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.

Since numerous other broadcasters manage to be subscription only it is clearly technically possiblw and should be done. The gravy train of sending numerous people to Glastonbury etc would soon stop off it had to be paid for by the (few) subscribers, and it’s it goes bust then just too bad.

Yeah because who needs reliable news sources in this day and age

Agree - especially as the BBC has proven itself unreliable.

How so ?

By splicing footage of a foreign leader inna way that does not meet the standards of journalistic integrity. By letting trans activists control the agenda about what could be discussed regarding women’s rights. By publishing misinformation regarding the war in Gaza on its Arabic channel.

This serious stuff.

It wasn't the News it was Panorama but as said numerous times it in no way changed what was found to be the case and the reason he was impeached.
It's also the reason his law suit won't go anywhere.

It

Isn't

All

About

Trump

Only a part was about Trump.

21 pages of detail about BBC bias that for some reason nobody who is sure that Trump incited the Capitol Hill riot in spite of the time lines being wrong wants to even think about.

The Trump fixated are presumably perfectly happy with licence payer money being used by BBC Arabic to present a different report of the same incident in Arabic that was presented in English, also equally happy for people who don't believe it's possible for people to change their sex to be called terrorists and blocked from the BBC, and absolutely delirious with joy that insurance companies were completely mistakenly reported as charging their non white customers more for their car insurance.

Beats me, it really does.

He was impeached. They were quite sure he was the cause.
I'm getting a good idea of your character
Issues around Trans people, non-whites and defending Trump.

So what are your fair, objective and responsible alternatives to source news from, who are these 'journalists'?

What is the relevance of this passive aggressive question?

Can we only think the BBC has problems if we name one which doesn't? The point is we are forced to pay for the BBC even if we don't watch it (yes, yes, only if we watch live TV) and therefore it absolutely has to be neutral.

I suggest you read a range of newspapers and then use your common sense. The BBC was supposed to be neutral, but it’s not. It either sorts itself out. Or, it’s not possible, and there is no reason for the licence fee.

Honestly look at who is trying to tear the BBC down and think about why?! Stop being distracted people!!!

Nobody has forced the BBC to misreport any of what it has misreported. The misreporting is fact.

I'm stunned at how many people think it's OK and just a right wing assault on a featured institution.

Yes it relies on being impartial.

I think it is fair to say that right wing news in general is anti MSM.

And I find that an interesting contradiction, because the right wing claim to be fighting for Brit values, Brit power and status, and yet want to wipe out BBC news, that for it's faults, is world respected.

BBC news is also reviled by some governments too. Many ban the BBC, and especially ban its journalists. But they don't ban GB news, and Irish Gript news.

Without doubt, BBC is MSM, legacy media, or whatever you want to call it. It's one of the big ones in the world, It's up there in the top tier of news sources that is used by other news outlets when they compile their own news.

I read a lot of non UK news, and what I often see is "BBC reports XYZ happened". I never see " GB news reports XYZ".

But GB news often say " BBC reports...".

Indeed, GB news could probably do a total hit piece on Trump, totally make it up, and it's probable Trumps advisors would not even notice.

TBF though, he has attacked FOX in the past. But they soon toe his line.

I don't agree with your first two paragraphs.

The rest makes it all the more important that they try to reduce the growing bias in BBC output. I don't see what relevance it has what any other news outlet does or who quotes it. The BBC is different. It is financed by many people who are unwilling to finance it and don't watch its output. Its future in its current form depends on being demonstrably neutral and it has been demonstrably not in multiple recent instances.

Do you agree though, that worldwide, the BBC is seen as being in the top tier ?

And the competition fragmenting, would that be in anyone's interests?

In the Arab world, so is Al Jazeera.

You cannot use right wing tax payers money to finance a competitor to right wing media. If they are forced to pay for it, it must remain neutral or it will not continue to exist at all.

But why would anyone accept Prescott's memo itself as unbiased and somehow definitive? It isn't a study and doesn't seem to make even an effort to be, or present itself as, neutral or objective. Israel is the most obvious example - he extensively complains of Anti-Israel bias but you dont have to look far to find equally detailed complaints (sometimes in the form of studies) that support the direct opposite.

I don't accept those Pro-Israel BBC bias studies, for what its worth, because their neutrality is similarly (very) open to question.

Prescott's memo largely represents a list of complaints that someone with certain biases may have against the BBC's coverage of certain issues. It absolutely does highlight instances of poor journalistic practices or errors but only even attempts to do so from a slanted perspective, without asking if similar errors have happened in the other direction.

I don't dismiss the memo, but I certainly think it would be foolish to think a document that, itself, is so obviously and heavily biased is capable of proving another party's bias.

Respectfully, and we are no doubt all guilty of this, but I suspect you are accepting it largely because it aligns with your own biases.

Please tell me what equivalent mistakes were made in the other direction.

The news report saying white people were charged more for their car insurance, for example.

Which bit was incorrect? You don't want to continue because I keep referring to fact that you don't like.

And if you can't win the argument, traduce someone's character. Call them a racist, a transphobe, a homophobe, a BBCphobe, imply that they're either of unsound mind, a conspiracy theorist, a bad faith actor, or some other unsavory thing.

I saw what you did there. It's textbook stuff.

These issues came up because they were the ones which Prescott mentioned in his memo.

That memo was referring to another report by the way, by some other guy the BBC had brought in to examine bias and then ignored when they didn't like what he said.

Why don't you try honestly engaging with the arguments that people are honestly putting forwards. You've been completely dishonest all the way through, you keep ignoring things people are saying in favor of trying to divert them with your dead cat strategy.

It's completely transparent.

• Farage is a top presenter on GB News and is paid extremely well for it, close to £1 million a year. When the BBC loses trust, more viewers turn to GB News, which boosts Farage’s platform, income, and political influence.
• Farage owns a significant number of GB News shares. If the BBC’s reputation drops, GB News becomes more valuable and Farage personally gains financially.
• GB News positions itself as a right-wing alternative to the BBC. Weakening the BBC helps GB News reshape the media landscape in favour of Farage’s politics.
• Farage has close political ties to Trump, including using donor-funded trips to support Trump’s campaign. Helping Trump’s narrative by attacking the BBC strengthens their alliance.
• Trump claims the BBC “defamed” him and is threatening huge legal action. Damaging the BBC fits Trump’s wider strategy of undermining mainstream media he sees as hostile.
• Nick Candy, Reform UK’s billionaire treasurer, has financial links to investors connected with Trump’s Silicon Valley backers, including ties to SpaceX. This strengthens the shared network binding Farage’s interests to Trump’s.
• If the BBC is discredited, it becomes easier for GB News and Trump-aligned narratives to dominate, influencing the UK electorate with partisan content.
• The overall pattern is simple: weakening trust in the BBC benefits Farage financially and politically, strengthens GB News, boosts Trump’s claims and image, and shifts media power towards the right.