8 ms·

To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything

To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch. That said, it is a bit awkward, given the UK's own undercounting.

seamyb88 6y ago
> To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch. Absolutely not true. From propagating the idea that life-long advocate of equality, Jeremy Corbyn, is antisemitic, to sending well-fed journos out on boats to chase migrants (never people, migrants) around asking them what they want, the BBC is a Conservative mouth-piece.
- nickcox 6y ago
  Not to mention _literally_ portraying the chancellor as Superman. [1] [1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portraying-rishi-sunak-superman/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portr...
  - seamyb88 6y ago
    The downvoters are thick as pig sh!t
  - phatfish 6y ago
    And Corbyn was Lenin. I think that tells you all you need to know about the BBC. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corbyn-newsnight-denies-photo-photoshopped-a8262351.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corby...
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
  BBC seems to get about as many accusations of left-wing and right-wing bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC ...which in my book means they must be doing something right. Their reporting certainly seems less rabidly partisan than pretty much anything in the US.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    Fence sitting does not automatically make you right. Half way between two falsehoods is still wrong. For the BBC they HAVE to keep the government happy to continue to exist, or they will be legislated away. Same as any other state owned broadcaster. Although the threats from the current government against the BBC seem empty. Why would they destroy the most successful government controlled media operation in the world?
    - fault_lines 6y ago
      The right controls the non-government media organizations just as well, what's the difference? The BBC is harder to control because it legally is supposed to be impartial.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Find me one instance of the BBC directly calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Why would anyone do it directly when you can just insinuate? "Critics say..."
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      So you can't.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Correct. You have slain the strawman! Congratulations.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  I dislike the BBC as much as anyone, but I think the fact is, they are neither anybody's mouthpiece, nor do they have any particular agenda. Simply, it is staffed by well connected, wealthy people who live in and around London, and as such, represents their views - warts and all.
- andybak 6y ago
  I find it comforting that both the left and the right in the UK is convinced the BBC is hopelessly biased against them. They must be doing something right. (I'm being slightly flippant - I am aware how it's possible to be wrong on both counts. However I do think calling the BBC a "Conservative mouth-piece" when many on the right of the Tory part think the BBC is left-wing and beyond repair is a little unfair)
  - flir 6y ago
    The BBC are biased towards the status quo - left-leaning social policies, right-leaning economic policies and a (currently) Conservative government. The right-wingers get upset about social pieces, the left-wingers get upset about economic and political pieces. But it's not even possible or desirable to be utterly unbiased, so one of our broadcasters being "the voice of the Establishment" doesn't seem like that bad a thing to me. It's not like other broadcasters aren't avaiable.
plouffy 6y ago
I'm struggling to see how this article is awkward for the BBC. It's not as though the BBC has not reported the situation in the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 .
fault_lines 6y ago
The right wing in the UK has been inserting their own people into top BBC positions for years. The BBC has a history of working with the security services to deny employment to anyone 'too left wing'. Some of the most well known faces on the BBC are Conservative supporters - Nick Robinson was chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association, Andrew Neil was the editor-in-chief of the Conservative supporting fascist rag The Spectator and remains chairman of its publisher. Its function over the last 10 years of government has been increasingly, and highly visibly, to propagandize for the Conservatives and smear the left.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  I'm aware of this, which is why I said 'about as independent', rather than 'independent'. I think the point is, the BBC is representative of a certain group of people, many of whom are from the same milieu as parts of the conservative party, and parts of the labour party. However, that could be said of most (all?) large media organizations in the UK.
tankenmate 6y ago
The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites; but a deeper independent investigation would be needed. Also, the BBC has News Watch which is an independent group within the BBC that responds to and tracks criticisms of its output.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  > The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites Does it refer to that as a "British government cover-up"?
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    Right, there is always a use of "mistakes" and "cover up". It's like they always believe authoritarian leaders are much competent than democratic leaders, any mistakes in authoritarian nations must be cover-up. Meanwhile, they also believe authoritarian nations are bound to collapse, because their leaders capabilities are eventually not a match to the complexity of managing the state. Then, why isn't this the moment where the authoritarian leaders over reached their capabilities?
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    Well the ONS (which is a part of the UK govt) has been detailing the all cause mortality rate and detailing how and why those numbers differ from the official PHE numbers. The ONS releases its findings to the press, and the BBC is just one of many that report on these figures. As far as I am aware there is no such thing happening in Iran. So in the case of the UK the BBC is saying that UK govt response has been poor, and in the case of Iran that there is a "cover up". I would have thought that was bordering on a reasonable job of reporting the facts.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

seamyb88 6y ago

> To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch. Absolutely not true. From propagating the idea that life-long advocate of equality, Jeremy Corbyn, is antisemitic, to sending well-fed journos out on boats to chase migrants (never people, migrants) around asking them what they want, the BBC is a Conservative mouth-piece.

