Media Storm - News Watch: Owen Jones vs the BBC, and what's really behind the move to cut jury trials?

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

Care about independent and ethical news? Support Media Storm on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Warning: this episode mentions rape, sexual assault and suicide. The UK government is moving to cut jury trials, a right that traces back to the 1215 signing of the Magna Carta.. It’s a sharp U-turn for Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Justice Secretary David Lammy, who spent years arguing juries were a cornerstone of democracy. Labour say they’re acting in the interests of women – lucky us! They say cutting juries will ease court delays for victims of misogynistic violence. The thing is… fewer than 3% of reported rapes lead to a trial in the UK. So are juries really the problem here? Is this anything to do with gender justice at all? Or are women being used – yet again – to whitewash political agendas? What is the government (and media) not telling us about why Starmer and Lammy have changed their minds on juries? Side note: Palestine Action activists got acquitted by a jury who went against the judge’s order... Plus, Owen Jones has won the first battle in an ongoing libel suit filed against him by BBC Middle East editor, Raffi Berg. The court has ruled Jones’ piece was a piece of reasoned opinion, not factual reporting, making it easier to defend. But wait until you hear who’s representing Berg in a libel suit that’s airing a lot of the BBC’s dirty linen. We also look at Trump’s bid to use national security laws to control news coverage of the war on Iran, and the impact of Brexit on international couples. This episode is hosted and produced by Mathilda Mallinson (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@mathildamall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Helena Wadia (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@helenawadia⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  The music is by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ @soundofsamfire⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you have been affected by sexual violence, you can contact: Rape Crisis (England & Wales) on 0808 500 2222 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Uh, where are my gloves? Come on, heat. Any day now? Winter is hard, but your groceries don't have to be. This winter, stay warm. Tap the banner to order your groceries online at voila.ca. Enjoy in-store prices without leaving your home. You'll find the same regular prices online as in-store.

Many promotions are available both in-store and online, though some may vary. When West Jet first took flight in 1996, the vibes were a bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion, inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get when WestJetting welcomes you on board. Here's to WestJetting since 96. Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years.

Matilda, let's play What's new today in this authoritarian health game? Oh God. So this headline sent chills down my spine. FCC chair, that's the chair of the US Federal Communications Commission, FCC chair threatens to revoke broadcasters' licenses over Iran coverage. What does this mean essentially that a public threat has been issued to news broadcasters in the US, which is essentially saying, report the Iran war the way that the administration wants

or lose your license to operate. Just take a moment, everybody, to process that. The US government essentially threatened to silence news organizations for covering a war in ways that Trump doesn't like. This is a new level of sinister. Look, to be clear, national security does come with special powers for any democratic ruler. And it is often used to silence criticism. We've seen that in the UK, arguably, with attempts to silence an arrest, Palestine action, placard holders, or, you know, kneecap, the government has just lost lawsuits with their attempts to basically silence critics of their foreign policy in Gaza by calling them terrorists. But there are loopholes within national security laws for journalism, because a free press is very important in a democracy. So for this to be weaponised, for, possibly against the media, that is a whole new level of sinister.

Yay. What else? Oh wait, aren't we going to do what you want to put in the bin? Anything you want to put in the bin today? I'm putting that in the bin. I want to put Brexit in the bin. This isn't just like a tired Brexit bashing rampage. I'm on like, this is now my life.

If it's okay, I want to share my own experience to show what these anti-migrant policies are doing to families. Look, this is not a story of, extreme hardship. It's just my every day and probably lots of other people's as well. I'm in an international marriage with a German man. And I want to have kids one day and I want to do that here where my mum is. But honestly at this point, like I don't think I'm going to be able to because it is so hard for him to make life here work as a migrant. So if you voted Brexit, I want to know, like sincerely, has it tangibly improved your life in any way? Because it tangibly makes ours harder every day.

My husband works in the NHS. The NHS is entirely dependent on migrant workers, but it treats them individually as entirely disposable. They're kept on short-term contracts that are dangled over their heads. They're talked down to. They're given no upward mobility, no opportunity to use their hard-earned skills. My husband didn't come here to milk the system. He took a massive pay cut to work in the NHS. He's here, for me, his British wife, to make my career possible, to keep me near my family. And for that, he's treated like trash. in my country. Do you know how our governments fix the broken immigration system? Right, Tory, Labour, it doesn't make a difference. They don't improve the system. They deliberately make it even more inefficient. They invent bureaucratic ordeals to make daily life for foreign nationals just really fucking inconvenient. So my husband moved here for me on a skilled worker visa. If his work contract isn't renewed, or if we switch to a spousal visa, his clock resets. And now Labor is saying he may have to wait 20 years for settled status. Let's talk cost of living. Have any Brexit voters seen their household incomes improve? This year, we lost thousands in tax relief

