The BBC has come under increased criticism for refusing to call Hamas a terrorist group in its reporting of the conflict. The BBC has said it will not use the term unless it is attributed to someone else.
In an open letter to the Office of Communications on Wednesday evening, the four silks said that the "BBC has fallen well below the standards expressed in its editorial values in its reporting of that invasion and the consequences therefrom."
The letter was written by Jeremy Brier KC of Essex Court Chambers, former justice minister and One Essex Court tenant David Wolfson KC, David Pannick KC of Blackstone Chambers and Anthony Grabiner KC of One Essex Court. Stuart Polak, honorary president of the Conservative Friends of Israel and a member of the House of Lords, also signed the letter.
They said that much as it is "a fact" that Hamas had launched a large invasion of Israel on Saturday, it was also "a matter of legal fact" to refer to Hamas as a "proscribed terrorist organization."
"That is not a matter of debate or discussion," they said, just in the same way as calling someone convicted by a court of a murder a murderer is "entirely impartial and obviously right." The BBC is thus obliged to use the government's language, they argued.
The letter further noted that the government has listed Hamas as a terrorist group since 2021. Thus, describing Hamas in other terms was "departing from its established legal meaning," the lawyers argued.
The BBC, they said, was using "a significantly 'watered-down' descriptor which is less legally precise."
"Put another [way]: In trying to be impartial, the BBC has become partial," they said.
The four silks argued that the corporation had previously used the words "terror" and "terrorism" in other contexts such as its coverage of the Manchester bombings, and referred to Al Qaeda and the Irish Republican Army as terrorist groups in its "Bitesize" guide for GCSE students.
"If the BBC is only declining to use the word 'terrorist' in the context of Israel then it is further evidence of partiality (by specifically discriminating in this case only)," the lawyers said.
The silks claimed that the leaders of every major political party agreed with their analysis. They also cited a tweet by BBC correspondent Jon Sopel that said the BBC guidelines are "no longer fit for purpose, and sadly have the effect of sanitizing."
An Ofcom spokesperson told Law360 that there is a clear process in place for complaints about the BBC set out in the BBC Charter and Agreement approved by Parliament.
"Complaints are routed through the 'BBC First' framework, the BBC's internal process. If complainants are not satisfied with the BBC's final response then they can refer the complaint to Ofcom for assessment," the spokesperson said.
A BBC spokesperson emphasized that the public service broadcaster, which is publicly funded, always takes "our use of language very seriously."
"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 U.K. government," the spokesperson said. "This is an approach that has been used for decades, and is in line with that of other broadcasters."
The broadcaster is "editorially independent" and its "job is to explain precisely what is happening 'on the ground' so our audiences can make their own judgment," the spokesperson added.
--Editing by Brian Baresch.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
