4 ms·

If you read the article they are listing things that the BBC itself concluded and cites specific examples. Ignore who wrote the article or even the article itse

by johng 11mo ago

If you read the article they are listing things that the BBC itself concluded and cites specific examples. Ignore who wrote the article or even the article itself and just look at what BBC itself found. Also note it's about BBC Arabic in comparison to regular BBC.

foldr 11mo ago
I’m sure the BBC gets lots of stuff wrong in its news coverage, just like any other news organization you could name. But if we’re talking about systemic bias in reporting on the Israel/Palestine conflict, it’s worth noting that “both sides” (much as I hate this expression) frequently claim that the BBC is biased against them. The whole issue is so contentious that it’s highly unlikely that any major news organization will escape criticisms of bias. Again, I wonder if you can name a different major news organization that regularly reports on Israel/Palestine and that nobody considers to have any bias in its reporting.
- johng 11mo ago
  I agree with you that they all have bias. However, as the article points out... this is an egregious bias by it's own sister publication. So, it is unique in that it all falls under the same roof and it's being called out by itself.
  - foldr 11mo ago
    That’s unique in a good way, no? Would it be better if the BBC were incapable of self critique?
    - db48x 11mo ago
      I’ll give them +10 points for hiring somebody to measure their own accuracy, and −100 points for ignoring their reports and broadcasting deliberate lies anyway.
      - foldr 11mo ago
        Who are you comparing the BBC to? I can’t think of a news service of comparable scope that clearly has a better track record when it comes to accuracy. The edit of Trump’s speech in that one documentary was indeed misleading, but it’s being blown out of all proportion here. Meanwhile, the President who is a stickler for news accuracy and wants to sue the BBC for a billion dollars is busy broadcasting libelous nonsense to his Twitter followers on a daily basis (e.g. the absurd claim that Barack Obama has been receiving millions in Obamacare “royalties”). The hypocrisy would be astounding if we weren’t already so used to it.
        db48x 11mo ago
        Excusing the BBC for lying just because other people are lying too doesn’t really work.
        foldr 11mo ago
        I'm not excusing the BBC for broadcasting a documentary with a misleading edit of Trump's speech. They've rightly admitted their error in that respect. This is a politically motivated attack on the BBC by people who, as referenced above, don't care a jot for accuracy in news reporting. By combing through the BBC's enormous output they have, unsurprisingly enough, managed to find one or two legitimate grievances.
        db48x 11mo ago
        > just like any other news organization you could name Excuse. > Show me the media organization whose reporting on this issue is agreed to be unbiased by all relevant parties. Excuse. > it’s being blown out of all proportion Excuse. > the President […] is busy broadcasting libelous nonsense to his Twitter followers Excuse. > managed to find one or two legitimate grievances. Wow, ok. Maybe you didn’t actually read the report? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating... The BBC has been pushing specific viewpoints for years, and burying any story or article that might contradict it or offer a competing viewpoint. A quote: As virtually all shows had lost their own reporters, programme editors had to make requests to News if they wanted a correspondent to cover a story. I was told that time and time again the LGBTQ desk staffers would decline to cover any story raising difficult questions about the trans-debate. The allegation made to me was stark: that the desk had been captured by a small group of people promoting the Stonewall view of the debate and keeping other perspectives off-air. Individual programmes had come to lack their own reporters as a counterweight. What I was told chimed with what I saw for myself on BBC Online - that stories raising difficult questions about the ‘trans agenda’ were ignored even if they had been widely taken up and discussed across other media outlets. There was also a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories, usually news features, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity. You see? The BBC isn’t trustworthy. It’s literally not worth trusting anything they say. The Trump thing is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s the big obvious lie that everyone can see because it’s so easy to find the truth. If the people who have resigned could point to even one action that they’ve taken to fix the BBC’s culture of unethical behavior then they would not have had to resign.

by johng 11mo ago

foldr 11mo ago

I’m sure the BBC gets lots of stuff wrong in its news coverage, just like any other news organization you could name. But if we’re talking about systemic bias in reporting on the Israel/Palestine conflict, it’s worth noting that “both sides” (much as I hate this expression) frequently claim that the BBC is biased against them. The whole issue is so contentious that it’s highly unlikely that any major news organization will escape criticisms of bias. Again, I wonder if you can name a different major news organization that regularly reports on Israel/Palestine and that nobody considers to have any bias in its reporting.

johng 11mo ago
I agree with you that they all have bias. However, as the article points out... this is an egregious bias by it's own sister publication. So, it is unique in that it all falls under the same roof and it's being called out by itself.
- foldr 11mo ago
  That’s unique in a good way, no? Would it be better if the BBC were incapable of self critique?
  - db48x 11mo ago
    I’ll give them +10 points for hiring somebody to measure their own accuracy, and −100 points for ignoring their reports and broadcasting deliberate lies anyway.
    - foldr 11mo ago
      Who are you comparing the BBC to? I can’t think of a news service of comparable scope that clearly has a better track record when it comes to accuracy. The edit of Trump’s speech in that one documentary was indeed misleading, but it’s being blown out of all proportion here. Meanwhile, the President who is a stickler for news accuracy and wants to sue the BBC for a billion dollars is busy broadcasting libelous nonsense to his Twitter followers on a daily basis (e.g. the absurd claim that Barack Obama has been receiving millions in Obamacare “royalties”). The hypocrisy would be astounding if we weren’t already so used to it.
      - db48x 11mo ago
        Excusing the BBC for lying just because other people are lying too doesn’t really work.
        foldr 11mo ago
        I'm not excusing the BBC for broadcasting a documentary with a misleading edit of Trump's speech. They've rightly admitted their error in that respect. This is a politically motivated attack on the BBC by people who, as referenced above, don't care a jot for accuracy in news reporting. By combing through the BBC's enormous output they have, unsurprisingly enough, managed to find one or two legitimate grievances.
        db48x 11mo ago
        > just like any other news organization you could name Excuse. > Show me the media organization whose reporting on this issue is agreed to be unbiased by all relevant parties. Excuse. > it’s being blown out of all proportion Excuse. > the President […] is busy broadcasting libelous nonsense to his Twitter followers Excuse. > managed to find one or two legitimate grievances. Wow, ok. Maybe you didn’t actually read the report? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating... The BBC has been pushing specific viewpoints for years, and burying any story or article that might contradict it or offer a competing viewpoint. A quote: As virtually all shows had lost their own reporters, programme editors had to make requests to News if they wanted a correspondent to cover a story. I was told that time and time again the LGBTQ desk staffers would decline to cover any story raising difficult questions about the trans-debate. The allegation made to me was stark: that the desk had been captured by a small group of people promoting the Stonewall view of the debate and keeping other perspectives off-air. Individual programmes had come to lack their own reporters as a counterweight. What I was told chimed with what I saw for myself on BBC Online - that stories raising difficult questions about the ‘trans agenda’ were ignored even if they had been widely taken up and discussed across other media outlets. There was also a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories, usually news features, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity. You see? The BBC isn’t trustworthy. It’s literally not worth trusting anything they say. The Trump thing is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s the big obvious lie that everyone can see because it’s so easy to find the truth. If the people who have resigned could point to even one action that they’ve taken to fix the BBC’s culture of unethical behavior then they would not have had to resign.