this week, the importance of language in reporting on the middle east. welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. coming up, should the bbc be describing hamas as a terrorist organisation or does calling those responsible for the attacks on israel militants help the bbc avoid a perception of bias? conflicts in the middle east tend to leave the media and the bbc in particular caught in the middle, subject to furious attacks of bias from both sides. this week's violence has been no exception, with particular focus on the use or non use of one particular word. the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has said his country is at war after the palestinian

militant group hamas launched an unprecedented attack on israel. no mention in that saturday lunchtime bulletin on bbc one of the term terrorist, just several references to hamas militants. but from that evening, after the use of militant in headlines, presenters started using this formulation in the introductions. hamas, designated as a terror organisation by many western governments, including the uk, claims to have taken more than 50 people. well, the bbc�*s approach was criticised by the prime minister and cabinet colleagues, including the defence secretary, grant shapps, who called it disgraceful. keir starmer said it was obvious that what we're witnessing is terrorism and four of the uk's most senior lawyers complained to the regulator ofcom, accusing the bbc of abandoning impartiality. a substantial majority of newswatch viewers agreed with them, including yvonne nazareth, who wrote...

abdul mohammed agreed... but chris from newcastle had a different view... it's not the first time the bbc has been involved in a row over the use of the t—word following the brighton bomb of 1984. the then prime minister, margaret thatcher, put

pressure on the bbc, which it resisted to refer to the ira as terrorists. but since then the corporation has used that term in describing the brighton bomber, patrick mcgee, and in relation to the bomb attacks in london in 2005 and manchester in 2017. so why not on this occasion? two people sent us videos asking that question. ramon, ferreira and first, wendy. according to the terrorism act, hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation. terminology matters. it colours how we think and respond. the term militant is inadequate. it's a euphemism. it avoids the responsibility of calling out terrorism for what it is. it sidesteps atrocity. so in using the term militant, the bbc is not being impartial. hamas's charter states that the aim

for the annihilation of the jewish people and to wipe israel off the map. the horrors of the past few days are not the actions of fighters or militants, but terrorists. terrorists who tried to maximize innocent civilian casualties. terrorists who've used rape as a weapon. terrorists who have kidnapped and massacred innocents. the response of the bbc is that you wish to remain impartial, have a calling someone by what they are is not taking side. it is merely the correct definition. asjournalists, you must understand the impact of your word choices. you should and must call hamas for what they really are — terrorists. following comments like those about its use of language, the bbc directed viewers to its editorial guidelines.

that wasn't the only language issue facing bbc news this week. some members of the audience detected a bias not against israel, but against palestinians, as evidenced by this tweet, which speaks of more than 500 people having died in gaza and more than 700 people having been killed in israel. jihan al—azzawi emailed... and safia hamad added...

so some strongly felt responses to the bbc�*s reporting this week from viewers. so let's get a response from richard burgess, who's the director of news content for bbc news. thank you for coming on newswatch. the t—word terrorism, the bbc has used the word in relation to seven seven attacks and the manchester bombings. so why not in this case? well, first of all, sameera, let me just say that i appreciate that a lot of the audience don't really understand our position and don't necessarily agree with it. i don't think anybody watching our coverage over the past few days of the hamas attacks could be in any doubt about the nature of those attacks. we've had reporters on the ground, we've had video, and we've described those events as murder, massacre atrocities. and you will have heard the term terrorists used a lot on the bbc by people obviously ascribing that word to them, describing them. plus, as you said in your intro, we've regularly been saying

that hamas is a proscribed terrorist group, a designated terrorist group by the uk government and a number of other western governments. but why we don't, the bbc doesn't call hamas terrorists. it goes back to our editorial guidelines. it's around impartiality. we think it's pretty fundamental because the word terrorist and terrorism is a loaded term, particularly in a highly politicized conflict like this one. and it can appear that you are taking one side or you are taking the other side. and it also leads to a situation where going forward, you're going to have to make a value judgment about every act of violence in every conflict in every country. and that isn't a position that we think the bbc can or should be in. but i honestly think the most important thing here is it should be the quality of our reporting, our people on the ground that are conveying the true nature

and frankly, the appalling nature of the hamas attacks in the past few weeks. some viewers might wonder if the merger of the world and the domestic news channel has made it more difficult for the bbc in navigating that line on how to describe hamas. i don't think so. but we're an independent international broadcaster. and so, of course, that's part of our consideration when we make these decisions. but as you showed before, this is actually a long standing policy. and throughout the years we think it has stood the test of time and served us well in maintaining what is absolutely fundamental to the bbc and that is impartial news broadcast a specific one a specific one viewers picked up on that bbc social media post talking about israelis being killed, but palestinians in gaza died. was that an error ofjudgment?

