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.

Not at all, Ive seen them first hand film only what they want to show for their agenda. I also worked with them for a year many years ago and was shocked at the bias, for example showing a protest where a Police officer was attacked by an armed person but only showed the person being arrested and restrained and the resulting outrage, inc on here.

I don’t trust them much these days, used to assume they unbiased but that was naive of me. Mind you what media source is unbiased? None of them.

I think COVID was an interesting case.

I do think that BBC became a national mouthpiece. However, I am happy to grant them an exception for what was a national emergency.

If they had reported more nuance, a chunk of the population would neither have understood it or accepted the need for caution.

I don’t think that should be used as a stick to beat the BBC. The facts were all there on the BBC if you understood them. They just favoured a clear government message.

I trust it more than other organisations but it still has a slant

to correct your quote from above

"Virtually no actual scientists" who are sceptical about the 'approved' climate narrative are ever featured or given the opportunity to present their hypothesis, scientific arguments or data on the BBC.

I remember when Dr David Bellamy (an actual qualified scientist, well known botanist and environmentalist) argued that recent temperature rises were likely more a part of the Earth's natural cycles rather than due to any human activity, and he very quickly was gotten rid of and cancelled by the BBC and most other mainstream media.

Same thing happened to multiple very senior scientists and doctors who questioned the official Covid response.

You see, only 'approved' views are allowed on the BBC.

And throughout history, it's never ever been the good guys attempting to shut down debate and censor contrary opinion has it? Ultimately if your argument has merit, and if you have nothing to hide, then you should welcome free speech, open debate, and diversity of opinion, rather than be fearful of it, shy away from it and attempt to shut it down.

I used to find them reasonably trustworthy until they started lying to us about men being women. Now I wonder what else they're lying about.

If you keep up to date with the subject as I have done, many of the 'facts' that the BBC promoted about Covid, the vaccines, etc. have been shown now to be false, misleading or without context. To bring compliance from the public they spread mass fear and hysteria without an ounce of proportionality. And much of the stuff they used their 'fact checkers' at the time to label as 'mis-information' and to discredit the people spreading this supposed 'mis-information' has now been proven to be reasonably true.

But the BBC seem to have washed their hands of it, and despite the scientific weight of evidence now having changed somewhat, despite a lot of the main culprits being exposed as corrupt (Faucci, the WHO, Chris Whitty, etc). there has been no acknowledgement or accountability shown from the BBC that they were wrong.

The BBC did apologise to Trump. It is true that their edit made it look like Trump made a direct call for violent action which he did not, but anyone listening to that speech in its entirety will know that Trump was clearly encouraging his supporters to take violent action to prevent Biden being declared president. They have, rightly, refused to pay compensation.

The BBC is the most trusted news organisation in the world for a good reason. Yes, it has a world view that sometimes affects its reporting. However, people often complain about bias when what they mean is that they don't like what the BBC is reporting. Those on the left tend to think that the BBC has a right wing bias, those on the right tend to think that it is left wing. And people often misremember - I have seen people on here asking why the BBC didn't report something when they clearly did, often multiple times.

I know the BBC sometimes gets things wrong, but I trust them far more than any other news organisation. I don't trust social media at all.

It is clear from posts like this that some people have not an ounce of critical thinking, or are simply so far inside an echo chamber of their own making, perhaps ideologically driven, that someone thinking in a different way, or coming from a different lived experience, is almost an alien concept. Either that, or they are just happy (much like my elderly mum) living in a semi-brainwashed state. Nothing wrong with that, and I wish I could be the same, happy to trust authority, getting on board with the next latest thing we are told to get onboard with, and if it's not on the BBC it ain't true, etc. Would make for an easier life for sure.

If he was clearly trying to encourage violent action they would not have had to splice the footage. They could have just...played the bit with the 'do violence' section.

Dr Robert Winston. Last seen saying 'sex cannot be changed'. Where oh where is one of the most trusted scientists in the UK now? Not on TV thats for sure.

I did not say that it isn't true if it is not on the BBC. But it is indisputable that the BBC is the most trusted news organisation in the world and is far more reliable than other news organisations. And it is also indisputable that social media is a very poor source of news, frequently posting speculation or completely made up stuff as fact.

