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

I agree completely, and actually it gets even worse with Davie's remark "We have made some mistakes that have cost us, but we need to fight"

Fight for what? The right to go on editing in a corrupt manner?
And why was the editor allowed to apologise for "a mistake" when it's so clear that's not what this was?

I understand (happy to be corrected) that this is how the BBC produce a lot of (if not most of) their programmes now and that the days of everyone involved literally being a member of staff are long gone. It also says the editor had worked for Panorama for some years so presumably was familiar with BBC standards.

I expect the BBC would have moved quickly to distance themselves from the programme if they had had such an option. But if you prefer this explanation then fair enough, I’ll leave you to it.

Who would gain? Everyone who doesn’t want to fund the BBC. Why should we be forced to fund the BBC? Let’s have a referendum and see what the public think.

Agree with this

But it is an example of the cronyism that is endemic in public and quasi public organisations. If you know someone or have worked there its far far easier to get a job (or commissioned in this case) than if you have different, relevant experience. The BBC should be finding, developing and nurturing new talent - instead its always the same old people writing, producing, editing and presenting the same old shows. Sometimes they are employed, sometimes they set up their own production companies (entirely for tax reasons in most cases) but if you aren't 'BBC' then you stand little chance

It leads to flabby, sloppy, entitled organisations that make poor decisions, and a toxic culture where the preservation of the organisation becomes the primary reason for existing, and the ends always justify the means. If you don't fit in, or you ask the wrong questions, or don't kowtow to the right individuals then your career is over.

100% agree.

Jonathan Foster's quote on journalism comes to mind:

“If someone tells you it's raining and another tells you it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. It's your job to look out the fucking window and find out which is true.”

but I would add

"If some times you annoy the raining person by saying it's dry when it's raining, and other times you annoy the dry person by saying it's raining when it's dry - that's not balance or fairness. That's just being an arse and not doing your job to look out the fucking window and tell the people which is true."

The whole situation is odd. And the people putting the boot onto the BBC are a dodgy group-the involvement of foreign powers in trying to bring down our national broadcaster is very worrying indeed.

But you do need to take into account WHO compiled the report and what HIS own bias was. Nothing is ever that clear-cut.

It is. I mean, the edit was a really infuriating own goal frankly. However, the essence of that Panorama report was correct. That's what's being brushed under the carpet. As for the leaked report, as I mentioned in my previous post, its author is biased as hell and lo and behold, The Telegraph of all publications (and behind it, its very own Boris Johnson) gets hold of it. What a coincidence.

Indeed. See also: 'Journalism is saying things which someone, somewhere doesn't want you to say. Everything else is PR'.

Cui bono?

No the key point is an editor of BBC content cut and spliced the story to say something it hadn’t. It lied. Not only that but a stupid lie which was entirely unnecessary and self defeating. If you want to present yourself as the one true and trustworthy news source then avoiding outright dishonesty is a basic essential.

Rubbishing the report because the contributors were not sufficiently ideologically pure is classic evasion of responsibility. The reporters had decades of experience inside the BBC and were saying nothing that others both inside and ex of the BBC have been saying for years. Listen to some of the “critical friends” who have been discussing the long running institutional issues of a concept they loved and to which they gave decades of their working lives and the extent to which standards have dropped in the last 15 years.

Davie’s restructuring of news management was almost designed to create the problems news which have been evident for years now. Science and technology reporting has been on a downward slide for 15 years or more and news programmes which used to do actual research too often just read out the press release from the parties or companies being reported as facts.

From the BBC's bias, you mean?

Good question

It's a genuine question. I can't tell who she's trying to imply is corrupt: the BBC for its bias and misinformation, or people who are calling for this bias and misinformation to be corrected.

There does need to be some soul searching and checks and balances put in place to make sure nothing like this happens again, but getting rid of the licence fee would be a mistake in my opinion. The resignations were appropriate to show the seriousness of the situation, but the Panorama edit would have been done by an ill advised individual, trying to get noticed, not condoned or designed by those who've resigned. The BBC is unique in the world because it isn't funded directly by the government, so it can't be dictated to (much to the annoyance of every government that's been in power) and it isn't funded privately so you won't get the views of a media empire. The BBC is, or was, widely respected around the world for being an honest and fair broadcaster... we should be calling for more accountability so that reputation can be restored, rather than jumping on a political bandwagon to axe it. That would be a very sad day.