designed by his government to help him support his lower income wife. But oh no, Brexit, I'm not eligible. Like passport cues. I wait on average an hour every time I enter his home country. Cry me a river, I know, but look, I'm not talking about holidays. I'm talking about seeing his family. and losing precious hours of the short weekends we already have to do that. So, like, the reality is that I'm struggling to picture our future here, which means that my country might not stay mine because naughty me, I fell in love with a foreigner. And my kids might not get to live in their own country because their dad isn't from here.

And I want people to know this. Like, if Brexit hadn't happened, our life would be so much easier. And I wonder, genuinely, is anyone's life better as a result? Oh yeah, Nigel Farages. Bin. Bin. Let's get on to the News Watch. Coming up on today's show.

If you've read about the proposed changes to jury trials in the media recently, you're likely to have seen it referenced alongside claims of delivering justice to victims of misogynist violence. Is this really the case? And what isn't the legacy media telling us about the real reason this government wants to cut back on juries? And you may have seen a libel lawsuit underway between Raffi Berg, the BBC's Middle East editor online, and Owen Jones, who accused him of pro-Israeli bias.

And just wait till I tell you which lawyers have been chosen to fight this battle. The BBC is in civil war over its coverage of Israel and Palestine. When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied it. Five years ago, David Lamy couldn't get enough. of jury trials suddenly he's against the things. What's changed? Or he's become Justice Secretary. All six defendants were found not guilty.

Welcome to Media Storms Newswatch, helping you get your head around the headlines. I'm Matilda Mallinson. And I'm Helena Wadia. This week's Media Storms. Getting rid of juries and the BBC bias battle. Matilda, have you ever done jury duty? No, I have never. But I've heard it's pretty boring.

Yeah, I've like always really want to. to do it, but anyone who's ever done it has been like, no, you don't want to do it. Except one person, which is my sister who sat in on a rape case. She was like just 18, so it was quite shocking, I know, but really educational and insightful, and she would say everyone should do it. Why don't we get her on Media Storm this week? Phoebe, we live together. Phoebe, get over here.

Okay, well, just to be clear, so everybody knows what I'm going to be banging on. on about today. A jury is usually 12 randomly chosen individuals, members of the public, who are called up to hear a case and decide the outcome of a criminal trial. Now, last year, a review of England and Wales's criminal courts was carried out by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson. After this review came out, in December, measures were announced by Justice Secretary David Lamy in the Courts and Tribunal Bill that jury trials would be scrapped in England and Wales for crimes that carry a likely sentence of less than three years. There were other measures announced, including that volunteer community magistrates who

deal with the majority of all criminal cases will take on more work, and that magistrates will be given the power to hear cases that have a maximum sentencing range of up to 18 months. But what I really want to focus on today is the measure announced of scrapping jury trials for crimes that carry a likely sentence of less than three years. So this means that only the most serious offences would continue to be tried by a jury. Most other cases would be heard by a judge alone. First, let's start with why David Lamy initially claimed he wanted to put this new measure in. He said the number of cases waiting to be heard in Crown Court had almost doubled from about 38,000 in 2019

to nearly 80,000. He said that Labour had inherited a court system close to breaking points. after previous cuts to the Justice Department under the Conservatives and lengthy waiting times for cases to be heard were a source of injustice. Okay, with you so far, that is a crazy backlog, and there's no denying that people wait a long time for their court cases to be heard. Firstly, just explain, why might a jury trial cause a time delay? Well, they involve jury selection.

The people selected have to say yes or no and provide evidence if they can't do jury duty. There can also be extensive deliberation time, etc. But is this court case backlog solely the fault of jury trials? Well, the government says that judge alone trials will take 20% less time than jury trials. But if you delve a bit deeper, in practical terms, jury trials only form a small part of the system, accounting for around 2% of all criminal cases. Ministry of Justice data shows that most criminals. criminal cases are resolved in the magistrates courts, in which three magistrates who are

volunteer laypeople rather than professional judges determine guilt as well as sentence. So the evidence suggests that jury trials are not the primary cause of the current backlog. Then what is? Budget reductions, court closures, maintenance backlogs, the pandemic that brought unprecedented disruption into an already fragile system. Remember Brian Leverson, who I started this segment talking about. He was the person to conduct the recent independent review of the criminal justice system. And he even stated about the backlog crisis that the most significant cause is chronic underfunding at every step. A report from the Institute for Government said that any difference to the backlog will be uncertain

and the plans to introduce judge-only criminal trials would save less than 2% of time in Crown Courts. In fact, when you really delve into it, no evidence. or causal link has been produced to support the government's reasoning at any stage, up to and including the recent debate on the second reading of the courts and tribunal bill. Surely there has to be some other reason given about this call to scrap juries, then it might reduce the backlog a bit. Like, this is a big deal. Yeah, funny you should mention that, actually.