i don't think it was the greatest use of language. i think it actually goes to the point of how important language is in the coverage of this story. and it's and it's difficult and it's sensitive and it's an extremely emotional, multi—layered story. and when you juxtapose two things like that, i don't think it worked. and i think it was a mistake. those of us all to remember the 1980s and 90s will remember the pressure that the bbc came under from the government over whether they should call the ira terrorists or not. but given the level of criticism now about this language issue from the government, from the opposition, from senior lawyers, will the bbc reassess its guidelines on the word terrorist in relation to hamas? no. i mean, as i say to you, i think we think this is absolutely fundamental. it's one of our founding principles, if you like. and you've seen people likejohn simpson, our most experienced journalist, jeremy bowen this week come out and talk about it and talk about why it is so important to us. and we think it's critical as this conflict continues, as this war continues, that we're

able to maintain this neutral position, this position of impartiality. and we think that gives greater strength to our to our reporting. richard burgess, thank you. viewers of question time on bbc one are used to present her identifying members of the audience who are called on to speak by an item of clothing or a distinguishing feature. but during the recording of last week's programme, fiona bruce asked for the mic to be passed to the black guy in the middle. the remarks were broadcast on bbc one but were edited out when the show went on the iplayer. fiona bruce rang the audience member, roberta gokhan the following day to apologise, and the incident prompted some criticism on social media. here's gerry hicks. this is wrong on every level. fiona bruce only mentions colour of skin once. woman in colourful top. black guy. man in green shirt. but shropshire green man

defended the comments. the bbc issued a statement in response. that's all from us for now. thank you forjoining us. do you think about getting in touch and perhaps even coming on the program? we'll be back to hear more of your thoughts about how the bbc covers the news next week. goodbye. this is bbc news was that we will have the headlines for you at the top of the hour straight after this

program. over half of the uk's transport emissions come from cars, so to help reach climate targets, the government had banned the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 — although that has now been pushed back to 2035. even with a few extra years added, this is still a huge change for car owners and makers. some manufacturers embraced electric early but bentley was not one of them, so how are things going now at its hq?

luxury leather interiors and all the wooden dashboard and trim taken from the exact same tree to make sure it matches. it takes around 130 hours to craft one of these cars. although bentleys are generally bought for their owner to drive themselves around, for anyone who's got a chauffeur, this one also has screens in the back. when you think bentley, well, you are probably more likely to think about this kind of finery than you are where the nearest electric charger is — well, that and the price tag. bentleys start at 169,000 for the most basic. so, is it worth it? there's nothing that gives you 207 miles an hour and that kind of arrival presence. when you pull up in front of the best hotel, you get the best parking place. no posh hotel — i'm at the bentley factory to meet my tour guide for the day. hello!

lovely to meet you. on our right—hand side, you have got the suv line, so this consists of 44 process stations along the way. it's weird being underneath a car. i'm not a mechanic, i'm not used to seeing it like this. it's only 2.5 tons. this production alone produces 114 cars a week after each vehicle spends 13 minutes in each bay undergoing 70 different production processes. there are 64 basic colours to choose from, and if any reason you don't like any of them, well, you can have one custom—made — and rumour has it a lady once came in asking for her car to be made the same colour as her nail varnish. and now for the whole section dedicated to the leather interior. all the colours, but also the smell, it really smells of leather in here. it's beautiful, isn't it? is there some sort of sustainable element here? all of the hides are byproducts

of the meat industry. this is where we bring the hide in over here. we lay it down on this bed. we have got a camera system that scans it. we then automatically map out the most effective way for the panels to cut them all out perfectly. and there's the sewing room — rows of giant sewing machines creating more options than most of us could probably even think up. mesmerising to watch. you can even have your name embroidered on the seat if you want to. we talk so much on this programme about automation, but what has really struck me here today is how many of the processes are still handcrafted. except there's one key part of the car that is about to leap into the 21st century. bentley is planning to replace its famed 12—cylinder engine with an electric motor across its range by 2030.