7 ms·

BBC director general and News CEO resign in bias controversy

47 points by mellosouls 1y ago

lucasRW 1y ago
I still chuckle when I see that enveloppe in the mail asking me to pay the TV license fee...
mellosouls 1y ago
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.
- adastra22 1y ago
  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.
  - pydry 1y ago
    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-for-israeli-government-bbc-employees-revolt-accuse-organisation-of-anti-palestinian-racism-in-coverage/3902489/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-...
    - adastra22 1y ago
      You misunderstood - BBC is getting in trouble for having passed off Hamas propaganda without fact checking for years. Whether you believe it or not (I suspect you won’t), the bias runs the other way.
      - pydry 1y ago
        I misunderstood nothing. The British establishment attacked the BBC because it wasnt supportive enough of the propaganda produced by a state conducting a Nazi-style genocide (according to the UN). "Hamas propaganda" is simply the racist trope used to describe that.
        adastra22 1y ago
        I think you’re the one employing racist language here, and I don’t think further conversation would be helpful.
        edanm 1y ago
        > a state conducting a Nazi-style genocide (according to the UN). Can you provide a link showing that the UN is saying this? I kind of doubt the UN ever called it a "Nazi-style" genocide, and I don't think anyone serious is alleging anything of the kind (including serious people/groups who do call it a genocide - I don't think they'd characterize what's happening as a "Nazi-style" genocide, and nothing they say implies they think it.)
        pydry 1y ago
        The UN called it a genocide: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c... They expressed no opinion about whether the intent on the genocide was due to a culture of racial supremacy. That isnt their job. But, there is a multitude of other evidence demonstrating that it was. This is why the people who try to downplay it on internet forums or elsewhere are exclusively racists, similar to holocaust deniers.
jalapenos 1y ago
[flagged]
- dijit 1y ago
  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.
  - jalapenos 1y ago
    That rebuttal concept is amusing. Everyone would accuse Stalin of bias - so he's not biased. Very strong.
  - hn_throw2025 1y ago
    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.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  Being biased is one thing. Doctoring tapes is another
Urahandystar 1y ago
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.
callamdelaney 1y ago
Misinformation merchants, ironically
lucasRW 1y ago
[flagged]
- magicalhippo 1y ago
  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.
  - sigwinch 1y ago
    I’m not sure Trump himself would object to this edit. So-far, he’s benefitted by not reliving Jan 6 or explaining that speech. As of now (early afternoon GMT) he’s threatened to sue but it’s not clear on what grounds, or if it’s simply part of a larger campaign of leverage.
    - lucasRW 1y ago
      Lol that's the most contrived excuse I have read so far. I guess he was in favor of all the other lieas and hoax spread by the left (the fake Steele dossier for instance), because, even if he ended up in tribunals for years on end, spent hundreds of millions in legal fees, oh well, ultimately the truth made it out years later so he benefited from it !
      - sigwinch 1y ago
        You and I probably agree that Trump didn’t get to say what he actually wanted to say. I assert those two lines come closest. The attentive watcher might see the cut (two different camera angles) and put in the effort to watch the 50 min. in between. But biased people would just presume it fits a pattern. Do you think Trump is being taken out of context?
        magicalhippo 1y ago
        That's irrelevant in the context of a supposedly reputable news source reporting on what he said. What BBC did was literally make fake news, something they and other news outlets are accused of doing oh-so often these days. If they wanted to publish what Trump "actually wanted to say", they should have done that the proper way by finding some third party, like a political expert or similar, which could analyze the speech and convey what Trump "actually wanted to say".
joelschw 1y ago
January 6th was so egregious, I'm really not sure why they felt the need to exaggerate it.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  I think it’s unbiased to say that Jan 6 was about Trump more than any other person. No matter how you pore over his speech, he’s purposefully unclear about what “we” means and how the “fight” should start. No one analyzed the speech in realtime for its most-influential lines and this edit reflects what the rioters heard and felt.
LeoPanthera 1y ago
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/ 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.
- pydry 1y ago
  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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o
  - pjc50 1y ago
    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?
    - mvdtnz 1y ago
      It's difficult to show you an unedited one that isn't ridiculously long because the segments that were spliced together in the documentary were 50 minutes apart in real time.
gsky 1y ago
I hate BBC as much as I hate fox network. I want news not your personal opinions and cherry picking
bananapub 1y ago
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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo 1: https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-evolution-downplay-violence-51e9133c0d7b1ea71b43fbb73f4a1f83 https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-evolution-downplay-vi... 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo
- lucasRW 1y ago
  [flagged]
room271 1y ago
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-outlets-do-britons-trust-2023 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.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  Specific to this politician, right and wrong don’t matter. The one skill he’s sharpened his entire life is bad faith litigation. Once he threatened to sue, BBC needed some gesture that, in court, would demonstrate contrition.
DrScientist 1y ago
For US people who think Tim Davie is some sort of leftie. When he was younger he ran for political office for the conservative party and before the BBC he was a VP marketing and finance for Pepsi. Sadly over recent years the BBC has become a political football in the UK and wider, with pretty much all sides complaining about bias. This is just the latest chapter. I'd argue that most of this complaining is done by people who are frustrated that they can't buy or commercially bully the BBC to take their side. The way I read this episode is that the US poltical pressure over the Trump speech editing, created the required pressure for the current government to get rid of Davie. Now all sides are trying to use this crisis to further their ends. For what's it's worth, my view is that the BBC is made up of a range of people with a range of views - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, and the only bias is a tendency for a pro-establishment lens ( whatever that is at the time ).
verzali 1y ago
Trump seems to be trying to suppress free speech in the UK now, which is deeply ironic given how upset the right wing was about alleged British attempts to control speech in the US.