Kirstama recently did give another reason. Our prime minister said that the move to scrap juries is crucial to delivering justice to victims of misogynist violence. Uh, explain. Well, he said that the backlog was forcing victims of violence against women and girls to lose faith and leave the justice system. He said that victims of male violence,

quote, have to wait so long they're not getting justice, so many of them fall away, pull out because they're waiting too long. I'm not prepared to allow that to happen for any longer, which is why we're taking these measures. So our government is now saying that they are going to deliver justice to women and girls who are victims of male violence because there might be a minuscule reduction in the backlog of court cases waiting to be heard.

That's not the problem. Yeah. So if you've read about the proposed changes to jury trials in the media recently, you're likely to have seen it referenced alongside these repeated claims of delivering justice to victims of misogynist violence. But this is nothing more than the government's scapegoating victims and the media repeating this. So let's break this down.

As you know, Matilda, as I know, as any previous listener of media storm will know, most of the delays in rape or sexual assault cases have nothing to do with juries, because why? Because most of them don't even make it to the courtroom. Exactly. Less than 3% of reported rapes even lead to a charge. A charge!

That's the first stage of the criminal legal system, which has nothing to do with juries. Now, OG Media Stormers may remember our third ever episode of Media Storm was called Rape Justice What Happens to the 98%. It was an investigation into why 98% of rape investigations are dropped by police. This is for a variety of reasons, but includes that the police has to gather enough evidence in order to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service or CPS, the body that conducts criminal prosecutions in England or Wales.

But how do you do that? When so often these attacks happen behind closed doors, no CCTV, no hard evidence. How do you do that when victims are so distrustful of police that reporting is traumatising? How do you do that when there is such little understanding of abuse when women are repeatedly victim blamed and asked to hand over their phones as evidence of consent? Yes, this happened in the case of. of Verity Nevit. In 2017, she says her ex-boyfriend sexually assaulted her

before going on to rape her twin sister Lucy. The sisters reported what happened to the police, but a few months later, they were told no further action would be taken, despite having texts in which the accused apologised for the alleged assault. This is from Media Storm's episode, Rape Justice, What Happens to the 98%. Here's me interviewing Verity. So the real reason was it's not.

enough for a jury to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. And by this point in, we'd lost a friend during the police investigation. They didn't believe us. They took his side. I was just like, I've just had a suicide attempt over this. Lucy was very hurt. Sometimes I think that hurt her more than the actual rape. What I really want to highlight with this story is the level of scrutiny that claimants often have to withstand in an attempt to build their case, because The surveys show this is another significant deterrent to reporting. I didn't understand why they needed to see our school records, going back to like primary school, medical records, counselling notes from when I was like nine.

It's not just paper documents that are collected, but entire digital histories, their social media accounts, messages, photographs. There were certain things on my phone, like being a university and taking drugs and talking about that, that I was a bit worried that the police would see and then I'd be prosecuted. They kept bringing up messages that they'd read, which now I know is very inappropriate, but they kept kind of laughing and being like, you girls are very funny, like your conversations with your mum and your friends. Were these messages in any way related to the case? No.

So they'd looked at everything. Can you, is there an option to withhold explicit photographs of yourself or your boyfriend? You know, are you allowed to withhold something? It doesn't feel like you'll give it an option. And they mentioned that they'd seen those photos, which was embarrassing. But yeah, my social media accounts shut down all the computers in Lewisham Police Station because there was so much of it. A lot of the time they have to send the phones off to a lab.

Lucy didn't have her phone for like, gosh, nine months. She was walking around with my iPad. The man that the sisters accused did not have to submit to this. He didn't even need to submit to an interview. They didn't interview him after I had reported. They only interviewed him when Lucy reported. And they said, well, we did ask him about what happened with you, but he gave no comment. They basically just knew he was going to give another no comment interview.

so just didn't see the point in it. They were meant to interview my mum, and they didn't. They were meant to interview the first person my sister told, which is called like the first disclosure, which was quite important to police investigations. And they never did that either. And while the sister's data was needed, because it could be used to pick apart their credibility in court,

there's a different approach for the accused. A man's character is used in their favour. We'd said all along, you know, this is someone we trusted and had been really close with and was part of our family. and they said that actually works in his favour. And I remember my partner just saying, what, so seemingly good men get one shot at being able to rape somebody.

