The BBC. Bias is one thing. Lies and manipulation of facts entirely different.

We in the UK don’t pay Trump £169 per year. For ‘bias’ and downright splicing of material to prevent ‘an alternative’ viewpoint.

Just saying.

Er quite frequently. Their reporting of male criminals as females is fairly regular. Flat earth stuff.

The BBC is supposed to be impartial

Doctoring someone's speech, the actual words spoken, by splicing them with words spoken elsewhere, is disgraceful, however unpleasant the speaker and the circumstances.

The belief that he tells lies is immaterial
The BBC should not, under any circumstances.

Galaxy

Er quite frequently. Their reporting of male criminals as females is fairly regular. Flat earth stuff.

Must admit that really gets to me.

I find myself shouting at the TV, women do not have a penis (or worse if I am alone)

I think it very much depends on a person’s own bias. If the BBC were accused of being pro Israel for splicing what someone opposed to Netanyahu had said some in high dudgeon now would promptly shut up. And tbh even if they spliced what Trump said it doesn’t take away from the man’s incitement to violence when they attacked Capitol Hill.
The BBC shouldn’t have done it but I doubt very much it detracted from the truth of the matter.
If people feel so incensed they can stop watching the BBC until of course the BBC suit their own particular bias, then you can bet they’ll start watching again.

Btw I don’t watch BBC news. Channel 4 for me.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I think it’s time to abolish the licence fee and make it compete for business.

There is bias in all news broadcasts for various reasons. Have you thought it might be your bias in this or other cases?

It appears you accept as fact what is put out by GB News and therefore conclude that the BBC must be biased. It could be the other way round, although from your previous posts it doesn’t seem that you would accept that. It could also be that there is some bias on each channel.

Rosie51

MaizieD

keepingquiet

I'm not getting this? Can someone tell me what it's about?

No idea...

Shall we leave them to it?

If you read the link I've given you can find out, but maybe you're just not interested?

There was no link given until after I posted and I've only just returned to this thread.

Maremia

Well then, if that's the criteria, falsifying the news, then Trump is more tarnished than the BBC
Or does it depend on who is doing the lying?
If you condemn the BBC, for fake news, then logically, you must also condemn Trump, bigly.

Maremia Perhaps you can point out where I've ever been less than disgusted and appalled by Trump? It would appear you do base your opinion on who is doing the lying. You really should try to refrain from using Trump's made up silly words, you don't want to be under his influence surely?

Babs03 your distaste of lies depends on where your bias is? I don't like liars whether they be repugnant oafs like Trump or so-called beacons of propriety like the BBC.

If the bar you set is whether you lie less than Trump then I guess most people and organisations will come out virtuous.
And as pointed out by FGT I am compelled by law to pay money to the BBC, whether I use their service or not.

MaizieD

Rosie51

MaizieD

keepingquiet

I'm not getting this? Can someone tell me what it's about?

No idea...

Shall we leave them to it?

If you read the link I've given you can find out, but maybe you're just not interested?

There was no link given until after I posted and I've only just returned to this thread.

I realise that, but you showed zero interest in finding out. Shall we leave them to it? I posted a link after your post and suggested that if it interested you, you could read it. [shrugs]

You are not compelled to pay the licence fee if you don’t watch or listen to the BBC.

So are we saying that the BBC (or the independent company which made the film) was lying when it implied, by splicing the speech, that Trump incited the violence on Capitol Hill?

At first I was amazed at reading some replies on here that just shrugged about the deception and bias shown by the BBC as I thought everyone would be shocked.Then the penny dropped.
The subject of deception and bias were Trump and Israel, therefore it doesn’t matter to those who strongly dislike them.
Are we only to care about the BBC being fair, truthful and impartial where the subject matters to us but not at all otherwise? Is this what we have come to?

Ladyleftfieldlover

You are not compelled to pay the licence fee if you don’t watch or listen to the BBC.

It's not just the BBC it's if you watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast, and to watch on-demand BBC programmes on iPlayer.

No that's not true, I would have stopped paying the license fee ages ago if that was the case, it is live tv as someone said.

Ladyleftfieldlover

You are not compelled to pay the licence fee if you don’t watch or listen to the BBC.

If you watch, record or stream any live TV broadcast or access iPlayer you are compelled to pay the licence fee. I do hope you have a licence even if you don't watch or listen to BBC output, but watch other channels.

Oops I hadn't refreshed and OldFrill had already answered.

Ladyleftfieldlover

You are not compelled to pay the licence fee if you don’t watch or listen to the BBC.

The licence fee is a licence for receiving live transmission of programmes on a device. It isn't specific to BBC programmes.

I understand that isn't isn't required for watching catch up programmes.

You need a TV Licence to watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast, and to watch on-demand BBC programmes on iPlayer

You need a TV Licence if you:

watch or record live TV on any channel or service
use BBC iPlayer

www.gov.uk/find-licences/tv-licence

Sorry, other have pointed this out, too.

At first I was amazed at reading some replies on here that just shrugged about the deception and bias shown by the BBC

Sorry? What bias was shown by the BBC?

Did Trump not incite the violence?

Oreo

At first I was amazed at reading some replies on here that just shrugged about the deception and bias shown by the BBC as I thought everyone would be shocked.Then the penny dropped.
The subject of deception and bias were Trump and Israel, therefore it doesn’t matter to those who strongly dislike them.
Are we only to care about the BBC being fair, truthful and impartial where the subject matters to us but not at all otherwise? Is this what we have come to?

More or less, yes.
You wouldn’t want them on a jury if you were on trail, would you?

Rosie51

MaizieD

Rosie51

MaizieD

keepingquiet

I'm not getting this? Can someone tell me what it's about?

No idea...

Shall we leave them to it?

If you read the link I've given you can find out, but maybe you're just not interested?

There was no link given until after I posted and I've only just returned to this thread.

I realise that, but you showed zero interest in finding out. Shall we leave them to it? I posted a link after your post and suggested that if it interested you, you could read it. [shrugs]

I'm afraid that I thought it was just another manufactured indignation thread.

You haven’t read all about this matter as yet MaizieD there is more than the deception of Trump speeches.In that case two bits of speeches were spliced together giving entirely the wrong impression.
There is more bias and deception about the war in Gaza by the Arabic BBC arm.
It’s quite obvious that not all posters care about the BBC being truthful.

MaizieD

So are we saying that the BBC (or the independent company which made the film) was lying when it implied, by splicing the speech, that Trump incited the violence on Capitol Hill?

Of course few would argue that Trump wasn't responsible for the violence, he was certainly working the crowd with his language. The point is there was no need to splice two sentences separated by 50 minutes to make the point and it is lying to present that as a sentence he said. Would you accept someone splicing two sentences from our PM to illustrate the point they were trying to make and presenting it as actually spoken by him? I wouldn't, so I shouldn't accept it just because I don't like the person, in this case Trump. It's the principle at stake, either you do honest accurate reporting or you accept deliberately deceptive editing no matter who or what are the subject.

MaizieD

Rosie51

MaizieD

Rosie51

MaizieD

keepingquiet

I'm not getting this? Can someone tell me what it's about?

No idea...

Shall we leave them to it?

If you read the link I've given you can find out, but maybe you're just not interested?

There was no link given until after I posted and I've only just returned to this thread.

I realise that, but you showed zero interest in finding out. Shall we leave them to it? I posted a link after your post and suggested that if it interested you, you could read it. [shrugs]

I'm afraid that I thought it was just another manufactured indignation thread.

Wrong. My thread was highly topical.
Nothing manufactured about the outrage many are expressing on this topic.