AS a regular listener of the British Broad-casting Corporation (BBC) Global News Podcast, I have observed a troubling pattern in how the Global South is re-presented. The BBC increasingly appears to function less as an impartial public broadcaster and more as a platform that manufactures consent for wars against the less powerful nations. Notably, even within the organisation, around 100 employees reportedly raised concerns about biased coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Such internal criticism cannot be dismissed lightly.

On March 19, the podcast reported, with pronounced emotional intensity, that Iranian missiles had killed women in the West Bank. While every civilian death is a tragedy, one must ask why similar empathy was often absent when thousands of women and children were killed in Gaza by the Zionist regime. In essence, this disguised, selective compassion reflects a deeper imbalance in editorial priorities.

Equally problematic are the language choices. The term ‘genocide’ is frequently accompanied by the immediate caveat that ‘Israel denies the allegation’, which appears to dilute rather than investigate the claim. Likewise, the consistent use of the word ‘regime’ for countries like Iran, despite having elected governments, contrasts sharply with the absence of such terminology for Western powers, including the United States, which has put the world security and international system in danger.

This raises a rather uncomfortable, but necessary question: are only Western governments considered legitimate, while others are reduced to ‘regimes’?

Such inconsistencies suggest that the issue is not merely of editorial oversight, but of a deeper structural bias. If media institutions wish to retain their credibility, they must strive for consistency, fairness and balance in both language and coverage.

Dr Amer Raza
Islamabad

Published in Dawn, May 1st, 2026