I definitely felt like we were the ones being investigated. Now here at Media Storm, we listened to lived experience, and there was a key survivor voice that emerged this week. Charlotte Nichols is the Labour MP for Warrington North, and in a debate in Parliament about these court reforms, she waived her anonymity to reveal that she is a rape survivor. In a speech in the House of Commons, she said she waited 1,088 days to go to court, with every day being agony and the trauma made worse by her role in public life.

Speaking about the courts and tribunal bill, she said, in this debate, experiences like mine feel like they've been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection for what this bill actually is. Let's listen to her. I have spoken before in this place about having PTSD. as the result of being the victim of a crime, but I have never specified the nature of that crime, and in doing so, I'm aware that I am waiving my right to anonymity

and the personal consequences that come along with that. I care profoundly about rape victims, facing intolerable delays for their day in court. I know only too well what that feels like, as after being raped at an event that I attended in my capacity as a member of Parliament, I waited 1,088 days to go to court. Every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of my trauma were played out in public,

with the event that led to my eventual sectioning for my own safety, still being something that I receive regular social media abuse from strangers about to this day. But here's the kicker. In this debate, experiences like mine feel like they've been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection for what this bill actually is. is. The violence against women and girls sector haven't had the opportunity to come together to discuss it and the government's framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way I think is deeply damaging. We have been told that if we have

concerns about this bill it is because we have not been raped or because we don't care enough for rape victims. The opposite is true in my case. It is because I have been raped that I'm as passionate as I am about what it means for a justice system to be truly victim-focused. is because I have endured every indignity that our broken criminal justice system could meet out, that I care what kind of reform will actually deliver justice for survivors and victims of crime. That was Charlotte Nichols MP. I think it's not only highly frustrating, but it's highly insulting to everybody in the Vogue sector, the violence against women's sector, to place the reasoning of scrapping juries onto them,

as if that is something that anyone in the sector has ever campaigned for. Kirstama has said, I have given my word to campaigners on violence against women and girls and to victims that I will do everything within my power to make sure they get justice. How about you listen to what they actually want? For example, specialist services, refuges, trauma-informed juries, trauma-informed judges, legal professionals who are trained in understanding coercive control, specialist sexual offence courts, reviewing how bail is used for sexual offence suspects.

you know how I know this? Because experts in the women's aid sector have been asking for this four years. You can literally Google what they want and you'll find rape crisis's living in limbo report which lays out key recommendations on how to stop retramatizing survivors going through the criminal justice system. It's also really unfair to any survivors out there who have managed to get to court who may get false hope that their cases are going to go through faster. Agree. This government has exploited. the emotions of rape survivors and has labelled MPs who want to vote against the bill

as people who don't care about rape victims. David Lammy back in December was using rape victims as a scapegoat, saying the trauma of waiting is too hard, conveniently missing out the less than 3% of cases are even getting to the court stage. You know, the thing is, like, I would be open to listening to their evidence if they were willing to tell us what their evidence was

that no jury trials were better. Some countries don't use juries. But this is just like you've lost me. It is so clearly weaponising women to serve a malign political agenda. And we are seeing that more and more with the far right, especially, protect women by deporting all migrants. It's just, I'm sick of it. Like, stop using us and tell us what it is that you really want. Agree, it's two sides of the same coin, right?

So, okay, it's clear that the potential removal of some juries isn't anything to do with helping victims of male violence. What is it really about? And that is the key media storm question. It's about, drum roll please. The Dismantling of Democracy. This is not a legal podcast and we would be here all day if I went into every single pro and con of juries. But a quick summary,

the right to be tried by one's peers has deep roots in the legal tradition of England and Wales. Its origins trace back to the Magna Carta in 1215. which promised that no one would lose their liberty or property without the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land. The judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin described trial by jury as the lamp that shows freedom lives. It's fair to say that it is the symbolic cornerstone of justice in England and Wales.

