The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
If Your Party ends up with the 6 Independent Alliance MPs and polling 30% I expect you will see it more often on the BBC. Reform appears to be the most popular party in the country at the moment
The majority of Farage's appearance on eg QT were before Reform existed. Still, I'm sure there's no causation there.
At a quick inspection, Farage has had 6 appearances since RefUK was founded in November 2018, including 3 since June 2024.
He's not at the top of the list. But him, Tice, Yusuf, and Goodwin are all on 2 or 3 appearances, which seems overweight for what they are. OTOH there is only a minibus of them.
Our rules are clear that politicians may not present news programmes unless exceptionally justified and our recently updated guidance puts this beyond doubt. https://x.com/Ofcom/status/1987557600951488992
GB News is Reform TV.
I've heard Camilla Tominey commenting words to that effect, in addition to it being blatantly obvious.
A perfect balance to Channel4 News and Channel4 which is Your Party/Zak attack central. They’ve even commissioned Wealth Tax fanatic Gary Stevenson to make a documentary about a Wealth Tax. I’m sure that will be even handed and impartial 🙄
I really hate this modern trend that so many "documentataries" are hosted by a celeb or a campaigner.
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
#pbfreespeech
BTW I totally agree with your take on Ncuti Gatwa and Dr Who. I suspect he’s an unfairly maligned young man who did his best with a crap hand.
I thought both he and Jodie Whittaker were and are excellent actors let down by terrible writing and an apparent determination to detsroy the canon that has sustained the series for so long. They could have done wonders with both actors if they had been given a chance with some decent story lines written by people who actualy understood the series.
Sorry, but Jodie Whittaker just couldn't run. Core skill as a Doctor - running away.
In no way did they frame Trump or make false claims or even suggestions about what he did. There's so many things to complain about with the Beeb. This isn't one of them
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
They have surely figured out by now the licence fee is a trap. Revenue from it is only going to go down, with broadcast TV an irrelevance for more and more people as time goes by.
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
#pbfreespeech
BTW I totally agree with your take on Ncuti Gatwa and Dr Who. I suspect he’s an unfairly maligned young man who did his best with a crap hand.
I thought both he and Jodie Whittaker were and are excellent actors let down by terrible writing and an apparent determination to detsroy the canon that has sustained the series for so long. They could have done wonders with both actors if they had been given a chance with some decent story lines written by people who actualy understood the series.
Chibnall and RTD really have no excuse either. Both have been fans for many years and both have written for the show previously
Both Whittaker and Gatwa were a break from the usual white guy in the role and neither was really given the chance to make their mark with it.
President Trump has granted pre-emptive pardons to Rudolph W. Giuliani and others accused of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to an official familiar with the matter.
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
If you split it into commercial and news wings (both institutionally independent) you could have a publicly-funded news option headed by an editor-in-chief and a commercial wing backed by subscription and allowed to be run in a different way. That commercial wing could also have access to some grants to ensure the continued development of novel programming/talent that otherwise wouldn’t be made.
The problem is that the BBC doesn’t really make much sense as an organisation in 2025. If you - like me - think there is some merit in retaining a publicly funded news broadcaster then unshackle BBC News from the rest of the edifice and let it focus on broadcasting and journalistic excellence.
President Trump has granted pre-emptive pardons to Rudolph W. Giuliani and others accused of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to an official familiar with the matter.
I’m guessing that’s bad but when Joe Biden granted pre-emptive pardons to people, including his fsmily, that was good 🤔
President Trump has granted pre-emptive pardons to Rudolph W. Giuliani and others accused of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to an official familiar with the matter.
I’m guessing that’s bad but when Joe Biden granted pre-emptive pardons to people, including his fsmily, that was good 🤔
At some point the US is going to have to row back from this political lawfare. Sadly I fear it’ll take a while.
