The BBC has rejected criticism over its decision not to call Hamas militants “terrorists”, after it was labelled “disgraceful” by the Defence Secretary.
It is a long-standing editorial position of the broadcaster to use the word “terrorist” carefully, with its editorial guidelines describing such language as potentially a “barrier rather than an aid to understanding”.
The comments by Grant Shapps come after several Conservative ministers hit out at the BBC over its editorial position.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has also joined calls for the BBC to explain its position.
The BBC’s broadcast channels and online site have been dominated by the conflict in Israel and Gaza since the attack by Hamas over the weekend.
The militant group is a proscribed organisation in the UK, meaning the Government sees it as a terrorist organisation.
Mr Shapps suggested that the BBC needed to fix its “moral compass”, as he urged it to revise its long-standing editorial position.
He told LBC: “I actually think it is verging on disgraceful, this idea that there is some sort of equivalence, and they’ll always say well there’s two sides… what Hamas have done, as a proscribed terrorist organisation, meaning that they are illegal in Britain, it’s illegal to support them, is to have gone out and slaughtered innocent people, babies, festival-goers, pensioners.
“They are not freedom fighters, they are not militants, they are pure and simple terrorists and it’s remarkable to go to the BBC website and still see them talking about gunmen and militants and not calling them terrorists.
“I don’t know what’s going on there, but I think that it’s time to get the moral compass out at the BBC.”
Sir Keir told the same station on Wednesday: “I think the BBC needs to explain why it isn’t.
“I said ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’, and to me that’s obviously what we are witnessing.
“I think other channels may not be either, but I’m not across all the detail of that.”
A BBC spokesperson said: “We always take 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 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 judgment.”
Other senior ministers, including Foreign Secretary James Cleverly and Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, have been among those expressing concern about the BBC’s position.
Similar criticism does not appear to have been targeted at other broadcasters or news organisations.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines on terrorism tell reporters and editors: “The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding.
“We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.
“We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.
“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”
Senior BBC foreign and world affairs correspondent John Simpson hit out at politicians urging the broadcaster to reform its language.
In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it. Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.”
