The BBC are screwed, aren't they?

[kinkytoes]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c891jp9j79do

Are we ever going to find out who actually made the monumental fuck up? Rather than just a homogenous apology from the top.

Is this person/people still working for them?

I actually understand why Trump is doing this. You can't just let something so wrong pass by or they'll just keep doing it.

Not sure why you characterize interest in a topic on mumsnet as stress. I don't think it's possible to have complete lack of bias and that is why it's really important to have diversity of opinion as well as all the other diversity that the BBC is obsessed with, so that everyone can reign in each other's bias. That is just not happening at the BBC or indeed at most news organizations as far as I can see.

But I agree you just have to watch, read and listen to a wide range. I used to always just have radio 4 on all day but now I try and intersperse it with Times radio and different podcasts.

The BBC isn't biased. The sources you state are very bias.

I think the splice way dumb but because you don't need to splice anything to prove the point that Trump incited a violent, deadly insurrection, it literally happened. I'm completely gobsmacked that anyone thinks otherwise, he's a deplorable human being who is only in this for himself and his rich mates.

Oh poor naive child, they spin things to their agenda, ignore factual evidence and science every single day. They do worse than this trump splice on every show.

Oh poor naive child yourself, you seem incapable of grasping that most of us don't give a shit about what right wing or left wing news sources do with their spinning, factual evidence and science because we are not forced to pay for them even if we don't watch them, while they pretend to be neutral.

Why are you ignoring this very important difference, is it because you can't grasp it or is it because like the BBC, you are employing the dead cat strategy?

If the BBC is not biased :
why did they allow a bunch of transactivists to veto stories with any tangential relationship to LGBT?
why did they allow Hamas sympathisers to be presented to viewers as journalists?
why did they report that the IDF bombed a hospital when it was a Hamas bomb?
why did they not report the WPATH files, the biggest medical scandal of this century?
why did... oh sod it I can't be bothered to write the rest, just read Michael Prescott's e-mail. BBC is biased as fark

Thanks for the pointer I hadn't seen the actual email.

Yeah, twenty one pages and all anyone wants to talk about is Trump is a bad man so I know he said those things even though he didn't.

Sigh.

You're not forced to pay for it. You're perfectly entitled to not do so.

They're not biased, certainly in the way you're suggesting . You seem to think changing how a program presented a speech that DID insight violence, DID try to destroy democracy is somehow evidence of that is wild.

You are forced to pay for it if you want to watch any content that is not available on a catchup service or you want to watch anything else at the time it's broadcast.

Neither the timing of the speech nor the full unedited content, which calls for a peaceful march, support that view. But you'll continue to hold it anyway so I don't know why I'm bothering to add to the wear on my stylus.

I find it more concerning for society that so many people don't give a shit about misrepresenting a speech by a world political leader than I do that the BBC is as biased as the 21 page memo details above.

Can we talk about why licence payers money was used to broadcast a news story completely differently on BBC Arabic than in English?

The publications, channels and politicians queuing up to criticise the BBC, are undoubtedly the most untrustworthy sources imaginable.

This is in no way about journalistic integrity- get bloody real!

Watch The Hack - it might make you appreciate the superior journalism we have in this country and just why our national broadcaster and broadsheets are regarded so highly across the world.

Have you read the memo?

21 pages of criticism came from an internal team!

Can you not see the broader picture?

The BBC Editorial Standards and Guidelines Commiitte were becoming increasingly concerned that complaints of biased reporting were not being taken seriously by the Board and were being brushed off as of no concern.

As a result, they commissioned two respected journalists to investigate bias and response to reports of bias on BBC programming.

The result was a big dossier of failure to comply with BBC guidelines and inadequate response to reports of those failures in multiple areas. The US 2020 election and 2024 election, defamatory misreporting of Trump comments about Cheney, the coverage of the Gaza conflict (including huge discrepancies between what was broadcast in English and in Arabic), gender issues, racial diversity in the UK with 2 entirely incorrect (and easily checkable) reports about racist bias, misrepresentation of history. And on each of those areas, multiple incidences of bias, some of them systemically by internal algorithms.

All identified by an INTERNAL team appointed by the Board whose job it was to keep the BBC to BBC guidelines. Delivered to the main Board and ignored as per usual.

What more do you want?

Disgraceful -new BBC ex-Chairman
They certainly know how to pick ‘em.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15307777/Moment-Children-Need-chairman-female-cyclist-bike-BMW-Terry-Duddy-resigns.html

That's a choice. I don't actually see why that's relevant to how they correctly portrayed Trumps election loss speech.

You're being intentional ignorant to the fact that Trumps speech led to an violent rampage. It's not up for a debate, it happend.

It did not. If you bothered to read the accusations the BBC shows the edited speech followed by footage of the Proud Boys advancing on the Capitol.

It didn't actually happen in that order.

The Proud Boys had marched on the Capitol before the speech was made. That would also be the speech that said

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

"The House Jan. 6 committee's final report asserts that Donald Trump criminally engaged in a "multi-part conspiracy" to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election and failed to act to stop his supporters from attacking the Capitol, concluding an extraordinary 18-month investigation into the former president and the violent insurrection two years ago."

Why are you resting to argue against that ?

I don’t think we are in a position to go through the ins and outs of the US political system and it’s current politics from a position of true, nuanced understanding.

It’s not really what is at issue. Our concern is the BBC. Are we happy with its governance and output? Are we happy with the funding arrangements?

Trump is making all the noise but the report implied bias across a range of positions.

You keep ignoring all the other bias references I have made.

Along with the links to Prescott's e-mail.

Why are you so determined to try and pretend that the BBC bias is all about Trump when I keep saying that it is about all the other systemic biases at the corporation?

Is it because you work there, or because you are fixated on something I've clearly said is only one problem, when my beef is with the much bigger problems?

Yes I'm entitled not to, but then it would be illegal to watch any live TV at all. A third of women prisoners are there because they didn't pay their licence fee.
A third.

And then the BBC supports and promotes an ideology which locks those women up with rapists if the rapists say they have special womanfeelz and deliberately underreports stories which question that ideology and over reports stories which promote it.

This is a ridiculous situation in 2025.

Literally the only justification for not being allowed to watch live TV without paying for the BBC licence fee, is that the BBC is there to broadcast unbiased news which reflects the opinions of all the British people. If they don't do that then there is absolutely no justification at all for the licence fee. Absolutely none.

Geddit?

You've just used a totally incorrect statement about women in prison. It's clear you're one of those "who cares about facts" kind of people. Not really got much interest in talking to you further

It is true the statement made (not by me, btw) was incorrect but it remains the fact that the single biggest reason women are prosecuted is for licence evasion, and the rest of that post still stands, specifically

"Literally the only justification for not being allowed to watch [non BBC] live TV without paying for the BBC licence fee, is that the BBC is there to broadcast unbiased news which reflects the opinions of all the British people. If they don't do that then there is absolutely no justification at all for the licence fee. Absolutely none."