Furious Jewish staff say BBC’s handling of antisemitism echoes the Huw Edwards scandal

Jewish staff and former staff – including producers Leo Pearlman and David Herman, former ITV head of entertainment Claudia Rosencrantz, former BBC executives Danny Cohen and Gloria Abramoff and present employees – have been exchanging letters with BBC bosses for nearly two months on this subject.

The letters contained multiple allegions antisemitism both on and off screen.

But after BBC board Chair Samir Shah refused an investigation, whistleblowers have come forward to describe an atmosphere of silence and “groupthink” within the broadcaster – akin, they claim, to the way worries about the behaviour of Huw Edwards and Strictly Come Dancing performers were ignored.

“If, two years ago, anyone in the newsroom had had the ‘audacity’ to call out Huw Edwards in a meeting they’d have been berated and ignored and possibly disciplined. Today, if a Jew in the newsroom questions a headline for its potential to offend or a story for its lack of journalistic rigour than the weight of the newsroom groupthink will come onto them without delay,” said one staffer speaking anonymously.

A second said: “There has been a growing feeling, especially since 7/10, that BBC management simply does not take our feedback seriously, it keeps getting batted away. Never before have Jewish staff been made to feel so marginalised. The BBC faces big questions over the Huw Edwards scandal, big questions over its handling of complaints about behaviour on Strictly and it should be facing big questions over its failure to properly address concerns repeatedly raised by Jewish staff.”

A third said: “I think Jews are treated differently to other groups. There is a feeling that Jews don’t count but there is a fear for everyone to speak up – it is endemic on all issues.”

A fourth said: “Every week it gets a little harder being a Jew at the BBC. Harder to sit in the office and listen to colleagues discussing their very personal views about the war in Gaza and attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. It is harder listening, watching and reading the loaded output about events in the Middle East and colleagues’ partial and often offensive social media posts and harder to go home at night and speak to friends and family who hold me responsible for the BBC contributing to the rise in antisemitism in the UK.”

And a fifth said: “The hardest thing of all is seeing how BBC stories are adding to antisemitism – you can see it in the social media responses to our stories. And there is nothing we can do about it.”

The exchange of letters started on June 5 and focused on a “monumental double standard” in the application of guidelines after the BBC hired cricket commentator Qasim Sheikh despite a slew of X posts in which he appeared to say October 7 had been justified – something he later apologised for.

In contrast, they pointed out, the BBC dropped ex England cricket captain Michael Vaughan after he was accused of making racist comments – something he was later cleared of.

Unhappy with a response from the BBC head of television Charlotte Moore, a second letter was written to all the BBC board members detailing an extensive list of broadcasting mistakes on the Israel Gaza conflict as well as list of BBC contributors and staff using antisemitic tropes and appearing to celebrate October 7. It also contained 30 pages of anonymous testimony from BBC staff which detailed their experiences of working in a corporation where the "groupthink” is almost uniformly that Israel is in the wrong, whatever it does.

Last week’s response from Samir Shah was met with fury by the letter writers. His reply said that Jewish staff who were unhappy should use the corporation’s whistleblowing scheme and that while errors had been made, “I am satisfied that where we have made errors, the Executive have acted appropriately and handled matters in accordance to the guidelines as they apply to my colleagues.”

But a BBC staffer claimed this system not fit for purpose. “The problem with the whistleblowing process is often it becomes clear who is making the complaint and that can put your job at risk. There is also a process called a ‘grievance process’ but the problem with that is that it can make life very challenging for those involved – they can end up being more bullied and harassed – especially if they are complaining about someone more senior than them,” they said.

Leo Pearlman, whose company Fullwell 73 Ltd has made many television shows for the BBC, said: “In one dismissing letter, the new BBC chairman has managed to dash the hopes of British Jewry that after ten months of our national broadcaster amplifying hate speech against our community and failing to deal with their systemic antisemitism problem that someone would finally take our fears and complaints seriously.

“No other minority has been or ever will be treated with this level of disdain. Over 200 Jews from within the industry, many of whom work at the BBC, felt the ne need to add their names to a detailed letter, over 30 pages of grievances beyond refute. The response, nothing to see here, not even worthy of an investigation is gaslighting by every definition.”

Since the exchange of letters, the BBC has continued to come under pressure over its reporting, in particular over a claim this week that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was assassinated in Tehran, was a “moderate and pragmatic” man.

Bafta winning producer Neil Grant, another of the letter writers, said: “When we present compelling evidence of the BBC’s institutionalised antisemitism signed by over 200 colleagues we expect to be listened to and not gaslit, especially by the BBC Board who won’t even formally discuss our concerns.”

A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC chairman has responded to this letter directly.

“It is a great concern to us if anyone does not feel supported at work and we have well-established and robust processes in place to handle any concerns or complaints raised with us confidentially. We have highlighted these to the signatories of the letter. As an organisation, we stand united against any form of abuse, prejudice or intolerance.

“Editorially, we are committed to the highest standards of impartiality in our journalism and in a small number of cases where there have been mistakes we have acknowledged this. Where staff conduct has fallen below expectations, we have taken action.”