Jury trials have long been regarded as a key component in democracy. They are a barrier to, for example, oppressive legislation or authoritarian governments, a constitutional and democratic safeguard, if you will. I definitely hear what you're saying about, you know, why juries matter. I do just want to point out that some countries that are often lauded for their democracy, Norway, Denmark and Sweden, don't use a jury system. This is true. They don't use a jury system as such, but they do still involve lay people. For example, in Germany, jury trials were abolished in 1924, and most cases now are tried by

a professional judge or a panel of lay judges known as, Matilda, your German, please. Scherfen. So, councils compile lists of members of the public deemed suitable, who are then chosen by committee for a five-year term. So there are differing systems. For example, there's studies that show that minorities prefer jury trials because juries are seen as a safeguard against prejudice because they, unlike judges and magistrates, represent the local population.

and most research shows that juries do generally make fair decisions. But there are also studies and high-profile cases that show us that racism, sexism and unconscious bias can be rife on juries. But in the same way, this also applies to judges. And there is limited research on judge-only trials, in part because they're relatively rare. Even in jurisdictions where juries are not used, judges most often sit in panels of three or more. But to be honest, the point of this news watch isn't really about whether or not you think juries are great. There are certainly cases to be made about aspects of jury decision making.

But the point is really to find out what the legacy media isn't telling us in this case. And in this case, it is about democracy and civil liberties. And more specifically, it's about protest. What if this move is not because juries are unfit for purpose or taking too long, or adding to a backlog? What if juries are returning verdicts that challenge governmental positions? This government and its conservative predecessors have been four years now attacking the right to protest, to march, to rally, to hold a placard saying you oppose genocide.

And yet, through this aggressive curtailment of protesting rights, juries have been acquitting large numbers of people charged with these offences. And nowhere is this more true than in the case of Palestine action. The group was prescribed as a terrorist organisation. The first time a non-violent direct action group has been prescribed in British history. The six Palestine action activists who broke inter-Elbit systems an Israeli weapons factory in Filton, Bristol, they're known as the Filton Six, were repeatedly denied bail and were held on remand.

That means imprisoned without trial for 18 months. Yeah. Also, the judge overseeing. the trial, Mr Justice Johnson refused the admission of any testimony relating to the crimes committed by Elbert's systems. When the jury asked if it would count as lawful excuse, if they decided that the defendants genuinely believed they were performing life-saving actions and were morally compelled to destroy weapons, the judge said that it would not, even though jurors do have a right to acquit on conscience. The judge also directed the jury to convict the

Filton 6 on the charge of criminal damage. Yet, after eight days of deliberation, the jury refused to convict the Filton 6 of the charges against them. They were all acquitted on the most serious charge of aggravated burglary. Palestine action activists got acquitted by a jury who went against the judge's order. And we have seen that juries are refusing to convict people of these new aggressive public order offences that clapped down on protest. And that is a direct threat to the government and one that I'm sure they'd be happy to cut down all while wrapping it up in the cozy language of standing up for

women and girls. So I'll just end with a quote from David Lammy. David Lammy, the guy pushing through this new bill? Yes, because it's pretty damn telling. In 2020, he tweeted, jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. The government needs to pull their finger out. You don't fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair. Wow. You can see why you wanted to end with that quote.

Actually, no, I've got one more, this time from Kirstama. In 1992, he wrote, The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance. Man, power corrupts. Damn right. Welcome back to Media Storm's News Watch. So, Owen Jones, a media critic, has won the first battle in an ongoing libel suit filed against him by BBC Middle East editor Rafi Berg. On a very rudimentary level, this is good news for media critics. Hey, that's us. And we need the leeway, given the way.

that the journalist trade is built on holding power to account, it can be very thin-skinned when anyone else wants to hold it to account. At Media Storm, the idea is that we, as two journalists, help you guys read the news like journalists can, with some understanding of how things happen behind the scenes and how that can distort its accuracy and impartiality. This story should help you to see that. So, tell us about the allegedly libelous article at the heart of this media storm. Rafi Berg filed for libel over an article written by Owen Jones in the independent news outlet DropSight News. This was published in December 24 when we were in the pits of Israel's war on Gaza. Oh yes, it's so much better now. Jones's article claims that there was civil war at the BBC,

largely between executives and managers on one side and journalists on the other over the state broadcasters reporting on Israel's war on Gaza, particularly BBC News Online. Jones, who says he stands by his reporting, based his opinion on interviews with 13 current and former BBC staff who say that BBC seniors skewed stories in favour of Israel's narrative and repeatedly dismissed widespread objections from employees. In particular, their testimonies implicate one editor, BBC News Online's Middle East editor, Raffeyberg. Jones's piece, quote, It writes BBC staffers saying that Berg reshapes everything from headlines to story text to images, repeatedly seeks to foreground the Israeli military perspective while stripping away Palestinian humanity.

