 seconds그러니까 약간


3:35
3 minutes, 35 seconds[음악]


3:35
3 minutes, 35 seconds몰역사적 태도를 지니다. 그리고 그들은 이승만 건국론을 이야기하고 박정희 부국론을 [음악] 이야기하는 과정에서 독재를 추종합니다.


3:45
3 minutes, 45 seconds그리고 그들은 통일에 대한 큰 언급을 하지 않습니다. 어찌 보면 그게 반민족이죠. 그러다 보니까 뭘 역사적


3:53
3 minutes, 53 seconds태도를 지니고 친독재의 반민족인데 일제 강정기 위안부로 끌려가셨던 분들이라든지 강제 징용으로 끌려가셨던


4:02
4 minutes, 2 seconds분들 혹은 세월호 사건 때 아픔을 가진 가족들 앞에서 그들이 했던 행위를 보면이 아픔에 공감한 능력의


4:08
4 minutes, 8 seconds약간 폐적이다. 그 저는 그런 집단이 뉴라이트라고 생각하는데 문제는 [음악] 그건 뉴라이트의 역사 인식이 지금의 젊은 친구들에게 상당히 많이


4:17
4 minutes, 17 seconds그게 올바른 것이 그냥 이렇게 전달되고 있는 부분에 대해서 좀 통탄을 끝치고 나 그렇쎄 말입니다. 저도 뭐 기성세들어서 좀 책임감을 느끼는데요.


4:25
4 minutes, 25 seconds아까 말씀하셨던 그런 세계관, 역사관이 [음악] 요즘에 뭐 일배 또는 뭐 자유대학 이런 쪽의 젊은이들에게 특히 남성들에게 많이


4:35
4 minutes, 35 seconds[음악] 이제 퍼져나가 있던게 안타깝고 그까 말씀하신 거와 연결해서 제 생각을 [음악] 좀 말씀드리자면 아까 호사 위주 교수님 말씀하신


4:43
4 minutes, 43 seconds것처럼 당시 해방된 [음악] 조선 한국에 남았던 사람의 후손들의 생각 말고도 그렇게 혈통적으로 연결되 있지


4:50
4 minutes, 50 seconds않다고 [음악] 하더라도 사실은 그 70년대 80년대까지만 하더라도 도 뉴라이트라는 건 없었죠. 네. 맞습니다.


4:57
4 minutes, 57 seconds그런 얘기 안 했죠.


4:59
4 minutes, 59 seconds왜이 사람들이 이제 뉴라이트라는 그룹이 갑자기 생겨났을까 생각해 보면 저는 이제 어떤 생각을 했냐 하면


5:06
5 minutes, 6 seconds자기 자신의 행동을 또는 자기의


5:09
5 minutes, 9 seconds[음악]


5:10
5 minutes, 10 seconds그 선조 또 자기 그룹의 행위를 정당화해야 되는 욕망이 있는 거 같습니다. 그래서 자기가 독재에


5:19
5 minutes, 19 seconds부역했다거나 그게 박정희 독재건, 전도한 독재건 자기가 부역했거나 또 자기 집안 또 자기 가족도 자기가


5:26
5 minutes, 26 seconds속한 집단이 이승만 박정희 전두한 정권에 부역했기 때문에 민주화 운동에 끼 끼기는 커녕


5:34
5 minutes, 34 seconds그게 독재에 부역했던 세력 아니겠습니까? 그들이 사우적으로 나의 행동도 나의 집안의 행동도 나의


5:42
5 minutes, 42 seconds집단의 행동도 올바른 것이었다라고 해야 떳떳하겠죠. 네.


5:47
5 minutes, 47 seconds그니까 거꾸로 올라가서까지 올라가서 자신들의 [음악] 그 넓은의 집단을 정당하는 작업들이 본격적으로 시작되었다고 생각을 했었어요.


5:56
5 minutes, 56 seconds아주 일리 있는 말씀이시고요.


5:58
5 minutes, 58 seconds[음악]


5:58
5 minutes, 58 seconds기본적으로 이제 칠파가 처단되지 못한게 문젠데 기본적으로 소위 대한민국의 보수 세력들 반공 이데올로의


6:06
6 minutes, 6 seconds이렇게 레드 컴플렉스를 가지고 살았던 사람들이 1997년에 김대중 전 대통령이 당선이 되고 이건 굉장히 충격적인 이야기였습니다.


6:14
6 minutes, 14 seconds네. 근데 이제 2000년에 남북 정상회담이 있었고 그 김대중 대통령께서 노벨 평화상을 받아요.


6:21
6 minutes, 21 seconds그리고 2002년에 노무현 대통령이 당선되면서 이들은 나름에 좀 충격을 받았던 것 같습니다.이 기존에 있었던


6:29
6 minutes, 29 seconds반공 이데올록이 올드라이트로는 안 된다. 새로운 뉴라이트가 필요하다.


6:34
6 minutes, 34 seconds그러면 기본적으로 새로운 시장 보수, 자본주의 보수를 새롭게 만들어 [음악] 내자. 그러는 과정 중에 실제로 이제 이명박 정권 때 기존에


6:43
6 minutes, 43 seconds만들어져 있던 모든 역사 교과서, 사회 교과서가 뉴라이트가 개입해 가지고 상당히 많이 개조된 측면이 있거든요. 그래서 이들이 지금 이렇게


6:51
6 minutes, 51 seconds역사를 외고 가려고 했던게 상당히 먹힌 측면이 뭐냐면 제가이 진부를 위한 역사를 써 놓고 난 다음에서야 저도 깨우친 바가 있습니다. 아까


7:00
7 minutes이야기한 식민지 근대화론을 뿌리내려면 이들은 야 정말 유라이트 얘네들


7:06
7 minutes, 6 seconds잘합니다. 졸라섭입니다. 아 그럼 아까 말씀드렸듯이 조선은 망에 마땅한 나라였고 조선을 비하고 한국인들이 조선을 [음악] 부끄럽게


7:15
7 minutes, 15 seconds만들어야 되는데 그럼 이들이 저희들이 뭐 그들이나 저들 저희들이나 생각할 때 조선을 바치는 두 가지 큰 기둥은 세종대왕과 이순신 신장 있잖아요.


7:24
7 minutes, 24 seconds누구를 깔까요? 세종을 가서 세종대왕은 어마어마하 알고 있습니다. 이제 그들이 하는 세종을 우리는 성분이라 생각하고 한글


7:32
7 minutes, 32 seconds창재회 등등 얘기하지만 세종 [음악] 당시 이제 본건 시대에서 세종이 선택할 수밖에 없었던 여러 가지 정책에 대해서 공격하면서


7:41
7 minutes, 41 seconds세종을 가장 어떻게 보면 뭐 나쁜 왕 노예제를 어찌 보면 노비제도를 세종이 만든


7:47
7 minutes, 47 seconds[음악]


7:47
7 minutes, 47 seconds만들었다 이렇게 공격하고 그래서 그게 이제 뿌리가 거꾸로 계속 올라가서 어 한반도


7:54
7 minutes, 54 seconds조선반도 그 시점에 존재했던 유명한 인물들 어떤 뭐 위대한 인물들을 다 깨는 [음악] 거죠.


8:01
8 minutes, 1 second네. 그렇죠. 그종을 무너 조선을 깨려고 하고 아무래도 이승만에는 [음악] 항상 김구라는 그림자가 드려져 있거든요. 그래서 김구


8:09
8 minutes, 9 seconds공국론을 이게 자리잡기 위해서 아 말 큰일 날 뻔했습니다. 뉴라이트가 이승만 건국론을 자리잡기 위해서 독립운동가 중에 김구 선생님만을


8:17
8 minutes, 17 seconds깝니다. 그리고 박정희 부국론 아무래도 20세기 우리가 산업하냐 민주하냐라고 이야기할 때 이제 상징적인 민주화 인물이 김대중


8:25
8 minutes, 25 seconds대통령이다 보니까 김대중 대통령이 그렇게 많이 또 인터넷으로 비판받고 있습니다.


8:30
8 minutes, 30 seconds그래서이 세 인물만 집중적으로


8:31
8 minutes, 31 seconds[음악]


8:32
8 minutes, 32 seconds공격하고 있는데 야 이들의 전략이 상당히 좀 놀랍고 치밀하다. 근데 먹힌 측면이 있습니다. [음악] 그래서이 젊은 친구들에게 그게 잘못된 역사가


8:41
8 minutes, 41 seconds아니다. 실제로 김구 선생님에 대해서 [음악] 잘못 알고 있고 세종대학교에 대해서 잘못 알고 있다. 이게 진실이다라고 좀 그렇게 역사를 하는


8:48
8 minutes, 48 seconds사람으로서 알 수 있는 기회가 정말 그 역할이 아주 크셨다고 생각하고요. [음악] 어 이제 학 전문적인 학자들이 그 지금 말씀하신


8:57
8 minutes, 57 seconds주제에 대해서 논문도 쓰고 연구소도 냈지만 실제 많은 뭐 청년 포함해서 국민들 일반 시민들이 그 연구서나 논문을


9:05
9 minutes, 5 seconds보기가 힘들거든요. 근데 오랫동안 유튜브 활동 저술 활동을 통해 가지고 사람들이 쉽게이 쟁점을 이해하고 또


9:14
9 minutes, 14 seconds허위 사실을 인식하게 하는 역할을 해오셨다고 생각하고 그면 저 너무 뭐 감사드리는 마음이고 이게 단순히 이제


9:22
9 minutes, 22 seconds역사란게 너무 저보다 역사 전공을 하셨기 때문에 더 아시겠습니다만은 역사라는게 과거에 대한 얘기가 아니라


9:30
9 minutes, 30 seconds현재에 대한 얘기고 또 미래에 대한 얘기 아닙니까? [음악] 과거를 그렇게 평가하는 이유가 있는 거고 네. 그 과거를 그렇게 평가하게


9:38
9 minutes, 38 seconds되면 그 평가의 기준과 잣대로 현재와의 미래를 또 평가하는 것이기 때문에 뉴라이터라고 불리는 세력들이


9:45
9 minutes, 45 seconds왜 그런 얘기를 했는지 그 말은 윤성열 정권이 뉴라이트에 경도되 아주 심하게 경도되어 있다는


9:52
9 minutes, 52 seconds이유는 그런 시각을 갖고 있으므로 현재 대한민국을 어떻게 발전시킬 것인지 또 대한민국을 둘러싼 국제


10:00
10 minutes관계 뭐 일본과의 관계 중국과의 관계를 어떻게 볼 것이가 다 연결이 돼 있는 것 같아요. 그래서 이들이 이제 그 아까 저는 그렇게


10:09
10 minutes, 9 seconds얘기했습니다만 자기 자신을 포함한 자신이 [음악] 속했던 기득권 집단 또 뭐 개층 계급을 전체적으로


10:15
10 minutes, 15 seconds정당화시켜야 된다라고 생각하고 자신들 [음악] 또 자신들의 선배들이 저질렀던 각종 불법 뭐 독재를


10:23
10 minutes, 23 seconds포함해서 학살 범죄 고문 이런 것들 전체를 정당화시켜야 현재 자신도 정당화되고 또 앞으로 자신들이 펼칠


10:32
10 minutes, 32 seconds정책도 정당화 되는 거 아니겠습니까?이 그렇죠.


10:34
10 minutes, 34 seconds거대한 기획이 이루어졌었다는 생각을 합니다. 어 뉴라이트 정권이라고 할 만한 윤성열 정권이 무너진 장면도 봤지


10:41
10 minutes, 41 seconds않습니까? 그런 거와 관련해서 역사학적으로서 어 특히 이제 윤성열 정권의 아 각종 그런 무두한 행태를 많이 보셨고 또


10:50
10 minutes, 50 seconds연설도 하셨는데 그이 그 뉴라이트 정권이라고 할 수 있는 윤성열 정권이 무너지는 과정에서 어떤 마음을 느끼셨어요?


11:00
11 minutes어, 일단 저는 비상겸이 선포되는 [음악] 그 상황을 TV를 통해서 지켜보면서 이게 과연 될까? 왜냐면


11:08
11 minutes, 8 seconds저 비상이 성공하려면 [음악] 지금 이렇게 깨어 있는 시민들은 목숨을 걸고 저 비상을 막을 텐데 그러려면이


11:15
11 minutes, 15 seconds비상겸이 성공하려면 그 비상겸을 막으려는 국민들을 군인들이 총을 들이야 되고 일부는


11:22
11 minutes, 22 seconds학살도 행해져야 될 텐데 지금 대한민국 군인들이 1980년 광주에 투입됐던 군인들 수준일 것인가? 세상


11:31
11 minutes, 31 seconds많이 바뀌었고 군인들의 생각도 바뀌었다라고 생각해서 저는이 윤성열의 비상 개엄이 [음악] 물론 당사자로서 국회에 계셨을 때는 얼마나 긴장도


11:40
11 minutes, 40 seconds하시고 또 저희랑은 다른 입장이셨겠지만 [음악] 이거는 오히려 보수 정권의 실책이었다. 그런데 이제 개인적으로 저는이


11:49
11 minutes, 49 seconds윤성열의 12 비상을 내란이라고 할 것인가 비상이라고 할 것인가 역사에 어떻게 규정이 될 것인가 교과서에


11:56
11 minutes, 56 seconds어떻게 실릴 것인가라는 부분에 있어서 이게 아직 법률적으로 정확히 명칭이 정해지지 않았습니다만 이게 이제 제가 재밌게 이게 좀 만들어 보자면 역사


12:05
12 minutes, 5 seconds속에서 무슨무슨 난 음 이의 난 예예 망이 망소이의 난 김삼이 효심의 난


12:13
12 minutes, 13 seconds뭐 조이총의 난 이런 무슨무슨 아니라고 한 경우는 이자겸에 난 하나 빼놓고 이자겸은 인종이 자신의 외할아버지자 장인이니까 살려서 영광에


12:22
12 minutes, 22 seconds보냈던 거고 그 난의 주인공들은 다 죽었더라고요.


12:26
12 minutes, 26 seconds그렇죠. 그래서 저는이 123 비상기을 개인적으로 윤성의 나로 불리고 싶다.


12:33
12 minutes, 33 seconds아 뭐 윤성열이 사형을 당했다는 [웃음] 생각에서 그런 생각을 좀 한번 해 봤습니다.


12:40
12 minutes, 40 seconds우리나라가 이제 김대중 대통령 이후로 사형은 집행하지 않으니까 사형 집행될 가능성은 없다고 보지만 선고는 가능합니다. 예. 선고는 오늘도 가능하죠.


12:48
12 minutes, 48 seconds네다가윤 이사람이 재판에 와서 하는 발언태를 보게 되면 여전히 그 술주정뱅이 같은 헛소리를 하고 있지 않습니까?


12:58
12 minutes, 58 seconds아우라가미는데 그 뭐 멀지 않은 시간에 중형이 선고될 거라고 저 확신하고 있고요네어 [음악]


13:05
13 minutes, 5 seconds그 외 일당들도 그 내란 일당들도 난을 일으킨 이제 그 어떻게 보면


13:11
13 minutes, 11 seconds그 모반자들이죠. 네.불가할 같습니다. 그 점에서


13:18
13 minutes, 18 seconds저는 이제 정치인으로서 그 말씀드리고 [음악] 싶은 거는 내란은 이제 종결되고 있는 거죠.


13:25
13 minutes, 25 seconds네. 없을 것 지금 국민들이 갖고 있는 거는 이제 그 지난 내란 123 이후에 1년 동안에는 그 내란에 대한


13:34
13 minutes, 34 seconds분노 윤성열 1당에 대한 분노란게 있었다면 1년이 흐르고 정권 교체가 되었는데 그렇지만 삶은 자신의 삶은 아직 개선되지 못했거든요.


13:44
13 minutes, 44 seconds네. 아직 어 일자리도 불안하고 일자리 구하기도 힘들고 자기 집 문제도 아직까지 불안한 사람 많고 뭐


13:53
13 minutes, 53 seconds의료보험 문제 이런게 이제 남아 있는 거 같습니다. 그래서 지금 정치인으로서 [음악] 제가 생각하는 것은 지금까지는 내란을 격태하고 또


14:02
14 minutes, 2 seconds민주 정부를 수립하고 이게 과제였고 물론 지금도 남아 있는 것은 내란 세력을 어 정치적으로 심판을 해야


14:09
14 minutes, 9 seconds됩니다. 그 문제와 동시에 내란이 종결되어 가는 과정인데 보통 국민들의 삶은 어떻게 하지?이 이 문제가 저의


14:17
14 minutes, 17 seconds고민입니다. 역사 공부를 쭉 옛날부터 쭉 하셨으니까 한국민주의가 어 아 이거 정말 한걸음 나아갔다라고


14:26
14 minutes, 26 seconds느끼는 어떤 시점 어떤 순간 장면이 있었는지 한번 얘기 한민주 이제 대한민국 수립 이유를 말씀하시니까 당연히 아마 생각을 같이


14:34
14 minutes, 34 seconds하실 겁니다. 60년에 419 그다음에 1980년에 올라 강주 인조운동 그리고 1987년에 [음악] 이월민주왕쟁 이렇게 가야 되지


14:42
14 minutes, 42 seconds않을까요? 네. 근데 이제 물론 그 이후에 촛불 혁명도 있었고 이번에 실제로 깨어 있는 시민들이 내란을 어찌금 [음악] 목숨을 걸고 막았기


14:51
14 minutes, 51 seconds때문에 지금 이렇게 좋은 정치 현실이 만들어진 것도 사실이니까 앞으로 이런게 전부 다 역사에 기록돼야 된다라고 생각을 하고


14:59
14 minutes, 59 seconds예. 오늘 마침이 책이 책 얘기하다 보니 얘기가 나왔고요. 그 제가 듣기에 그 광주에서


15:07
15 minutes, 7 seconds어 24년 2월 네네. 202년 2월에 광주에서 전환길이라 사람이 금남였던 거


15:15
15 minutes, 15 seconds같은데요. 집회를 한다고 했을 때 나가서 그 종에 반대 집회 연설을 [음악] 하신 거 아닙니까? 예. 그


15:23
15 minutes, 23 seconds배경을 좀 들려 주시면 아, 일단 한국사 강사였던 전왕길 씨가 참 말도


15:31
15 minutes, 31 seconds안 되는 말들을 내 뱉을 때 [음악] 싫은 정치권에서도 너도 좀 한마디 해야 되는 거 아니냐라고 연락을


15:38
15 minutes, 38 seconds받았지만 저는 비교되는 거 자체가 상당히 싫었습니다. 근데 제 고향이 광주고 어찌 보면 광주 금남은이


15:46
15 minutes, 46 seconds일종의 홀로코스트가 행해진 [음악] 장소라고도 볼 수 있는 그 공간인데 그 공간에 와서 우리가 517 비상이


15:53
15 minutes, 53 seconds확대되면서 5월 18일부터 광주 시민들 그렇게 고추를 걷었는데 그 [음악] 공간에 와서 비상겸이 정당했다라고 이야기하는 거는 야 정말


16:02
16 minutes, 2 seconds이게 홀록포트 현장에 가서 히틀러를 찬양하는 거지 뭐가 다르냐라고 그래서 잠도 못 잤습니다. 분해 가지고 이걸 어떻게 해야 되나?


16:10
16 minutes, 10 seconds[음악] 근데 막상 이제 광주에서 좀 내려와서 네가 좀 마이크를 잡아 달라. 근데 저는 전환기라고 비교되는 거 자체가 불쾌합니다. 싫습니다.


16:20
16 minutes, 20 seconds누군가가 광주 전라도 사트리로 음 아다 광주 한번 살려 [음악] 주소 말 한에


16:27
16 minutes, 27 seconds내려가겠습니다. 해서 마이크를 잡았고 저도 제가 역사 강의하면서 가장 참 잘했던 결정인 것 같다라는 말씀을


16:34
16 minutes, 34 seconds드리겠습니다. 그리고 이제 최근에 있었던 응원봉 혁명까지 살구부터 쭉 이어지는 응원봉 혁명까지를 보게 되면


16:43
16 minutes, 43 seconds큰 흐름이 잡히는 거 같고 그 주권자 국민이랑의 [음악] 힘이 무엇인지를 보여주는 사건이었던 거 같습니다.


16:51
16 minutes, 51 seconds위정자가 또 권력자가 [음악] 어떻게 이제 자기의 권력을 휘두르고 하더라도 어느 시점에서는 주권자 국민이


16:59
16 minutes, 59 seconds용납하지 못하는 [음악] 순간이 온다.


17:01
17 minutes, 1 second네. 그럴 경우 결국 주권자가 직접 자신의 행동으로 이거를 저지하고 또 전복시키는 것들이 그 우리 한국


17:10
17 minutes, 10 seconds주권자들의 정치적 [음악] DNA 같습니다.


17:13
17 minutes, 13 seconds그래서 일본 같은 경우는 이런 일이 발생하진 않잖아요. [웃음] 또 중국 같은 경우는 천남문에서 발생했지만 그냥 뭐 무참하게


17:21
17 minutes, 21 seconds진압됐다면 민중의 독재 권력에게 진 거죠.


17:24
17 minutes, 24 seconds그렇죠. 그런 거죠. 우리는 승리의 경험이 있는 거 같아요. 패배의 경험도 많지만 또 한편은 승리의 경험이 있기 때문에 저는 한국의


17:32
17 minutes, 32 seconds[음악] 이제 미래가 있다라고 저 생각을 합니다.


17:35
17 minutes, 35 seconds그 81918 유랑증을 통해서 우리는 국민 중심의 국가로 [음악] 이렇게 발전을 했지만 오히려 북한은 약간 그러지 못한 측면이 있잖아요. 이제이 남북한


17:43
17 minutes, 43 seconds분단시대 진짜 정통은 [음악] 우리 대한민국이다라고 생각을 하는데 실제로 저는 대한민국의 정통을 짓밟으려는 자들이 4118월항직을 인정하지 않고


17:52
17 minutes, 52 seconds우리 헌법 전문에 3일운동으로 인해서 만들어진 임시 정부의 법통을 개승하지 않는 자들. 예서 예를 들어서 이승만


18:01
18 minutes, 1 second을참 교적이다라고 이야기했던 당시 대통령이나 한동훈 대표나 이런 사람들 기본적으로는 헌법 전문을


18:09
18 minutes, 9 seconds[웃음] 그들이 이해하지 못하거나 반헌법적인 멘트들을 했다라고 생각을 합니다만 그래도 그런게 용인된다는게 참 이해가 안 되는 세상이다.


18:18
18 minutes, 18 seconds그 공국토정이란 영화는 사실 역사학적으로 보게 되면 뭐 저 역사학 전문가들이 하는 걸 제가 봤습니다만는 사실 관계 자체가 틀린게 너무 많지


18:25
18 minutes, 25 seconds않습니까? 그렇지만 그렇죠. 근데 자기의 이데올로기도 사실을 왜곡하는 거죠. 편집하는 거죠. 근데 그거에 그게 이제 먹힌게


18:34
18 minutes, 34 seconds있다는 거고 그 저는 이제 제가 법을 전공했으니까 우리가 대한민국에서 탄핵된 대통령 얘기하면 뭐 이제


18:43
18 minutes, 43 seconds박근혜 윤성열 이렇게 나옵니다만는 실제 우리 대한민국의 출발을 상해 임시정부로 제약하자면 첫 번째 탄핵된


18:52
18 minutes, 52 seconds사람은 이승만이죠. 이승만이 첫 번째로 탄핵돼서 적하지 않습니까?


