> slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability
Nuance matters.
That it's generally accurate and generally leans left doesn't contradict the issues raised in the article and comments. Most topics MSM reports on are not critical for artificially pushed narratives, so MSM can afford being generally accurate.
The Guardian leans way left, scores highly on accuracy, but, for a lot of leftists, has demonstrated its bias and subservience to the state narrative by cheerleading the slander efforts against Corbyn.
Those people should have resigned in any case: whether it's over their coverage of the genocide or over some right-coded scandal doesn't matter much.
> commenters showing up suspiciously quickly
> useful canary for that persons own biases
Thinking that HN is a prime target for organised covert BBC defacement (?) and making dark implications on the BBC critics' character is ridiculous.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of people talk about "pregnant women", not "pregnant people" like the BBC. I could quote many other small indicators like that which demonstrate that the BBC is NOT unbiased at all.
Focusing on their attempt at inclusive language seems a bit trite, and certainly exposes your own biases. It's not perfect, and we'll see how it evolves, but I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. You're welcome to be offended by that, but it seems like a silly thing to be offended by.
it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew".
realistically it generally functions more of a bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think rather than as a news outlet.
the cackhanded attempt to smear trump that led to this resignation was part of that and the crackdown signifies that the British establishment has largely shifted from "fervently anti trump" to a policy of appeasement / cordial relations. Two years ago this kind of dishonest editing would probably have been tolerated if not outright encouraged (as it was when done to Jeremy Corbyn).
The way that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy declared powerless "not President Trump" a "tyrant" and "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" but is now keen on cordial relations is another reflection of this narrative shift: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o
>A lot of commenters showing up suspiciously quickly to crow about how "biased" the BBC is
Yes, it's suspicious when too many people at the same time think for themselves and speak their minds freely, and not parrot the committee approved talking points. Maybe the government should moderate that right via digital-ID and chat control.
- UK logic apparently
>In fact independent checking reveals the BBC is consistently centrist with a slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability.
In the same tune, all the "independent graphs" all show how the economy today overall is up-up-up since 2019, but if you talk to people on the street when life was better and more affordable for them, they'd all say 2019 and not today, so nobody cares what independent name brand think-tanks say.
The objective reality that matters, is only how the majority of people feel. You can deny this all you want, but you'd be in for an unpleasant shock at election times.
Because this "independent checking" you speak of, is not some scientifically indisputable facts of nature, like gravity or the speed of light, but only someone else's interpretation and opinion, that is biased from their viewpoint.
That was the motto of humanity since time immemorial as people act entirely on self-interest, a behavior which formed the base for our family unit, and organization from tribes to modern nations and conflicts.
Denying this would be denying our history and what makes us human.
Amazing that this what finally brought them down, BBC editorial has been so awful for so long. The worst part being that it is so obvious in its agenda's.
I really don't expect anything to change though the establishment will protect itself at all costs.
The brigades are out, but most people in the UK have a high level of trust in the BBC (https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45744-which-media-out...). This whole incident is a storm in a teacup; yes the program was edited badly, but it is a single incident. It is ridiculous that the DG and News CEO have resigned.
This is a changing headline on a live stream but is centrally about senior resignations in response to allegations of systemic bias at the BBC, brought to a head by a controversial editing of a Donald Trump speech.
And frustratingly many allegations have to do with bias surrounding the Gaza war, currently being reported by The Telegraph, but every submission here being flagged.
This one got through because it doesn’t mention Israel, I presume. But the BBC bias has been egregious and constant with respect to the Gaza conflict, as opposed to a one time editing of a Trump speech.
The Israel lobby has a massive amount of power over British politics as does Trump. If there is a lie written about them or even an unsubstantiated truthhood they can both put pressure on and/or punish the people behind it.
Exterminated Gazans can not. They have no political power in the UK.
The only reason they get any air time at all is because A) it's usually a little too obvious to ignore and B) enough BBC journalists are close to being in open revolt over the management's attempts to crack down on honest reporting over the genocide: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-...
Broadly speaking, a strong and common rebuttal to this is that "if everyone accuses them of bias, then they're not biased".
To be clear though, the BBC is a large organisation with many sections, and those sections are quite biased.
As such it's pretty easy to find areas where they're biased against "your side", whichever side that may be - and when combined with their policy of not upsetting the sitting government, it can start to feel less like journalism and more like propaganda.
The BBC are critical of those to the right of the centre-left.
But because they are also critical of the extreme loony left, we should consider them balanced…?
