Best Of

Sadly it is, without doubt, “an attack by those with an agenda.”

This is not some staff member within the organisation whistleblowing.

Those who can't see that it's part of a concerted cultural attack by the right just don't want to see.

True- though that doesn't mean that the criticisms are wrong, or even silly. (Though some, like the 'where was the balancing documentary on what's bad about Harris?' surely were.)

Yes agreed. The Panorama edit was poor but hardly a 'phone-hacking' level crime. You'd think maybe a retraction and apology would be in order.

I'm reminded of a comment made by a Private Eye hack that many newspaper corrections add to the inaccuracy of the newspaper publishing the correction. (Yes, that seems paradoxical, but consider that the correction will be steered by one participant in the story.)

I suspect that the Prescott report, by highlighting certain imbalances that some people see in BBC coverage, is having much the same effect.

Classic attacking the messenger there. Basically there are far too many people on here who either believe the BBC can do no wrong or, if they do wrong it is only against people you don't like anyway do it doesn’t matter.

You are just another bunch of apologists for your own special interests and it is amusing that you end up using many of the excuses Cyclefree highlights in her excellent article.

Cyclefree lists a bunch of things she's not really going to allow in defence of the BBC. Well that's like charging someone with a crime and then saying we're not allowing any of the usual defences like an alibi, CCTV, DNA evidence, witness statements, lack of motivation or opportunity, etc.

Just because @Cyclefree has listed them in a pre-emptive strike, it doesn't invalidate genuinely important points. Indeed most of her headlines have some validity in this case.

Most of all this was without doubt: 3. An attack by those with an agenda.

The so-called defences, that @Cyclefree are disallowing, are the generic bullshit reactions of organisations trying to shrug off problems.

Sorry, Timmy, you can't use "The Dog Ate My Homework" as an excuse.

@Benpointer is I am sorry to say talking nonsense because he has done what so many organisations do: formed his opinion (a right wing attack) without any regard to the underlying facts relevant to the criticisms. Also he thinks only an employee can be a whistleblower. Not true.

What I have set out are not in any sense "defences". They are the very common reactions to criticisms. They are hopeless. The best defence is evidence which shows the criticism to be wrong. That is precisely what the BBC is not doing. It is being its own worst enemy by not engaging properly with the criticisms and either accepting them, where valid, and putting matters right or explaining why they are wrong. It is a great pity.

As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.

I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others. The conflict of interest determining how women's rights should be discussed is much more serious both because it has been longer lasting but also because such conflicts are always by definition more serious and harder to resolve. It is notable that it is the one area which the BBC and many of its defenders have ignored in their responses. What's the agenda there?

I wrote this as a critical friend. It pains me to see organisations make such a hash of their responses to problems like this. It is not hard to get it right. It is so easy to get it wrong and it shouldn't be because so much should have been learnt from others. And there are lots of people who could help them get it right professionally. But too many organisations are too arrogant, stupid or panicky to realise that they need help. And so we see the shitshow we've been seeing in the last few days.

And those who will do anything to destroy the best of the BBC will get their chance. It is so important to distinguish between the destroyers and critical friends. The BBC needs critical friends right now. The John Simpsons and others are not being critical friends. They are reinforcing the impression of an arrogant aloof organisation which thinks it knows best. It is a great pity.

You would expect a report on bias in an organisation to be objective, and not itself to be massively biased. That's why I think the BBC board engaging a partisan hack as its bias consultant is a bigger problem than any of the issues he has identified. Any big organisation has issues that get resolved some how, but a leadership guided by consultants not acting in good faith is a leadership seriously adrift, in my view.

The idea that there's a room full of Plato's Philosopher Kings wing to be released upon the world to give us Pure Impartiality is... improbable.

In the real world, you get biases. It's a bit like working with a mill or lathe. Nothing is perfectly true. But with clever techniques, you can used a lathe to make *a more accurate lathe*.

No but there's already a review process in the BBC for bias, which is dealing with most or all of the genuine issues including the Panorama edit. This process appears to be much more rigorous and objective than Michael Prescott's hatchet job. So why not run with that?

I have no problem with Prescott having a personal view of how he would like stories to be reported but it's concerning the BBC board have delegated overall editorial judgement to an outsider with an agenda.

They haven't delegated editorial judgement to an outsider.

He wrote a report/memo on editorial judgement. Which, in among the partisan stuff, deals with a number of objective failures in meetings standards.

Which is why people resigned.

The sane approach is to prevent the same shit happening again.

I accept the report mentions a couple of genuine failings - the Panorama edit, some of the reporting on Gaza - which are being dealt with through the proper process already. The "partisan stuff' is the problem. Not even because it is partisan - anyone can have a view - but because the board has decided to make it their totem.

The problem is that "The Proper Process" is reactive and after the event.

What is needed is to prevent them happening again. Which means changing behaviour.

I'm not sure what "changing behaviour" would actually mean here. I think there's one with the BBC Arabic service where the journalists over identified with "their people" rather than reporting objectively. That's a specific issue the organisation is dealing with specifically, correctly in my view. The rest? The BBC is responsible for a huge amount of content and the number of incontestably wrong calls identified by the report is tiny. How do you generalise that in organisational, behavioural terms?

False claim again. The BBC might be responsible for a "a huge amount of content" but much of that is uncontroversial. We are not really concerned about Eastenders or Traitors. What we are concerned about is that BBC news is regarded as impartial and truthful. A couple of important labels it has lost (if it ever really had them).

Which easily available general coverage news source would you trust more than the BBC?

Political Betting of course

That's not entirely a joke, though it's a good one. I'm increasingly aware how few places there are one can get a range of opinions and comments [edit] outwith the silos.

It wasn't really meant as a joke if I am being honest. Whenever I see an item of news interest appear on the wires, my first port of call is always PB rather than any official media website.

https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1988274649830928799?s=46

BREAKING:

David Lammy admits that another prisoner may have been released in error **last week** on November 3. The prison service is investigating. Amazingly it doesn't actually know if the prisoner is still at large

Your joking....not another one.....

To be fair to Lammy (and I find it remarkable that I am writing that) it would be interesting to see what the rates of incorrect release have been historically. Is this a new thing or is it something that has been going on for ages but has only now caught the imagination of the public/press.

It doesn't make it any less serious, nor does it excuse Lammy per se as the buck stops with him. But it would be interesting to see what the rates of mistaken release were a year ago, 5 years ago and a decade ago.

Sadly it is, without doubt, “an attack by those with an agenda.”

This is not some staff member within the organisation whistleblowing.

Those who can't see that it's part of a concerted cultural attack by the right just don't want to see.

True- though that doesn't mean that the criticisms are wrong, or even silly. (Though some, like the 'where was the balancing documentary on what's bad about Harris?' surely were.)

Yes agreed. The Panorama edit was poor but hardly a 'phone-hacking' level crime. You'd think maybe a retraction and apology would be in order.

I'm reminded of a comment made by a Private Eye hack that many newspaper corrections add to the inaccuracy of the newspaper publishing the correction. (Yes, that seems paradoxical, but consider that the correction will be steered by one participant in the story.)

I suspect that the Prescott report, by highlighting certain imbalances that some people see in BBC coverage, is having much the same effect.

Classic attacking the messenger there. Basically there are far too many people on here who either believe the BBC can do no wrong or, if they do wrong it is only against people you don't like anyway do it doesn’t matter.

You are just another bunch of apologists for your own special interests and it is amusing that you end up using many of the excuses Cyclefree highlights in her excellent article.