There was no single "do violence" section, but that was the clear implication if you listen to the entire speech.

I do agree that the BBC has taken a side on the gender debate. It has moved away from GI to some degree, but I still find their reporting on that falls short of the standards we should expect.

The BBC should trade on this view and charge people monthly by subscription.

It is well-liked, it can build on all this positive stuff and switch payment model.

Just another propaganda machine to me. Alright to have on in the morning when you're getting ready for work, but that's about it

You are aware that the current director general has called for the licence fee to be scrapped? But that is a decision for the government, not the BBC.

You've obviously not listened to the same speech I did. There was no call to violence. It's all in your imagination.

@Justinthekitchen ,

‘It is clear from posts like this that some people have not an ounce of critical thinking, or are simply so far inside an echo chamber of their own making, perhaps ideologically driven’

Umm, yes I agree but not the person that it applies to!

It would be almost impossible for a large organisation to have a hidden agenda. How would they communicate it to their employees? How would they stop it getting out when people retired, resigned or had a row with their boss.

The public guidelines are available to all. Yes, I think the BBC did have a type of employee who was well educated, lived in a city and had a left wing bias. However, recent recruitment has tried to diversify this.

@EasternStandard ,

‘The BBC should trade on this view and charge people monthly by subscription.’

I really don’t agree with this. I do disagree with the licence fee, as it is regressive. However, I think there is real value in public sector broadcasting.

Their news and education is, to me, first rate, even though I disagree with them in some areas. Also, maybe more debatably, things like Wimbledon should be available to all and not just those who pay a high subscription fee.

Where the BBC should cut back is on low brow entertainment. We just don’t need another competitor in that market and it doesn’t really add to people’s lives.

Also, the BBC is hugely watched and respected over the world. That helps the UK have a greater influence than we deserve relative to the size of our economy.

It's already out by people who have left the BBC and are now openly promoting their far-left views, people like Gary Lineker and Laura Kuenssburg.

There is no hidden agenda from the BBC, it is completely obvious. My granddaughter watches Cbeebies, and despite the UK being approx 80% white British, almost every show and it's presenters has a vastly disproportionate over-representation of ethnic minorities, the disabled, etc. Brainwashing our kids into the multicultural dream from an early age.

There is no need to communicate this to their employees, as a right leaning person would simply not get hired by the BBC these days, of if they did slip through the net they likely wouldn't last long. There is almost no representation from the working class within the BBC any more. The employees they hire already have 'approved' and compatible views. And people that don't get fired, ostracised or cancelled, a bit like David Bellamy I mentioned above.

It's an elitist organisation staffed by people who think that they know what's good for everyone else.

The BBC should be held to account for how much it achieves its aims by virtue of those willing to pay for what it offers.

However if you don’t agree with the licence fee what payment model are you after?

@EasternStandard ,

I am after a sustainably sized BBC being funded out of general taxation.

It currently costs £4.5 billion. I am sure it could be cheaper. However, as I said, I do think an as free broadcaster who at least aspires to be unbiased, has value in today’s polarised world.

General taxation. No thanks. Even less ability to opt out.

I’m sure Labour would love it but hopefully enough would rebel on that one.

@EasternStandard ,

Do you think we should have any public service broadcasting?

If so, why not general taxation? The Licence fee is a poll tax. Why should a millionaire pay the same as someone scraping by?

That is an entirely fallacious argument though. You don't have to be a tailor to know the Emperor is naked. Best to explain how the paper is dodgy rather than damning the author for being retired, and an accountant.

Anyone could run with that. Justin Rowlatt is a PPE grad. He is climate editor for the BBC. His writers? Claire Marshall's credentials, also BBC: Law and Journalism, Georgina Rannard, BBC: History, Greg Brosnan BBC: Latin American Studies. I could go on. Not saying they can't do their job given their CVs, but if you are arguing a retired accountant shouldn't write about climate neither should they.

Ah yes I’m sure Labour are pushing to get more from higher earners on the licence fee or other payment too.

Given that the BBC has lost fee payers it looks like people don’t value it as much. It shouldn’t be forced.