They are a publicly funded Public Service Broadcaster with impartiality built into their charter, which they have long dismissed with a grin and a wink. They’ll get a pass with this Government, but not the next one. It will be long overdue. Most British people simply don’t trust them any more.
since this post has been immediately brigaded by far right lunatics, it's worth clarifying these people have resigned based on a far right wing pressure campaign over the way a trump speech was presented, in a third-party-produced current affairs show, that was broadcast last year.
this[0] article by the BBC covers the details of that fine. here's the meat of it, for the extremely lazy:
> In his speech in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Trump said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
> However, in Panorama's edit, he was shown saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
> The two sections of the speech that were edited together were more than 50 minutes apart.
> The "fight like hell" comment was taken from a section where President Trump discussed how "corrupt" US elections were. In total, he used the words "fight" or "fighting" 20 times in the speech.
> After showing the president speaking, the programme played footage of flag-waving men marching on the Capitol, the Telegraph said.
> According to the leaked memo, this "created the impression President Trump's supporters had taken up his 'call to arms'". But that footage was in fact shot before the president had started speaking.
it is worth considering the bar that is being demanded here, and how every single other news source in the world would compare against that bar.
the reason this is in the news now is that someone "leaked" an internal memo from the BBC that discussed the show. the claim is that it was fundamentally unfair to suggest that trump was encouraging these people. since that day he has:
- explicitly claimed he supported them and what they did [1]
- given federal pardons to ~all of them, including ones who had commited previous crimes and then after being pardoned committed further crimes [2]
A lot of commenters showing up suspiciously quickly to crow about how "biased" the BBC is.
In fact independent checking reveals the BBC is consistently centrist with a slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability.
(For example: https://adfontesmedia.com/bbc-bias-and-reliability/ )
(And to be clear, this is on the non-US left/right axis. The entire US is skewed so far to the right that it's not comparable.)
Or you could just actually read/listen/watch for yourself.
What people think of the BBC is quite a useful canary for that persons own biases.
> slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability
Nuance matters.
That it's generally accurate and generally leans left doesn't contradict the issues raised in the article and comments. Most topics MSM reports on are not critical for artificially pushed narratives, so MSM can afford being generally accurate.
The Guardian leans way left, scores highly on accuracy, but, for a lot of leftists, has demonstrated its bias and subservience to the state narrative by cheerleading the slander efforts against Corbyn.
Those people should have resigned in any case: whether it's over their coverage of the genocide or over some right-coded scandal doesn't matter much.
> commenters showing up suspiciously quickly > useful canary for that persons own biases
Thinking that HN is a prime target for organised covert BBC defacement (?) and making dark implications on the BBC critics' character is ridiculous.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of people talk about "pregnant women", not "pregnant people" like the BBC. I could quote many other small indicators like that which demonstrate that the BBC is NOT unbiased at all.
Focusing on their attempt at inclusive language seems a bit trite, and certainly exposes your own biases. It's not perfect, and we'll see how it evolves, but I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. You're welcome to be offended by that, but it seems like a silly thing to be offended by.
>I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive.
Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being inclusive".
Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here, the pregnant men?
What is that if not an agenda?
> exposes your own biases
Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy?
A pregnant 15 year old girl is not a pregnant woman but is a pregnant person.
it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew".
realistically it generally functions more of a bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think rather than as a news outlet.
the cackhanded attempt to smear trump that led to this resignation was part of that and the crackdown signifies that the British establishment has largely shifted from "fervently anti trump" to a policy of appeasement / cordial relations. Two years ago this kind of dishonest editing would probably have been tolerated if not outright encouraged (as it was when done to Jeremy Corbyn).
The way that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy declared powerless "not President Trump" a "tyrant" and "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" but is now keen on cordial relations is another reflection of this narrative shift: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o
> it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew".
a measure of how out of touch this comment is:
among the reasons for her stepdown and accusations of bias according to this article was literally that BBC parroted Hamas a little too much at times.
The Lammy thing is such absurd cowardice. You were right the first time and now you just look like an appeaser.
I'm not even sure the Jan 6th reporting was dishonest. Does anyone have an edit/unedit comparison to show us that isn't ridiculously long?
>A lot of commenters showing up suspiciously quickly to crow about how "biased" the BBC is
Yes, it's suspicious when too many people at the same time think for themselves and speak their minds freely, and not parrot the committee approved talking points. Maybe the government should moderate that right via digital-ID and chat control.
- UK logic apparently
>In fact independent checking reveals the BBC is consistently centrist with a slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability.
In the same tune, all the "independent graphs" all show how the economy today overall is up-up-up since 2019, but if you talk to people on the street when life was better and more affordable for them, they'd all say 2019 and not today, so nobody cares what independent name brand think-tanks say.
