BBC File photo: VCG

The BBC has again come under scrutiny after it was revealed that staff were instructed avoid using the word "kidnapped" when reporting on the US forcibly seizing Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro, according to media reports. The reported move has triggered widespread outrage online over the BBC's double standards, with some netizens accusing the outlet of "sanitizing" the US' action. 

The BBC instruction was disclosed by Owen Jones, a columnist for the Guardian and the National, a Scottish newspaper, who said he learned of it from a BBC employee. Jones published the information on his X account on Monday local time, writing: "BBC journalists have been banned from describing the kidnapped Venezuelan leader as having been kidnapped."

A screenshot of the alleged internal guidance shows the BBC telling reporters: "To ensure 'clarity' and 'consistency' in our reporting, please follow these guidelines when describing the recent events in Venezuela." Under the guidance, "captured" is to be attributed to the US description of the operation, as in: "The US said Maduro was captured during the operation." The word "seized" is described as "acceptable for use in our own reporting where appropriate," while journalists are told to "avoid using 'kidnapped.'"

While the authenticity of the reported internal guidance remains uncertain, and BBC hasn't given any response as of press time, several media outlets, including Sputnik India, Vox News Albania of US, and the South China Morning Post, have reported on the news.  "The decision has raised concerns about media independence and journalistic ethics, calling into question the lines of reporting on military operations and actions outside international law," The report from Vox News Albania wrote.

Meanwhile, Jones' post also sparked widespread discussion online among netizens about whether the BBC's guidance was simply about careful word choice or reflected double standards. 

One post on the X platform pointed out that the BBC swaps "kidnapped" for "captured" to sanitize a US rendition, adding that it was "proof" once again that state media will always polish imperialism's boots."

A TRT World executive producer weighed in on X by distinguishing between the terms, writing that "captured" implies legality, "seized" implies authority, while "kidnapped" "tells the truth, making it "off-limits."

A user identified as a former BBC employee also commented X: "Words indeed have meaning. This is very shameful."

Others pointed to the double standards in the guidelines. Responding to criticism from an X user that "Jones did not have a problem with BBC calling Hamas a terrorist organization," Jones replied: if the BBC applied its rules consistently and correctly, and labelled Israel's state terrorism, he would have no problem with it.

A search online of recent BBC coverage on Maduro shows that most headlines use "capture" rather than "kidnap."

Some commentators suggested that the BBC's apparent caution in reporting on Trump may stem from its recent legal troubles. In December last year, Trump filed a lawsuit against the BBC seeking $10 billion in damages, accusing the broadcaster of malicious editing. Trump alleged that a documentary aired one week before the 2024 US presidential election had deceptively spliced together two parts of his January 6, 2021 speech, "producing a false and deceptive depiction of Trump," according to CNBC. 

Following the controversy, BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized for an "error of judgment" over the edit, and BBC Director-General Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness resigned last year, media reports said.

Some netizens also pointed out that the BBC's stance appears consistent with the public position of the UK government. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously sought to distance the UK from the US operation, stating that the UK "was not involved in the US operation in Venezuela," according to the Guardian.

When asked whether the UK would condemn the operation, Starmer said the priority was to "establish all the facts." "I've been a lifelong advocate of international law and the importance of compliance with international law," he said. "But I want to ensure that I've got all the facts at my disposal, and we haven't got that at the moment. And we need to get that before we come to a decision about the consequences in relation to the actions that have been taken," the BBC reported. 

As the BBC itself reported, Starmer has refused to be drawn on whether the US' military action against Venezuela may have broken international law.

Global Times