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
If you split it into commercial and news wings (both institutionally independent) you could have a publicly-funded news option headed by an editor-in-chief and a commercial wing backed by subscription and allowed to be run in a different way. That commercial wing could also have access to some grants to ensure the continued development of novel programming/talent that otherwise wouldn’t be made.
The problem is that the BBC doesn’t really make much sense as an organisation in 2025. If you - like me - think there is some merit in retaining a publicly funded news broadcaster then unshackle BBC News from the rest of the edifice and let it focus on broadcasting and journalistic excellence.
Strip,the public service element from the, effectively, commercialised BBC main channels both TV and Radio, and allow any broadcaster who wants to to apply for funding to provide the service.
Why should stuff like The Traitors, Strictly, or Masterchef be funded from a tax on owning a TV set and receiving live signals enforced by an intrusive collection regime and people falling foul of it prosecuted under the awful SJP.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
I think the BBC is a bit right biased but since a lot of righties thing it's left biased, I am willing to conclude that anything not echoing your own view is likely to seem biased the other way.
I do genuinely think it tries to be neutral most times and succeeds more often than not.
Sadly, its days are probably numbered - another great British institution trashed in the pursuit of political and financial goals by people who really only give a shit about themselves and their family.
As long as Labour remain in power the BBC should be OK and keep the licence fee, if Farage got in he would certainly end the licence fee if Reform led a government.
To prepare for that possibility the BBC should start charging for iplayer use and allow paid adverts by companies in its most popular programmes like Strictly and Eastenders, even if Farage doesn't win it would be sensible to do so
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
If you split it into commercial and news wings (both institutionally independent) you could have a publicly-funded news option headed by an editor-in-chief and a commercial wing backed by subscription and allowed to be run in a different way. That commercial wing could also have access to some grants to ensure the continued development of novel programming/talent that otherwise wouldn’t be made.
The problem is that the BBC doesn’t really make much sense as an organisation in 2025. If you - like me - think there is some merit in retaining a publicly funded news broadcaster then unshackle BBC News from the rest of the edifice and let it focus on broadcasting and journalistic excellence.
Strip,the public service element from the, effectively, commercialised BBC main channels both TV and Radio, and allow any broadcaster who wants to to apply for funding to provide the service.
Why should stuff like The Traitors, Strictly, or Masterchef be funded from a tax on owning a TV set and receiving live signals enforced by an intrusive collection regime and people falling foul of it prosecuted under the awful SJP.
Well, quite.
One of the things that seems to take up a lot of time and energy at the BBC is its constant effort to justify its commercial programming, and its retention of talent.
If you start from the premise that part of the BBC is now a fundamentally commercial endeavour then it makes little sense for it not to be run and funded commercially. It can then hire whoever it likes and broadcast whatever it wants, and it can charge subscribers whatever it is able to justify.
Leave the public service news programming to be run and funded independently and let it focus on getting that right.
If that avoids the rather ludicrous situation we have now where its news wing increasingly cross-promotes its commercial programming, even better.
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
I can see this government going with some sort on enforced payment via council tax.
I guess it would be about 8% on the average Band D Council Tax, on top of the 5%. Probably ain't gonna happen.
'With Maurice Glasman and Dominic Lawson calling for the return of the stocks, we found most Britons strongly opposed - although Reform voters are divided'
'With reports that some parents and children are suing the government calling for a blanket smartphone ban in schools, our polling previously found...
-79% think phones should be banned in schools -65% of Britons say there should be a single policy for all schools, rather than left for heads to decide (27%)' https://x.com/YouGov/status/1987864737741168693?s=20
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
I can see this government going with some sort on enforced payment via council tax.
The BBC itself were keen on a Digital Tax - x per Mb from the ISPs.
'With Maurice Glasman and Dominic Lawson calling for the return of the stocks, we found most Britons strongly opposed - although Reform voters are divided'
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
I can see this government going with some sort on enforced payment via council tax.
The BBC itself were keen on a Digital Tax - x per Mb from the ISPs.
They’re keen on any means of funding that means they don’t have to compete in the open market.