18:55
18 minutes, 55 seconds[웃음]


18:56
18 minutes, 56 seconds그래서 사실은 우리나라에서이 뉴라이트 또는 우파라고 하는 자 뭐 스스로 전 우파라고 아니라고 봅니다만는


19:04
19 minutes, 4 seconds그 세력들이네 지켜 세우는 [음악] 또 옹립했던 사람들의 다 탄핵된 사람들이에요. 이승도 탄핵된


19:12
19 minutes, 12 seconds대통령이었고 군부독재를 했던 사람들이 그죠.


19:15
19 minutes, 15 seconds했거나 탄핵되었던 대통령이다. 이런 점 말씀드리고 싶고 그래서 저는 이게 우리 사회에서 일제 때부터


19:23
19 minutes, 23 seconds마찬가지겠습니다만은 그때도 당시에 친일파들은 뭐 대면 귀족 계층이거나 뭐 지주 계층이나 이랬을 것인데


19:30
19 minutes, 30 seconds그들이 [음악] 한일합방에 동의하고 뭐 자기도 받고 잘 살았지만 이거를 국권을 지키겠다고 했던 사람들은


19:38
19 minutes, 38 seconds밑에서 오른 민중들 백성들이었 것이고 그게 이어져서 3일운동부터 뭐 거꾸로 올라가면 이제 물론 갑보 농민 전음


19:47
19 minutes, 47 seconds부터겠습니다만 주여자기까지 [음악] 왔다.이 흐름이 있는 거 같습니다.


19:50
19 minutes, 50 seconds네. 동아시아 또는 아시아 전체에서 한국 국민의이 정치적 힘 음이다고 생각을 [음악] 하고 그


19:59
19 minutes, 59 seconds최근에 우리나라 뭐 각종 K팝, K라마, K 영화 하고 있는데 왜


20:06
20 minutes, 6 seconds다른 [음악] 나라 영화보다 한국 영화가 많이 인기가 있을까 생각해 보면


20:12
20 minutes, 12 seconds우리의 DNA, 정치역 DNA 안에 그런 그 부조리와 기득권과 싸우는 것


20:20
20 minutes, 20 seconds그 물리적으로 싸우는 것 말고도 실제 이제 뭐 총 [음악] 들고 싸우거나 뭐 대목을 하거나 이런 거 말고도 권력자에 대한 조롱, [음악] 비판 이런 것들 항상 해 왔다는 거죠.


20:32
20 minutes, 32 seconds그게 이제 문화 속에 드러나고 그 문화적 DNA가 있다는 거 있는 거죠. [음악] 그러다 보니 전혀 다른 나라 사람인데도 그걸 보고


20:39
20 minutes, 39 seconds좋아하고 근데 일본 같은 경우 제가 뭐 전문가는 [음악] 물론 아닙니다만 일본 영화 또는 중국 영화에서


20:47
20 minutes, 47 seconds우리나라 영화가 갖고 있는 그런 통렬한 비판과 조롱과 야유와 뭐 저항, 전복 이런게 잘 없다는 거죠.


20:55
20 minutes, 55 seconds네. 네.


20:56
20 minutes, 56 seconds일본 같은게 아주 세밀하고 조밀한 세밀한 어떤 상황에 대한 묘사라는게 탁월하다면 중국 같은 경우는 거의


21:04
21 minutes, 4 seconds중국 정부가 이렇게 려를 하다 보니까 그런게 안 나오는 거 같고 그럼 우리가 한국이란 땅에서 이런 일이


21:11
21 minutes, 11 seconds이제 그런 우리의 오랜 역사적 경험과 그런 또 그 속에서 우리가 우리 속에 만들어져 있는 정저항의 정신 또


21:18
21 minutes, 18 seconds전복의 정신 또 한편 창조의 정신이기도 한데 이런 것들이 문화적으로 반영되고 그러다 보니 또 이제 평가를 받는게 아닌가 싶어요.


21:27
21 minutes, 27 seconds지금 20대가 저렇게 청년이 보수화되고 있는데 그냥 이거를 그러려니 하고 가서는 안


21:34
21 minutes, 34 seconds되는 문제인게 4 5 60대 인구가 많기 때문에 지금 진보 정권이 정권을 잡았지 만약에 20년 30년 후에도


21:42
21 minutes, 42 seconds진보 정권이 정권을 잡는다라고 장담할 수가 없다. 20대 30대 인구가 4, 50대만큼 많았다라면 어떻게 할 것이냐는 질문과 더불어 20대


21:50
21 minutes, 50 seconds보수화만 두려워할게 아니라 지금 10대 보수화가 끔찍 심각합니다. 심각합니다.


21:55
21 minutes, 55 seconds그래서 저는 왜 이렇게 10대, 20대가 보수화됐는가 여러 가지 요인이 있지만 저는 크게 두 가지로 잡았습니다. 대표님. 첫 번째는이 유튜브의 역기능입니다.


22:05
22 minutes, 5 seconds네. 왜냐면 물론 이제 유튜브 세상이 되기도 했고 기존에 레더십시 미디어들이 죽어가고 있는 그런 상황이긴 [음악]


22:12
22 minutes, 12 seconds합니다만 조심스럽긴 하지만 근데이 특히 젊은 세대들은 모든 지식 특히 정치 이야기와 역사 이야기를 다


22:20
22 minutes, 20 seconds유튜브를 통해서 듣습니다. 그니까 왜곡된 역사를 유튜버들이 알리면 그게 사실냥 받아들여 버린 측면이 있는데


22:27
22 minutes, 27 seconds그럼 문제는이 20대 친구들이 올바른 정치관과 역사관을 갖기 위해서 과연 진보, 정치 세력에서 노력한 부분이


22:37
22 minutes, 37 seconds뭐가 있는가? 그니까 소위 20대나 30대가 제대로 재밌게 듣는 정치 채널과 유튜브 채널이


22:45
22 minutes, 45 seconds진보 진영에서 10만 넘는 채널이 없습니다. 제 채널에 비극이기도 한데 이제 100만이 [음악] 넘 넘은


22:52
22 minutes, 52 seconds채널이긴 합니다만 제 채널에 25세 이하가 3%에 불과합니다.


22:57
22 minutes, 57 seconds3% 네. 그러니까 제 채널 역시 40대, 50대, 60대 그리고 거의 대부분 남성들이고요. 좀 진보적 성향을 지신


23:05
23 minutes, 5 seconds분들이 제 채널에도 모여 있다 보니까 제 역사 강의가 20대게 전파되질 않아요. 그니까 예를 들어서 우리가


23:13
23 minutes, 13 seconds어 이제 진보 정치 채널 뭐 큰 채널들이 있지 않습니까? 근데 저 역시 윤 어겐을 외치는 당시의 사람들 때문에 마음이 아프고 그들의 글을


23:21
23 minutes, 21 seconds읽고 그들의 주장을 보면 밤잠을 못 이루다가 그 채널을 봐야 저도 마음이 편해지고 잠을 들긴 하지만 곰곰히


23:30
23 minutes, 30 seconds생각해 보면 저들이 과연 거짓을 이야기하고 외곡을 이야기하는 [음악] 그 세력들의 거짓말을 뚫르냐 아니면 10대들에게 올바음을 전달하기 위해서


23:38
23 minutes, 38 seconds노력을 20대들에게 [음악] 올바음을 전달하기 위해 노력을 하느냐 결과론적으로 그 채널들을 보는 나이 때가 역시 4, 5, 60대 진보


23:46
23 minutes, 46 seconds세력이기 때문에 그들 4, 5, 60대 언어로 이야기하고 패널을 불러도 그에 맞는 패널들만 부르다 보니까이 진보진영이 생각하고 있는


23:55
23 minutes, 55 seconds얼바음이라는게 10대 20대에게 전파되지 않아요. 이런 부분에 대해서이 진보진영, 특히 진보 정치 세력이 심각하게 고민해야 된다라는


24:03
24 minutes, 3 seconds측면과이 역사 교육의 부제가 너무너무 큽니다. 그러니까이 이명박 정권 때 소고기 파동이 있었을 때 여고생들이


24:12
24 minutes, 12 seconds치말 입고 나서 반정부적 시조 일종에 그러다 보니까 왜 그러는 거야? 아 당시 50만 수험생 중에 한 30만이


24:19
24 minutes, 19 seconds문가생 예체능이었고 그 당시에 그년대사라는 교과를 17만 명이 응시를 하고 있었는데 그년대사는 소위


24:27
24 minutes, 27 seconds흥선대 연구부터 시작해서 나라를 빼앗기까지 근대가 수능 20문제 중에 일곱 문제가 나왔고 일제 강정기가 여덟 문제가 나옵니다.


24:34
24 minutes, 34 seconds현대사가 다섯 문제가 나오는데 해방 전국 나라가 어떻게 만들어졌냐 거기서 무조건 한 문제가 나오는데 그게 킬러문항이었거든요. 그리고 현대사


24:42
24 minutes, 42 seconds들어오면 기본적으로 헌법 개헌 과정 아홉번과 419 518 유령제에 대해서 무조건 한 문제가 나오다 [음악] 보니까 근데 문제는 전국의


24:50
24 minutes, 50 seconds8,여 명의 중등 역사 선생님들이 계십니다. 그들이 그년 대사를 강의할 때 교과서 내용대로 강의를 하면 당시


24:57
24 minutes, 57 seconds사회탐구 과목 중에 경제도 있었고 정치란 [음악] 과목도 있었기 때문에 어 근현대사 수업 시간에 이렇게 배웠는데 경제 선생님도 비슷한 이야기를 하네 하고 교차금증이 돼요.


25:07
25 minutes, 7 seconds그래서이 이명박 정권이 당시 민조문제 연구소에서 이제 7인명 사전을 만드니까 역사학계에 분리익을 주겠다라고 했지만 이명박 정권이


25:15
25 minutes, 15 seconds행했던 가장 큰 악행 중에 하나가 뭐냐면이 근현 대사라는 과목을 없애 버리겠다.


25:20
25 minutes, 20 seconds그리고 당시 이제 소위 정근 대사가 서울대 필수였던 국사라는 교과였는데이 국사와 근연 대사가 그렇지 않아도 사회 과목 중에 가장 공부를 많했는데


25:29
25 minutes, 29 seconds이걸 통합시켜 버린게 지금의 한국사거든요. 그러니까 이과이라면 물리화학, 지구학 생물 중에 가장 공부되게 많은게 물화인데 물화를 하나


25:38
25 minutes, 38 seconds통합시켜 놓고 그거를 선택하라는 겁니다. 그러니까 학생들이 선택하지 않죠. 그리고 박근혜 정권 와가지고이


25:45
25 minutes, 45 seconds물화를 통합시켜버린 한국사를 [음악] 절대 평가하게 되면서 이게 실제로 학교 현장에서 한국사 수업이


25:53
25 minutes, 53 seconds이루어지지 않다 보니까 전국의 8,여 명의 역사 선생님들이 올바른 역사를 전달할 수 있는 기회를 지금 상실한


26:01
26 minutes, 1 second상태이다 보니까 예, 맞습니다. 그래서 저는이 역사 교육의 부제와 유튜브의 역기능이 청년들의 우경화에 상당한 영향을 했다. 근데 이거는 뭐 지역의


26:09
26 minutes, 9 seconds교육감이나 이런게 바꿀 수 있는게 아니고요. 기본적으로 이제 대통령님하고 교육부가 교육과정 개편을 통해서 무슨 일이 있어도 역사를


26:17
26 minutes, 17 seconds중의하 공부할 수 있게끔 [음악] 그런 기회장을 좀 만들어 주셔야 된다라고 생각 아주 중요한 문제 제기라고 생각하는데 아까 두 가지 중에서 유튜버 여기는 저도 실감을 하는데요.


26:26
26 minutes, 26 seconds저도 보는 유튜버가 제한돼 있을 거 아닙니까? 근데 제가 우연히 제가 조카들을 만나게 되었는데 고등학생 남자 고등학생이에요.


26:36
26 minutes, 36 seconds네. 그이 남자 고등학생인의 [음악] 조카가 하는 말이 저보고 큰아버지


26:43
26 minutes, 43 seconds사실은 저의 동기 애들이 보는 것은 이러 이러 이러한데 아시나요 물어봐서 저 듣보도 못한


26:51
26 minutes, 51 seconds유튜브데 제가 봤더니 아주 저급한 유튜버고 네 우리가 보통 사람을 대부분 모르는


26:58
26 minutes, 58 seconds유튜버인데 그게 고등학교 10대 남학생 사이에 대대적으로이긴 겁니다네 저는 그 유튜브들을 연구하고 다 살아서 얼마나


27:06
27 minutes, 6 seconds고통스럽겠습니까? [웃음] 저는 그걸 보고 깜짝 놀랐어요. 예.


27:10
27 minutes, 10 seconds전 듣보단 못한 이른바 통상말은 듣보잡 유튜버인데 그것에 고등학교 [음악] 특히 남학생들이 빠져 있다는


27:18
27 minutes, 18 seconds걸 듣고 깜짝 놀랐고 그 내용을 봤더니 기가 막히는 [음악] 주장을 하고 있고 그 주장에 고등학교 남자애들이 이렇게


27:27
27 minutes, 27 seconds빠져 있고 그것 초기에 특히 고등학교 시절에 그런 생각을 생각이 형성되지 않습니까? 아주 놀랐고 그게 이제


27:35
27 minutes, 35 seconds이어져서 알고리즘에 따라 이제 20대가 되면 또 그 알고리즘에 따라 가겠죠.


27:40
27 minutes, 40 seconds그렇죠. 계속 그런 영상만 보게 되니까 계속 빠지게 되고 그게 정말 어떻게 해결해 될지 정말 고민이고 말씀하신 것처럼 지금 뭐


27:48
27 minutes, 48 seconds40대 50대 60대들이 주로 보는 또 관심이 있는 유튜브들 아예 안 보기 때문에 우리나라의 정치 세력 뭐 조격 신당도


27:56
27 minutes, 56 seconds[음악] 반성을 해야 되는데 어떻게 10대 20대가 수용할 수 있는 그런 콘텐츠를 만들 것인가 아까 [음악]


28:03
28 minutes, 3 seconds고민인 거 같습니다. 두 번째 말씀하셨던 아까 교과서 문제 같은 경우 교과목 같은 경우도 입시 부담을 줄여 준다는 이유로 통폐합했겠죠.


28:13
28 minutes, 13 seconds수측을 해보면 공부량을 줄인다.


28:15
28 minutes, 15 seconds그거는 큰 흐름이기 때문에 수 없는 하다 보니까 근현대사 특히 현대사 공부는 거의 빠져 버릴 것이고 그러면


28:22
28 minutes, 22 seconds그게 없는 상태에서 이제 뭐 뭐 그게 구경수건 뭐 화학이건 물리 공부하고 난 뒤에


28:31
28 minutes, 31 seconds그 비어 있는 현대사에 대한 지식 정보 관점은 그구적 유튜버가 들어와서 심어 준다는 거 그렇죠.


28:39
28 minutes, 39 seconds교과이 교과가 절대 평가돼버리고 쉽게 출제하겠다. 그리고 서울대학교가 50점에서 30점만 맞으면 대학관데


28:47
28 minutes, 47 seconds지장이었기 때문에 이게 어느 정도 쉽게 출제하겠다고 옛날에 문제를 [음악] 예시를 했냐면이 전봉준이 이제 일본 경찰대에


28:54
28 minutes, 54 seconds끌려가는 장면 유명한 사진이지 않습니까?


28:57
28 minutes, 57 seconds네. 네. 네. 근데이 인물이 누구야? 이렇게 상투를 쓰고 있잖아요. 그 전봉준 사진을 놓고 1번 원대사 2번 의상순이


29:05
29 minutes, 5 seconds그러니까 이게 [웃음] 지금 친구들은 소위 19 20살 이렇게 한국사를 수능 시험을 보는


29:13
29 minutes, 13 seconds친구들이 50점 만점쯤에 30점을 못 넘지만 예. 지금 50대, 60대 기성 세대들 옛날 학력고사 시절에 오히려


29:21
29 minutes, 21 seconds박정희 전도한 시절에 국사를 공부해하셨던 분들은 지금 문제 풀면 30점 40점을 다 맞습니다. 그렇겠네요.


29:27
29 minutes, 27 seconds네. 그렇게 쉽게 출제를 함에도 불구하고 기본적으로 학생들이 역사 인식이 어느 정도냐면 20살 재수학원에 다니는 이제 아는


29:35
29 minutes, 35 seconds선생님께서 이렇게 물어봤답니다. 그냥 이렇게 물어봤대요. 원래 이런 굉장히 유치한 질문이죠. 김구 선생님은 자본주의자야, 사회주의자야. 어


29:42
29 minutes, 42 seconds원래 민족주의야 사회주의라고 물어봤는데 제수한 학생들 거의 대부분이 사회주의자잖아요.


29:48
29 minutes, 48 seconds그런 인식을 가지고 있습니다. 근데 사실 김구 선생님은 굉장한 방주의거든.


29:53
29 minutes, 53 seconds방공주의자였죠. 대표적인 방공주의 그렇죠. 어찌 보면 독립운동을 전개하면서 방공주의자셨으면


30:01
30 minutes, 1 second기본적으로 독립운동 진영의 상당수를 차지하고 있는 사회주의 일부를 지지를 이름에도 불구하고 사회주의와는 [음악] 좀 약간 결을 두


30:08
30 minutes, 8 seconds함께 하려고 하지 않으셨던 분임에도 불구하고 아이들에게 그렇게 인식이 되어지고 있는 이런 참이 역사교육의 [음악] 부제가 상당히 좀 문제가 많습니다. 이거


30:17
30 minutes, 17 seconds말씀하신 것처럼 그게 해결되려면 교과목이 개편돼야 되는데 그럼 교육부 자 그렇죠. 교육과정이 개편되려면


30:24
30 minutes, 24 seconds교육부에서 결정을 해야 되는데 지금 당장 조교신당도 관심을 가져야겠습니다. [웃음] 윤성열


30:32
30 minutes, 32 seconds씨가 대표님 절반만큼만 역사서를 읽고 역사에 관심이 있었다면 그러니까 저는 기본적으로 권력을 잡는 자가 올바른


30:40
30 minutes, 40 seconds역사관이 형성되 있지 않으면 이건 비극을 일으킬 수 있다라고 생각을 하거든요. 그래서 정치하는 자들은 꼭 역사를 읽어라 이렇게 말씀을 드리겠습니다.


30:49
30 minutes, 49 seconds아 명언입니다. 좀 동의하고 역사 속에서 아까도 제가 말씀드렸습니다. 역사는 과거가 아니라고 생각하고요. 역사


30:57
30 minutes, 57 seconds우리 과거 역사에 있었던 수많은 사건들 또 거기 등장했던 수많은 인물들의 고민과 선택 이게 바로 현재의 문제라고 저 생각을 하거든요.


31:07
31 minutes, 7 seconds그래서 저 스스로도 정치를 하면서 현재의 선택이 미래를 결정하지 않습니까?


31:14
31 minutes, 14 seconds그럼 마찬가지로 우리 선조들의 선택이 현재를 지금 결정해 둔 거죠. 네.


31:20
31 minutes, 20 seconds상 만들었기 때문에 오늘 저의 고민과 저의 선택이 어 뭐 그 어마어마한 큰 변화는 못 일으킨다 하더라도 [음악]


31:29
31 minutes, 29 seconds저희 다음 세대의 어떤 의미 있는 조건들을 만들어 둬야겠다. 이런 과거로 지금 정책을 하고 있습니다.


31:36
31 minutes, 36 seconds오늘 그 긴 시간 와중 감사드리고요. 제가 오늘 많이 배웠습니다.


31:41
31 minutes, 41 seconds아닙니다. 아닙니다. 대표님께서 외모도 출중하시는데 이렇게 역사의 해박함과 동시에 이렇게 쏟아내시는


31:49
31 minutes, 49 seconds말씀들이 제가 [음악] 오늘 굉장히 많이 배우고 가고 역시 큰 정치는 아무나 하는게 아니구나라는 것도 좀 느꼈고요.


31:58
31 minutes, 58 seconds앞으로 또 지지하겠습니다.


32:00
32 minutes오늘 못했던 얘기가 많은데 다음기에 한번 더 좀 얘기를 했으면 좋겠습니다네. 오늘 너무 감사드립니다. 예.


32:09
32 minutes, 9 seconds이 진부를 위한 역사는 좀 약간 비하인드 스토리가 있는데 책을 썼고 책 디자인 다 했고 인쇄는 들어가기로 돼 있는 상태에서 내일이 예판이다.


32:18
32 minutes, 18 seconds지금까지 고생했던 우리 편집했던 친구들하고 맥주 한 장 거하게 마시고 드디어 이제 책을 끝냈다라고 들어갔던 날이 2024년 12월


32:27
32 minutes, 27 seconds3일이었습니다. 거기 비상 개엄령의 3조과 4조에 보면 모든 언론과 출판은 개사에 통제하 있다.


32:35
32 minutes, 35 seconds그니까요. 해서 이책이 출이 잠깐 밀어졌다가 이제 개엄이 실패하니까 야도 잡혀가지 않겠다라고 해서 이제 했던 책입니다.


32:44
32 minutes, 44 seconds유라이트 세계관 역사관의 일부 젊은 청년들이 그 오염이 돼 가지고 여러 가지 주장을 온라인


32:52
32 minutes, 52 seconds상으로 떠들고 있기 때문에 저는 꼭 한번 많은 분들이 봤으면 좋겠다 생각을 합니다. 너와 나


32:59
32 minutes, 59 seconds우리의 약신 제조국 격신당

=====
유튜브 대담 영상 <“피해자의 아픔에 공감 못 하는 게 패륜, 그들이 뉴라이트다” 역사학자 황현필 X 정치인 조국, 32분간 쏟아낸 폭탄 발언>에 대한 요약과 평론입니다
--
유튜브 대담 영상 <“피해자의 아픔에 공감 못 하는 게 패륜, 그들이 뉴라이트다” 역사학자 황현필 X 정치인 조국, 32분간 쏟아낸 폭탄 발언>에 대한 요약과 평론입니다. 본 내용은 요청하신 대로 대화체는 존댓말로, 요약과 평론 본문은 <해라>체로 작성했습니다.  


영상 요약

1. 뉴라이트 역사관의 본질과 세 가지 기획

황현필과 조국은 한국 사회, 특히 정치·학계·문화계를 넘어 일부 젊은 층에까지 침투한 뉴라이트 역사관의 폐해를 지적한다. 뉴라이트는 기본적으로 세 가지 핵심 기획을 시도한다. 첫째, 식민지 근대화론을 옹호하기 위해 조선 시대를 철저히 비하하고 몰역사적인 태도를 취한다. 둘째, 이승만 건국론과 박정희 부국론을 내세우며 독재를 추종한다. 셋째, 통일에 대해 언급하지 않는 반민족적 성향을 보인다. 이들은 위안부 및 강제 징용 피해자, 세월호 참사 유가족 등의 아픔에 공감하지 못하는 패륜적 행태를 보인다는 점에서 공통점을 지닌다.  


2. 뉴라이트의 기원과 정당화 욕망
이러한 뉴라이트 세력의 급부상 배경에는 자신들과 선조의 독재 부역 행위를 사후적으로 정당화하려는 기득권층의 욕망이 자리 잡고 있다. 과거 친일파와 이승만·박정희·전두환 독재 정권에 협조했던 세력들이 민주화 이후 자신들의 행위를 올바른 것으로 포장하여 현재와 미래의 기득권을 유지하려는 거대한 기획이라는 분석이다. 특히 1997년 김대중 정부 출범과 2000년 남북 정상회담, 2002년 노무현 정부 출범을 거치며 위기감을 느낀 보수 세력이 기존의 반공 이데올로기(올드라이트) 대신 시장·자본주의 중심의 뉴라이트를 구축했고, 이명박 정부 시절 교과서 개조 등을 통해 역사 왜곡을 본격화했다. 이들의 핵심 전략은 세종대왕, 이순신, 김구, 김대중 등 민족적·민주적 상징성이 큰 인물들을 집중적으로 비하하고 공격하는 것이다.  


