8 hours ago, coolcarer said:

You missed the first topic on this yesterday then........

 

A recent report has accused the BBC of violating its editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times during its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, revealing a pattern of alleged bias against Israel. The investigation, led by British lawyer Trevor Asserson, analyzed four months of BBC content across various platforms, including television, radio, online news, podcasts, and social media.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1337643-bbc-accused-of-bias-in-israel-hamas-coverage-over-1500-breaches-of-guidelines/

The paragraph cited called him a British lawyer, not a British-Israeli lawyer. And nowhere noted his past stance on the issue of alleged media bias. 

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

The paragraph cited called him a British lawyer, not a British-Israeli lawyer. And nowhere noted his past stance on the issue of alleged media bias. 

That's because he is a British Lawyer, just because he immigrated to Israel and founded an international law firm does not stop making him a British Lawyer. What difference does the Israel add on make? Does it make the alleged claims less credible? Does it make his report that he and his team compiled less credible? Because he, as part of the firm’s work, also represents the Jewish and Israeli community in Britain in various matters, make it any less credible?

 

That hundreds of the Jewish community protested outside the BBC HQ make it less credible if some of them also happen to be from Israel? They also pay their BBC yearly licence fee as do all people in the UK to ensure the BBC delivers what it promises in their guidelines. That polls conducted by the Jewish community were also critical on the BBC make it less credible? 

 

"Sir Oliver Dowden, the shadow deputy prime minister, expressed concern that the BBC’s alleged failure to maintain impartiality could damage its global reputation. Julia Lopez, the shadow culture secretary, warned that any perceived bias undermines public trust in the BBC, particularly in a media landscape increasingly fraught with misinformation."

 

"Further criticism came from Lord Austin, who described the BBC’s stance as failing to meet the standards of impartiality that justify its public funding."

 

Based on the report he has accused the BBC of being biased in its reporting. You said:

 

"So why should we accept his assessment at face value?"

 

Who is being forced to accept it at face value? His report is calling for an independent review of the allegations put forward. 

 

"Almost twenty years ago the BBC commissioned the Balen Report, following persistent complaints from the public and the Israeli government of allegations of anti-Israel bias in BBC news programmes. The report by a senior BBC journalist, Malcolm Balen, has still not been published. Following the failure to publish the Balen Report and the complacent response to criticisms from the BBC’s current CEO, News and Current Affairs, it is hardly surprising that there is little confidence among Britain’s Jewish community that BBC News can be trusted to handle an inquiry into bias by its own programme-makers, including some of its most senior reporters."

 

Links to all the above are in the original topic that I already linked to.