47 points by mellosouls 1y ago

I still chuckle when I see that enveloppe in the mail asking me to pay the TV license fee...

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.

adastra22 1y ago
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.
- pydry 1y ago
  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-for-israeli-government-bbc-employees-revolt-accuse-organisation-of-anti-palestinian-racism-in-coverage/3902489/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-...
  - adastra22 1y ago
    You misunderstood - BBC is getting in trouble for having passed off Hamas propaganda without fact checking for years. Whether you believe it or not (I suspect you won’t), the bias runs the other way.
    - pydry 1y ago
      I misunderstood nothing. The British establishment attacked the BBC because it wasnt supportive enough of the propaganda produced by a state conducting a Nazi-style genocide (according to the UN). "Hamas propaganda" is simply the racist trope used to describe that.
      - adastra22 1y ago
        I think you’re the one employing racist language here, and I don’t think further conversation would be helpful.
      - edanm 1y ago
        > a state conducting a Nazi-style genocide (according to the UN). Can you provide a link showing that the UN is saying this? I kind of doubt the UN ever called it a "Nazi-style" genocide, and I don't think anyone serious is alleging anything of the kind (including serious people/groups who do call it a genocide - I don't think they'd characterize what's happening as a "Nazi-style" genocide, and nothing they say implies they think it.)
        pydry 1y ago
        The UN called it a genocide: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c... They expressed no opinion about whether the intent on the genocide was due to a culture of racial supremacy. That isnt their job. But, there is a multitude of other evidence demonstrating that it was. This is why the people who try to downplay it on internet forums or elsewhere are exclusively racists, similar to holocaust deniers.

jalapenos 1y ago

[flagged]

dijit 1y ago
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.
- jalapenos 1y ago
  That rebuttal concept is amusing. Everyone would accuse Stalin of bias - so he's not biased. Very strong.
- hn_throw2025 1y ago
  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.
TiredOfLife 1y ago
Being biased is one thing. Doctoring tapes is another

Urahandystar 1y ago

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.

callamdelaney 1y ago

Misinformation merchants, ironically

lucasRW 1y ago

[flagged]

magicalhippo 1y ago
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.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  I’m not sure Trump himself would object to this edit. So-far, he’s benefitted by not reliving Jan 6 or explaining that speech. As of now (early afternoon GMT) he’s threatened to sue but it’s not clear on what grounds, or if it’s simply part of a larger campaign of leverage.
  - lucasRW 1y ago
    Lol that's the most contrived excuse I have read so far. I guess he was in favor of all the other lieas and hoax spread by the left (the fake Steele dossier for instance), because, even if he ended up in tribunals for years on end, spent hundreds of millions in legal fees, oh well, ultimately the truth made it out years later so he benefited from it !
    - sigwinch 1y ago
      You and I probably agree that Trump didn’t get to say what he actually wanted to say. I assert those two lines come closest. The attentive watcher might see the cut (two different camera angles) and put in the effort to watch the 50 min. in between. But biased people would just presume it fits a pattern. Do you think Trump is being taken out of context?
      - magicalhippo 1y ago
        That's irrelevant in the context of a supposedly reputable news source reporting on what he said. What BBC did was literally make fake news, something they and other news outlets are accused of doing oh-so often these days. If they wanted to publish what Trump "actually wanted to say", they should have done that the proper way by finding some third party, like a political expert or similar, which could analyze the speech and convey what Trump "actually wanted to say".

joelschw 1y ago

January 6th was so egregious, I'm really not sure why they felt the need to exaggerate it.

sigwinch 1y ago
I think it’s unbiased to say that Jan 6 was about Trump more than any other person. No matter how you pore over his speech, he’s purposefully unclear about what “we” means and how the “fight” should start. No one analyzed the speech in realtime for its most-influential lines and this edit reflects what the rioters heard and felt.

LeoPanthera 1y ago

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/ 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.

pydry 1y ago
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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o
- pjc50 1y ago
  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?
  - mvdtnz 1y ago
    It's difficult to show you an unedited one that isn't ridiculously long because the segments that were spliced together in the documentary were 50 minutes apart in real time.

gsky 1y ago

I hate BBC as much as I hate fox network. I want news not your personal opinions and cherry picking

bananapub 1y ago

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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo 1: https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-evolution-downplay-violence-51e9133c0d7b1ea71b43fbb73f4a1f83 https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-evolution-downplay-vi... 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo

lucasRW 1y ago
[flagged]

room271 1y ago

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-outlets-do-britons-trust-2023 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.

sigwinch 1y ago
Specific to this politician, right and wrong don’t matter. The one skill he’s sharpened his entire life is bad faith litigation. Once he threatened to sue, BBC needed some gesture that, in court, would demonstrate contrition.

DrScientist 1y ago

For US people who think Tim Davie is some sort of leftie. When he was younger he ran for political office for the conservative party and before the BBC he was a VP marketing and finance for Pepsi. Sadly over recent years the BBC has become a political football in the UK and wider, with pretty much all sides complaining about bias. This is just the latest chapter. I'd argue that most of this complaining is done by people who are frustrated that they can't buy or commercially bully the BBC to take their side. The way I read this episode is that the US poltical pressure over the Trump speech editing, created the required pressure for the current government to get rid of Davie. Now all sides are trying to use this crisis to further their ends. For what's it's worth, my view is that the BBC is made up of a range of people with a range of views - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, and the only bias is a tendency for a pro-establishment lens ( whatever that is at the time ).

verzali 1y ago

Trump seems to be trying to suppress free speech in the UK now, which is deeply ironic given how upset the right wing was about alleged British attempts to control speech in the US.