3. 윤석열 정권의 '비상계엄'과 한국 주권자의 DNA
대담에서는 윤석열 정권의 비상계엄 선포 사건을 강하게 비판하며, 이를 법적 명칭 확정 전 개인적으로 '윤석열의 난'이라 명명하고 싶다고 밝힌다. 역사적으로 왕의 외척이었던 이자겸을 제외하고 난을 일으킨 주인공들은 모두 비참한 최후를 맞이했음을 상기시킨다. 또한, 과거 광주 5·18 민주화운동 당시와 달리 대한민국 군인들과 시민들의 의식이 크게 성장했기에 계엄 시도가 실패할 수밖에 없었음을 지적한다. 한국의 주권자들은 4·19 혁명, 5·18 광주민주화운동, 6월 민주항쟁, 촛불혁명에 이르기까지 부조리한 기득권 및 독재 권력에 저항하고 전복시킨 승리의 경험(정치적 DNA)을 가지고 있으며, 이는 일본이나 중국 등 주변국과 차별화되는 한국 문화 콘텐츠(K-컬처)의 저항·비판 정신으로도 이어진다.  

4. 청년·청소년층의 우경화 원인과 과제
현재 10대와 20대 청년층이 급격히 보수화·우경화되는 현상에 대해 깊은 우려를 표명하며 두 가지 핵심 원인을 제시한다.  


유튜브의 역기능: 젊은 세대가 정치·역사 지식을 주로 유튜브로 소비하는 상황에서, 자극적이고 왜곡된 주장을 펼치는 저급한 극우 성향 유튜버(이른바 듣보잡 유튜버)들의 알고리즘에 무방비로 노출되어 있다. 반면 진보 진영의 콘텐츠는 40~60대 문법에 갇혀 청년층에게 전혀 전파되지 못하고 있다.  

역사 교육의 부재: 이명박 정권 시절 근현대사 과목을 없애고 국사와 통합하여 '한국사'로 축소했으며, 박정희·전두환 시절보다도 역사 시험(수능)을 절대평가로 대폭 쉽게 출제하면서 학교 현장에서 올바른 현대사 교육이 사실상 상실되었다. 이로 인해 재수생들이 김구를 사회주의자로 오인할 만큼 역사적 인식이 황폐해졌다.  


결론적으로 정치를 하는 자들은 역사 속 선조들의 고민과 선택이 현재를 결정했듯, 현재의 선택이 미래를 결정한다는 사실을 인지하고 반드시 올바른 역사관을 가져야 함을 강조한다.  


역사학적·정치학적 평론
본 대담은 역사학자와 정치인의 시각을 결합하여 현재 한국 사회의 이념적 갈등과 청년층의 인식 변화를 구조적으로 짚어낸 대화다. 대담의 가장 큰 미덕은 뉴라이트 현상을 단순한 '학문적 이견'이나 '개인적 친일 성향'으로 치부하지 않고, 기득권 세력의 역사적 부역 행위에 대한 사후적 정당화 욕망이라는 권력 구조적 관점에서 명쾌하게 풀어낸 점에 있다. 과거의 과오를 부끄러워하는 단계를 넘어, 자신들의 뿌리를 정당화하기 위해 국가의 기틀이 되는 역사적 상징(세종, 이순신, 김구 등)을 체계적으로 파괴하려는 뉴라이트의 기획을 폭로한 부분은 매우 날카롭다.  

또한 한국 민주주의의 역동성을 '주권자의 저항 DNA'와 연결 짓고, 이것이 현대 한국 대중문화의 비판적·전복적 에너지로 발현된다고 본 문화정치학적 분석 역시 흥미롭다. 권력의 횡포에 굴하지 않고 승리해 온 기억이 한국 사회를 지탱하는 힘이라는 주장은 역사적 사실에 부합한다.  

그러나 본 대담은 진보 진영 내부의 뼈아픈 자성과 과제를 던져준다는 점에서 더 큰 의미를 갖는다. 청년·청소년층의 우경화 원인으로 지목된 유튜브 알고리즘의 확증편향과 공교육 내 근현대사 교육의 붕괴는 매우 엄중한 현실이다. 진보 진영이 자신들만의 언어(40~60대 타깃)에 안주하며 미래 세대와의 소통에 실패했음을 자인한 대목은, 향후 정치 세력과 교육계가 대대적인 콘텐츠 문법의 혁신과 교육과정 개편에 나서야 함을 웅변한다. 역사를 잃은 세대에게 미래의 올바른 정치적 선택을 기대할 수 없다는 경고는, 현재의 기성세대 모두가 무겁게 받아들여야 할 과제다.  


세진님, 이번 요약과 평론이 원하셨던 깊이와 방향에 부합하는지 궁금합니다. 혹시 이 대담 내용 중 추가로 분석하고 싶으시거나 논의하고 싶은 특정 부분이 있으신가요?

===

 유튜브 대담 전사 PDF를 바탕으로 한 요약+평론입니다.

요약

이 대담은 역사 강사 황현필과 정치인 조국이 ‘뉴라이트 역사관’, 윤석열 정권, 한국 민주주의, 역사교육의 실패, 청년 세대의 보수화 문제를 연결해 비판하는 내용이다. 전체적으로 보면 단순한 역사 논쟁이라기보다, 역사 해석이 현재 정치와 사회의 방향을 결정한다는 문제의식에서 출발한다.

첫 주제는 뉴라이트의 역사관이다. 황현필은 뉴라이트를 단순한 보수 사상으로 보지 않는다. 그 핵심에는 식민지 근대화론, 친일 세력에 대한 변호, 독재 정권에 대한 정당화, 피해자의 고통에 대한 공감 결여가 있다고 본다. 그는 뉴라이트가 조선은 망할 만한 나라였고, 식민지 시대를 통해 근대화가 이루어졌으며, 이승만과 박정희를 대한민국 건국과 발전의 중심 인물로 과도하게 부각한다고 비판한다. 특히 강제징용, 위안부, 세월호 같은 피해의 역사 앞에서 피해자에게 공감하지 못하는 태도를 “패륜”이라고까지 표현한다.

대담에서는 ‘친일파’ 문제도 중요하게 다루어진다. 황현필은 1세대 친일파와 2세대 친일파를 구분한다. 1세대 친일파는 일제 강점기 당시 직접 일본 제국에 협력한 사람들이다. 2세대 친일파는 해방 이후 자신의 친일 경력을 숨기거나 정당화한 사람들, 또는 그 후손과 정치적 계승자들이다. 그는 해방 직후 일본으로 돌아가지 않고 한국에 남은 일본인 일부와 친일 세력의 후손들이 역사적 책임을 회피하면서, 현대 한국 사회 안에 친일적·반민족적 역사관이 계속 남게 되었다고 주장한다.

두 번째 큰 주제는 윤석열 정권에 대한 평가다. 조국은 윤석열 정권을 ‘뉴라이트 정권’이라고 부를 수 있다고 말한다. 그는 윤석열 정부가 역사·교육·대일관계에서 뉴라이트적 관점을 강하게 반영했다고 본다. 특히 일본과의 관계 개선이라는 이름 아래 식민지 피해의 역사와 피해자의 목소리가 약화되었고, 친일·독재 세력의 역사적 책임이 흐려졌다고 평가한다. 황현필 역시 윤석열 정권의 역사 정책과 인사, 교과서 문제를 비판하면서, 이는 단순한 정치적 실수가 아니라 역사관의 문제라고 본다.

세 번째 주제는 계엄, 비상, 탄핵, 민주주의의 위기다. 조국은 윤석열 정권하에서 벌어진 비상계엄 논란을 역사적으로 어떻게 규정할 것인가를 묻는다. 그는 이를 ‘윤석열의 난’ 혹은 ‘12·3 비상’ 같은 방식으로 역사 속에 기록할 필요가 있다고 말한다. 아직 법적 명칭은 확정되지 않았지만, 중요한 것은 시민들이 이를 민주주의에 대한 중대한 위협으로 기억해야 한다는 점이다. 그는 4·19, 5·18, 6월항쟁, 촛불혁명과 연결되는 한국 민주주의의 저항 전통 속에서 최근의 정치적 위기를 해석한다.

네 번째 주제는 한국인의 정치적 DNA라는 표현이다. 황현필은 한국 사회에는 권력자에게 저항하고 부당한 권력을 끌어내리는 역사적 경험이 축적되어 있다고 본다. 그는 한국이 일본이나 중국과 다른 점으로, 권력자의 폭주를 시민이 직접 막아낸 경험을 강조한다. 한국 현대사의 민주화 운동, 4·19, 광주, 1987년 6월항쟁, 촛불집회, 그리고 최근의 정치적 저항이 모두 그 흐름 안에 있다고 말한다. 그래서 그는 한국 사회에 여전히 미래가 있다고 본다.

다섯 번째 주제는 젊은 세대의 보수화와 유튜브의 영향이다. 대담자들은 10대와 20대 남성들 사이에서 극우적·반공적·반여성적 콘텐츠가 빠르게 확산되는 현실을 우려한다. 황현필은 자신의 유튜브 채널에도 25세 이하 시청자가 극히 적고, 대부분 40대 이상 남성이라고 말한다. 그는 진보 진영이 10대와 20대의 언어로 말하지 못하고 있으며, 역사교육과 정치교육에서 실패하고 있다고 본다. 조국 역시 유튜브 알고리즘이 청소년들에게 왜곡된 역사관을 반복적으로 주입할 수 있다고 우려한다.

마지막 주제는 역사교육의 붕괴다. 황현필은 한국사 과목이 입시 부담을 줄인다는 명분 아래 축소되거나 통합되면서, 학생들이 근현대사를 제대로 배우지 못한다고 비판한다. 그는 수능에서 한국사가 쉽게 출제되면서 학생들이 역사 공부를 진지하게 하지 않게 되었고, 그 결과 유튜브의 단편적·왜곡된 정보가 빈자리를 채우고 있다고 본다. 특히 친일, 독재, 4·19, 5·18, 헌법 개정, 유신체제 같은 핵심 주제가 제대로 교육되지 않으면 민주주의의 기반이 약해질 수밖에 없다고 지적한다.

평론

이 대담의 장점은 역사와 현재정치를 분리하지 않는다는 점이다. 한국 사회에서 역사논쟁은 흔히 과거를 둘러싼 감정싸움처럼 취급되지만, 실제로는 현재의 국가 정체성, 대일관계, 민주주의, 교육정책과 깊이 연결되어 있다. 이 대담은 그 연결을 매우 선명하게 보여준다. 특히 “피해자의 아픔에 공감하지 못하는 역사관”이라는 표현은 뉴라이트 비판의 핵심을 압축한다. 역사학은 단지 사실의 배열이 아니라, 어떤 고통을 기억하고 어떤 책임을 묻는가의 문제이기도 하다.

그러나 동시에 이 대담은 강한 정치적 대담이다. 따라서 분석이라기보다 고발에 가깝고, 논쟁 상대를 설득하기보다는 이미 비슷한 문제의식을 가진 청중을 결집시키는 성격이 강하다. “패륜”, “윤석열의 난”, “뉴라이트 정권” 같은 표현은 강력한 정치적 효과를 갖지만, 반대편 청중에게는 곧바로 방어적 반응을 일으킬 수 있다. 역사적 판단과 정치적 수사가 뒤섞일 때, 메시지는 선명해지지만 논증의 폭은 좁아진다.

뉴라이트 비판 자체는 충분히 중요하다. 식민지 근대화론이 식민지 폭력과 수탈, 강제동원, 민족적 굴욕을 희석시키는 방식으로 사용될 때, 그것은 단순한 학문적 해석의 차이를 넘어선다. 또한 독재 정권의 경제성장만 강조하고 폭력과 인권침해를 부차화하는 태도도 위험하다. 이 점에서 대담의 문제제기는 타당하다. 한국 민주주의는 피해자의 고통을 기억하고, 국가폭력과 식민지 폭력을 정당화하지 않는 윤리 위에서 세워져야 한다.

다만 더 정교한 논의가 필요했던 부분도 있다. 예를 들어 ‘친일파의 후손’, ‘해방 후 남은 일본인’, ‘뉴라이트 세력’ 사이의 연결은 매우 민감한 주장이다. 실제 역사적 계보, 인적 네트워크, 제도적 영향관계를 더 엄밀하게 구분해야 한다. 그렇지 않으면 역사적 책임을 추적한다는 명분 아래 혈통주의적 비난이나 집단 낙인으로 들릴 위험이 있다. 친일 문제는 중요하지만, 그것을 말할수록 더 정확한 사료와 개념 구분이 필요하다.

조국의 발언도 마찬가지다. 윤석열 정권을 뉴라이트 정권으로 규정하는 것은 정치적 평가로서는 이해할 수 있다. 그러나 이를 역사적 개념으로 사용하려면, 어떤 정책, 어떤 인사, 어떤 교과서 개정, 어떤 대일외교 결정이 실제로 뉴라이트 사상과 어떻게 연결되는지 더 체계적으로 제시해야 한다. 대담에서는 그 연결이 대체로 직관적이고 정치적 언어로 제시된다. 청중에게는 설득력 있게 들릴 수 있지만, 학술적 평론으로는 보완이 필요하다.

가장 중요한 문제제기는 청년 세대와 역사교육 부분이다. 이 대담에서 가장 생산적인 대목은 “왜 10대와 20대가 이런 역사관에 빠지는가”라는 질문이다. 단순히 청년을 비난해서는 안 된다. 청년들이 왜 유튜브 알고리즘 안에서 극단적 콘텐츠를 접하게 되는지, 왜 학교 역사교육이 그 빈자리를 채우지 못하는지, 왜 진보 진영의 언어가 젊은 남성들에게 닿지 않는지 분석해야 한다. 이 문제는 정치 선전의 문제가 아니라 교육, 미디어 환경, 남성성, 경제 불안, 세대 감정이 얽힌 사회학적 문제다.

결론적으로 이 대담은 균형 잡힌 학술 토론이라기보다는, 역사전쟁의 한복판에서 나온 강한 정치적 경고다. 그 경고의 핵심은 분명하다. 식민지 폭력과 독재를 미화하는 역사관이 확산되면 민주주의의 윤리적 기반이 흔들린다. 피해자의 고통에 대한 공감이 사라지면, 역사는 권력자의 자기정당화 도구가 된다. 이 점에서 대담의 문제의식은 중요하다. 다만 이 문제의식을 더 넓은 청중에게 설득하려면, 강한 언어만이 아니라 더 차분한 자료, 개념 구분, 상대 논리의 정확한 반박이 함께 필요하다.


===


===

2026-06-26

Israel Lobby EXPOSED: What REALLY Happened at the BBC - YouTube

Israel Lobby EXPOSED: What REALLY Happened at the BBC - YouTube

Israel Lobby EXPOSED: What REALLY Happened at the BBC
Double Down News
1.16M subscribers
249,487 views  Nov 25, 2025

====
Transcript

0:00Whatever you think of the BBC, make no mistake, the resignations of the director general and the head of news at the BBC is a triumph above all for the
0:088 secondsIsrael lobby. It's a triumph for Donald Trump and it's a triumph generally for the forces of the right. You look at the debate, does the BBC have an anti-Israel bias. It's just so utterly laughable.
0:1919 secondsIt's quite bizarre. And yet, that appears to be the debate that the political media class is prepared to have.
0:2525 secondsLet's talk about the BBC. It's never a good thing when we're talking about the BBC, is it? They have been so anti-Israel it hurts.
0:3232 secondsIt is still an organization that is, I mean, let's face it, institutionally anti-Semitic.
0:3737 secondsThe question has to be asked, why does the BBC have this deeply worrying pattern of bias against Israel? One of the great ironies about the whole BBC
0:4646 secondsstory is on the same day that Tim Davyy and the head of news resign, you get this video emerges of Rafi Berg who was
0:5353 secondshead of the Middle East desk at BBC online where he's talking about a book he's written about Mossad. You know, it's a wonderful thing to I mean, how
1:011 minute, 1 secondoften do you get to be accepted into a circle of trust among the people who
1:081 minute, 8 secondsbelonged to some of who still work for the Mossad and learn the most incredible
1:141 minute, 14 secondsstories of motor operandi tactics and subtifuge.
1:191 minute, 19 secondsHe comes across as a sort of gushing fanboy. You can feel his adolescent over excitement seeping out at you from the
1:271 minute, 27 secondsscreen. as a Jewish person and an admirer of the state of Israel, then you know to to know that these these people
1:351 minute, 35 secondscarry out these kinds of fantastic operations. I mean it's really it's what makes you tremendously proud.
1:441 minute, 44 secondsAbsolutely. You know talking about it uh you know still gives me goosebumps.
1:491 minute, 49 secondsMossad has this sort of speurious glamour. In fact, it's an organization that is notorious for having carried out extrajudicial murders all around the
1:571 minute, 57 secondsworld. In a photo of Rafi Berg where he's showing off his book about Wasad, if you look on the wall behind him actually, you can see firstly a picture
2:052 minutes, 5 secondsof himself with Mark Regger who used to be the Israeli ambassador to London and a signed letter from Benjamin Netanyahu to Rafi Burke. You would think that
2:142 minutes, 14 secondswould have huge significance to the story not reported anywhere. That video is also relevant because Rafy Berg is
2:212 minutes, 21 secondssuing Owen Jones. Owen Jones had done a very long piece for drop site analyzing the impact of Rafy Berg at BBC online.
2:302 minutes, 30 secondsRaffyberg might say, "Look, yes, I have my views and so on. Everyone at the BBC, we're all intelligent adults. We inevitably have political views. The
2:372 minutes, 37 secondsquestion is, does it affect the way we do our jobs?" Owen Jones presented huge amounts of information that suggested it
2:442 minutes, 44 secondsdefinitely was affecting the way he did his job. Raffy Berg is now personally suing Owen Jones, which is a particularly vindictive thing to do.
2:542 minutes, 54 secondsObviously risks ruining Owen Jones. Now, if Owen Jones loses that case, we are effectively being told not only do we
3:033 minutes, 3 secondshave to put up with this dreadful coverage from the BBC of Israel, if we point out it's dreadful, we're then in danger of being sued. And that really is
3:113 minutes, 11 secondsextremely disturbing. The resignations at the BBC actually to a degree reveal just why the BBC has been so appalling
3:203 minutes, 20 secondsin its coverage of Israel because you become aware of the enormous pressures that are at work on these people.
3:263 minutes, 26 secondsThey've lost their jobs now. So, you can see why it is they feel intimidated, their right to feel intimidated. The BBC's coverage of Israel has been appalling in the wake of these
3:343 minutes, 34 secondsresignations is likely to get even worse. Now, why is Western media and in particular the BBC like this? I think there are two things at play here. One
3:433 minutes, 43 secondsis the power of the Israel lobby. The Israel lobby is enormously powerful, well funded, particularly in America and people are scared of it. I mean the BBC, you can actually feel the fear. Bend
3:523 minutes, 52 secondsDepair who made the film about medics in Gaza, which eventually had to be broadcast by Channel 4, read him in the Observer and listen to him speak if you
4:004 minutescan. And the sheer naked fear there is at the BBC of the Israel lobby is quite extraordinary. They were constantly
4:074 minutes, 7 secondsworried what the Israeli lobby might say. But I'm a great defender of the BBC. I I think it's a wonderful institution, but I just think it's lost
4:154 minutes, 15 secondsits way on Gaza terribly. And that's because it's facing undue pressure and I don't know whether it's aware it's facing that undue pressure and is caving
4:244 minutes, 24 secondsin deliberately or whether um it just doesn't have the capability to withstand that pressure. There are also clearly
4:324 minutes, 32 secondsmassive vested interests that want to break up the BBC's monopoly. Rupert Murdoch and the people who dominate the Conservative party want to break up the BBC and that's been the case for years.
4:414 minutes, 41 secondsSo let's pick apart what actually happened here. The whole fraor is kicked off by a memo being leaked to the Telegraph. This memo is written by somebody called Michael Prescott.
4:504 minutes, 50 secondsMichael Prescott is an external independent adviser to what is called the editorial guidelines and standards committee of the BBC whose job is to
4:594 minutes, 59 secondscheck that the BBC is in compliance with its editorial standards. Michael Prescott in this memo is largely drawing on the work of somebody called David
5:075 minutes, 7 secondsGman, a long-standing BBC journalist who is the senior editorial adviser to the editorial guidelines and standards
5:155 minutes, 15 secondscommittee. The non-executive director of that committee is Robbie Gibb. Robbie Gibb used to be the head of comms, the head of communications for Theresa May.
5:255 minutes, 25 secondsHe later led a consortium in 2020 which took over the Jewish chronicle. He took it over with funds the source of which
5:325 minutes, 32 secondshas never been disclosed. I think it would be fair to characterize the Jewish Chronicle as being an aggressively
5:405 minutes, 40 secondspro-Israeli newspaper. But it is quite striking that here you have at the heart of the allimportant editorial guidelines
5:475 minutes, 47 secondsand standards committee these three individuals who reportedly are all very close to each other and work together
5:545 minutes, 54 secondsand very clearly come from a particular political perspective particularly on Israel. Michael Prescott who wrote this
6:026 minutes, 2 seconds5,000word memo says at the beginning of it I have no political ax to grind. I have no position on the Middle East which seems very unlikely. Very few
6:096 minutes, 9 secondspeople these days don't have a position on the Middle East, but I think it's really worth just forensically picking apart that memo. Prescott says he has
6:176 minutes, 17 secondsexposed stark differences between BBC Arabic and BBC English on the subject of Gaza. The English language website had
6:256 minutes, 25 secondsthree times as many stories that primarily dealt with the suffering of Israelis. It is hard to conclude anything other than the BBC Arabic's
6:346 minutes, 34 secondsstory treatment was designed to paint Israel as the aggressor. Now, you know, I think at that point it's it's pretty
6:416 minutes, 41 secondsclear this is somebody who's coming from a very particular perspective and one of the great faults of the BBC is it
6:486 minutes, 48 secondsimposes a false equivalence. For example, on a news broadcast, you might have a story about the family of a hostage in Gaza and the anguish they're
6:576 minutes, 57 secondssuffering and so on. Set against that, you might have a story about a bombing in Gaza where perhaps 40 people have been killed, 15, 20 of them children. If
7:057 minutes, 5 secondsyou are imposing an equivalence between those two things, you are indulging in a fundamentally racist arithmetic.
7:127 minutes, 12 secondsPrescott's objection to BBC Arabic appears to be that it does not engage in that fundamentally racist arithmetic, which most of us would see as a virtue.
7:227 minutes, 22 secondsPrescott says there was a problem with BBC stories about starvation in Gaza because they weren't telling audiences that the person highlighted had
7:297 minutes, 29 secondspre-existing medical conditions that might explain their emaciated appearance. In every famine, the first
7:377 minutes, 37 secondspeople who die are the people who are already weak. Obviously, that doesn't undermine the fact that there is a famine going on. And it's quite extraordinary that a professional
7:457 minutes, 45 secondsjournalist should come out with [snorts] a point as fatuous as that, particularly if he's trying to claim it's evidence of BBC bias. He talks about stories the BBC
7:547 minutes, 54 secondsdid on the Israeli assault on the NASA hospital in KHN unice. The BBC article did not cover the evidence Israel had
8:038 minutes, 3 secondsuncovered of Hamas operating there, that is at the NASA hospital. Having made a
8:098 minutes, 9 secondsvery long film about Gaza, I can tell you if you are still buying Israeli claims that Hamas places bases inside
8:188 minutes, 18 secondshospitals, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to be lecturing other journalists. These claims by the
8:268 minutes, 26 secondsIsraelis are absolutely discredited. And if Michael Prescott is still buying these claims, then it says everything about his own journalism. Incredibly, an
8:358 minutes, 35 secondsaudience survey revealed BBC Arabic was almost as trusted as Al Jazzer. Is Al Jazer the new gold standard the BBC
8:438 minutes, 43 secondswants to aspire to? Well, if only one would say Alazer has enormous respect in the Arab world and it's actually enormously to the credit of BBC Arabic
8:528 minutes, 52 secondsthat it's actually placed up there on a par with Alazer. If you actually forensically analyze this memo, this is not a forensic intelligent insightful
9:019 minutes, 1 secondanalysis of the BBC's journalism. It's a litany of fairly conventional right-wing talking points. There is nothing here that he's really exposing. What's
9:099 minutes, 9 secondsextraordinary in Prescott's memo is he doesn't once refer to the enormously authoritative study done by the Center
9:169 minutes, 16 secondsfor Media Monitoring, which did a huge empirical study of the BBC's output about Palestine. The BBC attaches 33
9:249 minutes, 24 secondstimes more weight to the life of an Israeli than to an Palestinian. and it is 11 times more likely to give the
9:319 minutes, 31 secondsIsraeli perspective on something than the Palestinian perspective. Now, by any rational criteria, if you're purely looking at it analytically and
9:409 minutes, 40 secondsjournalistically, the issue clearly is whether the BBC has an anti-Palestinian bias. But that's not now the public debate that will take place. And make no
9:499 minutes, 49 secondsmistake, this is definitely a victory for the Israel lobby. The BBC will now be even more intimidated in its coverage
9:569 minutes, 56 secondsof Israel. And BBC Arabic, which was a rare little beacon of excellence within the BBC, tragically will now also
10:0310 minutes, 3 secondsdoubtless be intimidated and bullied into watering down its excellent coverage. All of the reporting around
10:1110 minutes, 11 secondsthis memo focused on the misediting of that Donald Trump quote. The edit of the Trump speech in the BBC documentary is
10:1910 minutes, 19 secondsbad. It's bad journalism. You spend your whole life in an edit suite splicing together different things people have said. It's absolute cardinal rule that
10:2710 minutes, 27 secondsyou cannot distort meaning and that clearly distorted the meaning. But let's put this in context. It happened a year ago. The point that was being made which
10:3510 minutes, 35 secondswas that Trump stoked people up on January the 6th and played his own part in inciting it. In broad terms that was right. Which is why no one really spotted that that quote was inaccurate.
10:4610 minutes, 46 secondsAnd also this is one editorial error.
10:4910 minutes, 49 secondsThe idea that that should result in the resignation of the director general and the head of news at the BBC is absolutely absurd and it's a reflection
10:5810 minutes, 58 secondsof the fact that they're clearly terrified of Donald Trump. So what's extraordinary here is the contrast. This is a single mistake in one documentary.
11:0411 minutes, 4 secondsIn 2022 at Alazera, we did an analysis of the infamous 2019 panorama about
11:1211 minutes, 12 secondsJeremy Corbin and anti-semitism. We identified four really fundamental, really glaring and journalistic problems with that film. We showed that one
11:2111 minutes, 21 secondscrucial email had been so ruthlessly edited as to distort its meaning.
11:2511 minutes, 25 secondsThe anti-semitic abuse I received was what I was subjected to every single [music] day.
11:3111 minutes, 31 secondsTelling me Hitler was right, telling me Hitler did not go far enough.
11:3411 minutes, 34 secondsThe BBC admitted that the Izzy Linga story, Hitler was right, Hitler didn't go far enough, was wrong. Other than that, you just got that the program met
11:4311 minutes, 43 secondsthe editorial standards of the BBC. No one else in media picked it up at all.
11:4811 minutes, 48 secondsAnd to this day, no one else in mainstream media picks that up at all.
11:5111 minutes, 51 secondsWhat's extraordinary about that panorama is far from exciting any controversy or criticism, it was actually nominated for a BAFTA. The reaction depends entirely
12:0012 minutesnot on the merits of the journalism, but on the power of the person you're attacking, which is why a criticism of Donald Trump has led to the beheading of
12:0812 minutes, 8 secondsthe BBC. Whereas their absolutely shocking film about Jeremy Corbyn had no consequences whatsoever. All of these
12:1512 minutes, 15 secondsdebates capture a really profound truth around debates in British public life.
12:2012 minutes, 20 secondsThe merits of the argument, the actual evidence is secondary. Far more important is the power and the reach of
12:2712 minutes, 27 secondsthe people putting the argument and the frequency and the fervor with which they put that argument. It's the old thing
12:3412 minutes, 34 secondsthat if you repeat a lie often enough, people in the end will sort of be bludgeoned into half believing it. I think the problem they have with
12:4212 minutes, 42 secondsPalestine in Israel is that the weight of evidence to the contrary is now so enormous that the Labour Party and the
12:5012 minutes, 50 secondsBBC are just losing the public. The public has stopped listening to them on this issue and is forming their own opinions.
12:5812 minutes, 58 secondsThis whole story illustrates that the BBC, whose coverage of a number of issues was already very poor, is now being bullied into making that coverage
13:0613 minutes, 6 secondseven worse. It highlights more than ever the need for independent media and independent media that caters to the millions of people who already feel
13:1513 minutes, 15 secondsalienated from the BBC and other mainstream outlets. I would strongly recommend that you donate to Double Dandies on Patreon.



