to say the BBC might be imperfect but

I think if people can’t see how Left the BBC are they just haven’t got a grip on reality and are so embedded with the leftist agenda they are mistakenly thinking they’re centre, because that’s all they’re surrounded by. it’s biased support of Gaza, it’s Stonewall advocacy..it’s diversity over reality programming it’s anti Trump rhetoric.

As long as the BBC dont pass on the costs to the TV license payers which i doubt they'll get away with. They are making errors of judgement continuously. Maybe when their stars are having to have salary reductions as a result of paying out a few million pounds in lawsuits, they night start to tone down their arrogance. So you dont think they should face the consequences of what theyve done? It's fraud...

Where does it land? On the right?

Reform right.
I am probably centre left and it's quite a bit to the right of me.

Can you say more about this ‘An hour with Google yesterday showed me that the report that's bringing down the BBC was written by someone who is not as squeaky clean as is being presented either’ for those of us too lazy I mean busy to do the same?

This.

It's turned into clickbait.

I don't think they meant to, but having stipulations from government about how many people and which people they have to appeal to has caused more bias than anyone working there has.

An hour with Google yesterday showed me that the report that's bringing down the BBC was written by someone who is not as squeaky clean as is being presented either.

I'm wondering, as pp have said, if it's just a bit bloated? Perhaps broken down and more effectively scrutinised?

A bit of a low bar for the BBC really, if we can't trust the veracity of the reporting....

I certainly hope they were! Bloody hell!!

Pretty sure that they’ve been right about many more stories.

I can't believe that documentary about Gaza, why would they erode confidence in impartiality like that?
Also, I'm angry about the Trump speech because I'm certain that it's possible to be clear about that man without falsifying speeches.

Well it turns out they weren't "right" about Gaza, or that Trump speech.

I tend to look a a much wider range of new sites than in past but reuters would be one of first ports of call.

I quite like https://tldrnews.co.uk/ on you tube (as well as more tradional sites luke The Times radio) though they and many others were advertising for a while https://ground.news/ - which is suppose to help with media bias from left and right stories.

NHK World are an underrated and overlooked news service too.

This is how they get to the low hanging fruit. By being threatening and making you think they know more than they do, without ever having to prove it, they can just say that shit.

Meanwhile millions of sketchy, transient people never have a licence at all but don't get chased because it's too expensive to do so. When your whole business model relies on threatening and hounding the same relatively small cohort of people, you know you've lost the bigger battle.

Actually, it's not dissimilar with car insurance.

The quality of the children’s output eg cbeebies and cbbc are vastly superior to what else is on offer in my view and no advertising of tat.

long live the beeb

Reuters is about £1 a week in the UK, they are not immune from accusations of bias over their coverage of the Middle East especially but they are my first port of call.

I think left and right lables increasingly miss the mark in poltics let alone here.

The BBC is very upper middle class London centric/metropolitan elite world view that often seems to think it's the only right one and everyone else needs to be educated into the right world view.

If your employing people from a very limited social economic class with a narrow world view that then becomes inistutional policy stifling few with other views it does have an impact on out put and how the more diverse audince starts to view it.

The upshot here is that across several issues they've misrepresented information and outright lied in their news coverage - that's been independly pointed out to them and they've so far pretty much failed to take it onboard.

If the BBC still stood for what it was supposed to, and what it used to, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But it doesn't, so it's no longer a huge loss. It has a choice. It either shapes up or ships out.

People are tired of blindly, slavishly following the rules, trusting in the process, doing as we are told, only to be taken for granted and treated with contempt and disrespect. That applies across many areas of public service that we pay for at the moment, the BBC being just one of them.

Just focusing on news content, what are the real alternatives now?

Social media is getting worse and worse, amplifying extreme voices and misinformation and is being deliberately manipulated by malign actors.

Many traditional MSM news providers are on life-support with clear deterioration in quantity and quality of content if they are hanging on at all.

Quality local news is practically non-existent.

News content is getting increasingly polarised and riddled with misinformation.

The need for a public service news broadcaster held to the highest standards has never been greater.

Is it difficult to create quality, impartial, balanced news content? Undoubtedly extremely difficult. Does the BBC always get it right? Clearly not. But we should protect and strengthen what we have because in a few short years quality news and information provision has been half destroyed and in a few short years more we could lose much of what we have left.

Fair question and absent published numbers, it is based on some assumptions.

BBC Arabic operates a 24-hour service and web archives show c.40–60 posted items from them a day.

So I have assumed 40 items x 365 days = 14600 items a year as the basis for my maths.

200 corrections over 2 years gives you 100 corrections a year.

That gets me a % of 0.7% which I rounded up to 1.

It's a bit back of a fag packet tbf, but it's the best I could be bothered to do. I would be delighted to see better figures based on more concrete numbers rather than my assumptions if you come across any.

I hope Trump's threatened lawsuit is successful?

Why? Are you happy for British taxpayer's money to be handed over to Trump? I'm not.

I’d like it to survive this too, but with higher editorial standards and real accountability. No more marking their own homework. I’ve been trying to think of how complaints could be independently adjudicated on and by whom but so far only have some pretty implausible ideas such as citizen juries to decide upon the facts.

I’ve had ALL those letters, I’ve never done the form to say whether or not I watch tv. And they’ve never once came to my home (unless they did when I wasn’t in) I’m 25 now and have had my own place since 18 so that’s 7 years.
They can’t enter your property without a warrant, they are engaging in the blackmail of older/vulnerable people who don’t know that

The BBC consistently comes out on top as the most trusted news brand in the world - it holds that position in the UK, and it holds that position in the US as well. This is in a world where media, and news is increasingly polarised.

We can go to any number of news services that unapologetically come from a particular political bias - Fox News, Breitbart, GB News - there is no pretence that these are coming from anything other than a slanted angle. The same applies if I wanted to get my news from the Daily Mail, or the Telegraph.

In the US, news is so polarised that most of the population will only ever consume the sources that represent their own political views. This helps create bubbles who no longer have any shared reality or understanding of one another, they can each be fed completely contradictory world views and be convinced that their opposition isn’t just wrong, but morally repugnant.

This is a disaster for democracy and for the proper running of a country where everyone should feel represented, and where the ability to forge consensus across the political spectrum ought to be a given.

Fortunately we’re not quite there yet in the UK. People from all political persuasions still use the BBC, a fact which is pretty remarkable given the febrile times we are living in.

The standard the BBC is held to though is incredibly high - far higher than it is for the majority of its peers. The fact that it still manages to hit that standard as often as it does is something to be proud of in the UK. But as this situation shows, the BBC is surrounded by people who are constantly on the lookout for a reason, any reason, to attack it.

In this case the focus was on a 12 second excerpt from an hour long documentary produced for the BBC by an independent production company. No one seems to have suggested that the documentary was anything other than fair and balanced (as long as you watched the whole thing, and not just those 12 seconds). Even the Telegraph’s own reporting of the riots at the Capitol were quite clear that Trump’s speech played a role in inciting that violence - it is revisionist for them to now take the opposing side.

The editing of the clip showed bad judgment, and should have been picked up. It was also entirely unnecessary as the speech as a whole spoke for itself. My guess is someone junior on the production team did it, and no one above them spotted it. For that fuck up, the Telegraph now seems willing to try to feed the BBC to Trump - a man who has told more deliberate lies than most of us on here could manage over several lifetimes.

The BBC has many faults, and its handling of this has been pretty atrocious - but watching the Telegraph, Boris Johnson, Farage and Trump gleefully lining up to knife it is a pretty appalling spectacle, and not one that does any good for UK democracy.