In no way did they frame Trump or make false claims or even suggestions about what he did. There's so many things to complain about with the Beeb. This isn't one of them
It isn't really the edit which underlies all this. That was just the trigger. The leak of an internal BBC report (prepared by a guy with his own agenda) to the Telegraph was more instrumental.
The BBC board was then deadlocked on how to respond, which meant the BBC no-commenting for days on end. That clearly became untenable for the two who resigned (and they may have done so in attempt to resolve the ongoing mess).
Is it known who at the Beeb commissioned the report?
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
There is no other subject across the media today
Lammy must hope it continues into tomorrow when he appears at the dispatch box for justice questions !!!
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
If Your Party ends up with the 6 Independent Alliance MPs and polling 30% I expect you will see it more often on the BBC. Reform appears to be the most popular party in the country at the moment
The majority of Farage's appearance on eg QT were before Reform existed. Still, I'm sure there's no causation there.
I find this pre-occupation with the number of times Farage jhas appeared on QT to be rather amusing.
Farage is 6th on the all time list of the number of times he has apeared as a guest on the programme. And 4th in terms of number of times per year.
You would think from all the clamour that he appears every other week, or even every other month. In fact he has appeared on the programme 38 times in 24 years at an average of 1.5 times per year. This is the same number of appearences and the same average per year as Michael Heseltine.
Kenneth Clarke made the most appearences - 59 times in 37 years at an average of 1.6 times a year.
Shirley Williams has the second highest number of appearences but the highest number per year - 58 times in 35 years at an average of 1.7
Then Ming Campbell (47), Harriet Harmen (45) and Charles Kennedy (44).
If you want to make any claim based on that list then it would be that overwhelmingly their was a massive imbalance in favour of pro-EU guests.
Of course the real reason is that they were articulate, passionate and entertaining, whether you agreed with them or not.
QT guests articulate, passionate & entertaining, shome mishtake shirley? Ah, most of them are dead, fair enough.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
Yep - the dossier as a whole is damning. If I didn't know better I'd almost suggest the BBC is attempting damage limitation by focussing so much on Trump...
They don't want to do this. Most people won't be aware you can piss off to Monaco et al and pay no capital gains on assets acquired while working in the UK. The more this is publicised the more Reeves will have to squash the tax exiles.
Black Friday is the day between Thanksgiving, last Thursday in November (mandatory family gathering) and the weekend. Therefore most people free to shop for Xmas. It is, therefore, the most egregious of Americanisms.
Labour is very fortunate that the BBC black cat was thrown onto the table to divert away from this appallingly incompetent Govt.
A very temporary distraction. We'll be back on how crap Starmer and Reeves are by teatime...
Budget's coming soon isn't it? Is it before or after Black Friday?
A few days before although from our trip to the shops yesterday the Black Friday sales have already started !
I see elsewhere that is now morphing into Black Month (at least one shop).
So what started out as a very specific sale in one country that celebrates a historic day from its past has now spread over the Atlantic and become an entire month of sales in a country what doesn't celebrate that day.
They don't want to do this. Most people won't be aware you can piss off to Monaco et al and pay no capital gains on assets acquired while working in the UK. The more this is publicised the more Reeves will have to squash the tax exiles.
If you can't tax people, you can't have a sovereign state.
I am sympathetic to people who state the Govt spends too much, but that doesn't alter the fact that the tax base has developed a leak. Exit taxes (UK) or a system where citizens abroad still pay income tax (USA?) address this problem, unlike other policies which just squeak "Growth! Growth!" in the hope that that fixes things.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
They like to flagellate themselves in public when they've been caught short.
This has resonances of the Gilligan Iraq affair. Instead of Campbell we have Trump.
They don't want to do this. Most people won't be aware you can piss off to Monaco et al and pay no capital gains on assets acquired while working in the UK. The more this is publicised the more Reeves will have to squash the tax exiles.