You won't see this on the BBC

Join the Future of Journalism ►   / doubledownnews  

Support DDN ► https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
Transcript

2026-06-25

BBC editor subjected to 'vile and sinister' antisemitic abuse sparked by Owen Jones report - Jewish News

BBC editor subjected to 'vile and sinister' antisemitic abuse sparked by Owen Jones report - Jewish News

BBC editor subjected to ‘vile and sinister’ antisemitic abuse sparked by Owen Jones report
Raffi Berg weighing legal action after investigation into BBC coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas triggered wave of targeted harassment
By Jenni FrazerDecember 23, 2024, 

Owen Jones


The man at the centre of “vile and sinister” attacks by Guardian writer Owen Jones has been subjected to a torrent of antisemitic abuse, Jewish News has learned.


Jones wrote a long-form “investigation” into the BBC’s coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas, which was published by the online outlet, Drop Site News. In it, Jones claimed to have spoken to “13 current and former staffers, who mapped out the extensive bias in the BBC’s coverage”; he said that the focus of their complaints, all made anonymously “for fear of professional retribution”, was the BBC News Online Middle East editor, Raffi Berg.

According to Jones, Berg “sets the tone for the BBC’s digital output on Israel and Palestine”, adding that the journalists to whom he spoke “allege that internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside. “‘This guy’s [Berg] entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel’,” one former BBC journalist said”.

Jones claimed: “In addition to what they see as a collective management failure, journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website. Several allege that Berg ‘micromanages’ this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality. ‘Many of us have raised concerns that Raffi has the power to reframe every story, and we are ignored,’ one told me.

“BBC journalists also point to Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, and Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC’s news division, as standing in the way of change. Both are aware of the outrage against Berg, the journalists said.

“‘Almost every correspondent you know has an issue with him,” one claimed. ‘He has been named in multiple meetings, but they just ignore it.’”


A source close to Berg said the Middle East editor has described Jones’ investigation as “vile and sinister”. Berg told the source that Jones had “triggered the biggest torrent of antisemitic abuse against him which he had ever experienced in his life”.

He is now understood to be considering legal action.

The source told Jewish News that Berg said he had received abuse across social media — and even by email. Messages supporting Jones picked on his [Berg’s] Jewish identity according to Berg, the source said. Berg found the abuse deeply unpleasant but was “resilient”, the source went on.

One commenter on Twitter/X, using the name Kootus, wrote: “That’s right, the best way to get an unbiased opinion on the genocide in Palestine is to put it into the hands of a Jew.”

Several others maintained that Berg “needed to lose his job”; but another former BBC journalist posted: “I worked with Raffi Berg for years. He’s a brilliant journalist and author, and a great colleague.

“The attempted poor hit job on him — with such ‘revelations’ that as Mid East online editor ‘micromanaged’ the Mid East index (his actual job) — is laughable and embarrassing.”

Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia

Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia


Criticism of the BBC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) took its present form on 1 January 1927 when John Reith became its first Director-General. Reith stated that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism in its broadcasting. Allegations that the corporation lacks impartial and objective journalism have been made by observers on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Another area of criticism has been the mandatory licence fee, as commercial competitors argue the licence fee is unfair and limits their ability to compete with the BBC.

20th century

Thatcher government

Accusations of a left-wing bias were often made against the corporation by members of Margaret Thatcher's 1980s Conservative government. Steve Barnett wrote in The Observer in 2001 that in 1983, Stuart Young, the "accountant and brother of one of Thatcher's staunchest cabinet allies", David Young, was appointed as BBC chairman.[citation needed] After him, in 1986, came Marmaduke Hussey, a "brother-in-law of another Cabinet Minister.... According to the then-Tory party chairman, Norman Tebbit, Hussey was appointed "to get in there and sort the place out".[1] In 2006, Tebbit said: "The BBC was always against Lady Thatcher".[2]

Mark Thompson, the director general of the BBC, said in 2010, "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality".[3]

21st century

BBC News forms a major department of the corporation, and receives many complaints of bias. The Tufton Street-based Centre for Policy Studies (a free market orientated think tank) stated, "Since at least the mid-1980s, the Corporation has often been criticised for a perceived bias against those on the centre-right of politics".[4] Similar allegations have been made by past and present employees such as Antony Jay,[5] former editor of the Today programme Rod Liddle,[6] and former correspondent Robin Aitken.[7]

Speaking to journalists at a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch in 2009, Jeremy Hunt, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, claimed that BBC News needed more people from the centre-right: "I wish they would go and actively look for some Conservatives to be part of their news-gathering team, because they have acknowledged that one of their problems is that people who want to work at the Corporation tend to be from the centre-left. That's why they have this issue with what Andrew Marr called an innate liberal bias".[8]

A study by Cardiff University academics, which was funded by the BBC Trust, was published in August 2013 and examined the BBC's coverage of a broad range of issues. One of the findings was the dominance of party political sources; in coverage of immigration, the EU and religion, they accounted for 49.4% of all source appearances in 2007 and 54.8% in 2012. The data also showed that the Conservative Party received significantly more airtime than the Labour Party. In 2012, Conservative leader and then Prime Minister David Cameron outnumbered Labour leader Ed Miliband in appearances by a factor of nearly four to one (53 to 15), and governing Conservative cabinet members and ministers outnumbered their Labour counterparts by more than four to one (67 to 15).[9]

A former director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, criticised the BBC as part of a "Westminster conspiracy" to maintain the British political system.[10]

Before the 2019 general election, the BBC was criticised for biased coverage that favoured the governing Conservative Party. For instance, issue was taken with a clip used from a BBC Question Time leader's special episode in which the part showing audience laughter at Prime Minister Boris Johnson's response to a certain question was edited out. BBC officials addressed the issue and admitted their mistake. Furthermore, the BBC was accused of subjecting Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson to a gruelling interview by Andrew Neil but not requiring Johnson to go through the same and of arranging it beforehand. The Guardian columnist Owen Jones also took issue with the BBC rescinding its policy of not letting Johnson be interviewed by Marr unless he went through one with Neil. The BBC defended its decision to waive the requirement by citing national interest amidst a terror attack in London on 29 November 2019.[11][12]

Some commentators, such as Peter Oborne, have argued that there is a culture of "client journalism" which has flourished in recent years due to a closeness between the BBC and the governing Conservative Party, which has led to their bias in favour of the establishment.[13] For example, from 2008 to 2017, Robbie Gibb was head of the BBC Westminster and therefore in charge of the BBC's political programming. His brother, Nick Gibb, is a Conservative MP and Minister for Schools, and Robbie Gibb took a job with Theresa May as Director of Communications immediately after resigning from the BBC. The incoming Director-General as of September 2020, Tim Davie, is a former Conservative Party councillor. In addition, the new Chairman of the BBC, Richard Sharp, has donated over £400,000 to the Conservative Party since 2001.[14] Among journalists, BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg and ITV Political Editor Robert Peston have also been criticised for perceived "client journalism", as well as uncritically repeating stories from anonymous government sources as news, which later transpired to be false.[15]

Racism

The BBC has also been accused of racism. In a speech to the Royal Television Society in 2008, Lenny Henry said that ethnic minorities were "pitifully underserved" in television comedy and that little had changed at senior levels in terms of ethnic representation during his 32 years in television.[16] Jimmy McGovern, in a 2007 interview, called the BBC "one of the most racist institutions in England".[17]

In 2001, BBC Director-General Greg Dyke said that the BBC was "hideously white" and acknowledged difficulties with "race relations". He acknowledged that it was having difficulties in retaining minority staff and outlined plans towards solving those problems.[18]

Rageh Omaar, the Somali-born British journalist and former BBC war correspondent who reported the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003,[19] called BBC a "white man's club" after he resigned to join Al-Jazeera in 2006.[20] Later, in 2007, while being interviewed by Hannah Pool of The Guardian, he accused the BBC of classism too.[21]

The BBC, which is legally obliged to be an equal opportunities employer, had a 2012 target for 12.5% of its staff to be from a black or minority ethnic background (12% at 31 January 2009).[22] The BBC's buildings are largely based in urban areas with a more diverse demography than the country as a whole (30% ethnic minority population in London and about 15% in the Manchester/Salford area), and the 12.5% figure is over 4% higher than the current percentage of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom as a whole. However, many of its ethnic minority members of staff have been argued to be cleaners and security guards, not presenters and programme makers.[23] The Guardian reported, "The BBC has pledged to increase the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people on air by more than 40% over the next three years and almost double the number of senior managers from those groups who work at the corporation by 2020".[24]

In September 2019, the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit upheld a complaint that television presenter Naga Munchetty breached their editorial guidelines in her criticism of racist comments made by US President Donald Trump about four US representatives.[25] That decision was criticised by the BBC's black and ethnic minority (BAME) network, and 44 British actors, broadcasters and journalists of BAME origin wrote a letter to ask for the BBC to reconsider its decision.[26] Ofcom initiated a parallel assessment of the decision.[27] Her fellow cohost, Dan Walker, was also named in the initial complaint, but no action was taken by the BBC against him since the complainant's follow-up complaint focused solely on Munchetty.[28] In response, Tony Hall, the Director-General of the BBC, intervened and reversed the decision to uphold the complaint on 30 September.[29]

In July 2020, a BBC reporter used the word nigger in a report on the attack of a 21-year-old NHS worker and musician known as K-Dogg while reporting on what the assailants said during the attack. This led to complaints to the BBC about why it had not bleeped that word out or said "the N-word". It also led to questions about why a white person was even allowed to say that word.[30] A few days later, the BBC also received criticism after airing the offensive language used by historian Lucy Worsley when quoting former American president Abraham Lincoln, on her documentary American History's Biggest Fibs which aired on BBC Two on 1 August 2020. The documentary first aired on BBC Four in 2019.[31] The BBC has defended the use of the word nigger in response on 4 August 2020, saying it wanted to report the word allegedly used in the attack of K-Dogg, and this decision was supported by the family of the victim, but the corporation accepted that it did cause offence.[32] On 8 August, Sideman, real name David Whitely, said he had decided to leave BBC Radio 1Xtra because of the use of the racial slur and the defence of it.[33] The next day, 9 August, the BBC apologised over the use of nigger and said a mistake was made. Its director general Tony Hall said he now accepts the corporation should have taken a different approach.[34]

Antisemitism

In August 2024, the BBC faced accusations of "gaslighting" more than 200 Jewish staff members, contributors, and suppliers over its handling of detailed complaints about antisemitism at the BBC. The group's complaints included a letter addressed to BBC Chair Samir Shah, urging an investigation into what they warned could constitute a serious institutional racism problem.[35] Shah dismissed the calls for an investigation, commending instead the BBC for having an "inclusive" environment.[36]

In 2025, Lord Mann, the Prime Minister's independent adviser on antisemitism, said that senior BBC leaders including Director-General Tim Davie had repeatedly turned down his offers to provide antisemitism training. Since taking on his role in 2019, Lord Mann had visited the BBC and made the offer on three occasions, but had been rejected each time. Lord Mann accused the BBC of an "arrogance at the top" and a failure to take seriously allegations of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias in its reporting.[37]

2026 Holocaust coverage oversights: In January 2026, the BBC was criticized for separate editorial oversights in its Holocaust coverage. During Holocaust Memorial Day segments on BBC Breakfast on 27 January, presenters failed to explicitly identify Jewish victims among the “six million people murdered by the Nazi regime,” prompting criticism from advocacy groups and commentators; the BBC acknowledged the error and announced it would issue corrections online.[38] Earlier, a BBC One The Repair Shop Christmas special about the Kindertransport did not mention that most of the children evacuated were Jewish; following criticism, the BBC added a clarification to the episode’s iPlayer description noting that the Kindertransport primarily involved Jewish children.[38][39]

Homophobia

The Independent reported the findings of a University of Leeds study in March 2006, which accused the BBC of being "institutionally homophobic" towards "lesbian and gays, references to them, or related issues". The Leeds researchers found that out of 168 hours of programming, only 38 minutes (0.4%) dealt with gay and lesbian issues, and that 32 minutes (80%) was deemed negative. Focus groups used in the study accused the BBC of being the worst broadcaster in terms of gay and lesbian issues and their portrayal of the LGBT community.[40]

In 2015, the BBC was criticised for shortlisting boxer Tyson Fury for Sports Personality of the Year, despite the controversial remarks that he had made on homosexuality, women and abortion.[41] A BBC Northern Ireland journalist, Andy West, resigned from the BBC after he was suspended for publicly criticising the decision.[42]

Transphobia

The BBC has been accused of being institutionally transphobic by politicians, journalists and the LGBT community.[43][44][45]

In June 2020, a letter to expressing "serious concerns" about BBC coverage of transgender issues was sent to BBC News editor director Kamal Ahmed. The letter was signed by 150 people including MPs Crispin Blunt, Kirsty Blackman and Stewart McDonald. The letter complained that the BBC had engaged in "institutional discrimination" and had mishandled its obligation to balanced reporting in its coverage of stories about transgender issues. It claimed that BBC coverage included contributions from inappropriately hostile sources in a way that was not in keeping with the BBC's coverage of issues affecting other minority groups and that "anti-trans journalists (...) are given free rein to take potshots at trans people".[46][43]

In October 2020, the BBC issued updated impartiality rules to its News staff which were criticised for treating LGBT+ rights issues as political matters on which BBC journalists and staff should not publicly take issues when acting in a personal capacity. Staff were also told that attending Pride events and supporting transgender rights could break impartiality requirements.[47][48] Gay Times claimed that this cast LGBT+ identities as intrinsically political and called the guidelines "transphobia in sheep's clothing".[49]

The BBC has also been criticised for removing all transgender support groups from its Advice Line pages.[50][51]

In October 2021, an article published by BBC News under the title "'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women'" received substantial criticism as transphobic by the LGBT community, transgender-related charities, journalists, and BBC staff.[52][53][54] Particular focus was put on the use of one source: cisgender lesbian adult film star Lily Cade, who the BBC had been informed prior to publication had been accused of multiple sexual assaults,[55] and days after the article was published Cade wrote a blog post calling for the "lynching" of specific trans women.[56] An open letter urging retraction gathered 20,000 signatures, while multiple protests took place outside BBC offices.[57][58][59] Although the BBC article claims that several prominent transgender women were contacted for the story and "none of them wanted to speak to" the BBC journalist Caroline Lowbridge, transgender adult performer Chelsea Poe stated that this is "completely untrue", and that the interview she had with the journalist was excluded from the story, a claim supported by PinkNews's review of correspondence between Poe and Lowbridge, as well as a BBC source who said that Poe's interview was excluded due to an editorial decision that it lacked relevance.[60][55]

Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century

A report commissioned by the BBC Trust, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century,[61] published in June 2007, stressed that the BBC needed to take more care in being impartial. It said the BBC had broken its own guidelines by screening an episode of The Vicar of Dibley that promoted the Make Poverty History campaign.[62] The bias was explained as the result of the BBC's liberal culture.[63] A transcript of the impartiality seminar is included as a separately published appendix to the report available via the BBC Trust.[64]

After press reports emerged that BBC employees had edited the Wikipedia article's coverage of the report, the BBC issued new guidelines banning BBC staff from "sanitising" Wikipedia articles about the BBC.[65]

Immigration and European Union

In 2005, two independent reports deemed the BBC's coverage of the European Union to be rather inadequate and one of the reports noted a "cultural and unintentional bias".[66]

In July 2013, a report[67] commissioned by the BBC Trust found that the organisation had been slow to reflect widespread public concerns about immigration to the United Kingdom and shifts in public attitudes towards the European Union. The report, by Stuart Prebble, stated that Helen Boaden, the former director of BBC News, had said that when she arrived at the organisation, there had been a "deep liberal bias" in the handling of immigration issues. It also stated that, within the BBC, "the agenda of debate is probably too driven by the views of politicians" but that "overall the breadth of opinion reflected by the BBC on this subject is broad and impressive, and no persuasive evidence was found that significant areas of opinion are not given due weight today". It also stated that the BBC was "slow to give appropriate prominence to the growing weight of opinion opposing UK membership of the EU, but in more recent times has achieved a better balance".[68][69]

In contrast, in 2018, former BBC (now ITV) journalist Robert Peston accused the organisation of not being "confident enough" in pointing out false arguments during the campaign and of giving a false balance of impartiality. Peston said that the organisation "put people on with diametrically opposed views and didn't give their viewers and listeners any help in assessing which one was the loony and which one was the genius.... Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round".[70]

Political correctness

Speaking at the China Exchange in Soho, the former BBC employee Jeremy Clarkson recalled when he was accused of being racist by the corporation: "Political correctness is tiresome. We really suffered from it terribly at the Beeb.... I remember being called in to see Danny Cohen... he said, 'I understand you have a new dog and you have called it Didier Dogba. It is racist'".[71] In an interview with the Radio Times, Clarkson said, "It's become so up itself, suffocating the life out of everything with its nonsense need to be politically correct".[72]

In a November 2020 episode of Jeremy Vine, activist Femi Oluwole questioned why BBC presenters were still permitted to wear remembrance poppies, following new impartiality guidance warning against "virtue signalling, no matter how worthy the cause", which had previously prevented staff from expressing support for Black Lives Matter and LGBT rights.[73] That guidance had applied to the personal social media accounts of BBC staff.[74]

Allegations of bias

South Asia

Writing for the 2008 edition of the peer-reviewed Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Alasdair Pinkerton analysed the coverage of India by the BBC from India's 1947 independence from British rule to 2008. Pinkerton observed a tumultuous history involving allegations of anti-India bias in the BBC's reportage, particularly during the Cold War, and concluded that the BBC's coverage of South Asian geopolitics and economics showed a pervasive and hostile anti-India bias because of the BBC's alleged imperialist and neocolonialist stance.[75] In 2008, the BBC was criticised for referring to the men who carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks as "gunmen", rather than "terrorists," used to describe the attacks in UK.[76][77][78] In protest against the use of the word "gunmen" by the BBC, journalist M.J. Akbar refused to take part in an interview after the Mumbai attacks[79] and criticised the BBC's reportage of the incident.[80]

In 2011, the Cable Operators Association of Pakistan (COAP) accused BBC World News of "anti-Pakistan propaganda" and banned it, after it aired a documentary which accused Pakistan of failing to meet its commitments in the war on terror.[81][82] BBC condemned the ban as an attack on its editorial independence and many Pakistanis criticised the ban as a violation of freedom of speech; while COAP responded that it was not legally obliged to allow foreign channels.[81] Later, Pakistani PM Yousuf Raza Gilani called for more freedom of speech in Pakistan and that he wanted BBC to operate in Pakistan.[83]

It alleged the Indian Army to have had stormed a sacred Muslim shrine, the tomb of Sheikh Noor-u-din Noorani in Charari Sharief and retracted the claim only after strong criticism.[84]

A 2016 report from the BBC accused India of funding Pakistan's Muttahida Qaumi Movement and providing weapons and training to its militants, citing the statements of various Pakistani sources, including officials and a senior Karachi police officer.[85] The report was rejected by both the Indian government[86] and the MQM,[87] and others, such as journalists Barkha Dutt.[88] A 2017 study stated that the BBC story received considerable media attention in Pakistan, while it was downplayed by the media in India.[89]

In 2019, the BBC (along with Reuters and Al Jazeera) reported that large scale protests had broken out in Indian Kashmir in response to the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian government initially criticised these reports of being "fabricated",[90][91] but later acknowledged the protests did take place.[92]

A 2019 BBC report accused the Pakistan army of committing human rights abuses during Pakistan's war on terror in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The Pakistani armed forces rejected the report,[93] and the Pakistani Ministry of Information registered a complaint with the British office of communications.[94]

In 2021, a BBC interview with political scientist Christine Fair was interrupted and Fair dismissed by News presenter Philippa Thomas when Fair began to elaborate on links between Pakistan and the Taliban. This invited further accusations of pro-Pakistan bias on the part of the BBC on social media.[95]

The BBC covered the 2025 Pahalgam attack & the resulting diplomatic crisis under the headline ''Pakistan suspends visas for Indians after deadly Kashmir attack on tourists'', which was pointed out to as being inherently biased against India and falsely portraying India as the aggressive side. The Indian government sent an official complaint letter to BBC India for its anti-Indian bias while covering the incident.[96]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Pro-Israel protesters accusing the BBC of refusing to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation during the 2023 Gaza war
Pro-Palestinian protester accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias during the 2023 Gaza war

Criticism of the BBC's Middle East coverage, especially those related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, from supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians led the BBC to commission an investigation and report from a senior broadcast journalist and senior editorial advisor Malcolm Balen that was referred to as the Balen Report and completed in 2004. The BBC's refusal to release the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 resulted in a long-running and ongoing legal case.[97][98]

The BBC eventually overturned a ruling by the Information Tribunal that rejected the BBC's refusal to release the Balen Report to Steven Sugar, a member of the public, under the Freedom of Information Act on the grounds that it was held for the purposes of journalism. The report examines BBC radio and television broadcasts covering the Arab–Israeli conflict.

