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

Everything on the media is within the contexts and morality and memes of the times we live in.

What we see, how it's presented, how organisations functions: no one media source is separate from another. We make out judgments by comparison.

and what leads me to assert this?

Why..

GB news was part of the very O/P , was it not?

*What other proof do you want that we are in a "compare and examine current media available"

So?

It has been picked up by them, though.

MayBee70

Is it a coincidence that the complaint about the BBC was either started by America or has been picked up by them. At a time when an American company is trying to buy ITV? Will we end up with a UK version of Fox News in the future?

It wasn’t started in the US.
There’s plenty to read in the news about this if you’re interested.
Neither was it started by Tories, Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson or any of the people hated by posters.

This thread is about the BBC. Those who are trying to deflect should start their own thread about what they DO want to complain about, ie GB News. Just an idea!

Sorry, "cannot do" what The BBC does

Clearly not.

its really, really important to keep The BBC because new TV platforms financed by big business always without fail end up in the hands of Big Money and Right Wing interests,

often international not UK

without fail, NOT any kind of middle ground.

As regards The BBC, those on the right think it is "left"
Those on the Left, see it as being to the Right.

That has to say something.

Channel 4, btw, is Channel 4 is a publicly owned but commercially run corporation in the UK,

with its parent organisation being the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
It is funded by advertising revenue and does not receive public money. While there have been government discussions about potentially privatising it, a final decision was made to keep it publicly owned with reforms to ensure its sustainability.

Long may it also exist, news wise. of course it can do what the BBC does, with the superb radio we have, nor its cultural side.

Is it a coincidence that the complaint about the BBC was either started by America or has been picked up by them. At a time when an American company is trying to buy ITV? Will we end up with a UK version of Fox News in the future?

Oh come on!
Matt jokes are always good 😁

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Matt’s take today!

Alors, quelle surprise. 🙄 🤣

The start of this Thread, which was a Poster calling out lies by the BBC, has grown and developed to embrace other media sources.
That's the dynamic and appeal of Gransnet.
You can be constantly amazed, and educated, and for some Posters, it would seem, annoyed, by the range and diversity of the posts.
Threads that are simply echo chambers, no matter how worthy the subject, fade away.
Happened recently to the Sudan Thread.

Media outlets and Politicians who tell lies, why would anyone claim to admire them?

100 BBC staff complained of pro Israel bias in the Gaza war. They wanted an explanation from Tim Davie.
Time he went.

The BBC has been accused of ignoring a second memo alleging bias in its reporting of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Sir Vernon Bogdanor, the author of the memo and a constitutional expert, has called on Tim Davie to resign with “immediate effect” as director-general of the BBC.

The eminent academic, a former professor of government at the University of Oxford, said the broadcaster had “ignored internal reports” that had made allegations of distortion and bias in its journalism.

I am not trying to tell you anything, Wyllow.

The point of this thread is the manipulation and lies by the BBC with specific reference to a particular speech made by Donald Trump.
This is like trying to mark an essay where the student refuses to address the question and persists in pursuing their own agenda, connected but not relevant to the particular subject.
You are perfectly free to start a different thread on a topic which interests you.

Matt’s take today!

Oreo

Doodledog and any other posters who think this is about the BBC and Trump, it isn’t.Trump is just awful and lies as easily as breathing, but this is about the BBC whether an in house report or something commissioned by them tells the whole truth and doesn’t show bias.It’s come to light in the last year that the Beeb has either given the green light to this behaviour or has just been very lazy in any scrutiny of it.There has to be some answer by Tim Davie on this, it’s not going to go away.

Excuse me?

Where did you get the idea that I think 'this' is about the BBC and Trump? Or that when I expressly said I am 'not making excuses' I was excusing what has happened? I don't think (and never said) that 'this' will go away. Please don't put words into my mouth or ascribe motives I don't have. I offered a (possibly naive) way to deal with the impossibility of holding one person responsible for all the output of something the size of the BBC. I would hate the BBC to lose its licence, as if it did the entire media would be funded by vested interests of one form or another.

My first point, made by others too, is that comparing the BBC and Trump is comparing apples and pears, and my second is that yes, the BBC has been atrociously biased in its presentation of trans issues, but as an explanation, not an excuse I think it's important to look at the way Stonewall operated, which was to infiltrate large organisations and build policy. Their power is waning (thank goodness) but it will take time for their legacy to work through.

Are you really trying to tell me you are not concerned about other national media outlets, Easybee?

Frankly, I am far, far more concerned about GB news - a national broadcaster - who is so racist over a long period of time spouting their view as "the truth" than one (of course serious) event on the BBC.

Or - and this is far more widespread - and more damaging in my personal view given the extent of it - any media who use "half quotes" so as to totally change the meaning of that quote by the politician concerned

That's interesting eazybee, you have seen the live footage, have you also had a chance to see the altered version?

Someone mentioned The Telegraph upthread, so I thought it was worth a wee google.
AI claims that The Telegraph has 'mixed' score for factual reporting due to 'poor sourcing of information and some failed fact checks'.

Wyllow, I will it repeat again.
My posts are not about Trump and the lies he may or may not have told, but the deliberate manipulation by the BBC of a recorded speech he made, apparently to distort its meaning. I saw that speech live and was deeply shocked by it.
But however appalling that does not give anyone the right to alter it.

It is the veracity of the BBC as a national institution that is of concern; nothing to do with red-tops, reality checks or partial quotes elsewhere; those are different issues.
It is the BBC's deliberate alteration of a recorded and broadcast speech of historic importance that is of concern.
If they alter that, and people don't care,what else do they alter?

Yes, this concern is mostly about the BBC, but other 'news' outlets deserve similar scrutiny.
That post about GB news's racial bias is also important, because GB News is a main source for many people, and is preferred by some of our own Posters, as stated on other Threads.
As Foxie and others have said, mix and match your sources for more accurate coverage.

Perhaps I’m totally naïve but this really shocked me. I believed Clive!

Disappointed about the BBC, but the media and sadly, our politicians are guilty of organising the truth to fit what they want to say.
The thread about ‘would you take a story to the press’ has some good examples.

Sorry didn't see Oreos post but saying it twice doesn't hurt