One said, this guy's entire job is to water down everything that's too critical of Israel. Another, many of us have raised concerns that Rafi has the power to reframe every story and we are ignored. And finally, we have to run this past Rafi was the reflex answer to any producer pitching anything on Israel. Wow. You get the gist. Mm-hmm. So, as a result of these interviews and other evidence, Owen Jones concludes that Rafi Berg played a crucial role in biasing the BBC's coverage,

and he called this conduct that imperils the integrity of the BBC. Does Owen Jones in this article give any solid examples of pro-Israeli bias by the BBC? Boy does he. A repeat issue, Jones says, is the use of passive language to water down Israeli culpability in atrocities. For example, there's one story when Israeli soldiers allowed an attack dog to mule a 24-year-old Palestinian man with Down syndrome and autism, Muhammad Bar. After forcibly separating him from his family, the soldiers then left him to bleed to death

from his injuries. So Middle East Eye broke the story with the headline, Palestinian with Down syndrome left to die by Israeli soldiers after combat dog attack. The independent newspaper headlined it, Gaza man with Down syndrome, mauled by Israeli attack dog and left to die, family says. The BBC gave the story no coverage for four days until it got a lot of hype,

and then they eventually published a story with the headline, The Lonely Death of Gaza Man with Down syndrome. What? The lonely death. As if he just, you know, died of loneliness. My God. That was my reaction to. And look, a little journal hack for listeners, Right, there's a few rules that we're taught about writing good headlines.

One of them is always use active language. Right, so the lonely death of or the man left to die are passive sentences. Active phrasing would be Israeli combat dog kills. The idea is that passive language doesn't intrigue, so people don't click on the story. Do with that information what you will. Now, on that horrible story, Jones also points out that it's 500 words into the BBC article before readers even learn an Israeli army dog had mauled bar and a further 339 words before they learned that he died from those injuries. Wow. Raffiberg was the one to hit

publish on that story according to edit history obtained by Dropsite News. And finally, Owen Jones also references Rafiberg's own reporting, including one of his first pieces for the BBC, a piece titled Israel's Teenage Recruits. This was written in 2002 and it presents young Israeli soldiers as courageous defenders of their country. I read this piece. It doesn't once mention the context of the occupation of Palestinian land. It presents the Israeli army's purpose as purely one of self-defense, not of aggression, which obviously misses a lot of vital context. For this reason, by the way, some news outlets won't even refer to the Israeli military by its given name Israeli defense forces as that is seen as intentionally misleading. There's a lot more, and it's a long read, but I really

encourage people to go and read it. So how has the BBC responded and how has Rafi Berg responded? BBC said it unequivocally stood by Berg's work and that Drop Sites' descriptions of Berg fundamentally misdescribe this person's role and misunderstand the way the BBC works. Rafi Berg is suing Jones for libel, however he's doing that independently of the BBC. His lawyer said that Jones's article strikes at the claimant's professional reputation as a journalist and editor and has led to an onslaught of hatred, intimidation and threats, including death threats. So Berg is seeking damages, an injunction preventing Jones from republishing the article, and an order requiring websites to take the piece down.

Okay, so where are we at now with the libel case? Last week, the High Court made this significant preliminary ruling in Owen Jones's favour. It said that the article was an opinion. The lawyers of Berg had hoped to define it as a statement of fact. That would have put a steep burden of proof on Jones. he would have had to prove that Berg intended to skew BBC coverage, which, without internal documents revealing what was being said behind closed doors, would have been nearly impossible. Now, the on Raffi Berg's team to show that Owen Jones couldn't reasonably have held the

opinion that Raffi Berg was biased. That's a tough win. Still, it doesn't settle the case and both sides have indicated that they're not backing down. So that's the basic information. Now we get to the part that makes you raise your eyebrows. Ask me, about Rafi Berg's legal representation. Who's representing Rafi Berg? Great question, Helena. I'm scared. Rafiberg's legal team is led by Mark Lewis,

the former director of UK lawyers for Israel, which we'll get on to. Lewis's wife is the national director of Likud Harut, UK. That is essentially the British arm of Netanyahu's right-wing government in Israel. This group's homepage declares, we oppose the surrender of any parts of our biblical homeland for a worthless peace agreement with terrorists. So this group is uncompromisingly Zionist,

and Raffiberg's chosen lawyer, Mark Lewis, is not only married to its director. He spoke at their launch party the same year he emigrated to Israel. Right, so at this point, it could be argued that Raffiberg is kind of doing Owen Jones's job for him. Yes, it could be reasonably expressed as an opinion. Okay, talk to me about UK lawyers for Israel.