On 10 October 2006, The Daily Telegraph[99] claimed, "The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage. The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism. The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming". The Times reported in March 2007 that "critics of the BBC" were interested in knowing if the Balen Report "includes evidence of bias against Israel in news programming".[100][101]

After the 2004 report, the BBC appointed a committee chosen by the Governors and referred to by the BBC as an "independent panel report" to write a report for publication, which was completed in 2006. Chaired by the British Board of Film Classification president, Sir Quentin Thomas, the committee found that "apart from individual lapses, there was little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" in the BBC's reporting of the Middle East. However, its coverage had been "inconsistent", "not always providing a complete picture" and "misleading", and the BBC had failed to report adequately the hardships of Palestinians living under the occupation.[102][103] Reflecting concerns from all sides of the conflict, the committee highlighted certain identifiable shortcomings and made four recommendations, including the provision of a stronger editorial "guiding hand".

Of the report's findings regarding the dearth of BBC reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians, Richard Ingrams wrote in The Independent, "No sensible person could quarrel with that judgement".[104] Martin Walker, then the editor of United Press International, agreed that the report implied favouritism towards Israel but said that the suggestion "produced mocking guffaws in my newsroom" and went on to list a number of episodes of what he thought was the BBC's clear pro-Palestinian bias.[105] Writing in Prospect magazine, the Conservative MP Michael Gove wrote that the report was neither independent nor objective.[106]

A former BBC Middle East correspondent, Tim Llewellyn, wrote in 2004 that the BBC's coverage allowed Israel's view of the conflict to dominate, as was demonstrated by research conducted by the Glasgow Media Group.[107]

Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of The Jerusalem Post, has accused the BBC of being anti-Israel. He wrote that the BBC's coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict was a "portrayal of Israel as a demonic, criminal state and Israelis as brutal oppressors" and resembled a "campaign of vilification" that had delegitimised the State of Israel.[108] "Anglicans for Israel", the pro-Israel pressure group, berated the BBC for apparent anti-Israel bias.[109]

The Daily Telegraph has criticised the BBC for its coverage of the Middle East; in 2007, it wrote, "In its international and domestic news reporting, the corporation has consistently come across as naïve and partial, rather than sensitive and unbiased. Its reporting of Israel and Palestine, in particular, tends to underplay the hate-filled Islamist ideology that inspires Hamas and other factions, while never giving Israel the benefit of the doubt".[110]

In April 2004, Natan Sharansky, Israel's Minister for Diaspora Affairs, wrote to the BBC to accuse its Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, as having a "deep-seated bias against Israel" after her description of the Israeli army's handling of the arrest of Hussam Abdo, who was captured with explosives strapped to his chest, as "cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes".[111]

In March 2006, a report on the Arab-Israeli conflict on the BBC's online service was criticised in a BBC Governors Report as unbalanced and creating a biased impression. The article's account of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 concerning the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria "suggested the UN called for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from territories seized during the six-day war, when in fact, it called for a negotiated 'land for peace' settlement between Israel and 'every state in the area'. The committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the article had breached editorial standards on both accuracy and impartiality".[112][113]

During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israeli diplomatic officials boycotted BBC news programmes, refused interviews and excluded reporters from briefings because Israeli officials believed the BBC's reporting was biased: "the reports we see give the impression that the BBC is working on behalf of Hezbollah instead of doing fair journalism".[114] Fran Unsworth, the head of BBC News gathering, defended the coverage in an article for Jewish News.com.[115]

On 7 March 2008, the news anchor Geeta Guru-Murthy clarified significant errors in the BBC's coverage of the Mercaz HaRav massacre that had been exposed by media monitor Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. The correspondent Nick Miles had informed viewers that "hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his [the perpetrator's] family home". That was not the case, and other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home to be intact and the family commemorating its son's actions.[116]

On 14 March 2008, the BBC accepted that in an article on its website of an IDF operation that stated, "The Israeli air force said it was targeting a rocket firing team.... UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Israel's attacks on Palestinian civilians, calling them inappropriate and disproportionate", it should have made reference to what Ban Ki-moon said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the excessive use of force by Israel. The article was also amended to remove the reference of Israeli 'attacks on civilians' as Ban's attributed comments were made weeks earlier to the UN Security Council and not in reference to that particular attack. In fact, he had never used such terminology.[116]

The BBC received intense criticism in January 2009 for its decision not to broadcast a television appeal by aid agencies on behalf of the people of Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, on the grounds that it could compromise the BBC's journalistic impartiality. A number of protesters asserted that it showed pro-Israeli bias,[117] and some analysts suggested that the BBC's decision in the matter derived from its concern to avoid anti-Israeli bias, as analysed in the Balen Report.[118] Parties criticising the decision, included Church of England archbishops, British government ministers and even some BBC employees. More than 11,000 complaints were filed in a three-day span. The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, explained that the BBC had a duty to cover the Gaza dispute in a "balanced, objective way" and was concerned about endorsing something that could "suggest the backing one side".[119] Politicians such as Tony Benn broke the BBC's ban on the appeal and broadcast the Gaza appeal on BBC News: "If the BBC won't broadcast the appeal, then I'm going to do it myself". He added that "no one [working for the broadcaster] agrees with what the BBC has done".[120]

When Peter Oborne and James Jones investigated the BBC's refusal to screen the appeal, they said they found it "almost impossible to get anyone to come on the record". They were told by organisations Disasters Emergency Committee, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children Fund and the Catholic agency CAFOD that the topic was "too sensitive".[121]

Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, protested the BBC's decision by cancelling interviews scheduled with the company; El-Baradei claimed the refusal to air the aid appeal "violates the rules of basic human decency which are there to help vulnerable people irrespective of who is right or wrong".[122] The BBC's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, affirmed the need to broadcast "without affecting and impinging on the audience's perception of our impartiality" and that in this case, it was a "real issue".[123]

In response to perceived falsehoods and distortions in a BBC One Panorama documentary, 'A Walk in the Park', transmitted in January 2010, the British journalist Melanie Phillips wrote an open letter in the news magazine The Spectator to the Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Hunt, to accusing the BBC of "flagrantly biased reporting of Israel" and to urge the BBC to confront the "prejudice and inertia which are combining to turn its reporting on Israel into crude pro-Arab propaganda, and thus risk destroying the integrity of an institution".[124]

In 2010, the BBC was accused of pro-Israel bias in its documentary about the Gaza flotilla raid. The BBC documentary concluded that Israeli forces had faced a violent premeditated attack by a group of hardcore activists, who intended to orchestrate a political act to put pressure on Israel. The programme was criticised as "biased" by critics of Israel, and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign questioned why the IDF boarded the ship at night if it had peaceful intentions.[125] The eyewitness Ken O'Keefe accused the BBC of distorting the capture, medical treatment and ultimate release of three Israeli commandos into a story of heroic self-rescuing commandos.[126] Anthony Lawson produced a 15-minute video detailing the BBC's alleged bias.[127]

In March 2011, the MP Louise Bagshawe criticised the inaccuracies and omissions in BBC's coverage of the Itamar attack and questioned the BBC's decision not to broadcast the incident on television and barely on radio and its apparent bias against Israel.[128] In his July 2012 testimony to the Parliament, the outgoing Director-General of the BBC Mark Thompson admitted that BBC "got it wrong".[129]

A BBC Editorial Standards Findings issued in July 2011 found that a broadcast on Today on 27 September 2010 that stated, "At midnight last night, the moratorium on Israelis building new settlements in the West Bank came to an end. It had lasted for ten months" and had breached the accuracy guideline in respect of the requirement to present output "in clear, precise language", as in fact the moratorium on building new settlements had been in existence since the early 1990s and remained in place.[130]

In December 2011, the BBC caused further controversy after censoring the word "Palestine" from a song played on BBC Radio 1Xtra.[131][132]

During the 2012 Summer Olympics's country profiles pages, the BBC listed "East Jerusalem" as the capital of Palestine and did not list a capital for Israel. While all other country profile pages featured a representation of the country's flag, the Israeli page featured a picture of an Israeli soldier confronting another man, supposedly a Palestinian. After public outrage and a letter from Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev, the BBC listed a "Seat of Government" for Israel in Jerusalem but added that most foreign embassies "are in Tel Aviv". It made a parallel change to the listing for "Palestine" by listing "East Jerusalem" as the "Intended seat of government". The picture of the Israeli soldier was removed as well and replaced with the Israeli flag.[133][134]

In a response to a reader's criticism of the issue, the BBC replied that the complaints that prompted the changes were "generated by online lobby activity".[135] The BBC was also noted for having no coverage about the campaign[citation needed][disputeddiscuss] for the IOC to commemorate the 11 killed Israeli athletes from the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, which was met with repeated refusal by IOC President Jacques Rogge, despite the issue receiving much press from other major news networks.[136][137]

According to the poll conducted by Jewish Policy Research on more than 4,000 respondents, nearly 80% of British Jews believe that BBC is biased against Israel. Only 14% of British Jews believe that BBC coverage of Israel is "balanced".[138]

In 2013, the BBC was scheduled to broadcast a documentary film, Jerusalem: An Archaeological Mystery Story, but pulled the film "off the schedule at the last minute." The film "theorizes that many Jews did not leave Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple, and that many modern-day Palestinians may be in part descended from those Jews". Simon Plosker of HonestReporting believed that the decision was made to avoid offending people who are ideologically opposed to Israel by broadcasting a documentary about Jewish history in the region. The BBC's explanation for the sudden schedule change was that the film did not fit with the theme of the season, which was archaeology.[139]

In 2014, protesters presented an open letter from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and other groups to Lord Hall, Director General of the BBC. The letter accused the broadcaster of presenting Israeli attacks on Gaza as a result of rocket fire from Hamas without giving any other context. The letter was signed by notable individuals, such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Ken Loach.[140]

In 2015, Fraser Steel, the head of the Editorial Complaints Unit of the BBC, upheld complaints that it had breached impartiality guidelines in an interview with Moshe Ya'alon, the Israeli defence minister.[citation needed] Ya'alon claimed on the Today programme that Palestinians "enjoy already political independence" and "have their own political system, government, parliament, municipalities and so forth" and that Israel had no desire "to govern them whatsoever".[citation needed] The Palestine Solidarity Campaign objected to these claims: "Palestinians don't have political independence. They live under occupation and, in Gaza, under siege".[citation needed] The filmmaker and activist Ken Loach sent a letter via the Campaign: "You understand, I'm sure, that this interview is a serious breach of the requirement for impartiality. Unlike all other Today interviews, the minister was allowed to speak without challenge. Why?"[141]

After the June 2017 Jerusalem attack, the BBC reported, "Three Palestinians killed after deadly stabbing in Jerusalem". However, those Palestinians had actually been the assailants in the attack, which ended when the three were shot and killed by law enforcement officers. After being inundated with complaints, BBC News changed the online headline.[142] In December 2025, after complaints from pro-Israeli media monitoring group CAMERA, the BBC acknowledged a 2021 BBC Arabic article on Hamas risked misleading readers by not clearly stating it was antisemitic and targets Jews, and amended it.[143]

Gaza war

During the Gaza war, current and former British government ministers, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, and four of Britain's most prominent lawyers criticised the BBC for describing Hamas as "militants" and "fighters" and not "terrorists" in its coverage of the conflict.[144][145] John Simpson defended the decision, saying it showed the BBC was impartial.[145] The BBC said in a statement: "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 judgement."[146] BBC sports reporter Noah Abrahams resigned in protest against the BBC's refusal to use the term.[145] Israeli president Isaac Herzog also criticised the BBC for not using the term, calling it "atrocious".[147][148][149] Following a meeting with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the BBC said it would describe Hamas as "a proscribed terrorist organisation by the UK government", and move away from describing Hamas as "militants" by default.[150]

In October and November 2023, Israeli comedy show Eretz Nehederet aired several sketches in English, which criticised the BBC's alleged anti-Israel bias. One of the sketches depicts BBC coverage taking Hamas's claims at face value immediately, praising Hamas as "the most credible not-terrorist organization in the world", ignoring a terrorist who admits firing a rocket at their own hospital, satirising the BBC coverage of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion.[151][152][153] Another sketch portrayed a sympathetic mock "interview" with Yahya Sinwar, stating "Hamas freedom fighters peacefully attacked Israel", and a mock BBC anchor saying Hamas is "left with no human shields at all! So unfair", later referring to Israeli babies who were taken hostage as "torturing him through sleep deprivation" and "occupying his house." The sketches went viral online.[154][155]

During the war, six BBC News Arabic reporters were also taken off air during the conflict due to their pro-Palestine posts on social media.[156] One affiliated freelancer is also under investigation by the BBC following reports by the pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) group. BBC Arabic has been criticised for referring to areas within the internationally recognised territory of Israel (i.e. not within Palestinian territories) as Israeli settlements.[157]

In November 2023, eight UK-based journalists employed by the BBC wrote to Al Jazeera to express their concern over the perceived double standard of the BBC's coverage of the war, contrasting it with the "unflinching" reporting on war crimes committed by Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. The journalists accused the corporation of omitting historical context and investing in humanising Israeli victims while failing to humanise Palestinian victims.[158] Bassam Bounenni, a BBC North Africa correspondent, had resigned from the corporation in October due to what he saw as its support for Israel.[159]

In September 2024, lawyer Trevor Asserson published a report, conducted by a team of 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists, claiming that the BBC had violated its own editorial bias guidelines over 1500 times in its reporting on the Gaza war. The report analysed nine million words of BBC output, comparing the wording and focus it gives in coverage of Israelis and Palestinians, finding that the network, especially BBC Arabic, tended to dehumanise Israelis compared to Palestinians, and portray Israel as militaristic and aggressive, while downplaying, glorifying, or excusing terrorist acts by Hamas.[160][161]

Al Jazeera English aired an interview with an alleged whistleblower and former BBC journalist, "Sara", on an October 2024 episode of its program The Listening Post. She said that an "integral part" of the BBC's editorial stance when she worked there was that "Israel has a right to defend itself". She also said that BBC staff were often averse to use of the word "genocide" (regarding the Gaza genocide).[162]

In November 2024, 230 members of the media industry including 101 anonymous BBC staff wrote a letter to Tim Davie accusing the BBC of providing favourable coverage towards Israel and failing its own editorial standards by lacking "consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza". Notable signatories to the letter included Sayeeda Warsi, Juliet Stevenson, William Dalrymple, and John Nicolson. The letter highlighted a desire to see the "best possible journalism coming out of the region" and asked the BBC for:[163][164]

... reiterating that Israel does not give external journalists access to Gaza, making it clear when there is insufficient evidence to back up Israeli claims, highlighting the extent to which Israeli sources are reliable, making clear where Israel is the perpetrator in article headlines, providing proportionate representation of experts in war crimes and crimes against humanity, including regular historical context predating October 2023, use of consistent language when discussing both Israeli and Palestinian deaths, and robustly challenging Israeli government and military representatives in all interviews.

In December 2024, journalist Owen Jones published an investigation on Drop Site News about the BBC's coverage of Israel's assault on Gaza. His report is based on interviews with 13 BBC journalists and staffers who claim that senior figures skewed stories in favour of Israel's narratives. Raffi Berg, BBC's Middle East editor, is presented as a central figure in "watering down everything that's too critical of Israel".[165]

In February 2025, it was reported that the BBC had allegedly mistranslated or omitted the Arabic word for "Jews" when it was used by interviewees in the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone.[166][167] An article in The Daily Telegraph compared the BBC's subtitling of Arabic dialogue to translations provided by the organisation CAMERA, and indicated that "on at least five occasions," the word "Yahud" (Arabic for "Jew" or "Jews") was either translated by the BBC as "Israel" or "Israeli forces," or was omitted from the subtitles altogether.[167]

The film, which was pulled from BBC iPlayer after it was revealed that narrator's father is a Hamas technocratic official, translated each mention of the word "Jew" as "Israeli forces."[168] A Gazan woman's statement, "the Jews invaded our area," was translated by the BBC to "the Israeli army invaded our area," while a Gazan boy telling an interviewer "the Jews came, they destroyed us, Hamas and the Jews" was subtitled as, "the Israelis destroyed everything, and so did Hamas."[168] Later in the film, a woman said of Yahya Sinwar, per CAMERA's translation, that he "was engaging in resistance and jihad against the Jews"; the BBC translated this as, "he was fighting and resisting Israeli forces."[168] Towards the end of the documentary, CAMERA translates the words of a woman speaking of Sinwar's death as, "He [Sinwar] was engaging in resistance and jihad against the Jews. Not underground." The BBC's subtitles translated the quote as, "The video shows that he was fighting and resisting Israeli forces."[167] According to a BBC News article about the documentary and the ensuing controversy, "Some argue that the BBC covered up antisemitism. Others have claimed the subtitles are closer to what the speaker intends rather than a literal translation."[169]

Orly Goldschmidt, a diplomat at the Israeli embassy in the UK, called the mistranslations "intentional" and emblematic of a broader trend, saying that the incident "reflects a serious and systematic problem at the BBC regarding its anti-Israel bias."[168][170] Alex Hearn, co-director of Labour Against Anti-Semitism, called the translation of "Jews" into "Israelis" an example of "ongoing issues" with "sympathetic coverage of Hamas" by the BBC.[167] He claimed that "the BBC have sanitised views expressed about Sinwar, orchestrator of the Hamas massacre, and instead presented a more acceptable version for a Western audience."[168]

Journalist Brendan O'Neill criticised the translations as "a serious breach of broadcasting ethics," stating that "mistranslating the words of foreign interviewees is a huge no-no in journalism. It deceives viewers, blinding us to the truth of how other people think. As for turning invective about 'the Jews' into criticism of 'Israeli forces': that isn't journalism, it's propaganda."[171]

In July 2025, more than 400 media figures, including 121 BBC journalists, signed an open letter to the BBC management claiming that much of the organisation's coverage is "defined by anti-Palestinian racism" as a result of being "crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government". The letter names Robbie Gibb, a BBC Board and BBC's Editorial Standards Committee member with close ties to The Jewish Chronicle, as a steering force towards BBC's coverage and request his removal from the Board and the Editorial Standards Committee.[172][173]

In November 2025, the BBC faced controversy over allegations of systemic editorial bias, following the release of a leaked internal memo by Michael Prescott, a former adviser to the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee. The memo raised concerns about the BBC's coverage of sensitive and politically charged issues over the years. As a result of these revelations, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness resigned, facing extensive media criticism and public calls for reform.[174][175]

Hutton inquiry into alleged whitewashed reporting of Iraq invasion

The BBC was criticised for its coverage of the events before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[176] The controversy over what it described as the "sexing up" of the case for war in Iraq by the government led to the BBC being heavily criticised by the Hutton Inquiry,[177] although this finding was much disputed by the British press, who branded it as a government whitewash.[178][179]

The BBC's chairman and its director general resigned after the inquiry, and Vice-chairman Lord Ryder made a public apology to the government, which the Liberal Democrat Norman Baker MP described as "of such capitulation that I wanted to throw up when I heard it".[180]

Shallow and sensationalist reporting on Arab Spring

In June 2012, the BBC admitted making "major errors" in its coverage of the Arab Spring.[181] In an 89-page report, 9 pages were devoted to the BBC's coverage of Bahrain and included admissions that the BBC had "underplayed the sectarian aspect of the conflict" and "not adequately convey the viewpoint of supporters of the monarchy" by "[failing] to mention attempts by Crown Prince" Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa to "establish dialogue with the opposition". The report added that "the government appears to have made a good-faith effort to de-escalate the crisis", particularly while the BBC's coverage of the unrest dropped substantially, and many people had complained that their coverage was "utterly one-sided".[182]

Anti-American bias

In October 2006, the Chief Radio Correspondent for BBC News since 2001[183] and Washington, DC, correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that Deputy Director-General Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to "correct" it in his reports and that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it "no moral weight".[184][185]

In April 2007, Webb presented a three-part series for BBC Radio 4, Death to America: Anti Americanism Examined, in which he challenged a common perception of the United States as an international bully and a modern imperial power.[186]

The conservative American news commentator Bill O'Reilly repeatedly sought to draw attention to what he calls the BBC's "inherent liberal culture".[187]

Anti-Catholic bias

Hostility towards the Catholic Church

Prominent Catholic leaders have criticised the BBC for having an anti-Catholic bias and showing hostility towards the Catholic Church.[188][189]

The BBC has also been criticised for recycling old news and for "insensitivity" and bad timing when it decided to broadcast the programmes Kenyon Confronts and Sex and the Holy City centred around sex scandals in the Catholic Church around the same time as Pope John Paul II's 25th anniversary and the beatification of Mother Teresa.[190][191][192]