Except that those who are aware of it, are the mobile HNWs and investors who keep quiet and just rearrange their affairs ahead of the Budget to have US/UAE/Monaco topcos, and Rachel realises far too late that she’s just lost billions of investment pounds.
That’s before we start on the investment income that never arrives in the first place.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action, according to BBC News.
This follows the allegations of BBC bias over a Panorama edit of a Donald Trump speech.
Call his bluff.
The BBC needs to sue him first in the US, where the high “Actual Malice” standard of defamation applies. Even with that high bar, it’s difficult to defend what they actually broadcast.
A London libel court would throw the book at the BBC.
Looks like the licence fee payers will be contributing to that new ballroom in Washington.
'Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy is set to leave prison later today following an appeal court hearing.
Sarkozy, 70, who will be placed on judicial supervision, will also be banned from leaving French territory, the court said. An appeal trial is expected to take place in March.'
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
If Your Party ends up with the 6 Independent Alliance MPs and polling 30% I expect you will see it more often on the BBC. Reform appears to be the most popular party in the country at the moment
The majority of Farage's appearance on eg QT were before Reform existed. Still, I'm sure there's no causation there.
I find this pre-occupation with the number of times Farage jhas appeared on QT to be rather amusing.
Farage is 6th on the all time list of the number of times he has apeared as a guest on the programme. And 4th in terms of number of times per year.
You would think from all the clamour that he appears every other week, or even every other month. In fact he has appeared on the programme 38 times in 24 years at an average of 1.5 times per year. This is the same number of appearences and the same average per year as Michael Heseltine.
Kenneth Clarke made the most appearences - 59 times in 37 years at an average of 1.6 times a year.
Shirley Williams has the second highest number of appearences but the highest number per year - 58 times in 35 years at an average of 1.7
Then Ming Campbell (47), Harriet Harmen (45) and Charles Kennedy (44).
If you want to make any claim based on that list then it would be that overwhelmingly their was a massive imbalance in favour of pro-EU guests.
Of course the real reason is that they were articulate, passionate and entertaining, whether you agreed with them or not.
QT guests articulate, passionate & entertaining, shome mishtake shirley? Ah, most of them are dead, fair enough.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
If Your Party ends up with the 6 Independent Alliance MPs and polling 30% I expect you will see it more often on the BBC. Reform appears to be the most popular party in the country at the moment
The majority of Farage's appearance on eg QT were before Reform existed. Still, I'm sure there's no causation there.
I find this pre-occupation with the number of times Farage jhas appeared on QT to be rather amusing.
Farage is 6th on the all time list of the number of times he has apeared as a guest on the programme. And 4th in terms of number of times per year.
You would think from all the clamour that he appears every other week, or even every other month. In fact he has appeared on the programme 38 times in 24 years at an average of 1.5 times per year. This is the same number of appearences and the same average per year as Michael Heseltine.
Kenneth Clarke made the most appearences - 59 times in 37 years at an average of 1.6 times a year.
Shirley Williams has the second highest number of appearences but the highest number per year - 58 times in 35 years at an average of 1.7
Then Ming Campbell (47), Harriet Harmen (45) and Charles Kennedy (44).
If you want to make any claim based on that list then it would be that overwhelmingly their was a massive imbalance in favour of pro-EU guests.
Of course the real reason is that they were articulate, passionate and entertaining, whether you agreed with them or not.
QT guests articulate, passionate & entertaining, shome mishtake shirley? Ah, most of them are dead, fair enough.
Running the country based on complete avoidance of any policy clapped by the QT audience isn't the worst plan.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
Have you read the dossier? It will answer some of your questions, I think. I can link but don't want to on PB in case its copywrite of the Telegraph.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
Well we've spent pretty well the whole morning talking about it.
And no doubt they'd be accused of trying to ignore it if they did otherwise.
They don't want to do this. Most people won't be aware you can piss off to Monaco et al and pay no capital gains on assets acquired while working in the UK. The more this is publicised the more Reeves will have to squash the tax exiles.
