Owen Jones article alleging bias by BBC editor was ‘defamatory’ but stated ‘opinion’, judge rules

Jones is defending the claim and has previously said he will "vigorously" defend his reporting.

At a hearing earlier this month, barristers asked a judge to rule on several preliminary issues in the case, including whether the article was a statement of fact or an expression of opinion.

In the early-stage decision on Thursday, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled the "central allegation" that Berg's work on the Israel-Palestine conflict is biased and does not meet editorial standards "would strike the reasonable reader as a statement of opinion".

In the written ruling, the judge said parts of the article "convey the general impression to the reader that the claimant's alleged lack of objectivity may be subconscious".

She added: "While the reasonable reader would understand that the claimant is accused of taking a central, active role in editing the BBC's output regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict in a way that is biased and imbalanced, the overall impression would not be that he is accused of distorting the coverage in a way that he knows is biased, imbalanced and in breach of the BBC's editorial standards."

Mrs Justice Steyn said, as well as a general allegation of bias, there were "prominent" examples in the article.

The judge continued: "In particular, the allegations of promoting Israeli narratives and of failing to humanise Palestinian victims.

"However, these too would strike the reasonable reader as subjective assessments of the prominence and emphasis given to Israeli responses to news stories and of the way in which such stories are framed, reflecting the defendant's opinion."

Mrs Justice Steyn later said the ordinary reader would understand the relevant parts of the article as an opinion that Mr Berg had "consistently failed to meet the BBC's editorial standards of impartiality and fairness by shaping coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict so as to favour Israel".

She also found this was "clearly" able to be defamatory, which was not disputed.

John Stables, for Berg, had told the court the article made "statements of fact", including alleging Mr Berg "carries out his job deliberately to produce biased 'propaganda' that favours Israel, editing and writing news reports that promote Israel's interests knowingly falsely".

The article, published on the Drop Site News website, said the corporation was facing an "internal revolt over its reporting" of the conflict.

It continued that journalists had claimed Berg "sets the tone for the BBC's digital output on Israel and Palestine", and complaints from staff about the corporation's coverage had been "repeatedly brushed aside".

In court documents in support of Berg's claim, Stables previously said the allegations in the article had caused the journalist to suffer "an onslaught of hatred, intimidation and threats", including death threats.

Aidan Eardley KC, for Jones, said in written submissions to the hearing that the article was "firmly focused on the BBC's Gaza coverage for which Berg is responsible", and there was "no wider attack on his adherence to journalistic standards generally".

In a statement on X after the ruling, Jones said he was "delighted that the High Court has ruled in my favour", adding: "I stand by my journalism and, if Mr Berg decides to continue the libel claim, I look forward to defending my article in court."

Mark Lewis, representing Berg, said after the decision: "The judgment is an interim finding rather than a final determination.

"Instead of posting on social media, we will continue to proceed through the courts."