The BBC should lose the license fee and be forced to operate like any other streaming service after the complete destruction of trust this week

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Thats it really, the BBC lied to us, all of us.

They edited a Trump speech to make him look like he said something he did not.

They pushed one side of the transgender debate relentlessly, deliberately hiding negative stories on detransitioners, the US WPATH file and thousands of more cases

https://archive.ph/wWdMS

https://archive.ph/uiEKW

They have cancelled people for wrong-think at every opportunity, pushed drag queens over women, turned woman hours into mens hour, constantly attacked anyone who does not share their extreme liberal left wing views and kept them off the news cycle

They have utterly and completely lost all trust, they ARE biased they DON'T give balance in the news

Everyone thought it was a conspiracy, now we know it's actually true and we have PROOF

Today the BBC Director and News Director have both quit in absolute disgrace.

It is time the BBC was consigned to the dustbin because we are never getting back to the BBC I loved and trusted, the one that ran programmes to inform and entertain and educate, that BBC is long gone.

Replace it, completely.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt

IMO the BBC have utter contempt for those that pay the licence fee and see themselves in the role of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. The "light entertainment" is the 1984's "special kind of kaleidoscope known as a versificator" used to produce an endless stream of songs with "simplistic melodies and cliché lyrics" to keep the proles subdued, distracted and unaware of what might really be happening.

That's how the BBC seems to me, social engineering with a dose of fun for the masses to keep them thinking Aunty Beeb cares for them.

ITV have been following in the footsteps closely and talk to the audience as if they are all imbeciles ie News at Ten is the equivalent of Newsround back in the 70's (actually that's not fair to John Craven, it was better).

The BBC model is no longer appropriate. Younger people don't seem to even watch TV IME so the BBC may as well start planning on how to disband. It may have created great things, but handed too power power to unaccountable people who believed they were untouchable "as they control the narrative".

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't find that letter very clear - so on that particular occasion maybe he genuinely didn't understand her point(s).

Regarding your last line.

If President Trump is a fraudster, then perhaps he should be encouraged to apply for the vacant post of Director General, as being a fraudster would seem to be a key requisite for a job in the BBC.

It’s just not acceptable to splice together two sentences 50 minutes apart in a speech and make out like it was a continuous quote. Surely anyone with half a brain would agree with that!

Wonder how it’s taken so long for people to react to this Panorama if it’s so terrible?

Because it wasn't known that it had been edited. The BBC have apparently known about this since May and sat on it.

The original fuck up was the terrible editing decision which should result in the producers never working in non fiction tv again.

The second more serious issue is seniors discovering this and doing nothing. However, I believe Tim Davie was gifted the job as a Brexiteer mate of Boris Johnson. This shows why crony appointments of subpar candidates is always a mistake.

The next DG has to be someone who is genuinely neutral, non political and focused on the task of quality output. The number of times Farage was on the BBC, which was pointed out by thousands, was odd and showed something had gone wrong at the BBC i.e it had become infiltrated by political people with agendas.

There’s a lot wrong with the arrogant BBC, I agree, but we need a public service broadcaster. I would pay my licence fee just to have wonderful Radio 3 and bits of Radio 4 ( but not the increasingly awful Woman’s Hour). They are the last vestiges of civilisation!😳

You cannot be saying that the BBC has a pro Brexit outlook...

How do we ensure they maintain the interests of a highly polarised public, neutrality (if it can be achieved) would surely alienate both sides

The imaginary dice, I presume 😊.

Unless we are in for a Scooby Doo moment where it turns out you are not a member of Joe Public, briefly in charge of a MN thread, but actually.....

DCMS Perm Sec!!!!

Are you saying Tim Davie had an impact on the BBC so it was right leaning and pro Brexit?

Trump threatens to sue them for 1 billion…

Turns out they wanted to react and apologise sooner, but this has been turned into a way for Board members to control the narrative which is really sinister - these are a good read/listen.

https://observer.co.uk/opinion-and-ideas/leaders/article/the-observer-view-political-interference-at-the-bbc

www.globalplayer.com/podcasts/episodes/7Drv8Cz/

The level of reading comprehension on this site has decreased considerably.