Except that those who are aware of it, are the mobile HNWs and investors who keep quiet and just rearrange their affairs ahead of the Budget to have US/UAE/Monaco topcos, and Rachel realises far too late that she’s just lost billions of investment pounds.
That’s before we start on the investment income that never arrives in the first place.
There is no doubt that we have an imbalance in wealth globally these days but the solution is not to try and tax the rich out of your country. This has been tried many times and always fails. The best solution is to encourage the behaviour you want from the rich. That is to invest in the UK, be a good employer, support the local community. In return allow them to make a decent return, let them be a good family man / woman and support them against their global competitors. The UK used to be great at this now it is terrible.
30% for don't know suggests more people are paying attention than I feared. Labour are getting this worst because they are in power and have to make real decisions with real consequences but none, and I mean none, of the others are remotely convincing or serious about addressing our problems.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
David, they only care about saving their own skins and lucrative positions. The only option that is viable is large cuts in spending , they can tinker about with tax but what they should be doing is simplifying tax big time and taking an axe to spending. That is what happens to ordinary people when they max out their credit cards etc. Sheer lunacy but they will be well insulated.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
1/ Eleven Dutch parties across the political spectrum from socialist to conservative have issued a joint appeal to a provincial government to build a memorial to Black American soldiers who died in World War II, to replace one removed from the Netherlands American Cemetery. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1987811787484414220
2/ The Dutch newspaper NRC reported earlier that a memorial to African-American soldiers who had fought to liberate the Netherlands and built the cemetery in Margraten, South Limburg, had been removed following a complaint by the Heritage Foundation.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
Right wingers won’t be happy till the BBC turns into an extension of the X cesspit .
Farage can fxck right off .
I think it would help.calm right wing fears if the BBC didn't tell outright lies. It wasn't a mistake it was deliberate.
It may well have been deliberate by somebody but by the corporation as whole? That's clearly b*ll*cks.
BBC is without doubt the most unbiased and trustworthy source of news in the world overall - if you think that's wrong tell which is outlet is better?
It's also a tremendous source of soft power for the UK. I find it astonishing that people who purport to be British patriots are striving to bring the BBC down. Putin will be loving this.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
Or admit libel and offer him damages of one three pound note. Which is what his reputation is worth in this country.
Separately, it seems incredible to me that Sarkozy has a) been released 3 weeks into a 5 year prison sentence b) was being held in solitary confinement
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
About 20 years ago there was a study done om media bias. The researchers tried to pull together a news item on Israel/Palestine and to do it in as bare bones a manner possible. Literally, just the agreed facts from both Israeli and Palestinian press.
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
Separately, it seems incredible to me that Sarkozy has a) been released 3 weeks into a 5 year prison sentence b) was being held in solitary confinement
They released him when he promised to self deport to the UK.
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
I can see this government going with some sort on enforced payment via council tax.
I guess it would be about 8% on the average Band D Council Tax, on top of the 5%. Probably ain't gonna happen.
30% for don't know suggests more people are paying attention than I feared. Labour are getting this worst because they are in power and have to make real decisions with real consequences but none, and I mean none, of the others are remotely convincing or serious about addressing our problems.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
David, they only care about saving their own skins and lucrative positions. The only option that is viable is large cuts in spending , they can tinker about with tax but what they should be doing is simplifying tax big time and taking an axe to spending. That is what happens to ordinary people when they max out their credit cards etc. Sheer lunacy but they will be well insulated.
Separately, it seems incredible to me that Sarkozy has a) been released 3 weeks into a 5 year prison sentence b) was being held in solitary confinement
Isn't (a) because of an appeal and (b) obvious because he would be a target?
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
About 20 years ago there was a study done om media bias. The researchers tried to pull together a news item on Israel/Palestine and to do it in as bare bones a manner possible. Literally, just the agreed facts from both Israeli and Palestinian press.
