The BBC has found itself under scrutiny after its broadcast of punk duo Bob Vylan's Glastonbury Festival performance in June 2025 was judged to have breached the corporation's editorial standards regarding harm and offence. The controversy erupted when the band’s frontman led the crowd in chants of “death, death to the IDF” – referring to the Israel Defence Forces – during a set livestreamed from Worthy Farm in Somerset. The Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), the BBC’s internal watchdog, received four formal complaints in the aftermath, each raising concerns about incitement to violence, terrorism or ethnic cleansing, hate speech, and antisemitism.
According to the BBC, the ECU’s ruling, published Thursday, September 25, 2025, was largely based on the highly charged slogans chanted from the stage. Alongside the call concerning the IDF, Bob Vylan’s frontman also recited “From the river to the sea” and “Free, free Palestine” – phrases that have long been flashpoints in the ongoing debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The performance, broadcast live to a national audience, quickly drew criticism and sparked debate about the boundaries of artistic expression and the responsibilities of public broadcasters.
But what, exactly, did the ECU find? The complaints unit concluded that the BBC’s broadcast of the set did indeed breach the corporation’s guidelines on harm and offence. The ruling highlighted that the group’s frontman went beyond political slogans by describing a record company boss “in the most abusive terms” and referring to “f****** Zionists.” The ECU characterized these remarks as antisemitic, noting, “Although Bob Vylan referred to ‘Zionists’ rather than ‘Jews’, that appeared to the ECU to be a distinction with very little difference in this instance. The ECU therefore shares the view that the content of this act, taken in the round, can fairly be characterised as antisemitic.” (BBC)
The unit’s assessment did not, however, find the BBC in breach of its guidelines on material likely to encourage or incite crime. In its published statement, the ECU explained: “In the context of a performance at a music festival, the chanting of slogans can be regarded as primarily an invitation to endorse a particular attitude. References to ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘From the river to the sea’, while viewed by some as implying the disappearance of the state of Israel, can also be regarded as no more than expressions of support for aspirations to a Palestinian state and do not of themselves threaten violent action. ‘Death, death to the IDF’ is clearly more problematic, but it is directed at an institution rather than individuals, and one which is not defined by ethnic or religious composition.” (BBC)
So, while the language was found to be deeply offensive and, in the case of the record company boss, antisemitic, the ECU stopped short of declaring that the BBC had aired material likely to incite actual violence or crime. The distinction is a fine one, but it’s a crucial part of how the broadcaster’s editorial standards are interpreted and enforced.
The ruling also addressed the issue of impartiality, a cornerstone of the BBC’s reputation. Here, the ECU cleared the broadcaster, stating that coverage of music festivals is not governed by the same standards as news and current affairs programming. The unit noted, “While there may be festivals the BBC would not cover on account of their polemical character, a wide tolerance for expressions of opinion by performers or audiences would be in keeping with audience expectations for events it does cover. While recognising there is widespread disagreement with the political views expressed by Bob Vylan on this occasion, the ECU did not consider they represented a breach of the BBC’s standards of impartiality in this context.” (BBC)
Following the performance and the subsequent complaints, the BBC issued an apology to viewers, with a particular emphasis on the Jewish community. The broadcaster promised to “ensure proper accountability” and stated its commitment to take action in response to the incident. As reported by the Press Association, the BBC’s apology signaled an awareness of the gravity of the situation and a recognition of the hurt caused by the broadcast.
The debate surrounding Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set and its broadcast by the BBC has exposed the tensions that can arise when artistic expression collides with public standards and sensitivities. For some, the performance was seen as a legitimate—if provocative—expression of political opinion and solidarity with the Palestinian cause. For others, the language crossed a line into hate speech and antisemitism, with the potential to cause real harm.
It’s worth noting that the slogans “From the river to the sea” and “Free, free Palestine” have been the subject of heated debate for years. While supporters argue that these are calls for Palestinian liberation and self-determination, critics contend that they imply the erasure of the state of Israel and, by extension, are threatening to Jewish communities worldwide. The ECU’s nuanced ruling attempted to thread this needle, acknowledging the offensive nature of the chants while ultimately judging them as political slogans rather than outright calls for violence.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines are designed to balance freedom of expression with the need to avoid causing undue harm or offence. In this case, the ECU found that balance had not been struck, at least as far as harm and offence were concerned. However, the ruling also emphasized the unique context of live music festival coverage, where a wider range of opinions and expressions are typically tolerated by audiences.
This incident has reignited broader questions about the role of the BBC as a public broadcaster. Should the corporation exercise stricter oversight of live performances, especially when they touch on highly sensitive political issues? Or does such oversight risk stifling artistic freedom and open debate? The ECU’s decision, while clear in its findings, leaves these questions open for further discussion.
Meanwhile, Bob Vylan’s performance and the BBC’s response have become a touchstone in the ongoing debate over the boundaries of protest, art, and public accountability. With passions running high on all sides, the incident serves as a reminder of the complex challenges faced by broadcasters in an era where every word and gesture can be instantly amplified—and scrutinized—by a global audience.
As the dust settles, the BBC’s commitment to “proper accountability” will be closely watched, both by those who felt harmed by the broadcast and by advocates for free expression. The story, it seems, is far from over.
