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

Should we have to pay for The Guardian to be allowed to read any other newspaper?
The whole concept of the licence fee is ludicrous.

Paying the licence fee is worth it for me to have TV channels that a free from all the *%$£@?! advertisements.

are free

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Should we have to pay for The Guardian to be allowed to read any other newspaper?
The whole concept of the licence fee is ludicrous.

It wasn't when it was introduced. It was a licence to use a device to receive TV programmes. As there was only the BBC at the time the licence fee did go towards funding it.

Before that there were wireless licences, licencing the wireless device. you could get lots of non BBC programmes on your radio, too.

There used to be a dog licence...

Lots of different ways for governments to increase revenue.

BBC output is good in many ways. It's just a shame that the news and current affairs programmes can be biased.

Is anyone complaining about the expose of the crime behind the mini marts? Is it accurate, is it biased? who knows...

Boris Johnson has led calls for Tim Davie, the BBC director-general, to “explain or resign” over the bias scandal engulfing the broadcaster.

MPs said it was time for Mr Davie to “come out of hiding” after a week of disclosures by The Telegraph of one-sided reporting over Gaza, censorship of the trans debate and even doctoring of a speech by Donald Trump.

Mr Johnson, the former prime minister, said the BBC “has been caught red-handed in multiple acts of Left-wing bias” and Mr Davie must now come clean.

The Telegraph has published the full text of a leaked 8,000-word letter sent to members of the BBC board by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser, who wrote of his “despair at inaction by the BBC executive” over widespread evidence of bias.

I thought it was his government that gave him the job and there were concerns that he was too right wing ( happy to be corrected on this)?

It doesn’t matter about right wing/left wing, it’s about breaches in standards and widespread evidence of bias, transgender issues, DT speeches doctored and Gaza bias.
Where is Tim Davie? He needs to make a statement at the very least.

Sorry guv, we did it.
Then what?

I'm disappointed in the BBC, biased editing and tbh I expect better standards but it's still a great deal more reliable than most.of the other media outlets. I watched the whole Jan 6th events unfold on CNN as they happend and despite the editing the BBC didn't tell any lies or distort what actually happened.

foxie48

I'm disappointed in the BBC, biased editing and tbh I expect better standards but it's still a great deal more reliable than most.of the other media outlets. I watched the whole Jan 6th events unfold on CNN as they happend and despite the editing the BBC didn't tell any lies or distort what actually happened.

I watched the Jan 6th events live too - I was supposed to be watching a lecture! Why trump wasn’t imprisoned for his behaviour, I’m sure we’ll find out one day.

MayBee70

I thought it was his government that gave him the job and there were concerns that he was too right wing ( happy to be corrected on this)?

Yes exactly right. This is Boris doing the old Boris deflection which we have come to know only too well. He's just p*ssed off that the program got past his placemen.

Oreo

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.

Are you saying that Trump did try to stand down his rioters?

MaisieD you are right, this is another manufactured outrage thread. Anyone with an ounce of an idea of proportionality would recognise that. I would keep the BBC purely for the World Service, excellent information resource and very cheap soft power.

It is being discussed everywhere and reported quite extensively. I am not outraged I am depressed but not in the slightest bit surprised.

StripeyGran

Oh what a load of nonsense. Trump? Really?

The hater of women, disabled people, people of colour.

What on earth is wrong with people who value his contribution at all?

Good post, and well said.

Galaxy

It is being discussed everywhere and reported quite extensively. I am not outraged I am depressed but not in the slightest bit surprised.

Same here.

Galaxy

It is being discussed everywhere and reported quite extensively. I am not outraged I am depressed but not in the slightest bit surprised.

Yep, in one 👍🏻

I also watched the January 6 events unfold live. It was horrifying and it looked as though people would be lynched. Trump did after all insist that the election had been stolen from him and he pardoned the rioters in his second term.
That said, if someone at the BBC manipulated the footage whoever it was should be disciplined or sacked. The evidence presented in the news should be absolutely incontrovertible, especially when dealing with such controversial figures as the current POTUS.

Trum is an individual who has told lies. The BBC is a corporation accused of lying. Is it the case that commentators employed by a corporation speak for that corporation or for themselves?

Galaxy

It is being discussed everywhere and reported quite extensively. I am not outraged I am depressed but not in the slightest bit surprised.

I am not outraged I am depressed but not in the slightest bit surprised.
Likewise, and that's the saddest part. That and the number of people that think selective, deceptive editing is absolutely OK as long as it's about someone or something you dislike. There was zero need to do the edit, there was sufficient material from Trumps own inciting rhetoric, but they thought they'd 'gild the lily' and now it's rebounding on them.

Trump's I missed the apostrophe.

Rosie51 you’ve got it in one

the number of people that think selective, deceptive editing is absolutely OK as long as it's about someone or something you dislike.

Apparently truth now depends on a person's personal bias; if it were a lie created about someone they supported they would accept it with impunity. Apparently?
I am horrified at the number of people on here who don't care about the supposedly impartial BBC deliberately doctoring material, the spoken recorded word, not even reported speech which could be open to interpretation, to present an unpopular person in an even worse light.

'The camera cannot lie' is easily disproved; apparently sound recording cannot be trusted either.
To a great number of people the truth clearly does not matter ; fortunately, to some it still does.

Additionally if almost all of us that heard Trump's speech could come to the conclusion that his rhetoric could/would inspire violent protest, then why did the editor decide we were too stupid and therefore he needed to edit and splice two sentences 50 minutes apart as if they were one to convince us?

Didn't Trump pardon those 'patriots'?