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
The BBC has been pretty even handed over the years. They've regularly platformed spokespersons from both sides telling the most egregious lies.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
About 20 years ago there was a study done om media bias. The researchers tried to pull together a news item on Israel/Palestine and to do it in as bare bones a manner possible. Literally, just the agreed facts from both Israeli and Palestinian press.
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action, according to BBC News.
This follows the allegations of BBC bias over a Panorama edit of a Donald Trump speech.
Call his bluff.
The BBC needs to sue him first in the US, where the high “Actual Malice” standard of defamation applies. Even with that high bar, it’s difficult to defend what they actually broadcast.
A London libel court would throw the book at the BBC.
Looks like the licence fee payers will be contributing to that new ballroom in Washington.
We didn’t need the Telegraph leak to know there had been an edit. You just need to watch the programme and compare it to the raw footage. The fact that this supposedly egregious libel had gone entirely unnoticed until the Telegraph leaked a report discussing it does not suggest that it was a particularly serious libel. The BBC has, fairly quickly, apologised and corrected the error.
The actual libel wasn’t even saying Trump had done something he hadn’t. It was misrepresenting his exact words with an edit. Trump said A, and Trump said B, but he didn’t say B immediately after A. That’s rather less serious than making an explicit false accusation about someone.
A London libel court would not throw the book at the BBC. They might get as far as lobbing a small pamphlet, or maybe a leaflet folded into a paper airplane.
If any money went to Trump, it wouldn’t go to pay for the ballroom. Trump isn’t paying for his own ballroom with his own money. No, that money comes from those trying to curry favour with him, the umpteenth corruption scandal around Trump!
BREAKING: Donald Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action, according to BBC News.
This follows the allegations of BBC bias over a Panorama edit of a Donald Trump speech.
Call his bluff.
The BBC needs to sue him first in the US, where the high “Actual Malice” standard of defamation applies. Even with that high bar, it’s difficult to defend what they actually broadcast.
A London libel court would throw the book at the BBC.
Looks like the licence fee payers will be contributing to that new ballroom in Washington.
Irrespective of the legal issues, you would need to get a Jury in London to decide in favour of Trump.
Even if that is passed, the Judge would need to decide on the value of the damage to Trump's reputation. And -as far as I can tell- there has never been a libel case against an indicidual in the UK where damages have topped 1m.
So, my instinct, if I were the BBC would be to apologose for the selective editing, but offer no damages, and if Trump wants to sue for libel (and run up millions of pounds of legal fees he will almost certainly not recover), then he is welcome to do so.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
Bring it on. A BBC v Donald Trump court case at the Bailey (televised) would unite and galvanise the nation just when we were beginning to think we could never again be united and galvanised. We'll crowdfund our best Rumpole and he can have Rudi Giuliani now he's been pardoned. No contest.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action, according to BBC News.
This follows the allegations of BBC bias over a Panorama edit of a Donald Trump speech.
Call his bluff.
The BBC needs to sue him first in the US, where the high “Actual Malice” standard of defamation applies. Even with that high bar, it’s difficult to defend what they actually broadcast.
A London libel court would throw the book at the BBC.
Looks like the licence fee payers will be contributing to that new ballroom in Washington.
Irrespective of the legal issues, you would need to get a Jury in London to decide in favour of Trump.
Even if that is passed, the Judge would need to decide on the value of the damage to Trump's reputation. And -as far as I can tell- there has never been a libel case against an indicidual in the UK where damages have topped 1m.
So, my instinct, if I were the BBC would be to apologose for the selective editing, but offer no damages, and if Trump wants to sue for libel (and run up millions of pounds of legal fees he will almost certainly not recover), then he is welcome to do so.
Trump will do what he always does in such cases: shout about taking legal action, maybe initiate it, but then quietly drop it when the headlines move on.