In 2003, the BBC had planned Popetown, a ten-part cartoon series which "featured an infantile Pope [...] bouncing around the Vatican on a pogostick". The plans were shelved after it evoked intense outrage and criticism from Catholic Christians.[193]

Jerry Springer: The Opera

In January 2005, the BBC aired Jerry Springer: The Opera, ultimately resulting in around 55,000 complaints to the BBC from those upset at the opera's alleged blasphemies against Christianity. In advance of the broadcast, which the BBC had warned "contains language and content which won't be to some tastes", but mediawatch-uk's director, John Beyer, wrote to the director general to urge the BBC to drop the programme: "Licence fee payers do not expect the BBC to be pushing back boundaries of taste and decency in this way". The BBC issued a statement: "As a public service broadcaster, it is the BBC's role to broadcast a range of programmes that will appeal to all audiences – with very differing tastes and interests – present in the UK today".[194]

Before the broadcast, some 150 people bearing placards had protested outside the BBC Television Centre in Shepherd's Bush.[195] On the Monday after the broadcast, which was watched by some two million viewers, The Times announced that BBC executives had received death threats after their addresses and telephone numbers had been posted on the Christian Voice website. The BBC had received some 35,000 complaints before the broadcast but reported only 350 calls following the broadcast, which were split between those praising the production and those complaining about it.[196]

One Christian group attempted to bring private criminal prosecutions for blasphemy against the BBC,[197] and another demanded a judicial review of the decision.[198]

In March 2005, the Board of Governors of the BBC convened and considered the complaints, which were rejected by 4 to 1.[199]

Pro-Muslim bias

Blaspheming other faiths but refusing to publish Muhammad cartoons

Subsequent to anti-Christianity blasphemous reporting by BBC, its refusal to reproduce the actual Muhammad cartoons in its coverage of the controversy convinced many that the BBC follows an unstated policy of freely broadcasting defamation of Christianity but not Islam.[200][201][202]

Disproportionate reporting on Muslims over other faiths

Hindu and Sikh leaders in the United Kingdom have accused the BBC of pandering to Britain's Muslim community by making a disproportionate number of programmes on Islam at the expense of covering other Asian religions,[203] such as Sikhism and Hinduism. In a letter sent in July 2008 to the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO), the head of the BBC's Religion and Ethics, Michael Wakelin, denied any bias.[204] A spokesman for the BBC said that it was committed to representing all of Britain's faiths and communities.[204][205]

A number of MPs, including Rob Marris and Keith Vaz, called on the BBC to do more to represent Britain's minority faiths. "I am disappointed," said Vaz. "It is only right that as licence fee payers all faiths are represented in a way that mirrors their make-up in society. I hope that the BBC addresses the problem in its next year of programming".[203]

In October 2019, Indarjit Singh left Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 and accused the BBC of "a misplaced sense of political correctness", and prejudice against Sikhs.[206] An item commemorating Guru Tegh Bahadur of the Sikh faith who had been executed by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb for opposing the forced conversion of Hindus to Islam in India in the 17th century had been prevented from being broadcast by the BBC "because it might offend Muslims" although it contained no criticism of Islam.[207]

BBC reporter's tears for Yasser Arafat

During the BBC programme From Our Own Correspondent broadcast on 30 October 2004, Barbara Plett described herself as crying when she saw a frail Yasser Arafat being evacuated to France for medical treatment.[208] That led to "hundreds of complaints" to the BBC, and suggestions that the BBC was biased. Andrew Dismore, the MP for Hendon, accused Plett of "sloppy journalism" and commented that "this shows the inherent bias of the BBC against Israel".[209][210][211]

BBC News defended Plett in a statement by saying that her reporting had met the high standards of "fairness, accuracy and balance" expected of a BBC correspondent.[208][212][213] Initially, a complaint of bias against Plett was rejected by the BBC's head of editorial complaints. However, almost a year later, on 25 November 2005, the programme complaints committee of the BBC governors partially upheld the complaints by ruling that Plett's comments "breached the requirements of due impartiality".[210] Despite initially issuing a statement in support of Plett, the BBC Director of News, Helen Boaden, later apologised for what she described as "an editorial misjudgment". The governors praised Boaden's speedy response and reviewed the BBC's stance on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[210][211][213]

Suppression of Kriss Donald murder coverage

On 15 March 2004, a 15 year old Scottish school boy was kidnapped, tortured, stabbed multiple times, and then burnt alive by a gang of British Muslim men of Pakistani origin.[214] The BBC were criticised by some viewers because the case featured on national news only three times and the first trial was later largely confined to regional Scottish bulletins including the verdict itself. Although admitting that the BBC had "got it wrong", the organisation's Head of Newsgathering, Fran Unsworth, largely rejected the suggestion that Donald's race played a part in the lack of reportage, instead claiming it was mostly a product of "Scottish blindness". In preference to reporting the verdict the organisation found the time to report the opening of a new arts centre in Gateshead in its running order.[215] The BBC again faced criticisms for its failure to cover the second trial in its main bulletins, waiting until day 18 to mention the issue and Peter Horrocks of the BBC apologised for the organisation's further failings.[216]

Secret Agent British National Party documentary

On 15 July 2004, the BBC broadcast a documentary The Secret Agent, on the far-right British National Party where undercover reporter Jason Gwynne infiltrated the BNP by posing as a football hooligan.[217] The programme resulted in Mark Collett and Nick Griffin, the leader of the party, being charged for inciting racial hatred in April 2005 for statements that included Griffin describing Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith," Collett describing asylum seekers as "a little bit like cockroaches" and saying "let's show these ethnics the door in 2004". Griffin and Collett were found not guilty on some charges at the first trial in January 2006, but the jury failed to reach a verdict on the others and so a retrial was ordered.[218]

At the retrial held in November 2006, all of the defendants were found not guilty on the basis that the law did not consider those who followed Islam or Christianity to be a protected group with respect to racial defamation laws.[219] Shortly after this case, British law was amended to outlaw incitement to hatred against a religious group by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. The BNP believed that it was an attempt to "Discredit the British National Party as a party of opposition to the Labour government".[220] After the second trial, Griffin described the BBC as a "Politically correct, politically biased organisation which has wasted licence-fee payers' money to bring two people in a legal, democratic, peaceful party to court over speaking nothing more than the truth". The BBC stated in turn that it was their obligation to inform the public of matters of general interest.[219]

Anti-Muslim bias

Asian network

In 2008, staff at the BBC's Asian radio station complained of anti-Muslim discrimination by a "mafia of executives", which required the BBC to launch an internal investigation. Staff claimed that Hindus and Sikhs were being favoured over Muslim presenters and reporters.[221]

Disparity in coverage of Islamophobia

One of Britain's largest Muslim representative bodies accused the BBC of "failing to sufficiently report" on Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. The complaint was addressed to the BBC Director General, Tony Hall, in a letter by the Muslim Council of Britain. The MCB reminded Hall of the BBC's responsibility as a public broadcaster to be impartial and not to create a hierarchy of racism through its biased coverage: "Racism against Muslims should be given equal importance to racism against others".[222]

On 6 June 2018, the independent online media outlet Evolvepolitics released an article highlighting the disparity in BBC media coverage of anti-Semitism in UK Labour and that of Islamophobia in the Conservatives. The article demonstrated that the BBC website had about 50 times the amount of search results dedicated to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as for Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.[223] All outlets have given a far higher amount of coverage to Labour anti-Semitism compared to that of Tory Islamophobia: the BBC have covered this over ten times more.[224][better source needed]

Catering primarily for Christians

The BBC's head of religion, Aaqil Ahmed, accused the BBC of neglecting Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in its religious programming and catering primarily for Christians in 2016.[225]

Reporting of sexual abuse scandals of BBC staffers

In the weeks after the ITV1 documentary Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile was broadcast on 3 October 2012, the BBC faced questions and criticism over allegations that it had failed to act on rumours about sexual assaults, especially on young girls, by presenter Jimmy Savile, some of which had occurred on BBC premises after the recording of programmes, including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It. Allegations were also made that a Newsnight investigation into Savile in December 2011 was dropped because it conflicted with tribute programmes prepared after his death.

By 11 October 2012 allegations of abuse by Savile had been made to 13 British police forces, and on 19 October Scotland Yard launched a formal criminal investigation into historic allegations of child sex abuse by Savile and others over four decades.[226][227][228] The police reported on 25 October 2012 that the number of possible victims was 300.[229]

It was claimed that Douglas Muggeridge, the controller of BBC Radio in the early 1970s, was aware of allegations against Savile and had asked for a report on them in 1973.[230] The BBC stated that no evidence of any allegations of misconduct or of actual misconduct by Savile had been found in its files and later denied that there had been a cover-up of Savile's activities.[231][232][233] There were claims by some, including DJ Liz Kershaw, who joined BBC Radio 1 in 1987, that the culture in the BBC tolerated sexual harassment.[234]

The BBC was criticised in the UK Parliament for its handling of the affair, with Harriet Harman stating that the allegations "cast a stain" on the corporation. Culture Secretary Maria Miller said that she was satisfied that the BBC was taking the allegations very seriously and dismissed calls for an independent inquiry. Labour leader Ed Miliband said that an independent inquiry was the only way to ensure justice for those involved.[235] George Entwistle offered to appear before the Parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Committee to explain the BBC's position and actions.[236]

On 16 October, the BBC appointed the heads of two inquiries into events surrounding Savile. Former High Court judge Dame Janet Smith, who led the inquiry into serial killer Harold Shipman, would review the culture and practices of the BBC when Savile was working there, and Nick Pollard, a former Sky News executive, would look at why a Newsnight investigation into Savile's activities was dropped shortly before its transmission.[237][238]

A Panorama investigation was broadcast on 22 October 2012.[239] The director-general of the BBC, George Entwistle, declined to be interviewed, citing legal advice that BBC senior management should co-operate only with the police, the BBC reviews and Parliament.[240] On the same day, the BBC announced that Newsnight editor Peter Rippon would "step aside" from his position with immediate effect.[241][242] On 23 October, Entwistle appeared before the Parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Committee at which he faced hostile questioning and stated that it had been a "catastrophic mistake" to cancel the Newsnight broadcast.[243]

In the context of the Savile scandal, a book written in 1999 by journalist John Simpson, Strange Places, Questionable People, was noted to have referred to an "Uncle Dick" at the BBC who had sexually assaulted children and appeared to fit the profile of BBC announcer Derek McCulloch.[244] The author Andrew O'Hagan wrote that there had long been rumours about McCulloch's activities and those of his colleague Lionel Gamlin while they worked at the BBC in the 1940s and 1950s.[245] The BBC said that it would "look into these allegations as part of the Jimmy Savile review". McCulloch's family described the allegations as "complete rubbish".[244]

Newsnight broadcast on 2 November 2012 a report making allegations against an unnamed "prominent Thatcher era Conservative politician" in relation to the North Wales child abuse scandal. The story collapsed after The Guardian reported on 8 November a case of mistaken identity and the next day, the victim retracted the allegation. An apology was included in Newsnight on 9 November, and Newsnight investigations were suspended.[246][247][248] George Entwistle stated that he was unaware of the content of the report before it was broadcast and stated that Newsnight staff involved in the broadcast could be disciplined.[249] However, Entwistle himself resigned on 10 November, after facing further criticism in the media.[250] The director of BBC Scotland, Ken MacQuarrie, investigated the circumstances around the Newsnight programme. His findings were published on 12 November and concluded that there had been "a lack of clarity around the senior editorial chain of command" and that "some of the basic journalistic checks were not completed".[251]

Nick Pollard's report into the shelving of a Newsnight report on Savile in 2011 was published in December 2012. It concluded that the decision to drop the original report was "flawed" and that it had not been done to protect programmes prepared as tributes to Savile. His report criticised Entwistle for apparently failing to read emails warning him of Savile's "dark side" and stated that after the allegations against Savile eventually became public, the BBC fell into a "level of chaos and confusion [that] was even greater than was apparent at the time".[252][253]

On 20 December 2012, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published criticism of payments made to Entwistle after he had resigned and called the £450,000 paid to him after 54 days in post, double the amount specified in his contract, together with a year's health insurance and additional payments, to be a "cavalier" use of public money.[254]

"London-centrism": Lack of national representation

On 1 November 2007, it was reported that Sir Michael Lyons, the chairman of the BBC Trust, criticised the BBC as too London-centric and paying less attention to news stories outside the capital.[255] In light of such criticism in terms of both news and general programming and in recognition of its mandate to represent the entire UK and to encourage creativity throughout the country, active efforts have been made by the Trust and Board of Governors to correct the regional imbalance. That is reflected in a commitment to produce at least half of programmes outside Greater London, a target that the BBC achieved in 2013 and 2014 but fell short of in 2015.[256]

The BBC's annual report for 2015–2016 refers to the "London bubble" and claims that it represents not an active bias but the fact that London is where so many decisions and programming are made. While notable investments in production capacity outside London have been made, such as the creation of MediaCityUK in Salford, Greater Manchester, spending figures for regional radio and television production has fallen in real terms. That accompanied a reduction of nearly £600 million in funding for the BBC as a whole since 2010.

The UK's move towards increased devolution in the areas of healthcare, education and a range of other policy areas has created additional challenges for the BBC. The flagship newscasts are based in London and tend to report "nation-wide" stories related to government and policy that often pertain only England or sometimes England and Wales. The BBC Trust and Future for Public Service Television Inquiry recognised that it requires more clarity in UK-wide news programming (for example, by explaining that the Junior Doctors Strike affected only England or that Scotland and Northern Ireland are exempt from the bedroom tax and the funding changes leading to the 2010 student protests), and it creates an additional responsibility for the home nations to report on devolved matters.[257][258] From 2016, BBC management would go before the devolved committees for culture or media to answer questions and criticism, just as for the Westminster Culture, Media, and Sport Committee.

In August 2007, Adam Price, a Plaid Cymru MP, highlighted what he perceived as a lack of a Welsh focus on BBC news broadcasts.[259] Price threatened to withhold future television licence fees in response to a lack of thorough news coverage of Wales and echoed a BBC Audience Council for Wales July report that cited public frustration over how the Welsh Assembly is characterised in national media.[260]

Scottish coverage

The National Union of Journalists criticised the BBC in October 2012 for its poor coverage of the Scotland independence referendum, which took place on 18 September 2014. The BBC reportedly "downplayed the costs of referendum coverage, claiming it was a 'one off'".[261] According to a research team led by Dr John Robertson from the University of the West of Scotland, the BBC's first year of referendum coverage, until September 2013, was biased towards the unionist No campaign.[262][263]

Andrew Marr, the BBC presenter, was accused of expressing anti-independence views in a March 2014 interview with Alex Salmond.[264][265] The BBC allowed the Better Together campaign to make a unionist cinema advertisement at its Glasgow studios in April 2014, which was thought to contravene its editorial guidelines.[266] According to The Scotsman, the BBC appointed Kezia Dugdale, Labour's education spokeswoman, as presenter of Crossfire, a radio programme debating issues relating to the referendum. The newspaper believed the arrangement to be also a breach of the BBC's guidelines and asserted that Dugdale is "a member of Scottish Labour's Truth Team – set up to monitor all SNP and Yes Scotland interviews, press statements and briefing papers" in the runup to the September vote.[267]

A report by the Audience Council Scotland, the BBC Trust's advisory body in Scotland, questioned the impartiality of BBC Scotland in covering the independence referendum in July 2014.[268] A Sunday Times article, also in July 2014, queried the BBC's approach to the independence referendum and stated that emails by a senior member of a BBC production company organising debates gave advance notice to the No campaign.[269]

On 10 September 2014, the BBC was accused of bias in its reporting of an Alex Salmond press conference for the international media. In a response to a question by the BBC's Nick Robinson, Salmond accused him of heckling and wanted an inquiry by the British Cabinet Secretary into a leak to the BBC from the Treasury onplans of the Royal Bank of Scotland to relocate its registered office to London, which had been in the previous evening's news.[270] In response to complaints on editing live coverage of the conference for later bulletins, the BBC said: "The BBC considers that the questions were valid and the overall report balanced and impartial, in line with our editorial guidelines".[271][272]

After a day of protests from Yes campaigners and demands for Robinson to be sacked,[273] the following Monday (15 September), Salmond responded to questions from journalists at Edinburgh Airport. About Robinson's report in later bulletins, he said: "I don't think it was fair for Nick to suggest that I hadn't answered a question when I actually answered it twice". He did not believe that Robinson should be sacked.[274]

The former BBC correspondent Paul Mason was reported in September 2014 to have been critical of the BBC's reporting on his Facebook page that had been intended to be read only by his friends: "Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I'm out of there".[272]

Channel 4's director of creative diversity, Stuart Cosgrove called for a rethink at the BBC on the nature of balance and due impartiality. That was during a BBC Scotland radio conversation hosted by John Beattie. Cosgrove commented, "Yesterday, I was watching the rolling BBC News very closely and it was clear that notions of balance were being predicated on a party political basis. It would go from Cameron to Miliband to Clegg and back. If you look at it as a different premise – it's a yes/no question – then Patrick Harvie of the Scottish Greens, who is not the leader but is a significant political person within the Yes campaign, should have had exactly the same coverage as Ed Miliband. Do you think for a second he got that? Of course he didn't. I think there's been a failure of the understanding of the nature of balance and due impartiality. It's simply wrong and not acceptable".[275]

An interview of Salmond for the Sunday Herald published on 14 September 2014 included his opinion that the BBC had displayed a unionist bias during the referendum.[276]

Reform coverage

In September 2025, the BBC came under criticism after a Cardiff University study found that the BBC covered Reform UK in around a quarter of its news bulletins in the first half of the year, as compared to just 17.9% for the Liberal Democrats (UK), the third largest party.[277][278] The same month, the Liberal Democrats launched a campaign to 'Balance the BBC', while also reporting the broadcaster to Ofcom. Another analysis by Be Broadcast’s Mission Control and political comms experts Cast From Clay also showed sharply disproportionate coverage of Reform.[279][280] BBC director general Tim Davie has pushed back against the charges of unbalanced coverage.[281]

Inaccuracy and misrepresentation

Inaccurate reporting by Jeremy Bowen

In April 2009, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust published a report on three complaints brought against two news items involving Jeremy Bowen, the Middle East Editor for BBC News.[282] The complaints included 24 allegations of inaccuracy or partiality, of which three were fully or partially upheld.[282][283][284] The BBC Trust's editorial standards committee found that Bowen's radio piece "had stated his professional view without qualification or explanation, and that the lack of precision in his language had rendered the statement inaccurate" and that the online article should have explained the existence of alternative views and that it had breached the rules of impartiality. However, the report did not accuse Bowen of bias. The website article was amended, and Bowen did not face any disciplinary measures.[285]

Primark and child labour fake news

In 2011, after three years of Primark's effort, the BBC acknowledged that a Panorama report of Indian child labour use by the retailing company included footage that was probably fake. The BBC apologised to Primark, Indian suppliers and its viewers.[286][287]

"Terrorist house" misrepresentation story

In January 2016, stories originating from the BBC alleged that the Lancashire Constabulary had taken a young Muslim child away for questioning on anti-terrorism charges after he accidentally spelled "terraced house" as "terrorist house". The story was widely reported in the British[288][289][290] and international media.[291] The police force in question criticised the BBC's coverage of the story by stating that it was "untrue to suggest that this situation was brought about by a simple spelling mistake"[292] and adding that the incident "was not responded to as a terror incident and the reporter was fully aware of this before she wrote her story" and that "the media needs to take more responsibility when sensationalising issues to make stories much bigger than they are and to realise the impact they can have on local communities".[291] A statement from the police and local council also said that it was "untrue to suggest that this situation was brought about by a simple spelling mistake. The school and the police have acted responsibly and proportionately in looking into a number of potential concerns using a low-key, local approach".[291] Other pieces of work by the student, including one where the child wrote about his uncle beating him, were allegedly other reasons for the police questioning over the safety of the child.[293]

One-sided documentary on racism during Euro 2012

Eleven days before the tournament took place, the BBC's current affairs programme Panorama, entitled Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate, included recent footage of supporters chanting various racist slogans and displays of white power symbols and banners in Poland and Nazi salutes and the beating of South Asians in Ukraine.[294] The documentary was first commented widely in the British press but was accused of being one-sided, biased and unethical. Critics included the British media, anti-racism campaigners, and black and Jewish community leaders in Poland, Polish and Ukrainian politicians and journalists, England fans visiting the host nations and footballers (Gary Lineker, Roy Hodgson and others).[295][296][297] Jonathan Ornstein, the leader of the Jewish community in Kraków and a Jewish source used in the documentary, said: "I am furious at the way the BBC has exploited me as a source. The organization used me and others to manipulate the serious subject of anti-Semitism for its own sensationalist agenda... the BBC knowingly cheated its own audience – the British people – by concocting a false horror story about Poland. In doing so, the BBC has spread fear, ignorance, prejudice and hatred. I am profoundly disturbed by this unethical form of journalism".[295]

A reporter from Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's biggest left-wing newspaper, questioned Panorama's practices and stated, "I am becoming more and more surprised with what the BBC says. So far it has denied two situations I witnessed. I would not be surprised if the BBC prepared a statement saying that the Panorama crew has never been to Poland".[296]

The anti-racism campaigner Jacek Purski said, "The material prepared by the BBC is one-sided. It does not show the whole story of Polish preparations for the Euros. It does not show the Championship ran a lot of activities aimed at combating racism in the 'Respect Diversity' campaign. For us the Euro is not only about matches. The event has become an opportunity to fight effectively against racism and promote multiculturalism. There is no country in Europe free from racism. These are the facts".[298]

The nations fined by UEFA for racism were not the hosts but the visitors from Spain, Croatia, Russia and Germany.[299] The Royal Dutch Football Association issued a complaint to UEFA after monkey chants were thought to be aimed at their black players during an open training session in Kraków, but UEFA denied the chants were racially motivated.[300]

False claims about Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko

In 2019, the BBC agreed to pay damages after being sued by the then-president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko for publishing libellous reports that Poroshenko had made a $400,000 bribe to Michael Cohen, lawyer of President Donald Trump.[301] The BBC apologised and admitted that the story was not true.[302]

Defamation of former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams

In 2025, Gerry Adams, the former leader of Sinn Féin won €100,000 in damages in one of the most expensive legal cases the BBC has fought.[303] The programme and associated article[304] published statements from an anonymous source suggesting that Gerry Adams had sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson. A jury found that the BBC had not acted in good faith and in a "fair and reasonable" way.[305]

Coverage of China

In 2020, in the journal of Theory and Practice in Language Studies, an article written by authors from Guilin University of Technology in China, detailed that many BBC documentaries on China used largely negative language to describe Chinese culture, often portrayed simplistically and superficially. They were found to be enabling stereotypes about China.[306]

In December 2021, the BBC published an English and a Chinese-language version of a 17-minute video on the city of Wuhan one year after its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.[307][308] In response, the BBC was targeted by "Chinese trolls and fake news websites", which cybersecurity company Recorded Future says are "likely state-sponsored", claiming the broadcaster had applied "a gloomy or 'underworld' filter" to the imagery in its reports to make the country look "dull and lifeless".[309] Foreign Affairs ministry official Zhao Lijian and Chinese state media outlets have repeated allegations of a "gloom filter."[309][310] The Global Times posted a comparison between the Chinese version and English versions of the BBC video, pointing out a difference in coloration between the two.[310]

Thailand: The Dark Side of Paradise

Thailand: The Dark Side of Paradise is a 2025 BBC Three documentary series about tourist destinations in Thailand, focusing particularly on Bangkok, Phuket, and Pattaya; directed by Zachary Bailess and hosted by Zara McDermott.[311][312] The series was released online on 8 September 2025. The series was heavily criticized for inaccurate portrayals of Thailand's safety.[313]

The documentary posits Thailand as an increasingly popular destination for young Brits.[314] The series begins in Bangkok, and includes visits to Khaosan Road and Soi Cowboy, and later to the country's islands. Members of the filming team were allegedly nearly arrested by Thai police for filming in Soi Cowboy, known as a red light district.[315] The series also interviews influencers, such as Mike Yu, a young British expatriate described as living a "life of luxury", and Mac, a British YouTuber in Pattaya from the channel Mac TV Travel Learn Inspire.[314][316] Mac creates YouTube content with his girlfriend named Beverly Hills.[316]

The series was heavily criticized for inaccurate portrayals of Thailand's safety.[313][317] On 13 September 2025, influencer Mike Yu issued an apology for appearing in the series on Instagram, stating he was unaware the documentary would focus on the negative aspects of Thailand.[318][319] Mac also characterized the series as BBC pushing a "woke narrative."[320]

Organizational practices

Climate change

The BBC has been criticised for hypocrisy over its high carbon footprint despite the amount of coverage that it gives to the topic of climate change. Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman argued that its correspondents "travel the globe to tell the audience of the dangers of climate change while leaving a vapour trail which will make the problem even worse".[321] Paxman further argues that the 'BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago'.[322]

At the 2007 Edinburgh International Television Festival, Peter Horrocks, the head of television news, and Peter Barron, the editor of Newsnight, said that the BBC should not campaign on climate change. They criticised the proposed plans for a BBC Comic Relief-style day of programmes on climate change. Horrocks was quoted as saying, "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it". Barron was quoted as adding, "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped".[323]

The plans for a day of programmes on environmental issues were abandoned in September 2007. A BBC spokesperson said that it was "absolutely not" because of concerns about impartiality.[321]

In July 2011, a BBC Trust review cited findings of an assessment by Professor Steve Jones of University College London. Jones found there was sometimes an "over-rigid" application of the editorial guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which failed to take into account what he regarded as the "non-contentious" nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving "undue attention to marginal opinion". Jones gave reporting of the safety of the MMR vaccine and more recent coverage of claims about the safety of genetically-modified crops and the existence of man-made climate change as examples.[324] In 2017, the BBC apologised for allowing a climate change denier, Nigel Lawson, to claim that global temperatures had not risen in the past decade on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme without being challenged with the fact that temperatures had risen. The organisation acknowledged breached its editorial guidelines.[325] and in 2018, Carbon Brief released an internal notice sent by Fran Unsworth, the BBC director of news and current affairs, that argued that the BBC's coverage of climate change often went against its own guidelines on accuracy and created a false balance with regard to impartiality: "Manmade climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. ... To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2–0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken".[326]

The BBC is alleged to have attempted to cover up a climate change seminar that is credited with shaping its coverage of the environment.[327]

Overstaffing

The BBC has been criticised for "overstaffing" news, sporting and cultural events and in doing so, both wasting licence fee money and using its dominant position to control the coverage of events.

