How much do you trust the BBC as a source of news?

[Sausagenbacon]

My dh takes the BBC as gospel. I take it with a (large) pinch of salt, as I think it has baked-in biases. I value the BBC highly, and think we are lucky to have it, by the way.

I'm interested in how other people view the BBC's reporting.

Radio 4 has amazing news content, but the TV news is very Daily Mail telly. It reports what it thinks people want to hear rather than reporting facts and in its endeavour to be unbiased it ends up reporting different opinions from the public rather than interrogating the facts. Brexit was the perfect example of this. Rather than investigating the claims made by both camps and demonstrating what the repercussions could be, they did an OB in a market in Halifax where they spoke to pensioners who said, oh we don't like the EU and another who said fear of the unknown.

As regards perceived political bias, I think you have to look at the number of seats each political party has in parliament and ask why a 'party' (in inverted commas because it is actually a business) with hardly any seats gets as much airtime as they two main parties, whilst the Libdems and the Greens have to resort to publicity stunts to get any airtime at all!

I never quite know where the line is with them regarding them being public or state broadcaster. I think that there is so much power in controlling news/narrative that I can't quite believe the state would give up this outlet. Or not use BBC worldwide as a propaganda outlet.

It's hard to listen to BBC radio without it being interspersed with news. And you do start to feel you are being manipulated. The plants on Question time also make it hard for me to take them seriously. And having the presentation of topics in 20 second sound bites. They never get into the meat of anything.

I used to be a Radio 4 listener in the Blair years but felt the quality slided with the advent of Cameron and has never really returned to form. It used to be quite good as a mini digest. As I have gotten older it actually makes me sick listening to the news and I actively avoid it. Twitter was useful until Musk killed it. I prefer long form journalism and healthy debate with independents and researchers. What feels missing to me is good critical assessment and alternative takes.

Where the BBC could be useful is local news. What I never understand is the need for dozens of front facing programs that literally regurgitate the same meagre content. There's just too much. And given the web and smart speakers and alternative delivery systems, I'd rather just ask for the news when I want it.

Shows like PM on Radio 4, you want to take seriously but they just get bogged down in Westminster politics, spend months talking about alternative leaders/candidates/party infighting and never actually discuss real issues particularly well, there's lots of filler. And that's a shame as you can cram lots of information into text and radio formats. I very rarely watch TV news, as 1/2 hr of telly to me equals about 3 minutes of radio.

I quite like talk radio when you actually get to hear the public, can't stomach commercial radio at all. So the BBC is all I have. Though for me I'd rather just listen to Radio 3 and skip the news bulletins at least they are short and infrequent there.

Most people are now used to seeing only what the social media algorithm sends them. This is defined by what you normally interact with so I can see why people on the left think it’s right wing and people on the right think it’s left wing.

I'm taking in more news and analysis from podcasts than I used to and yes the feed on my phone - much less from newspapers and magazines every year.

However also do watch digital news channels from other coutries.

Not sure how balance my news intake is though.

I think BBC let itself down during covid and since then felt same with some other news stories.

Well, that's alright then and will mean that they shouldn't face any financial difficulties and can drop the outrageous idea of having the licence fee made a compulsory one for everyone.

Triple gins all round!

It is interesting that no one has defined what they think the BBC’s agenda is.

If they have an agenda, at all, in my opinion, it is covering what the metropolitan middle classes are interested in more than other issues. However, somewhere on their site, they will cover just about everything.

They definitely got it wrong on the Trump Cenotaph story (although splicing is allowed if it doesn’t distort central message, which they might try and argue) and the Gaza documentary made by a Hamas leader’s son without clear attribution.

However those are two stories amongst thousands and no organisation will get it right the whole time. On sites that rate media accuracy and bias, the BBC tends to rank high.

I have big issues with the TV licence and the way they compete as a monopoly in the entertainment market, but the news is really good and is viewed massively abroad. It is a useful source of soft power to the UK.

I'm also interested to know which organisations they think are less biased/more trustworthy

It is the potential and mechanations for institutional capture by biased parties that makes the bbc vulnerable to accusations of bias towards their pet preferences.

Nolan Investigates - Episode 10 - Is the BBC too close to Stonewall? - BBC Sounds https://share.google/evTQrn4ZJIumsXduY

I don’t think anyone is saying it means that, though, are they? I’m certainly not. Just because people trust and use the BBC doesn't mean its money problems vanish. Serving a huge, diverse audience is expensive, and that is exactly why funding it is so tricky. But this thread isn’t about funding - it’s about trust.

