@ml writing like this can happen naturally and non-maliciously in a way similar to fact-generation by Wikipedia: the BBC has Israeli embeds to whom thinking and journalism can be deferred. For any story about something bad happening to Israel, the embed pops up with evidence and a persuasive story and a prepackaged narrative and the BBC doesn't have to do anything.

But for any story about something bad happening to Iran, there's no such handy way to defer thinking and avoid journalism, and instead journalists have to actually dig into, and journalists suck at this and are not really sure of the truth of anything that's pulled up. What's more, since this requires thinking, it comes with the basic conditions of thinking - like, doubt. Maybe Israel bombed the school, maybe Iran bombed it to unify the regime, maybe AD fell on it, maybe Israel bombed it but for some tragic and defensible mistake that shouldn't be reduced to "Israel deliberately murders a bunch of children". Neurons are activated by having to think, and neurons once activated are influenced by these easily-considered theories that the journalist himself does not have any clean way to discriminate between.

In short, Israeli availability and journalist laziness gets you the same result as deliberately extremely biased reporting.