nickcox 6y ago
Not to mention _literally_ portraying the chancellor as Superman. [1] [1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portraying-rishi-sunak-superman/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portr...
- seamyb88 6y ago
  The downvoters are thick as pig sh!t
- phatfish 6y ago
  And Corbyn was Lenin. I think that tells you all you need to know about the BBC. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corbyn-newsnight-denies-photo-photoshopped-a8262351.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corby...
9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
BBC seems to get about as many accusations of left-wing and right-wing bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC ...which in my book means they must be doing something right. Their reporting certainly seems less rabidly partisan than pretty much anything in the US.
- phatfish 6y ago
  Fence sitting does not automatically make you right. Half way between two falsehoods is still wrong. For the BBC they HAVE to keep the government happy to continue to exist, or they will be legislated away. Same as any other state owned broadcaster. Although the threats from the current government against the BBC seem empty. Why would they destroy the most successful government controlled media operation in the world?
  - fault_lines 6y ago
    The right controls the non-government media organizations just as well, what's the difference? The BBC is harder to control because it legally is supposed to be impartial.
mhh__ 6y ago
Find me one instance of the BBC directly calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Why would anyone do it directly when you can just insinuate? "Critics say..."
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    So you can't.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Correct. You have slain the strawman! Congratulations.
pasabagi 6y ago
I dislike the BBC as much as anyone, but I think the fact is, they are neither anybody's mouthpiece, nor do they have any particular agenda. Simply, it is staffed by well connected, wealthy people who live in and around London, and as such, represents their views - warts and all.
andybak 6y ago
I find it comforting that both the left and the right in the UK is convinced the BBC is hopelessly biased against them. They must be doing something right. (I'm being slightly flippant - I am aware how it's possible to be wrong on both counts. However I do think calling the BBC a "Conservative mouth-piece" when many on the right of the Tory part think the BBC is left-wing and beyond repair is a little unfair)
- flir 6y ago
  The BBC are biased towards the status quo - left-leaning social policies, right-leaning economic policies and a (currently) Conservative government. The right-wingers get upset about social pieces, the left-wingers get upset about economic and political pieces. But it's not even possible or desirable to be utterly unbiased, so one of our broadcasters being "the voice of the Establishment" doesn't seem like that bad a thing to me. It's not like other broadcasters aren't avaiable.

plouffy 6y ago

I'm struggling to see how this article is awkward for the BBC. It's not as though the BBC has not reported the situation in the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 .

fault_lines 6y ago

The right wing in the UK has been inserting their own people into top BBC positions for years. The BBC has a history of working with the security services to deny employment to anyone 'too left wing'. Some of the most well known faces on the BBC are Conservative supporters - Nick Robinson was chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association, Andrew Neil was the editor-in-chief of the Conservative supporting fascist rag The Spectator and remains chairman of its publisher. Its function over the last 10 years of government has been increasingly, and highly visibly, to propagandize for the Conservatives and smear the left.

pasabagi 6y ago
I'm aware of this, which is why I said 'about as independent', rather than 'independent'. I think the point is, the BBC is representative of a certain group of people, many of whom are from the same milieu as parts of the conservative party, and parts of the labour party. However, that could be said of most (all?) large media organizations in the UK.

tankenmate 6y ago

The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites; but a deeper independent investigation would be needed. Also, the BBC has News Watch which is an independent group within the BBC that responds to and tracks criticisms of its output.

pmachinery 6y ago
> The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites Does it refer to that as a "British government cover-up"?
- justicezyx 6y ago
  Right, there is always a use of "mistakes" and "cover up". It's like they always believe authoritarian leaders are much competent than democratic leaders, any mistakes in authoritarian nations must be cover-up. Meanwhile, they also believe authoritarian nations are bound to collapse, because their leaders capabilities are eventually not a match to the complexity of managing the state. Then, why isn't this the moment where the authoritarian leaders over reached their capabilities?
- tankenmate 6y ago
  Well the ONS (which is a part of the UK govt) has been detailing the all cause mortality rate and detailing how and why those numbers differ from the official PHE numbers. The ONS releases its findings to the press, and the BBC is just one of many that report on these figures. As far as I am aware there is no such thing happening in Iran. So in the case of the UK the BBC is saying that UK govt response has been poor, and in the case of Iran that there is a "cover up". I would have thought that was bordering on a reasonable job of reporting the facts.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]