There is no doubt that Brexit is Farage's achilles heel. The trouble that Labour have is that have done nothing about it and show no evidence that they plan to,
There is no doubt that Brexit is Farage's achilles heel. The trouble that Labour have is that have done nothing about it and show no evidence that they plan to,
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
About 20 years ago there was a study done om media bias. The researchers tried to pull together a news item on Israel/Palestine and to do it in as bare bones a manner possible. Literally, just the agreed facts from both Israeli and Palestinian press.
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
About 20 years ago there was a study done om media bias. The researchers tried to pull together a news item on Israel/Palestine and to do it in as bare bones a manner possible. Literally, just the agreed facts from both Israeli and Palestinian press.
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
Comments
He's not at the top of the list. But him, Tice, Yusuf, and Goodwin are all on 2 or 3 appearances, which seems overweight for what they are. OTOH there is only a minibus of them.
Both Whittaker and Gatwa were a break from the usual white guy in the role and neither was really given the chance to make their mark with it.
Lost opportunity in both cases.
The problem is that the BBC doesn’t really make much sense as an organisation in 2025. If you - like me - think there is some merit in retaining a publicly funded news broadcaster then unshackle BBC News from the rest of the edifice and let it focus on broadcasting and journalistic excellence.
I’m convinced that the options at this point are either a version of Rwanda or building a large camp on Ascencion Island.
ICC looking at a blanket ban on transgender women competing in women's sport
Why should stuff like The Traitors, Strictly, or Masterchef be funded from a tax on owning a TV set and receiving live signals enforced by an intrusive collection regime and people falling foul of it prosecuted under the awful SJP.
To prepare for that possibility the BBC should start charging for iplayer use and allow paid adverts by companies in its most popular programmes like Strictly and Eastenders, even if Farage doesn't win it would be sensible to do so
https://x.com/harrystebbings/status/1987829015248277861
They have a domain name and everything.
https://www.no-exit-tax.co.uk/
One of the things that seems to take up a lot of time and energy at the BBC is its constant effort to justify its commercial programming, and its retention of talent.
If you start from the premise that part of the BBC is now a fundamentally commercial endeavour then it makes little sense for it not to be run and funded commercially. It can then hire whoever it likes and broadcast whatever it wants, and it can charge subscribers whatever it is able to justify.
Leave the public service news programming to be run and funded independently and let it focus on getting that right.
If that avoids the rather ludicrous situation we have now where its news wing increasingly cross-promotes its commercial programming, even better.
All Britons: 21% support / 72% oppose
Lib Dem: 12% / 85%
Labour: 12% / 83%
Green: 13% / 82%
Con: 28% / 64%
Reform: 43% / 48%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1986763098330460533?s=20
'Few Britons support the return of corporal punishment, but there is a narrow lead for bringing back capital punishment'
The stocks
Support: 21%
Oppose: 72%
Flogging
Support: 17%
Oppose: 76%
Death penalty
Support: 50%
Oppose: 45%
Support for bringing back the death penalty, by 2024 vote
Reform: 82%
Con: 67%
Labour: 35%
Lib Dem: 30%
Green: 26%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1986763102604366083?s=20
-79% think phones should be banned in schools
-65% of Britons say there should be a single policy for all schools, rather than left for heads to decide (27%)'
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1987864737741168693?s=20
Implemented properly, it would be us sending 1500 arrivals back over the next few days.
1500 in, 1 out, will never work.
Or perhaps not.
https://news.sky.com/story/olympics-organisers-moving-towards-blanket-ban-on-transgender-women-from-womens-sport-13467845
What a tortuous run up this has been.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thorntonjane_athletehealth-sportsmedicine-olympics-activity-7392657636707467264-UUs-
Lammy must hope it continues into tomorrow when he appears at the dispatch box for justice questions !!!
Trump threatens legal action in a letter to the BBC
This is a nightmare for them and so idiotic that they only have themselves to blame
FFS, look at the state of those shoes.
Ah, most of them are dead, fair enough.