A 2010 House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report criticised the number of staff that the BBC had sent to sporting events such as the Beijing Olympics and the Euro 2008 football championships.[328] In June 2011, the BBC sent 263 staff to cover the Glastonbury Festival. The next month, it sent 250 staff members to cover an event marking one year until the start of the London 2012 Olympics, ten times the numbers that were used by other broadcasters.[329]

On 19 October 2011, the Liberal Democrats' culture spokesman, Don Foster, criticised the large number of BBC staff members who attended the eviction of Travellers and their supporters from the illegal section of the Dale Farm site. Foster stated that it was "ludicrous overstaffing and hardly [a] good way to get public sympathy for the 20 per cent budget cuts facing the BBC".[330] The BBC responded that it had only 20 staff members on site.

Off-payroll tax arrangements

In October 2012, a Public Accounts Committee report found that the BBC had 25,000 "off payroll" contracts, 13,000 for people who were on air. The contracts enable people to make their own arrangements to pay tax and National Insurance, which could allow them to contribute less than employees on pay-as-you-earn tax. In response, the BBC said many of them were short-term contracts but that it was carrying out a detailed review of tax arrangements.[331]

Funding

The fact that the BBC's domestic services are funded mainly by a television licence fee has been criticised by its competitors.[332]

The rise of multichannel digital television led to criticism that the licence fee is unjustifiable on the basis that minority interest programmes can now be transmitted on specialist commercial subscription channels and that the licence fee was funding a number of digital-only channels, which many licence holders at the time could not watch (such as BBC Three and BBC Four).[333]