why were you hinting that they're controversial? UK Lawyers for Israel is a group of lawyers who says its purpose is to support Israel with legal skills. Since August last year, it has been under investigation by national law regulators over allegations that it persistently uses legal threats or lawfare to silence meaningful criticism of Israel. And as well as supporting Israel, as it describes,

it habitually lobbies for cultural references to Palestine to be removed For example, in February 23, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital quietly removed a display of artwork by children from Gaza from one of its corridors. This artwork had been there for over a decade and, as a freedom of information request revealed, it had never received a public complaint. But it was removed after one strongly legally worded letter from UKLFI. UKLFI bragged about their role in having this art by Gaza children removed. Okay, this seems to expose Raffeeburg may indeed have bias on the Israel-Palestine conflict that the BBC entrusts him to impartially edit. One could reasonably express as an opinion.

Right, but the thing is, none of this is new information. In his personal affairs, Raffeyberg is not shy about his affinity with the Israeli establishment. If we look at his own Twitter account, in 2020, while in his role as BBC Middle East editor online, Raffi Berg published a book called Red Sea Spies. He uses his Mossad stories to tell the story of a 1980s secret operation to transport thousands of Ethiopian Jews to Israel. Now, this is not necessarily unusual or problematic. What is, is the relationship that Berg openly declares to have with his Mossad sources.

Mossad, by the way, is Israel's intelligence agency. Its motto is, by way of deception, thou shalt do war. Berg said that it was wonderful to be in a circle. of trust, quote, with current and former Mossad agents. The book's blurb says that it was, quote, written in collaboration with operatives involved in the mission and includes an afterword from the commander who went on to become the head of Mossad. And in an interview to promote the book, he said that he collaborated on the project with Danny, a former senior Mossad commander he described as a legend who later became a very close friend. And then, the real clincher,

On August of 2020, Berg posted an image of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man now wanted by the International Criminal Court on alleged war crimes. Sitting at his desk, Berg zooms in on the picture and circles a copy of his book, Red Sea Spies, visible on Netanyahu's bookshelf. He posts this photo with the caption, Wow emoji. First time I've been on a Prime Minister's bookshelf, I know I've got one of Israeli PM Netanyahu's books on mine, but wow. And he tags the Israeli-Rashire.

Prime Minister. Wow. So this is the BBC's impartial Middle East editor who is covering Israel's war on Gaza. I mean, there are some serious questions for the BBC here. Remember when Gary Lineker was suspended for likening the government's anti-migrant rhetoric to 1930s Germany? Apparently, calling a bill that criminalised asylum seeking cruel was enough to disqualify him from presenting football at the ever impartial BBC. And it doesn't matter that their Middle East online editor sycophantically posts about Netanyahu and Mossad. Totally. Which is why it is a little strange that the BBC is allowing this libel trial to go ahead, given it really airs their dirty laundry. And we'll get to that. But it's first worth noting that while they are allowing it to go ahead, they're not funding it.

And this leaves a question mark over who is funding it, because libel infamously is a rich, man's game. Especially in the UK. That's right. British libel trials are usually held in the High Court, so costs spiral to the hundreds of thousands of pounds. You have no idea how much or how little you're even standing to win, and if you lose, you could be bankrupted by the others' legal fees. Libel is also excluded from legal aid, making it almost exclusively the reserve of the wealthy. And since the High Court's ruling that this was an opinion piece, the case has gotten a lot harder for Berg. I've spoken to lawyers. In normal circumstances, lawyers would probably advise him to withdraw. Those costs are going to spiral. However, his legal representation led by Mark Lewis has not

shown signs of backing down so far. Right. So how is he funding this? And how is Owen Jones funding this? Well, unlike Berg, Jones's costs have been taken up by the outlet who published the reporting he's been questioned for. Dropsite news crowdfunded to cover the legal fees. So it is worth wondering why the BBC has allowed their employee to pursue this lawsuit? It is because the BBC doesn't like to be the story. But one man argues it's not strange at all. British journalist Jonathan Cook made a detailed argument that Rafi Berg isn't getting these allowances from the BBC despite his apparent Israeli alignment. But because of it, Cook quotes a book written by two well-established media academics, Greg Philo and Mike Berry, in which a senior BBC news editor said,

