to say the BBC might be imperfect but

It doesn't matter what anyone on here thinks. What matters is 'is a Drag Queen affected in any way?'. Now that's NEWS!

I’m afraid your claims are the hyperbolic ones?

I have argued based on actual, documented incidents. You on the other hand have simply lashed out aggressively saying “you’re lying” in various forms.

Did the BBC cover up a series of child sex abuse incidents?

Did the BBC get involved in documentaries narrated by the child of a terrorist to solicit sympathy towards a country run by terrorists

Has the BBC not been taken in by the trans agenda?

Have numerous women reported institutionalised misogyny?

Has the BBC repeatedly been left leaning in its reporting? Look at he recent Empire documentary

I’m sorry if people’s outrage over those things clashes with the making of another diversity over accuracy period drama.

oh and I despise Fox News. But you know what the BBC has become its mirror image.

It’s an ideologically motivated attack which is clear. And so stupid too. All started with a (badly) edited speech.

I still support the Beeb and look forward to this blowing over. (I have also never witnessed this “bias” it’s meant to have.)

Sample of one here, but I’m not-very-right-wing and I consider the BBC’s biases to be left wing.

More precisely, a metropolitan progressive left liberal bias. It’s not extreme, but it is pervasive and unacknowledged.

When I watch Novara or the Spectator I know what I’m getting and they know what they are serving.

The BBC claims to be unbiased but it puts its thumb on the scale in what it chooses to cover and how.

It actually isn't a shit show at all, for comparison:

New York Times 2023 c.3 000 digital corrections
Guardian 2023 c.1 200 corrections

Within the news industry
0.5–2 % correction rate of total output is viewed as standard for mainstream newsrooms.
Higher than 2 % signals deeper workflow issues (e.g., under-resourced fact-checking).
Less than 0.5 % indicates a likely under-reporting of mistakes.

On that scale, BBC Arabic’s c.1 % sits in the middle of the normal range

I'm not saying it's okay, particularly given how contentious the area it covers can be, but actually, the level of corrections is broadly in line with comparable news outlets.

The BBC isn’t even properly left wing, or it would have invited someone from eg the Morning Star (peace & socialism ✌️) to argue the case against the hegemony of gender ideology and to support the importance of the concept of the male and female classes in class analysis.

But the BBC doesn’t want class analysis or it would give the game away that it’s an elite playground now, and no friend to women.

How far left do you have to be to think that the BBC is not left wing?

Yes every time these threads come up there's always posters saying we ( as a collective) shall miss it when it's gone ,they csnt explain however why peoole rho never watch the bbc and have no interest in radio. Will miss it.

@Staringintothevoid616 Are you for real? What a load of hyperbole. What you have written is unbelievably poorly informed but it’s what the rest of us are up against. People like this just want Fox tv. They don’t want all the brilliant bbc output. They just want to vent their anger by building up and believing untruthful biased sh-t.

I like the BBC but I think its claim to the licence fee is becoming indefensible.

There’s some argument to keep a reduced licence fee to pay for the worthy-but-unpopular bits, such as news. That’s the part of the argument that the BBC seems intent on shredding with its inability to recognise and address its institutional biases.

They’ve also made some big strategic fumbles: failure to make iPlayer a subscription service outside the UK (blocking people who would willingly pay for the BBC when they could have been using their massive head-start, brand and archive to build up a Netflix-like business and revenue stream), and being absent from the main ways that people access media now. There isn’t even a BBC iPlayer app for Google Play, there’s no BBC button on most remote controls, there’s a very limited amount of BBC content on YouTube, etc.

Their audience is mainly older, who are also the group least likely to find their lives represented.

How did they think they could get away with the Trump tape being messed with. That was horrendous! Heads should roll.

Not very.

Sorry I replied to someone else with my previous response.

I agree the Pro Pal pushing is awful, supporting terrorists is never a good look.

Well, good for you. But if I want to watch ITV news or Channel 4 news live, I have to pay the BBC. Go figure!

This.

Bloody trans nurse coverage. Sodding NHS are as captured as the bloody BBC putting men who pretend they are women first. So much gender crap they need to go.

The current management have raped the brand. Its agenda is to push pseudo liberal leftism it’s lied, bullied covered up heinous crimes. Its brainwashed people under the cover of it’s impartiality claim.

why would we mourn its passing

This is simply not true. It is entirely a choice whether to pay it or not. I have not paid for a tv licence for more than 10years. I do not watch live tv or stream BBC content. On a rare occasion I will watch Netflix or Amazon Prime which I am happy to pay a subscription for. This is a choice I make because I refuse to fund the BBC.
It is perfectly legal to not pay it. You cannot be prosecuted if you are not breaking a law 🤷🏻‍♀️

It needs to crash and burn. Smug [redacted]s the lot of them.

How far right do you have to be to think that the BBC is left wing?

@Threefullskips It certainly is an acceptable argument because there are nuances and various arguments to be put forward. I’m happy that it balances out too. I’m happy that various contributors have different opinions as long as it’s not obvious rubbish. Freedom of speech means we don’t have exact balance all the time because with the public and different contributors, it’s impossible.

If the government think impartiality is important then they need to subsidise it.

You can't make people engage with BBC therefore they shouldn't be forced to pay.

If they are forced to pay, it's essentially a tax and IMO every bit of tax and spending should be accountable to questions like "is this the very best use of taxpayer money?" [ie could these pounds be better spent on treating serious childhood illnesses?]

" in general, it all balances out"

No - that's like saying if a person abuses a child but donates a huge amount to charity it is OK because it balances out. Not an acceptable argument. The BBC I loved is long gone sadly. Unfortunately it is probably a reflection of the world we live it and there's nothing to be done about it. But any remedy must begin with recognition of the problem - none of this is forthcoming. Corruptio optimi pessima.

Groupthink on Trans which is harmful to women. The BBC with the idiots within the organisation will bring it down. Men aren't women and never will be.

The pushing the genocide and mass starvation in Gaza narrative whilst showing pictures of children with known medical conditions who are underweight because they've swallowed the Pro Pal flag waving rather then fact check.

The big one Trump cutting and pasting stories to suit their narrative

The BBC should not be bailed out by taxpayers due to their self inflicted woes.

Well, I guess if they make us all pay regardless of whether we watch it, then there is not a great deal of a choice but I won't go back to it as long as there is one.

Like you, at some point, I just started to feel that they push all this politically correct madness on the public while their own org is full of pervs and hypocrites. I've not thought their representation of news was unbiased or in any way balanced for a long time and when they started pushing all sorts of lunacy into entertainment as well, I just felt like I had it with them. Even if they make us all pay, they can't make anyone watch all that rubbish they produce.

Absolutely. Woman’s Hour has become a cesspit of anti-women propaganda amplified by ideological nutjobs and their enablers, with only the very rare exception.