It is, therefore, the most egregious of Americanisms.
https://x.com/edwardjdavey/status/1987843483349000328?s=61
So what started out as a very specific sale in one country that celebrates a historic day from its past has now spread over the Atlantic and become an entire month of sales in a country what doesn't celebrate that day.
Madness.
I am sympathetic to people who state the Govt spends too much, but that doesn't alter the fact that the tax base has developed a leak. Exit taxes (UK) or a system where citizens abroad still pay income tax (USA?) address this problem, unlike other policies which just squeak "Growth! Growth!" in the hope that that fixes things.
This has resonances of the Gilligan Iraq affair. Instead of Campbell we have Trump.
This follows the allegations of BBC bias over a Panorama edit of a Donald Trump speech.
That’s before we start on the investment income that never arrives in the first place.
A London libel court would throw the book at the BBC.
Looks like the licence fee payers will be contributing to that new ballroom in Washington.
Sarkozy, 70, who will be placed on judicial supervision, will also be banned from leaving French territory, the court said. An appeal trial is expected to take place in March.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15276195/Glum-faced-Carla-Bruni-leaves-appeal-court-listening-Nicolas-Sarkozy-whines-freed-jail-life-prison-hard.html
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
This. Is. A. Disgrace.
And no doubt they'd be accused of trying to ignore it if they did otherwise.
Farage can fxck right off .
In favour of a media landscape like the US, largely owned by the very wealthy.
There is no doubt that we have an imbalance in wealth globally these days but the solution is not to try and tax the rich out of your country. This has been tried many times and always fails. The best solution is to encourage the behaviour you want from the rich. That is to invest in the UK, be a good employer, support the local community. In return allow them to make a decent return, let them be a good family man / woman and support them against their global competitors. The UK used to be great at this now it is terrible.
That is what happens to ordinary people when they max out their credit cards etc. Sheer lunacy but they will be well insulated.
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1987811787484414220
2/ The Dutch newspaper NRC reported earlier that a memorial to African-American soldiers who had fought to liberate the Netherlands and built the cemetery in Margraten, South Limburg, had been removed following a complaint by the Heritage Foundation.
[note, comment above is edited]
BBC is without doubt the most unbiased and trustworthy source of news in the world overall - if you think that's wrong tell which is outlet is better?
It's also a tremendous source of soft power for the UK. I find it astonishing that people who purport to be British patriots are striving to bring the BBC down. Putin will be loving this.
Which is what his reputation is worth in this country.
a) been released 3 weeks into a 5 year prison sentence
b) was being held in solitary confinement
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3m5btlumz2c2s
Farage says small business owners who thought Brexit would cut regulation have been betrayed because opposite happened
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/nov/10/labour-rachel-reeves-election-manifesto-tax-budget-news-updates-uk-politics-live
It would be more efficient.
They've regularly platformed spokespersons from both sides telling the most egregious lies.
The actual libel wasn’t even saying Trump had done something he hadn’t. It was misrepresenting his exact words with an edit. Trump said A, and Trump said B, but he didn’t say B immediately after A. That’s rather less serious than making an explicit false accusation about someone.
A London libel court would not throw the book at the BBC. They might get as far as lobbing a small pamphlet, or maybe a leaflet folded into a paper airplane.
If any money went to Trump, it wouldn’t go to pay for the ballroom. Trump isn’t paying for his own ballroom with his own money. No, that money comes from those trying to curry favour with him, the umpteenth corruption scandal around Trump!
Even if that is passed, the Judge would need to decide on the value of the damage to Trump's reputation. And -as far as I can tell- there has never been a libel case against an indicidual in the UK where damages have topped 1m.
So, my instinct, if I were the BBC would be to apologose for the selective editing, but offer no damages, and if Trump wants to sue for libel (and run up millions of pounds of legal fees he will almost certainly not recover), then he is welcome to do so.
There is no doubt that Brexit is Farage's achilles heel. The trouble that Labour have is that have done nothing about it and show no evidence that they plan to,