We Wait in Fear for the phone call from the Israelis. Cook also quotes a 2012 article in the London Evening Standard in which a BBC insider describes BBC execs as permanently terrified of potential complaints by Israel. To quote, to describe them as like headless chickens running around all over the place would be to convey an impression of too much order and cohesion. They are cowering in corners. The fear is palpable. Raffi Berg and the BBC have every right to fight this battle. But they might not be comfortable with what comes out in the spotlight. The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that the BBC isn't pushing Berg to drop the case. This is not an area of coverage they want to be more heavily scrutinized for, surely. There is a

growing body of documented evidence of problematic coverage. The Centre for Media Monitoring, published an in-depth analysis also in 2024. Its findings were very uncomfortable. They found that the BBC ran 30 times more victim profiles of Israelis than Palestinians. They found the BBC interviewed more than twice as many Israelis as Palestinians. The BBC asked 38 of its guests to condemn Hamas and it asked no one to condemn Israel's mass killing of civilians or its attacks on hospitals and schools. Only 0.5% of BBC articles mentioned Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, and they found the BBC described Israeli captives as hostages, or Palestinian detainees, including children held without charge, were called prisoners.

Remember the whole Glastonbury controversy over Bob Villain's set, where he chanted death to the IDF? The BBC produced 56 online articles about this. and only one on an Israeli airstrike that killed 20 Palestinians that same week. Of course, there are accusations of bias that go the other way, accusing the BBC of favouring Gaza over Israel in its coverage. Of course, there are. And these have been far more impactful. In fact, the most recent BBC scandal led to the resignations of two top dogs,

Director General Tim Davy and Head of News Deborah Turner. And this whole fiasco followed a complaint letter penned by a single man, an ex-BBC impartiality advisor called Michael Prescott, whose letter was leaked to none other than the Telegraph, where it was published as an exclusive front-page story. Prescott's letter accused the BBC of being biased on three counts, anti-Trump, pro-trans, as if trans was an ideology and not a category of humanity, and anti-Israel.

Oh yes, we talked about all of the above in our Newswatch at the time. on Gaza, the key behind-the-scenes context to take note of was the relationship between Prescott, who wrote the complaint letter and Robbie Gibb on the BBC board. Yes, and Robbie Gibb is actually also mentioned in Owen Jones's original article. He's one of five people who oversee the BBC's commitment to impartiality. And while in this role, he declared himself to be the 100% owner of the newspaper The Jewish Chronicle. You may remember that this paper found itself at the centre of a... scandal for publishing fabricated Israeli intelligence. So just to reiterate, this paper's recent

owner is one of the chief overseers of impartiality at the BBC. And he was also key in appointing Prescott, the man behind that telegraph complaint story, after he himself was appointed by Boris Johnson. Before being appointed by Boris Johnson, Gibb was communications director for Theresa May. So in other words, he was an active, conservative spin doctor. Former BBC editor John Sopal points this out arguing that Gibb politicised the BBC board. He says Gibb exclusively investigated

claims of left-wing bias, not right-wing bias, of anti-Israel bias, not anti-Gaza bias. So look, BBC impartiality is deeply political and that listeners is what you need to know. But while the BBC

overturns its senior structures at one man's accusation of pro-Palestine bias. We have never seen any reckoning for the far more detailed, widely staff-backed accusations of pro-Israel bias at the BBC. Any time that staff or groups like the Centre for Media Monitoring report evidence-based complaints, BBC execs write a politely dismissive email, perhaps they promise some sort of review, but they never follow through. Of course, a week before the Telegraph story, over 100 BBC staff members signed a letter to the effect of Owen Jones's report, and nothing happened. The BBC is right to point out that it attracts criticisms from both sides of this debate.

But why does it only capitulate to one? We'll end this segment with a quick caveat. We are firm believers in the BBC and in the need for a public broadcaster. We want it to survive these attacks. But if it cannot report on humanitarian crises without having a blind spot for geopolitical allies, then it is not the outlet we need it to be. Thank you for listening. Next week we're doing a deep dive on the global debt crisis and how wealthy countries hold the rest of the world hostage.

If you want to support Media Storm, you can do so on Patreon for less than a cup of coffee a month. The link is in the show notes and a special shout out to everyone in our Patreon community already. We appreciate you so much. And if you enjoyed this episode, please send it to someone. Word of mouth is still the best way to grow a podcast, so please do tell your friends. And obviously, leave us a five-star rating and a review. You can follow us on MediaStorm at Matilda Mal at Helena Wadier

and follow the show via at MediaStorm Pod. MediaStorm is an award-winning podcast produced by Helena Wadia and Matilda Mallinson. The music is by Samfire. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything. Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember. 988, Canada's suicide crisis helpline.

It's good to know, just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988, suicide crisis helpline is funded by the government in Canada.