Selective Scepticism: How Attribution Shapes War Reporting

Screen grab from the BBC website. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4qp17e1lqo

I read a lot of news articles. Probably more than is healthy.

And lately, I keep tripping over the same problem. 

Not errors or misinformation, or fake news. But something more subtle, and in some ways more troubling: uneven precision.

Let me explain. Here’s a short example from a BBC article reflecting on global conflicts in 2025:

“There is Ukraine of course, where the UN says 14,000 civilians have died. In Gaza, where Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu promised ‘mighty vengeance’ after about 1,200 people were killed when Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023…”

A few sentences later:

“Since then, more than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military action, including more than 30,000 women and children according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry – figures the UN considers reliable.”

Nothing here is false. 

But the way it’s written does a lot of quiet work.

Let’s start with attribution

In Ukraine, we’re told: “the UN says 14,000 civilians have died.”

That number is presented as stable, authoritative, and uncontested.

In Gaza, the number is framed very differently:

• It’s attributed to a “Hamas-run health ministry”

• The governance of Hamas is explicitly named

• Only then are we told the UN considers the figures reliable

Technically, an editor might argue this is accurate: the UN generates its own data in Ukraine, but verifies Ministry data in Gaza. But look at the structural result.

In Ukraine, the UN is the gold standard. In Gaza, the UN is reduced to a character witness for a "suspect" source. This creates a hierarchy of trust. It introduces doubt even while claiming reassurance.

Then there is the grammar of agency

Look closely at the verbs.

In the Gaza and Israel sentences, the agents of the deaths are explicit: People “were killed when Hamas attacked” and Palestinians “have been killed by Israeli military action.” The violence is active. The perpetrators are named and are visualized.

But in the Ukraine sentence? “...14,000 civilians have died.”

The people simply died. Intransitive. No one killed them. The agent of the deaths (Russia) has vanished from the sentence entirely.

By stripping the agent from the Ukraine sentence, the war is treated like a natural disaster or ambient background noise. The other conflicts are treated as a crime scene.

Finally, the flashback problem

Notice the context we’re given.

For Gaza, the article pauses to remind us of the cause: Hamas attacked, people were killed, hostages were taken.

For Ukraine, we get: “Ukraine of course…”

No mention of Russia’s invasion. No mention of how or when the war began. One conflict is given a clear origin story; the other is assumed to be "settled history."

Why this shapes how we read the news

When coverage consistently:

• Explains why one war began, but assumes the other is understood;

• Names the killer in one sentence, but uses the passive voice for another;

• Treats one source as a fact and another as a claim...

...it subtly assigns legitimacy and responsibility differently.

I don't think the BBC is telling the readers what to think about the conflicts here. But they are front loading some information and backgrounding some and in subtle way creating a bias.

Bias doesn’t always shout. Often, it just whispers.

Is this intentional?

Probably not. More likely, it’s a newsroom habit that grows on the reporters, however senior.

Editors and journalists know their coverage of Gaza will be heavily scrutinised, so they over-attribute. The Ukraine conflict feels settled in the public mind, so context for it gets trimmed. Journalists are fully aware of this. No one wants to explain their choice of words. Risk management replaces consistency. But good journalism should not only be about managing risk. It’s should be about frontloading clarity.

What better looks like

This isn’t a call to drop attribution or context. It’s a request to apply them evenly, especially for digital outlets like the BBC.

In print, I understand when background gets trimmed to fit column inches. But on the web, there is no paper shortage. Space is not constrained.

• If casualty figures need caveats, give them everywhere.

• If a conflict needs a flashback, give it consistently.

• If you name the killer in one war, name them in the other.

This is not pedantry. It’s fairness.

Why I’m writing this

I’m a technical writer by trade. My job is to notice when language does more than it says it’s doing.

I’m convinced I’m not the only reader who feels uneasy when stories technically say the right thing, but structurally lean one way or another.

That’s what Write Right is about. Not gotchas. Not outrage. Just slowing down and asking: does this say what it means to say? If it doesn’t, we can do better.