See also

References

  1.  Barnett, Steven (23 September 2001). "Right man, right time, for all the right reasons". The Guardian.
  2.  "Cameron scolded over Ross show". BBC News. 25 June 2006. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  3.  Macintyre, James (1 September 2010). "Exclusive NS interview: BBC director general". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
  4.  Gyngell, Kathy; Keighley, David. "BBC Bias? Two Short case Studies". Archived from the original on 26 September 2007. Retrieved 21 September 2008.
  5.  Jay, Antony (12 August 2007). "Confessions of a BBC liberal". The Times. Retrieved 29 March 2025.
  6.  Liddle, Rod (12 March 2008). "The BBC White Season only shows how little Auntie has really changed". The Spectator. Archived from the original on 12 January 2009.
  7.  Aitken, Robin (2 February 2007). "What is the loneliest job in Britain? Being a Tory at the BBC". London Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 6 December 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  8.  Holmwood, Leigh (24 September 2009). "BBC News needs more Tories, says shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  9.  Berry, Mike (23 August 2013). "Hard Evidence: how biased is the BBC?". The Conversation. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
  10.  Wheeler, Brian (20 September 2009). "Dyke in BBC 'conspiracy' claim". BBC News. Retrieved 18 October 2009.
  11.  Badshah, Nadeem (30 November 2019). "BBC allows Boris Johnson interview on Andrew Marr Show". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Retrieved 2 December 2019.
  12.  ""BBC is biased" – @OwenJones84 v BBC @StephenNolan". Audioboom. Retrieved 2 December 2019.
  13.  Oborne, Peter (3 December 2019). "In its election coverage, the BBC has let down the people who believe in it". The Guardian.
  14.  "New BBC Chairman has Donated over £400,000 to the Conservative Party". 6 January 2021.
  15.  Barnett, Steven (25 October 2019). "Journalists must not allow themselves to be used by unscrupulous politicians". The Conversation.
  16.  "TV is too white, Lenny Henry says". BBC News. 8 February 2008. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  17.  "TV's McGovern calls BBC 'racist'". BBC News. 31 August 2007. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
  18.  "Dyke: BBC is 'hideously white'". BBC News. 6 January 2001. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  19.  "ITV fails in bid to woo Rageh Omaar", Broadcast, 26 February 2004, retrieved 17 January 2016
  20.  "Rageh Omaar: I once said you couldn't get on in the media unless you were white and middle class. Not much has changed", Radio Times, 19 October 2015, archived from the original on 20 October 2015, retrieved 17 January 2016
  21.  "Question time: Rageh Omaar", The Guardian, 15 February 2007, retrieved 17 January 2016
  22.  "About the BBC – Policy on diversity and equal opportunities". BBC. Archived from the original on 5 June 2010.
  23.  Hastings, Chris; Copping, Jasper (4 March 2007). "Black staff at the BBC are mainly cleaners and guards, says Ross". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 6 March 2007. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  24.  Conlan, Tara (20 June 2014). "BBC director general launches new diversity plan for corporation". The Guardian.
  25.  Waterson, Jim (25 September 2019). "BBC's Naga Munchetty reprimanded over Trump criticism". The Guardian.
  26.  "BBC urged to reconsider Naga Munchetty complaint decision". BBC News. 27 September 2019.
  27.  "Growing backlash against BBC in Naga Munchetty race row". The Guardian. 27 September 2019.
  28.  Waterson, Jim (30 September 2019). "BBC racism row: Naga Munchetty complaint was also about co-host Dan Walker". The Guardian.
  29.  "BBC reverses decision on Naga Munchetty complaint". BBC News. 30 September 2019.
  30.  Singh, Anita (31 July 2020). "BBC receives complaints after white reporter uses n-word on air". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022 – via www.telegraph.co.uk.
  31.  "BBC criticised over Lucy Worsley use of n-word in historical show". The Independent. 2 August 2020.
  32.  "Points West & BBC News Channel, July 2020 | Contact the BBC". www.bbc.co.uk. Archived from the original on 13 August 2020.
  33.  "Sideman quits Radio 1Xtra over BBC's use of racial slur". BBC News. 8 August 2020.
  34.  "BBC apologises over racial slur used in news report". BBC News. 9 August 2020.
  35.  Weaver, Matthew (2 August 2024). "BBC accused of 'gaslighting' Jewish staff over antisemitism complaints". The Guardian.
  36.  Dixon, Hayley (1 August 2024). "BBC chairman accused of dismissing staff complaints of anti-Semitism". The Telegraph.
  37.  Croft, Ethan (29 March 2025). "BBC boss Tim Davie refused anti-Semitism training for corporation". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  38.  Brown David, Mansey, Kate (27 January 2026). "BBC apologises after Holocaust Memorial Day report omits Jews". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 28 January 2026.
  39.  "BBC fails mentioning Jews in Holocaust episode". The Jerusalem Post. 5 January 2026. ISSN 0792-822X. Retrieved 28 January 2026.
  40.  Frith, Maxine (1 March 2006). "BBC accused of 'institutionalised homophobia'". The Independent. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  41.  "Meet Tyson Fury, The Homophobe Sexist The BBC Is Celebrating". Grazia. 7 December 2015. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
  42.  "Andy West: Tyson Fury row reporter on why he's quit BBC NI". The Belfast Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
  43.  Reid-Smith, Tris (22 June 2020). "MPs and trans campaigners accuse the BBC of being 'institutionally transphobic'". Gay Star News. Archived from the original on 12 July 2022. Retrieved 4 December 2020.
  44.  Wells, V. S. (29 October 2021). "How Canadian media is importing British transphobia". rabble.ca. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  45.  Dawson, Bethany. "The BBC and The Times are accused of stoking a 'moral panic' against the trans community". Insider.
  46.  "Senior MPs and LGBT+ activists brand BBC News 'institutionally transphobic' in scathing letter to its editorial director". 22 June 2020.
  47.  "BBC staff told attending LGBT pride protests in any capacity can breach new impartiality rules". inews.co.uk. 29 October 2020.
  48.  Wareham, Jamie. "BBC Attempts Clarity Over LGBTQ Pride Guidelines, Fails To Quell Concerns". Forbes.
  49.  "Support is not political, it's essential: Why the BBC's new impartiality rules expose the after effects of a culture war". GAY TIMES. 30 October 2020.
  50.  "A joint complaint to the BBC on behalf of UK LGBTQ+ organisations". 31 July 2020.
  51.  Brown, David (14 October 2023). "Mermaids and other trans groups dropped by BBC Advice Line service" – via www.thetimes.co.uk.
  52.  Parsons, Vic (27 October 2021). "BBC rigorously defends anti-trans article blisteringly condemned by thousands as 'fake news'". PinkNews. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  53.  "The BBC's Latest Transphobic Screed Is a Mockery of Journalism". them. 26 October 2021.
  54.  Kanter, Jake (5 November 2021). "Young BBC staffers angered by trans story claiming harassment of lesbians". The Times. Retrieved 29 March 2025.
  55.  "BBC changes online article at centre of transphobia row". The Guardian. 4 November 2021. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  56.  Nolan, Emma (4 November 2021). "What Lily Cade said in transphobic rant: full transcript". Newsweek. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  57.  Yurcaba, Jo (28 October 2021). "Lesbians stand by trans women in open letter after 'dangerous' BBC article". NBC Out. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  58.  Topping, Alexandra (4 November 2021). "BBC changes online article at centre of transphobia row". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  59.  Waterson, Jim (1 November 2021). "BBC rejects complaints that it published transphobic article". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  60.  Wakefield, Lily (4 November 2021). "Trans sex worker went unpublished by BBC because she didn't 'fit their narrative'". PinkNews. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
  61.  "From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century" (PDF). BBC Trust. June 2007. Retrieved 22 June 2007.
  62.  "BBC 'must become more impartial'". BBC News. 18 June 2007.
  63.  "BBC report damns its 'culture of bias'". The Times. 17 June 2007.[dead link]
  64.  "From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century". BBC Trust. 18 June 2007.
  65.  Bingham, John (14 July 2011). "Official BBC Twitter rules tell staff: 'Don't do anything stupid'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 14 July 2011.
  66.  "Two reports accuse BBC of bias in EU coverage". London Evening Standard. 28 January 2005. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  67.  Prebble, Stuart (3 July 2013). "Trust review of the breadth of opinion reflected in the BBC's output". BBC Trust. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
  68.  Mason, Rowena (3 July 2013). "BBC did not reflect public view on immigration because of 'deep liberal bias', says review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
  69.  Halliday, Josh (3 July 2013). "BBC had 'deep liberal bias' over immigration, says former news chief". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
  70.  Brown, Mark (6 October 2018). "Robert Peston: BBC not impartial during EU referendum campaign". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 October 2018.
  71.  Harley, Nicola (5 May 2016). "Jeremy Clarkson: 'BBC are obsessed with political correctness'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  72.  Percival, Ash (8 January 2020). "Jeremy Clarkson Accuses 'Up Itself' BBC Of 'Suffocating Life Out Of Everything With Political Correctness'". HuffPost. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  73.  Milton, Josh (3 November 2020). "Political activist Femi Oluwole questions why BBC presenters can wear poppies if they can't support Black or gay rights". PinkNews. Retrieved 4 November 2020.
  74.  Tobitt, Charlotte (6 October 2021). "Four BBC journalists disciplined over social media guidelines which ban 'virtue signalling'". Press Gazette. Retrieved 23 May 2026.
  75.  Pinkerton, Alasdair (October 2008). "A new kind of imperialism? The BBC, cold war broadcasting and the contested geopolitics of south asia". Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 28 (4): 537–555. doi:10.1080/01439680802310324. S2CID 192197510.
  76.  "Deccan Herald". Retrieved 11 September 2009.[dead link]
  77.  Bhat, Sheela. "The BBC cannot see the difference between a criminal and a terrorist". Rediff.com. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  78.  Sharma, Mihir S. (3 December 2008). "British Biased Corporation? Terrorists in London, gunmen in Mumbai". The Indian Express. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  79.  "Biased Broadcasting Corp also known as BBC". The Pioneer. Archived from the original on 9 June 2009. Retrieved 16 September 2010.
  80.  Akbar, M. J. (22 December 2008). "Biting the BBC bullet". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). Retrieved 28 December 2011.
  81.  "Pakistan may summon BBC as news channel blocked". Dawn.
  82.  "BBC World News blocked in Pakistan". The Guardian.
  83.  "Gilani wants BBC World News back on air in Pakistan". Yahoo News. 28 January 2012. Archived from the original on 23 October 2022. Retrieved 23 October 2022.
  84.  Rai, Ajai K. (June 2000). "Conflict Situations and the Media: A Critical Look". Strategic Analysis. 24 (3). Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group): 585–601. doi:10.1080/09700160008455233. S2CID 145094564.
  85.  Bennett-Jones, Owen (24 June 2015). "Pakistan's MQM 'received Indian funding'". BBC News. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  86.  "India dismisses claims of funding Pakistan's MQM". Hindustan Times. 25 June 2015.
  87.  "MQM rejects BBC report of getting funds, training from India". Press Trust of India. 25 June 2015 – via Business Standard.
  88.  "Pakistan's MQM militants being funded by India's RAW, claims controversial BBC report – Firstpost". Firstpost. 25 June 2015. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  89.  Khalid Sultan and Inam ur Rahman. "BBC News Story on India funding of MQM: Understanding Expats Perception of Pakistani and Indian Nationalities in the Sultanate of Oman" (PDF). PUTAJ - Humanities and Social Sciences.
  90.  "Kashmir: Protests in Srinagar on Friday, MHA Claims Reports 'Fabricated'". The Wire.
  91.  Alexandra Ma. "India accused the BBC and Reuters of lying about large-scale protests in Kashmir, even though they were recorded on video". Archived from the original on 19 August 2020. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
  92.  "Fact check: Did BBC, Al Jazeera and Reuters fabricate reports about a large protest in Kashmir?". 14 August 2019.
  93.  "BBC story on 'Pakistan's secret human rights abuses' a pack of lies: ISPR". Dawn.
  94.  "Govt files complaint with BBC over 'secret human rights abuses' report". Dawn.
  95.  "Why BBC Is Under Fire Over Pahalgam Terror Attack Coverage". www.ndtv.com. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  96.  Lords rule Balen report was wrongly blocked under FoI Archived 6 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine Press Gazette, 11 February 2009
  97.  Timeline: The battle to make BBC publish Middle East coverage report The Guardian, 11 February 2009
  98.  "BBC mounts court fight to keep 'critical' report secret". The Daily Telegraph. 15 October 2006. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  99.  Herman, Michael (27 March 2007). "BBC asks court to block Israel report". The Times. Archived from the original on 12 June 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2024.(subscription required)
  100.  McSmith, Andy (28 March 2007). "BBC fights to suppress internal report into allegations of bias against Israel". The Independent. Archived from the original on 13 October 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  101.  Gibson, Owen (3 May 2006). "BBC's coverage of Israeli-Palestinian conflict 'misleading". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  102.  Byrne, Ciar (3 May 2006). "BBC is criticised for misleading coverage of Middle East". The Independent. Archived from the original on 7 April 2011. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  103.  Ingrams, Richard (6 May 2006). "Richard Ingrams' Week: It doesn't take much to be branded anti-Semitic". The Independent. Archived from the original on 22 February 2014.
  104.  Walker, Martin (11 May 2006). "The BBC pro-Israeli? Is the Pope Jewish?". Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 8 February 2007. Retrieved 11 April 2011.(subscription required)
  105.  Gove, Michael (25 June 2006) Bias at the Beeb Prospect, June 2006
  106.  Llewellyn, Tim (20 June 2004). "The story TV news won't tell". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  107.  Davis, Douglas. "Hatred in the air: the BBC, Israel and Anti-Semitism". in: Iganski, Paul & Kosmin, Barry. (eds) A New Anti-Semitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st century Britain. Profile Books, 2003, p. 130.
  108.  "Anti-Israel bias". anglicansforisrael.com. Archived from the original on 21 October 2006.
  109.  Terror victims are BBC licence-payers, too 20 August 2007
  110.  McGreal, Chris (1 April 2004). "BBC accused of bias against Israel". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 April 2004.
  111.  Dowell, Ben (8 March 2006). "BBC online censured for biased Israel story". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 March 2006.
  112.  "BBC Partially Revises Biased Timeline on Web site", CAMERA, 10 March 2006
  113.  Hoffman, Gil (10 August 2006). "Jerusalem Post article on BBC coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 29 May 2011.[permanent dead link]
  114.  "Totally Jewish response to Francesca Unsworth". Totallyjewish.com. 30 June 2006. Archived from the original on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
  115.  Paul, Jonny (22 March 2008). "BBC admits inaccuracies in coverage". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  116.  Dearden, Lizzie (16 July 2014). "Hundreds protest against 'BBC pro-Israel bias'". The Independent. Retrieved 22 January 2016.
  117.  The secret report at heart of BBC's Gaza paranoia Deprecated link archived 19 September 2012 at archive.today Evening Standard 27 January 2009
  118.  "BBC Assailed for Refusing to Carry Gaza Appeal." The New York Times, 26 January 2009. Retrieved 28 January 2009.
  119.  "Tony Benn launches own Gaza appeal". The Guardian. 26 January 2009. Retrieved 22 January 2016.
  120.  Oborne, Peter (13 November 2009). "The pro-Israel lobby in Britain: full text". Open Democracy. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
  121.  "IAEA head boycotts BBC over Gaza". BBC News. 28 January 2009. Retrieved 11 August 2009.
  122.  "Protest over BBC Gaza appeal veto". BBC News. 24 January 2009. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
  123.  "An open letter to the Culture Secretary". The Spectator. 12 April 2011. Archived from the original on 28 December 2011.
  124.  Paul, Jonny (20 August 2010). "BBC's flotilla film slammed as 'biased'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  125.  "BBC Panorama on the Mavi Marmara Massacre Is Israeli Propaganda". 19 August 2010. Retrieved 11 July 2015.
  126.  "BBC Bias: Panorama Death in the Med". YouTube. 16 August 2010. Archived from the original on 21 December 2021. Retrieved 12 July 2015.
  127.  Bagshawe, Louise (24 March 2011). "A family slaughtered in Israel – doesn't the BBC care?". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  128.  "BBC chief admits the network 'got it wrong' on Fogel murders". The Times of Israel. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 25 June 2012. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  129.  "Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee". Editorial Standards Committee. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  130.  Shackle, Samira (2 February 2012). "BBC defends decision to censor the word 'Palestine'". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 20 September 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
  131.  Garside, Juliette (13 May 2011). "BBC under fire for 'censoring' Palestine lyric". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  132.  "Fight Over BBC Olympic Coverage Intensifies". HonestReporting. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  133.  "The BBC states: Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine". The International Center Countering Antisemitism. 23 July 2012. Archived from the original on 9 December 2019. Retrieved 9 December 2019.
  134.  Dysch, Marcus (25 July 2012). "BBC claims 'online lobby' generated complaints over refusal to identify Israel's capital". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  135.  Wilson, Stephen (21 July 2012). "Moment Of Silence For 1972 Munich Victims Denied". HuffPost. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  136.  Greene, Richard Allen (23 July 2012). "Olympics head rejects silence for Israeli victims". CNN. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  137.  Rocker, Simon (18 April 2013). "We think BBC news is biased against Israel – but watch it anyway". The Jewish Chronicle. Archived from the original on 8 August 2022. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  138.  "BBC slammed for pulling documentary on Jewish exodus from Jerusalem". Jewish Journal. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 1 May 2013. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  139.  "Sign our open letter to the BBC". Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. 9 July 2014. Retrieved 22 January 2016.
  140.  "BBC raps presenter for going soft on Ya'alon during Radio 4 interview". The Jerusalem Post. 3 June 2015. ISSN 0792-822X. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  141.  "BBC's shameful headline". Arutz Sheva. 17 June 2017. Retrieved 18 June 2017.
  142.  Sawer, Patrick (20 December 2025). "BBC corrects article that ignored Hamas's anti-Semitism". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 22 December 2025.
  143.  Hymas, Charles (12 October 2023). "BBC rebuked by seven ex-culture secretaries for refusal to call Hamas 'terrorists'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 14 October 2023 – via Yahoo News.
  144.  Cheng-Morris, James (13 October 2023). "Should the BBC call Hamas terrorists? What people are saying about the escalating row". Yahoo News. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  145.  Shafer, Ellise (12 October 2023). "BBC Gets Backlash for Not Calling Hamas 'Terrorists' in Coverage of Israel Attacks". Variety. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  146.  "Israel President Herzog attacks BBC coverage of Gaza in rant". The New Arab. 20 October 2023. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
  147.  "Israeli president threatens to ban BBC over 'atrocious' policy of calling Hamas militants". The Telegraph. 19 October 2023. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
  148.  "Israel president accuses BBC of 'atrocious coverage' of Hamas-Israel conflict". The Independent. 19 October 2023. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
  149.  Farber, Alex; Swinford, Steven (22 October 2023). "BBC chief to face Tory MPs over Israel-Hamas war coverage". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 22 October 2023.
  150.  Surkes, Sue (30 October 2023). "Israeli satirical show ridicules alleged BBC bias". The Times of Israel.
  151.  Strimpel, Zoe (29 October 2023). "The BBC has become a global laughing stock, but the joke isn't funny". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 3 November 2023.
  152.  McGrath, Ciaran (27 October 2023). "BBC mocked by Israeli comedians over reporting of Gaza hospital bombing". Express.co.uk. Retrieved 3 November 2023.
  153.  Hannah Brown (30 October 2023). "BBC parody skit slams anti-Israel bias, goes viral - Israel Culture". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 11 January 2024.
  154.  Ben Zion Gad (15 November 2023). "Israeli satire show satirizes BBC in new skit featuring Sinwar interview". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 11 January 2024.
  155.  Thomas, Daniel; Saleh, Heba; Pickard, Jim (16 October 2023). "Six BBC reporters taken off air as probe launched over pro-Palestine tweets". Financial Times. Retrieved 18 October 2023.
  156.  Bodkin, Henry (14 October 2023). "BBC reporters in the Middle East appear to justify killing of civilians by Hamas". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 24 October 2023.
  157.  "As Israel pounds Gaza, BBC journalists accuse broadcaster of bias". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 24 November 2023. Retrieved 24 November 2023.
  158.  "BBC journalist Bassam Bounenni resigns due to network's 'stance with Israel'". Roya News. 18 October 2023. Retrieved 18 October 2023.
  159.  Sawer, Patrick; Turner, Camilla (8 September 2024). "BBC repeatedly downplayed Hamas terrorism, report finds". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  160.  Yossman, K. J. (9 September 2024). "BBC's Israel-Hamas Coverage Breached Own Editorial Guidelines Over 1,500 Times According to New Report". Variety. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  161.  Failing Gaza: Behind the Lens of Western Media (Television production). The Listening Post. Al Jazeera English. 5 October 2024. 25 minutes in.
  162.  Stavrou, Athena (1 November 2024). "More than 100 BBC staff accuse broadcaster of Israel bias in Gaza coverage". The Independent. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
  163.  "Letters: Broadcaster bias is failing to hold Israel to account". The Independent. 1 November 2024. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
  164.  Jones, Owen (19 December 2024). "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza". Drop Site News. Retrieved 6 July 2025.
  165.  "BBC removes mentions of Jihad, Jews from Hamas-linked documentary". The Jerusalem Post. 27 February 2025. ISSN 0792-822X. Retrieved 1 March 2025.
  166.  Johnston, Neil; Makoii, Akhtar (25 February 2025). "BBC removed references to 'Jews' and 'jihad' in Gaza documentary". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 1 March 2025.
  167.  ToI Staff. "BBC Gaza documentary translates 'Jihad' to 'resistance,' 'Jews' to 'Israeli army'". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909. Retrieved 1 March 2025.
  168.  "Questions still remain for BBC after damaging Gaza documentary". BBC News. 28 February 2025. Retrieved 1 March 2025.
  169.  Ynet (26 February 2025). "The BBC censored Gazans remarks in controversial documentary: Instead of 'Jihad against Jews', 'Fighting Israeli forces'". Ynetnews. Retrieved 1 March 2025.
  170.  O'Neill, Brendan (26 February 2025). "The BBC's Gaza farce takes another sinister turn". The Spectator. Retrieved 1 March 2025.
  171.  Conlan, Tara (2 July 2025). "More than 400 media figures urge BBC board to remove Robbie Gibb over Gaza". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 8 July 2025.
  172.  Conlan, Tara (2 July 2025). "The open letter to BBC management signed by stars and BBC journalists calling for the removal of Sir Robbie Gibb over Gaza conflict of interest claims".
  173.  "Who is Michael Prescott, the man at the centre of the leaked BBC memo?". Sky News. Retrieved 10 November 2025.
  174.  "Revealed: The devastating memo that plunged the BBC into crisis". Telegraph. Retrieved 10 November 2025.
  175.  "Viewers most common complaints of 2006" (Video). BBC NewsWatch. 22 December 2006. Retrieved 21 January 2007.
  176.  Lord Hutton. "Investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly". Retrieved 11 November 2006.
  177.  "UK press mauls Hutton 'whitewash'". CNN. 29 January 2004. Retrieved 11 November 2006.
  178.  CNN: UK press mauls Hutton 'whitewash', 29 January 2004 (on the reaction of the British press to the final report)
  179.  Baker, Norman: The Strange Death of David Kelly, London: Methuen, 2007
  180.  "BBC admits errors in Bahrain unrest coverage". Trade Arabia. 29 June 2012. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
  181.  "BBC admits errors in unrest coverage". Gulf News Daily. 29 June 2012. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
  182.  "BBC World Home Page". BBC News. Archived from the original on 28 October 2006. Retrieved 2 November 2006.
  183.  "Cut & paste: A public broadcaster acknowledges its left-wing bias". The Australian. 1 November 2006. Archived from the original on 27 December 2007. Retrieved 2 November 2006.(subscription required)
  184.  "Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives". London Evening Standard. 22 October 2006. Archived from the original on 22 June 2007. Retrieved 2 November 2006.
  185.  "'Death to US': Anti-Americanism examined". BBC News. 12 April 2007. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  186.  O'Reilly, Bill (19 June 2007). "The Far Left, Angelina Jolie and FOX News". Fox News Channel. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  187.  Cozens, Claire (4 February 2004). "BBC accused of 'gross insensitivity' to Catholics". The Guardian.
  188.  "British bishops group accuses BBC of bias against Catholics". Chicago Tribune. 18 October 2003. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  189.  "Archbishop meets BBC over 'bias'". BBC News. 7 October 2003. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  190.  Watts, Greg (28 March 2004). "Bishops Accuse BBC Of Anti-Catholic Bias". National Catholic Register. Archived from the original on 8 September 2011. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  191.  "BBC accused of anti-Catholic bias". BBC News. 29 September 2003. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  192.  Bates, Stephen (24 September 2004). "BBC drops controversial Pope cartoon". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  193.  "BBC urged to axe Springer opera". BBC News. 5 January 2005. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  194.  "Protests as BBC screens Springer". BBC News. 10 January 2005. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  195.  "Security guards step in after Springer opera death threats". The Times. 10 January 2005. Retrieved 30 August 2005.[dead link](subscription required)
  196.  "Group to act over Springer opera". BBC News. 10 January 2005. Retrieved 30 August 2007.
  197.  "Second action over Springer opera". BBC News. 20 January 2005. Retrieved 30 August 2007.
  198.  "BBC rejects Springer complaints". BBC News. 30 March 2005. Retrieved 30 August 2007.
  199.  "Finding the right balance". BBC News. 3 February 2006. Retrieved 30 January 2009.
  200.  "NewsWatch: BBC's dilemma over cartoons". BBC News. 3 February 2006. Retrieved 30 January 2009.
  201.  "Muslim jokes 'scare' BBC – Elton". BBC News. 2 April 2008. Retrieved 30 January 2009.
  202.  Taylor, Jerome (8 September 2008). "Sikhs and Hindus accuse BBC of pro-Muslim bias". The Independent. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  203.  Taylor, Jerome (7 September 2008). "Sikhs and Hindus accuse BBC of pro-Muslim bias". The Independent. Retrieved 21 January 2016. In a letter sent in July to the NSO, the head of the BBC's Religion and Ethics, Michael Wakelin, denied that there was any bias. He said the demographic makeup of Britain meant that Britain's 1.6 million Muslims outnumber Hindus and Sikhs by two to one. "Therefore," he wrote, "if Muslims get 60 minutes a year, the Sikhs and Hindus should share 30 minutes each." Further content on Islam, he added, was "no doubt sparked by the interest in the faith following 9/11".
  204.  Farmer, Ben (8 September 2008). "BBC favours Muslims, complain Hindus and Sikhs". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  205.  Miller, Dale (4 October 2019). "Sikh peer accuses BBC of 'prejudice' as he quits Radio 4 show after 35 years". The Scotsman. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  206.  Kennedy, Dominic (4 October 2019). "Sikh peer leaves BBC Radio 4 show with swipe at 'thought police'". The Times. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  207.  Plett, Barbara (30 September 2004) "Yasser Arafat's unrelenting journey", BBC News, 30 October 2004. Retrieved 22 October 2006
  208.  Hastings, Chris; Edwardes, Charlotte; Houreld, Katharine (7 November 2004). "Radio 4 broadcast under attack as corporation faces fresh accusations of failing to be impartial". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 7 November 2004.
  209.  Gibson, Owen (26 November 2005). "BBC bias complaint upheld". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 January 2007.
  210.  "Arafat report 'broke BBC rules'". BBC News. 25 November 2005. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  211.  Gibson, Owen (26 November 2005). "BBC bias complaint upheld". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 October 2006.
  212.  Gross, Tom (28 November 2005). BBC sanctions reporter who cried for Arafat (& "Hitler" running in Fatah primaries) Retrieved 30 December 2006.
  213.  Murder of Kriss Donald
  214.  Presenter: Raymond Snoddy, Interviewee: Fran Unsworth (11 December 2005). "NewsWatch". NewsWatch. London, England. BBC. BBC 1, BBC News Channel.
  215.  Presenter: Raymond Snoddy, Interviewee: Peter Horrocks (30 October 2006). "NewsWatch (TV series)". NewsWatch. London, England. BBC. BBC 1, BBC News Channel.
  216.  "Going undercover in the BNP". BBC News. 15 July 2004. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  217.  "BNP duo to face race hate retrial". BBC News. 3 February 2006. Retrieved 26 April 2007.
  218.  "BNP leader cleared of race hate". BBC News. 10 November 2006. Retrieved 26 April 2007.
  219.  "Free Speech Two update". British National Party. 14 January 2006. Archived from the original on 13 March 2007. Retrieved 28 April 2007.
  220.  "BBC investigates 'anti-Muslim bias' - on its own Asian network". The Evening Standard. 19 July 2008. Retrieved 20 May 2020.
  221.  "MCB: BBC fail to report on Islamophobia in the Tory Party". Middle East Monitor. 10 December 2019.
  222.  Rogers, Tom D. (6 June 2018). "The shocking stats which prove the BBC are protecting the Tories over their rampant Islamophobia crisis". Evolve Politics.
  223.  "Exposing Hate: Analysing UK Media Coverage of Islamophobia vs Anti-Semitism". May 2020.
  224.  Samuels, Gabriel (2 June 2016). "BBC religion chief says it is wrong to suggest Isis has nothing to do with Islam". The Independent. Retrieved 4 July 2022.
  225.  Evans, Martin (11 October 2012). "Sir Jimmy Savile: fourth British TV personality accused in sex allegations". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  226.  "Savile abuse claims: Met Police launch criminal inquiry". BBC News. 19 October 2012. Retrieved 19 October 2012.
  227.  Rayner, Gordon (19 October 2012). "Jimmy Savile: police launch criminal investigation after victims claim some abusers are still alive". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 19 October 2012.
  228.  "Jimmy Savile: Number of victims reach 300, police say". BBC News. 25 October 2012. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
  229.  O'Brian, Liam (4 October 2012). "Boss of Radio 1 'knew Jimmy Savile was abusing young girls". The Independent. Retrieved 4 October 2012.
  230.  "Jimmy Savile accused of sexual abuse". BBC News. 1 October 2012. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  231.  Halliday, Josh (2 October 2012). "Jimmy Savile: BBC denies cover-up". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  232.  "Jimmy Savile accused of sexual abuse". BBC News. 2 October 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  233.  "Ex-Radio 1 DJ Liz Kershaw claims she was groped on air". BBC News. 6 October 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  234.  "Ed Miliband calls for 'outsider' to probe over Savile scandal". BBC News. 15 October 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2012.
  235.  "MPs say Jimmy Savile claims are 'stain on BBC'". BBC News. 15 October 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2012.
  236.  Mason, Rowena (16 October 2012). "BBC's Jimmy Savile probe to be led by Harold Shipman inquiry judge". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 17 October 2012. Retrieved 16 October 2012.
  237.  Mason, Rowena (16 October 2012). "BBC's Jimmy Savile probe to be led by Harold Shipman inquiry judge". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 17 October 2012. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  238.  "BBC iPlayer – Panorama: Jimmy Savile – What the BBC Knew". BBC. 22 October 2012. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  239.  Sabbagh, Dan (19 October 2012). "Jimmy Savile scandal: BBC chief refuses Panorama interview". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 October 2012.
  240.  Williams, Rob (22 October 2012). "Newsnight editor Peter Rippon 'steps aside' over Jimmy Savile claims". The Independent. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
  241.  "BBC Newsnight editor steps aside over Jimmy Savile claims". BBC News. 22 October 2012. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
  242.  Prince, Rosa (23 October 2012). "Jimmy Savile: George Entwistle heckled by BBC reporters after brutal grilling from MPs". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 23 October 2012.
  243.  Gover, Dominic (17 October 2012). "Jimmy Savile Sex Scandal: Was BBC's Larry the Lamb Derek McCulloch a Paedophile?". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 19 October 2012. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  244.  O'Hagan, Andrew (27 October 2012). "Light Entertainment". London Review of Books. Archived from the original on 27 October 2012. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  245.  Leigh, David; Morris, Steven; van der Zee, Bibi (8 November 2012). "'Mistaken identity' led to top Tory abuse claim". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  246.  Sabbagh, Dan; Quinn, Ben; Halliday, Josh (9 November 2012). "BBC in turmoil as Newsnight's Tory abuse story falls apart". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  247.  "Apology in response to Steve Messham's statement". BBC. 9 November 2012. Archived from the original on 19 September 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  248.  O'Carroll, Lisa (10 November 2012). "BBC chief unaware of Newsnight's Tory peer child sex abuse story". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  249.  Vale, Paul (10 November 2012). "George Entwistle Has Resigned As Director General of the BBC". HuffPost. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  250.  "Ken MacQuarrie report: Summary of findings". BBC News. 12 November 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2012.
  251.  Halliday, Josh (19 December 2012). "Pollard report: George Entwistle 'did not read emails' about Jimmy Savile". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  252.  Sabbagh, Dan; Plunkett, John (19 December 2012). "Pollard inquiry: BBC 'incapable' of dealing with Jimmy Savile affair". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  253.  BBC News, Entwistle pay-off was cavalier use of public money – MPs, 20 December 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2012
  254.  "BBC Trust - RTS speech by Sir Michael – what's the BBC for?". www.bbc.co.uk. Archived from the original on 15 May 2009.
  255.  BBC Annual Report and Accounts 2015/16
  256.  "Puttnam backing for 'Scottish Six'". BBC News. 29 June 2016 – via bbc.com.
  257.  "A Future for Public Service Television: Content and Platforms in a Digital World" (PDF). www.futureoftv.org.uk. June 2016.
  258.  "Plaid MP's BBC licence fee threat Monday, 20 August 2007". BBC News. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
  259.  "BBC audiences 'want modern Wales' Monday, 16 July 2007". BBC News. 16 July 2007. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
  260.  Ponsonby, G. A. (31 October 2012). "BBC Scotland comes under fire from NUJ over referendum coverage". newsnetscotland.com. Archived from the original on 1 November 2012. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  261.  "Can Beeb be unbiased over indy?". The Herald. Glasgow. 9 February 2014.
  262.  "BBC: Can We Just Let It Go Now?". Archived from the original on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
  263.  Johnson, Simon (16 March 2014). "Andrew Marr accused of bias over Scottish independence". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  264.  Carrell, Severin (16 March 2014). "BBC asked to justify Andrew Marr's remarks on Scotland's right to join EU". The Guardian.
  265.  Martyn McLaughlin "Better Together film 'made in BBC studio'", The Scotsman, 14 June 2014
  266.  Martyn McLaughlin "Independence: BBC criticised for MSP Indyref role", The Scotsman, 18 June 2014
  267.  "BBC Scotland told to rethink news output amid questions over indy balance". The Herald. Glasgow. 22 July 2014.
  268.  "Better Together 'tipped off' on BBC debates", Sunday Times, 20 July 2014
  269.  Simon Johnson "Alex Salmond goes to war with BBC over RBS 'leak'", The Daily Telegraph, 11 September 2014
  270.  "BBC – Complaints – BBC News at Six and Ten, BBC One, 11 September, 2014". bbc.co.uk.
  271.  Green, Chris (14 September 2014). "BBC Scotland protests: Scottish independence referendum coverage 'institutionally biased', Salmond claims". The Independent. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  272.  Ben Riley-Smith "Scottish independence: Nationalists demand Nick Robinson sacking in vocal anti-BBC protest", The Daily Telegraph, 14 September 2014
  273.  Severin Carroll "Alex Salmond backs protests against 'bias' shown by BBC's Nick Robinson", The Guardian, 15 September 2014
  274.  Haggerty, Angela. "Balance failure in BBC Scottish independence referendum coverage 'wrong and not acceptable' says Channel 4's Stuart Cosgrove". The Drum.
  275.  "'Is the BBC's coverage biased? Yes, absolutely.... Don't get me wrong, I like these folk, but they don't realise they're biased. It's the unconscious bias which is extraordinary'"., Sunday Herald, 14 September 2014
  276.  BBC under fresh pressure over extent of Reform UK coverage
  277.  BBC under pressure over Nigel Farage coverage after study
  278.  BBC Accused of Pro-Reform Bias as Lib Dems Launch Campaign to End ‘Wall to Wall’ Farage Coverage
  279.  ‘Balance the BBC’: Is Reform UK over-represented in the British media?
  280.  BBC not ‘trying to ingratiate’ itself to Reform UK, Tim Davie tells MPs
  281.  "Editorial Standards Findings" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
  282.  Antony Lerman, The Guardian, 16 April 2009, What did Jeremy Bowen do wrong?
  283.  BBC News Online, 4 June 2007, How 1967 defined the Middle East
  284.  "BBC's Jeremy Bowen breached guidelines on accuracy in Israel reports". The Daily Telegraph. 15 April 2009. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  285.  Burrell, Ian; Hickman, Martin (17 June 2011). "BBC crisis over 'fake' sweatshop scene in Primark documentary". The Independent.
  286.  "Timeline of events". Primark. 2012. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012.
  287.  Shammas, John (20 January 2016). "Muslim boy's 'terrorist house' spelling error is probed by police". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  288.  Barett, David; Jamieson, Sophie (20 January 2016). "Father of Muslim boy, 10, questioned by police for saying he lived in 'terrorist' house brands it a 'joke'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  289.  "10-year-old boy's 'terrorist house' spelling error sees him interviewed by police". ITV News. 20 January 2016. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  290.  Gani, Aisha (21 January 2016). "Lancashire police criticise BBC over 'terrorist house' story". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  291.  "Lancashire 'terrorist house' row 'not a spelling mistake'". BBC News. 20 January 2016.
  292.  Withnall, Adam (21 January 2016). "Police say 'I live in a terrorist house' was not a spelling mistake". The Independent. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  293.  "Sol Campbell warns fans to stay away from Euro 2012". BBC News. BBC. 28 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  294.  K. T. (6 June 2012). "Euro 2012 is overshadowed by accusations of racism and anti-Semitism". The Economist. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  295.  K. T. (13 June 2012). "Stitch up unstitched—updated (again)". The Economist. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  296.  "'Unfair' say organisers". Hindustan Times. 29 May 2012. Archived from the original on 1 December 2012. Retrieved 14 June 2012.
  297.  Wójcik, Magdalena (20 May 2012). "Wszyscy jesteśmy odpowiedzialni za pseudokibiców". Krakow.gazeta.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 24 January 2014.[permanent dead link]
  298.  "Germany fined after soccer fans wear neo-Nazi symbols". CNN. 26 June 2012. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  299.  "Holland players subjected to racist abuse at training session". The Guardian. 7 June 2012. Retrieved 19 January 2014.
  300.  Waterson, Jim (28 March 2019). "BBC to pay 'substantial' sum for story libelling Ukrainian president". The Guardian.
  301.  "BBC pays damages to Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko over report". 28 March 2019.
  302.  "Gerry Adams awarded €100k in libel case against the BBC". BBC. 30 May 2025. Retrieved 14 November 2025.
  303.  "Gerry Adams 'sanctioned Denis Donaldson killing'". BBC. 21 September 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2025.
  304.  "Ex-Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams wins libel case against the BBC". AlJazeera. 30 May 2025. Retrieved 14 November 2025.
  305.  Tang, Ping; Quan, Kelin; Zhu, Jianbin (1 September 2020). "The Construction of China's Images through Multimodal Metaphor: A Case Study of China-related BBC Documentaries". Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 10 (9): 1044. doi:10.17507/tpls.1009.05. ISSN 1799-2591.
  306.  "How everyday life has changed in Wuhan". YouTube. BBC News. 10 December 2020. Archived from the original on 21 December 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021.
  307.  "How everyday life has changed in Wuhan (Chinese subtitled)". YouTube. BBC Chinese service. 11 December 2020. Archived from the original on 21 December 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021.
  308.  Burgess, Matt (18 August 2021). "China's propaganda firehose is going after the BBC". Wired UK. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  309.  "China Propaganda Network Targets BBC Media, UK in Large-Scale Influence Campaign". Recorded Future. Insikt Group. 18 August 2021. Archived from the original on 2 April 2022. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
  310.  "BBC Three - Thailand: The Dark Side of Paradise". BBC. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  311.  "Zara McDermott heads to Thailand in upcoming documentary series coming to BBC Three and iPlayer in 2025". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  312.  "BBC's 'Thailand: The Dark Side of Paradise' documentary sparks backlash from viewers". nationthailand. 12 September 2025. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  313.  Zone, T. V. (6 September 2025). "Thailand: The Dark Side Of Paradise with Zara McDermott | Preview (BBC Three)". TV Zone UK. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  314.  Moment Zara McDermott is nearly arrested while filming in Thailand. 11 September 2025. Retrieved 14 September 2025 – via www.independent.co.uk.
  315.  "Zara McDermott explores The Dark Side of Paradise in Thailand - "It really does have it all. But that can come with other costs."". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  316.  "Zara McDermott branded ignorant after BBC's 'patronising' Thailand documentary". Metro. 13 September 2025. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  317.  Yu, Mike. "Dark Side of Thailand BBC's Documentary". www.instagram.com. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  318.  "Breaking the dark side: Mike Yu shows what the BBC missed". www.timeout.com. Retrieved 26 December 2025.
  319.  Petpailin, Petch (12 September 2025). "British YouTuber and netizens blast BBC's Thailand dark side documentary". Thaiger. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
  320.  Paxman, Jeremy (2 February 2007). "How green is my Auntie?". BBC News. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  321.  Deans, Jason (31 January 2007). "Paxman accuses BBC of hypocrisy over environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  322.  Plunkett, John (5 September 2007). "BBC drops climate change special". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
  323.  "BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science" (PDF). July 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 August 2011. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  324.  Carrington, Damian (24 October 2017). "BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 September 2018.
  325.  Carrington, Damian (7 September 2018). "BBC admits 'we get climate change coverage wrong too often'". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 September 2018.
  326.  Paton, Graeme (12 January 2014). "Row over BBC climate change conference 'cover up'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  327.  Leach, Ben (4 April 2010). "BBC spending criticised in MPs' report". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  328.  Nikkhah, Roya (25 September 2011). "BBC books 1,663 rooms for two-day concert". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  329.  Alleyne, Richard (20 October 2011). "BBC accused of 'overstaffing' as protesters pull out of Dale Farm". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  330.  "MPs voice concerns about 'off payroll' tax arrangements". BBC News. 5 October 2012. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  331.  Snoddy, Raymond (17 February 2004). "BBC 'anti competitive'". The Times. Archived from the original on 11 January 2025. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
  332.  John, Hambley (8 June 2004). "Consultation for the Independent Review of the BBC's Digital Television Services" (PDF). Letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Stationery Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2009. Retrieved 19 March 2012.