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

Primrose53

*Wyllow3*. Good try at deflection. As usual.😉

That was an attack on another poster.
I don't report but you need to know it's not on.

Thanks Wyllow, nearly missed your post.
Yes, GB News, beloved of many GNs.
Foxie, you nailed it when you said, don't rely on just one source.
Good that this Thread has been alerted to broadcasting bias by a variety of media outlets.

I worry more about stories in some of the daily newspapers than I do about the BBC. It looks a bit like a Tory press campaign against the Beeb and that's nothing new. The BBC Charter is coming up for renewal and the anti-Beeb action usually starts ahead of that. Whatever it's faults the BBC is worth cherishing (along with the rather marginal Channel 4 News).

I'm certainly not a fan of Tim Davie and the BBC isn't the quality it used to be in some areas.
I can't condemn the whole organisation for some reports that have been shown to be untrue.
Those that don't trust the BBC can find news elsewhere or try, as I do, to see if it tallies with other news reports.

Primrose53

*Wyllow3*. Good try at deflection. As usual.😉

I didn't read it as deflection but as making interesting and valid points.

Sorry can't be bothered to do silly little smiley wink face.

Interesting report in The Guardian online. Covers a lot of what has been discussed upthread.

Patronising or what!

That’s what I thought too Primrose53

Wyllow3. Good try at deflection. As usual.😉

Tim Davie needs to say something very soon, if only that it will be investigated pronto.The BBC has a lot more to uphold than GBNews or other and remember that we have to pay a licence fee to the BBC.
This won’t go away folks either!

Yes of course doodledog. The trouble is the damage it does. I read what I thought was a brilliant BBC article about the situation in Sudan
yesterday, brutal but I think good journalism. However as my trust has
been so damaged, I read it and thought but how do I trust this. A few
weeks ago I read a BBC report which described a man who assaulted children as a woman. Any organisation that does that is both insane and abusive.

I fully expect them to deal with it, Oreo, I don't have doubts.

But please remember that a huge organisation does not respond "instantly" - and it would not be good for it to be so

There has to be a proper full consideration of it as well as any consideration of anything else like this example

If we are to hold an incident like this up to the light, then we also have to examine for example the GB news Anti Muslim bias (some of the examples given in the report I referred to break the law)

check out the report for this

it wont go away folks

cfmm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CfMM-GB-News-Report-2024.pdf

It happened everywhere, didn't it? I recall so very well its growth and development.

I think its a social/historical phenomenon we can look back on and ask,

"why did something really, really good that begun with gay rights turn into an extreme gender related situation"

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.

Galaxy

It isn't about just individuals though, the whistleblower discussed an ongoing bias in terms of the gender debate.

Oh yes. I couldn't agree more about that. Again, not making excuses, but an explanation is that many organisations were 'captured' by Stonewall, who operated at cross-organisational level. When something becomes policy individuals struggle to work against it. I saw it happen in universities and councils and have no doubt that it happened in the BBC.

The BBC is interwoven with our whole lives, and yes we pay for it.

So........ I say instead of moaning, do something

Ask for the changes you feel should be made.

Put forward positive suggestions.

Call out individual examples.

And remember what I revealed upthread - which is that our licence fee doesn't just support the BBC, it pays for the platform itself for all Freeview viewing

It isn't about just individuals though, the whistleblower discussed an ongoing bias in terms of the gender debate.

Sorry, Doodledog of course, my apologies both "Doodles"

Maremia I also will continue to trust the BBC more than most other sources but I don't use it as my only source. Tbh I don't think anyone should rely on one source. The BBC is not like it used to be, it consistently relies on external independent producers of content which is often commissioned but not produced by BBC trained staff, therein lies the problem. The BBC does a fraction of the training it used to do because of continuous under funding and I think that seriously affects quality and accountability. With regards to who trains staff working for independents, well what little training they receive is often supplied by ex BBC staff who have been made redundant because of the cuts and it's nowhere near as intensive as the BBC used to do.

Doodle, that was a wonderful post. It really says what I feel.

I use R3 unwind a lot of the time, as its so calming and helpful, and I love R4 as an endless source of information, whether it be science, comparative religion, personal testimony of troubled times spoken from the heart and how they have been overcome, insight into so many areas of life, the wonderful presenter who has no sight,

and of course the Moral Maze.... which believe me covers every POV from left, right, centre very full on and honestly

The BBC World service is worth a listen to if you doubt the BBC's integrity

As it has testimony from so many different countries of suffering and celebration - and its listened to wherever it can be heard in the world as a source of valuable and indeed reliable information...

I so agree that it's a matter of looking at an individuals failings and appropriate action taken and swiftly

If we looked at any TV stations'output we will find an individual who crosses an unacceptable line. It's no good holding up GB news for example as a model of perfection.

*here is a report by the Centre for Media Monitoring entitled
"A Snapshot of Anti Muslim hate". It's looking at output in detail over two years with specific example and quotes*

I urge GN readers to take a look at this before they condemn anything by the BBC! It really spells it out with actual examples and names names*

cfmm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CfMM-GB-News-Report-2024.pdf

Do I consider tbe BBC to be more trustworthy than
Fox News yes
Than X yes
Than Truth Social yes
Than War Rooms yes.
Than CNN equivalence

Thank you Magenta.
The BBC broadcasts thousands upon thousands of hours of content on its various forms and formats.
As you have shown, this dubious programme was 'bought in'.
Petra has also offered details of other poor choices made by the BBC.
Taking an overview of the volume of content broadcast, and the statistically tiny amount of mistakes, demonstrated on this Thread, I shall continue to view the BBC as a source worth reading...but with caution.

I am not excusing the BBC, but don’t think the comparisons with Trump stand up, because Trump is one man, and ‘the BBC’ is an organisation. A man can lie and be responsible for those lies, but an organisation is made up of lots of people, and is not an entity in itself. The BBC can’t lie - only people within it can do so.

I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the DG to be able to have an oversight of everything that is broadcast by an organisation as big as the BBC. I do, however, think that where it is clear that lies (well, mis or disinformation) have been told, the people responsible should be sacked. Maybe, if there isn’t one already, there could be a chain of responsibility so that programmes are routinely fact-checked and it is clear where the ‘buck stops’?

I don’t want to lose the BBC, as having a press that is privately owned and/or responsible to advertisers would be a retrograde step, IMO. On the other hand we have to be able to trust the integrity of a national broadcaster.

So as far as I can distinguish your argument, Maremia, you think that because Trump tells lies it is acceptable for the BBC to do likewise?

Well, it is not.
We pay for the BBC and it is expected it to be impartial. At present it is not and that is what has provoked disgust.

This is not a dispute about Trump and his behaviour, it is about the BBC and its manipulation of news, with evidence also of its coverage about Gaza, Israel, and the handling of trans issues.
Also the complete, cowardly silence of Tim Davie.

Yes Maremia I did find out that the Trump speech was edited and used in a programme made by an independent company.

In answer to your previous post there is masses of evidence on more than a few threads that most GNs "condemn the lies of Trump."

Any more questions?