The objective reality that matters, is only how the majority of people feel. You can deny this all you want, but you'd be in for an unpleasant shock at election times.
Because this "independent checking" you speak of, is not some scientifically indisputable facts of nature, like gravity or the speed of light, but only someone else's interpretation and opinion, that is biased from their viewpoint.
>the reality that matters is only how the majority of people feel.
Boy, if that ain't a motto for the 21st century.
That was the motto of humanity since time immemorial as people act entirely on self-interest, a behavior which formed the base for our family unit, and organization from tribes to modern nations and conflicts.
Denying this would be denying our history and what makes us human.
Amazing that this what finally brought them down, BBC editorial has been so awful for so long. The worst part being that it is so obvious in its agenda's. I really don't expect anything to change though the establishment will protect itself at all costs.
January 6th was so egregious, I'm really not sure why they felt the need to exaggerate it.
The brigades are out, but most people in the UK have a high level of trust in the BBC (https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45744-which-media-out...). This whole incident is a storm in a teacup; yes the program was edited badly, but it is a single incident. It is ridiculous that the DG and News CEO have resigned.
This is a changing headline on a live stream but is centrally about senior resignations in response to allegations of systemic bias at the BBC, brought to a head by a controversial editing of a Donald Trump speech.
And frustratingly many allegations have to do with bias surrounding the Gaza war, currently being reported by The Telegraph, but every submission here being flagged.
This one got through because it doesn’t mention Israel, I presume. But the BBC bias has been egregious and constant with respect to the Gaza conflict, as opposed to a one time editing of a Trump speech.
The Israel lobby has a massive amount of power over British politics as does Trump. If there is a lie written about them or even an unsubstantiated truthhood they can both put pressure on and/or punish the people behind it.
Exterminated Gazans can not. They have no political power in the UK.
The only reason they get any air time at all is because A) it's usually a little too obvious to ignore and B) enough BBC journalists are close to being in open revolt over the management's attempts to crack down on honest reporting over the genocide: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-...
Lol it's not "bias" controversy, it's pure and simple Soviet-style doctoring of footage.
Not sure why you're downvoted. They cut together words over 50 minutes apart in the speech, completely altering what Trump actually said.
Bias would be selectively picking quotes, not creating a new speech through editing.
Misinformation merchants, ironically
Ironic that BBC news being biased is considered news
In other news, water is wet
Broadly speaking, a strong and common rebuttal to this is that "if everyone accuses them of bias, then they're not biased".
To be clear though, the BBC is a large organisation with many sections, and those sections are quite biased.
As such it's pretty easy to find areas where they're biased against "your side", whichever side that may be - and when combined with their policy of not upsetting the sitting government, it can start to feel less like journalism and more like propaganda.
The BBC are critical of those to the right of the centre-left. But because they are also critical of the extreme loony left, we should consider them balanced…?
They are a publicly funded Public Service Broadcaster with impartiality built into their charter, which they have long dismissed with a grin and a wink. They’ll get a pass with this Government, but not the next one. It will be long overdue. Most British people simply don’t trust them any more.
That rebuttal concept is amusing.
Everyone would accuse Stalin of bias - so he's not biased.
Very strong.
since this post has been immediately brigaded by far right lunatics, it's worth clarifying these people have resigned based on a far right wing pressure campaign over the way a trump speech was presented, in a third-party-produced current affairs show, that was broadcast last year.
this[0] article by the BBC covers the details of that fine. here's the meat of it, for the extremely lazy:
> In his speech in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Trump said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
> However, in Panorama's edit, he was shown saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
> The two sections of the speech that were edited together were more than 50 minutes apart.
> The "fight like hell" comment was taken from a section where President Trump discussed how "corrupt" US elections were. In total, he used the words "fight" or "fighting" 20 times in the speech.
> After showing the president speaking, the programme played footage of flag-waving men marching on the Capitol, the Telegraph said.
> According to the leaked memo, this "created the impression President Trump's supporters had taken up his 'call to arms'". But that footage was in fact shot before the president had started speaking.
it is worth considering the bar that is being demanded here, and how every single other news source in the world would compare against that bar.
the reason this is in the news now is that someone "leaked" an internal memo from the BBC that discussed the show. the claim is that it was fundamentally unfair to suggest that trump was encouraging these people. since that day he has:
- explicitly claimed he supported them and what they did [1]
- given federal pardons to ~all of them, including ones who had commited previous crimes and then after being pardoned committed further crimes [2]
0: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo
1: https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-evolution-downplay-vi...
2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo
I still chuckle when I see that enveloppe in the mail asking me to pay the TV license fee...
I hate BBC as much as I hate fox network. I want news not your personal opinions and cherry picking