Talk:Criticism of the BBC

BBC has made many edits on this page

I have archived this topic, as it is now well over a year since the main debate, and this is a very long debate on a very long page. However, I think it is worth leaving a note to say that edits were made to this page from BBC IPs (e.g. [1]), and that if you do work for the BBC and are reading this, please read WP:COI before making edits.Pit-yacker (talk)

Being slated about immigration by Farage and surveys. Someone put this in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10159325/Bloated-elite-at-BBC-biased-on-immigration-says-Nigel-Farage.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10157478/BBC-did-not-reflect-public-view-on-immigration-because-of-deep-liberal-bias-says-review.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 July 2013‎

TLDR - Awful article.

This article is not worthy of any encyclopedia, and certainly not Wikipedia. It reads like a PMQs slanging match. It's too long, too inconsistent and too full of biased editors with axes to grind. Delete. 80.41.186.142 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll... do not that and try to fix it instead. HasbroSaban (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It can't have a consistent narrative because it's an overflow article with material that would make the main BBC article much too long if included there... AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of bias surrounding reporting of Brexit pre- and post-referendum.

A search engine rabbit hole prompted by this article - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/25/emily-maitlis-bbc-broadcaster-newsnight-government - suggests that there was BBC bias regarding reporting of Brexit.

Emily Maitlis, former BBC News night presenter, is paraphrased by the article above in saying that "But journalists still clung to an old idea of impartiality and balance – that both sides must get an equal say, and let the viewer decide – which is effectively now being weaponised against them. To have a pro-Brexit economist debate a pro-remain one on air was not “balance”, she said, if economists generally were so overwhelmingly against leaving that it took hours of ringing round to find one lone maverick in favour. Broadcasters now reject such false equivalence on topics where scientific consensus is overwhelming, from climate change to vaccination, so why not in economics?"

Top results on Google for ""BBC bias" highlight allegations of bias surrounding the EU and Brexit from both sides of the debate. The above quote suggests that equal representation of pro and remain Brexit voices did not reflect the expert view. That expert concensus was misrepresented through a commitment to give equal time to each side of the debate. This article is huge and I agree with the current talk topic that it is reads like it was written by people with an axe to grind, and whilst it has many subsections it lacks objectively summarised concensus and topics - it goes straight into subsections without any summary of them.

The allegations of BBC bias surrounding Brexit is one of the most common themes when Googling "BBC bias." Why then is there nothing on this very long and detailed article about this topic? 87.114.5.25 (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There is also a broader issue here, which Maitlis raises, of False balance (aka "Bothsidesism") of contentious issues. The fact that the BBC has been accused of that is relevant more generally than just to Brexit and it's weird that we don't link to it at all in the article. Maybe that should be a short section of its own?

I think that Brexit itself is a big enough topic that having a short section on it could be legitimate here. Maybe also a section in False balance, as this is not exclusively about the BBC. (Did ITV, C4, etc really do much of a better job of keeping the facts straight?) It's a tough topic to write about objectively though. It would need to be done very carefully. DanielRigal (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Claims against the BBC

Considering that claims by The Sun newspaper against the BBC have been made in good faith, would it not be shameful if the Govt was to mis-use this story to control the state media outlet? So, if Wikipedia reports this story (in another article), will it be in a way that is fair, balanced and in the public interest?

Please note: while not a big supporter of the BBC, I do not believe that it should be forced to give in to the Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.212 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Refusing to call Hamas terrorists "terrorists"

Another sign of their left-wing biases. 2003:DA:C742:6500:6003:6165:74FA:288 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Add the refusal to go to the "Bearing Witness" screening. The film contained footage of brutal killings, torture and mistreatment of people, including children and the elderly. In attendance were the president of the Fox News television company, heads of other major companies - CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC - as well as journalists from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and famous television presenters and commentators. But a certain mainstream media corporation was absent, deciding not to attend. And there are no prizes for guessing who. It was the glorious and iconic British Broadcasting Corporation. That’s right, the good old BBC chose not to show even a morsel of respect for the dead and kidnapped and bother to attend.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sy9xnakvt 185.182.78.238 (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia and the BBC are both far-left and biased. They say the Jan 6 guys are terrorists, but say Antifa and Hamas are peaceful protesters and militants. Same with the Pro-Ukrainian propaganda. 139.47.17.101 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)