In today’s world, news isn’t what it used to be. Once, most media outlets—on television and in newspapers—were considered trustworthy. If something appeared in a paper, you could be almost certain it was true. Not anymore. Fake news has become a global phenomenon, more widespread than ever. It can take the form of outright lies presented as fact or, more subtly, a distortion of reality favoring one side in a conflict, portraying it as entirely just and right.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon now affects nearly every media outlet, even prominent and respected ones like the BBC. The BBC, for example, appears to lean noticeably in favor of Armenia over Azerbaijan, despite the long-standing territorial dispute between the two nations. Just how long? Since 1991, when Armenia laid claim to additional territory following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What does it mean for the BBC to be “too supportive” of Armenia over Azerbaijan? You’d be surprised.
A recently published article by the BBC says it all. The headline read: “How Armenia is trying to build a Silicon Valley in the Caucasus.” One might expect the article to focus on Armenia’s efforts to attract tech startups, government investments in its tech sector, or perhaps educational reforms in robotics and computer science designed to prepare the next generation for a technological future.
But no. The article centered on a 9-year-old Armenian boy who had created a box connected to three LED lights.
Why choose a headline like that—one that completely misrepresents the article’s actual content? Is it an attempt to glorify Armenia for no discernible reason?
Beyond this curious editorial choice, the article contains statements that have sparked outrage among Azerbaijan’s supporters both in the Caucasus and abroad. Consider this line: “Armenia is a landlocked country of 2.7 million people, the smallest in the South Caucasus region, and its borders with neighbouring Azerbaijan and Turkey have been shut for decades due to unresolved territorial disputes.”
It’s hard to take such a sentence seriously, especially coming not from an Armenian propaganda outlet but from a respected British broadcaster expected to be neutral.
First of all, what does Armenia’s landlocked geography have to do with Azerbaijan or Turkey? Is the author implying that Azerbaijan and Turkey are somehow responsible for Armenia’s geographic position? Should these countries be held accountable for every nation that happens to lack access to the sea? Should Armenia be relocated to a coastline? Or perhaps its borders should be expanded toward the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, or even the Mediterranean? Maybe the BBC would prefer if Armenia reached all three.
Secondly, why did the article mention Armenia’s population? That figure has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Yes, it’s true that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia’s population has declined while Azerbaijan’s has grown (in 1991, Armenia had 3.5 million people compared to today’s 2.7 million; Azerbaijan had 7.2 million and now has over 10 million). But that has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. Perhaps the BBC should do more in-depth research to understand the reasons behind this demographic shift.
Third, the article’s reference to closed borders between Armenia and its neighbors, accompanied by the subtle implication that Azerbaijan and Turkey are to blame, is both misleading and malicious. While it is true that Armenia’s borders with these two countries are closed, the blame for this situation does not lie with Azerbaijan or Turkey.
As mentioned earlier, even before the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia laid claim to territories under Azerbaijani control. This sparked a chain of events that led to the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, during which Armenia occupied 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory. In response to the occupation of the Kalbajar region, Turkey closed its border with Armenia in protest. Over the years, Azerbaijan has pursued diplomatic and legal efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully, hoping to avoid further bloodshed. Yet, despite this, Armenian officials have continued to inflame tensions, including the provocative statement by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who once shouted: “Karabakh is Armenia, period!”
Still think Armenia is the innocent victim in this story?
The troubling aspect of the BBC’s bias is that it doesn’t end with Azerbaijan—it extends to other nations that don’t align with the worldview of the channel’s editors. Take the State of Israel, for example.
On October 7, Israel suffered one of the deadliest massacres in its history: 1,400 people were murdered and more than 200 kidnapped in a single day by 5,000 Hamas terrorists who broke through the border fence without any provocation. The attack specifically targeted civilians—something Israel never does in return. Even when targeting senior terrorists hiding among civilians in Gaza, Israel issues warnings to evacuate the area in an effort to avoid unnecessary casualties.
But the BBC doesn’t see it that way. From their perspective, Israel is acting out of religious hatred and cruelty toward Palestinians. Do they have concrete evidence beyond quoting a few Israeli celebrities and musicians, private citizens who are free to express themselves, especially after experiencing such a traumatic event? No. But that hasn’t stopped them from vilifying Israel.
To conclude, I’ll borrow the words of Hikmet Hajiyev, who criticized the BBC’s misleading coverage:
“It is troubling that the BBC states in its charter that it ‘is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences,’ while engaging in one-sided and biased aggressive manipulation and promotion of lies, including on its ‘Context’ program. The BBC should serve as a platform for all voices, particularly on sensitive topics.”