Exactly this, and given the trust some put in this wretched organisation the very last sentence seems especially apt

We all make mistakes, but that's what their ridiculous "Verify" section was supposed to help avoid, and as shown in examples upthread even they can't get it right

Worse, we're seeing output which is deliberately misleading rather than being a genuine error, and I wouldn't know what to say to any who consider that acceptable

This is from another source that some posters will dismiss as impure (The Times), but it sheds a bit more light on how the Panorama was made. It says the BBC had appointed an in-house producer-director and a BBC visual editor to make it in collaboration with a production company called October Films. It also says these two did not inform BBC executive producers or Panorama editor that they had doctored the speech:

‘Trump: A Second Chance? was produced by an in-house BBC team with October Films, an Emmy and Bafta award-winning producer with credits including Labour in Power: Inside the New Government, BBC2’s Laura Kuenssberg: State of Chaos, and ­Channel 4’s Levison Wood: Walking With…
The collaboration came about after the BBC and October Films discovered that they were simultaneously developing documentaries about Trump’s most ardent supporters and joined forces. Under the terms of the agreement the BBC appointed an experienced ­in-house producer-director, whose credits include Panorama, Are You Scared Yet, Human? and Trump and the Tech Titans to work on it alongside a BBC visual editor.
The pair created the film, making the decision to splice together the two sections of the speech in good faith. According to Shah their aim was to help “convey [the speech’s] ­message so that Panorama’s audience could better understand how it had been received by President Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time”.
But they opted against informing the programme’s executive producers at the BBC and October Films, as well as the Panorama editor, Karen Wightman, of their decision.’

That’s just an extract. The sources appear to be Shah and un-named ‘staff close to the programme’

Worth reading the whole article, archived here:
https://archive.ph/i8u8U

You also need to take into account the contents of said report...

What would happen if the BBC became a subscriber only service like Netflix? What percentage of the current licence fee payers would subscribe?

For context, about 82% of households have a TV licence, 60% of households have a Netflix subscription, and just under half an Amazon Prime one according to a quick google. Number of TV licences has fallen around 10% in the last 5 years.

People consume media in very different ways now to just 5 or 10 years ago. Older people consume significantly more BBC content (by a factor of 7 to 10 in terms of hours watched) than those under 50 - even more if you exclude the CBBC content, for which the audience has no choice- their parents choose it for them. Probably why Ed Davey is so vocal about it…he’s prime BBC audience as he must be 60 at least, but as a result is way out of touch with how most people view the organisation or consume media.

I reckon if the BBC became a subscription service with the taxpayer funding news and BBC World, it’d see a take up nearer Amazon than Netflix. If it was all subscription and they priced it below Netflix and Amazon but opened iPlayer up to international audiences then they could get a much larger audience and be better off. Though of course then they’d have to modify their slightly arrogant, slightly condescending colonial view of the world for the international audience...

I think a lot of older people watch the BBC simply out of habit, and the same with paying the licence fee, they've always paid it. If they actually had to choose whether to pay it or not, and it was easy to subscribe and cancel as netflix, it'd be a different story. The BBC certainly don't have the "tentpole" shows like Stranger Things that make people want to out of their way to pay to watch. A lot of their output is simply there to fill time in the schedule.

It's not just watching BBC though, we watch a little on BBC but need the licence mainly because we have Sky Q and watch lots of all the other channels that also need the licence. I don't think I would want to just watch Netflix, Disney or Prime as it is quite limited, I subscribe to all the streamers but find I have to watch a bit from each one to find anything decent so it can be quite expensive. I also pay extra for ad skipping on everything so I guess the BBC has that in its favour. The licence needs to be separated so the BBC/iPlayer part is separate to the all the other broadcast channels part.

Because they are women.