No I am not saying it’s pro Brexit. I said the DG was selected by the then Brexiteer PM because he was aligned to the politics of the time and a crony. I also said the disproportionate number of times Farage was on the channel demonstrated the increasing politicisation of the BBC.

This politicisation can be used to further any agenda of the day whether it be pro/anti-trans, pro/anti-EU, pro/anti- Israel. The BBC should not be taking sides in anything as used to be the case many years ago.

The small pool of candidates who all went to the same schools and think the same ways have caused this. Brilliant minded competent leaders would have seen and mitigated against the risks because the focus would have been on long term performance and quality but these people don’t make in front of the hiring panels of our biggest insinuations.

The original speech was in 2021, but it was deliberately doctored for the "Panorama: Trump a second chance" and aired on 24th Oct 2024 less than a fortnight before the most recent US election. So deliberate election misinformation from our national broadcaster in the immediate run up to an election of "one of our closest allies".
We're so virtuous and full of imaginary standards but seem to only apply them to other people. There was no journalistic integrity or application of the "period of sensitivity" and with AI now available and confirmation that anything goes why should I pay a license fee for this. I'd rather subscribe to the kool aid of my choice.

How many transmen become pregnant bet you could count on one hand. Compared to the ratio of pregnant women. As many have said the erasure of language around pregnancy and the acceptance of alternative language is dehumanising at best and downright dangerous at worst. For example, "chest feeders " for transwomen which also waves in the use of chemicals to stimulate or provide " chest milk" giving this social acceptance and undermining not only appropriate nutrition for a newborn baby but is likely to be highly toxic. If medical professionals can no longer use the appropriate medical words to describe the biology of their patients is really concerning on multiple levels. Of course it would be fine for a medical professional to reger to a transman as a pregnant person, however why does such a minority get to dictate how theajority are referred to.

Why would Johnson want someone aligned with his views on Brexit if not to skew the BBC in that direction? I'm not the only one who interpreted your comments that way so instead of calling us stupid you could elucidate and be a little clearer.

How is the proportionality of a politian featuring in their output determined?

The BBC is a huge organisation, and will inevitably get things wrong.

I was furious with the doctoring of Boris Johnson at the cenotaph, to make him look less of a dishevelled, disrespectful hungover mess. The denials and excuses afterwards were laughable.

I hate the way they have incredibly biased right wing journalists like Laura Kuenssberg presenting programmes.

I hate that they constantly platform Nigel Farage and Reform on current affairs programmes.

It is, however, interesting to note that equal amounts of people think it's too left wing or too right wing . Both cannot be right.

I will let it off it's occasional mistakes like this one with Trump, due to the amazing content it makes. Yes it needs to get better at owning it's failures when it happens, but it's never going to be perfect.

We're so virtuous and full of imaginary standards but seem to only apply them to other people

This is the crux of it.

Great post.
Today the BBC has exposed the v poor cancer treatments offered by the NHS, just 3 trusts meeting the targets.

Thats embarrassing for Labour.

what they did with Trump was totally wrong but why did the board sit on this? Davie wanted to issue an apology, the Tory bias board said no, why?

I found it interesting that on news night last night Victoria Derbyshire mentioned several times that it would be the license fee payers who will have to pay if Trump does sue, it felt like they are trying to expect us to pay for their mistakes and make us feel sorry for them and support them so they don't increase the fee. Don't they have insurance for this sort of thing.

You don't need a tv license to listen to the radio and other radio channels could easily take over if the BBC radio presenters lose their jobs

Maybe if they didn't set themselves up as some sort of arbiters of the truth they wouldn't fall so far from grace when it all goes horribly wrong.

Probably more of the simple reporting, less of the court of judgement on the media in general for me.

Good for you. Join the millions that don't fund the bbc tosh