As this thread demonstrates really clearly, social media algorithms (like the one we’re on right now!) rewards outrage and division. On top of that, media outlets we all acknowledge are biased (the Telgraph one way, and the Guardian the other) trap people in echo chambers, and allow them to believe everyone thinks the same as them, and everyone who doesn’t is stupid or wrong, or misinformed.

A broadcaster that everyone can access, without a subscription, helps mitigate that and without it, I think we’d be even more divided as a nation. The BBC might not be perfect, but to my mind it’s much better than the alternatives.

I'm not obligated to pay for any other sources of news to have bare bones access to the other televised news or national radio sources.

The BBC have been particularly bad with the whole trans thing which is another reason not to trust how/what they report.
As the saying goes, if they can lie about that, what else are they being dishonest about.

Yes let the BBC run on subscription too, if it as good and non-biased as put below it’ll be fine.

And yet the BBC will do this. I just don't think this openly reflective behaviour is seen in lots of other news sources.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/10/bbc-quits-stonewall-diversity-scheme-impartiality-concerns-transgender-issues?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

@Scrambledomelette ,

‘It is the potential and mechanations for institutional capture by biased parties that makes the bbc vulnerable to accusations of bias towards their pet preferences.’

I accept your point, but doesn’t that apply to all mainstream media? And the alternative of no regulation is worse.

I do think that, for a long time, the BBC did get it wrong on Trans vs Women’s rights. However, it is quite ironic that the investigation you link to is also from the BBC. It does show a healthy mechanism of questioning themselves and being able to change their views.

Imo its less about what organisations people think are less biased/more trustworthy than the BBC and more about the acknowledgment that all news sources have bias and the BBC, despite telling everyone they don't, are just as guilty as all the other organisations.

The BBC has long held a respected status in many people's eyes. I think that status has been seriously damaged because of the way the BBC bias has been uncovered and how media and society has changed over the past 20 years.

I still read the BBC and pay by licence fee but I do take much of their reporting with a pinch of salt these days.

It demonstrates how a culture of fear pervaded the entire institution which was paralysed by cowardice for years and years on end while they aided and abbetted the dismantling of women's rights. Nolan was warned off from making the podcast. It shouldn't take a Hurculean act of courage from a rogue actor for common sense to prevail.

I used to trust them implicitly. If any big news happened, I refused to believe it until they'd confirmed it.

However I lost trust in them following the whole Jimmy Saville affair. They knew he was a serial sex offender but chose to ignore it. It took the shine off them for me definitely.

I only have a rough trust in any news outlets. Errors, biases etc. It depends on the subject matter as well.

I agree. I found the Huw Edwards situation appalling when Jon Sopel and I think Emily Maitlis???? came out and defended what was a 60 odd year old man soliciting a minor for sex.

I trust them on what they report. They will often be last to report something because they're fact-checking.

However, what they don't report or only cover very lightly is my concern.

The BBC is suffering from instability in its funding with less and less of the younger generation paying the licence fee.
Consequently the morning TV news is becoming more and more like a tabloid paper with selective lurid straplines, constant advertising for other BBC productions, and gaudy graphics in a desperate attempt to attract more viewers.
IMO it also shows much more bias in it's reporting, particularly on political issues
Like a lot of British institutions which have disappeared, I don't think the BBC has moved with the times. It can't expect a captive complient audience any more.
If it wants to be the respected news channel, it needs to report accurately and in an unbiased way. The modern audience is more educated and globally aware than in the past.
When the BBC start showing bias, people are aware enough to notice it, listen, cringe and go for their news elsewhere

It has a definite woke and left wing bias. I'm fairly centrist

And then there's this.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/27/bbc-wants-trust-stop-calling-male-criminals-women/

I don’t trust them at all.

Was Saville a mistake? Is knowing someone is a dirty pedo and saying nothing a mistake?

It's a 6.5/10 news source for me, in that it has historic value from the brand but I have many times read other sources with first hand accounts that provide a more comprehensive depth of reporting.
BBC omits uncomfortable details, there is too often bias.
I know a few people who have worked there, which serves to confirm it to me.

Whereas the right pretty much decry everything as left wing.

What exactly makes you think that your own assertions of bias are correct while assuming that others lack validity?