5 ms·

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 centris

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.
  - iso1631 1y ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o Note that they took two parts of the speech and merged them together so it sounded like "We're going to march down to the capital and we fight like hell" Rather than "We're going to march down to the capital. (later in speech -- usually something like a fade to white and back) We fight like hell" Of course in reality Trump didn't march down to the capital, but his supporters did fight like hell.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  > 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 (especialy BBC Arabic) parroted Hamas a little too much at times. Edit to reply: Do you actually watch BBC? I watch BBC a lot. As in I sub and don't just get what algorithms throw at me. I didn't get even a slightest feeling they were slavishly pro Israel. Their videos about Gaza were regular and almost all negative of Israel reporting about destruction and suffering in Gaza. Just go to bbcnews youtube and search Gaza. You can also search Gaza genocide. didn't watch every video but headlines are telling. It feels like talking to somebody who says things that exist in their head and not reality
  - pydry 1y ago
    oh yeah ive no doubt not being slavishly pro Israel enough was part of if not most of the reason why the establishment cracked down here. (accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025...) the bbc journalists have been in near open revolt about being told to misrepresent and lie on behalf of Israel: 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-... The current leadership relented a little on the crackdown on their journalists in the last ~6 months ever since the UN declared it a genocide and allowed slightly more honest reporting of the genocide. Im pretty sure that recent glimmer of honesty will stop under new leadership. >Do you actually watch BBC? Yes, and I know people who work there too. Which is why found the journalists' revolt over management's orders to push racist Israeli tropes about "avoiding being too pro hamas" to be entirely unsurprising.
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      > They claim staff have faced accusations of bias for sharing articles critical of Israel on social media I heard if you work for BBC you can't even mention a toothbrush maker without going through alternatives. yes they are anal about bias. in this case on one side there is a jihadist organization (and civilians who judging by polls support it) with stated goal of genocide and many examples of attempting it as best they can, currently shooting its own people accused of collaborating with the enemy, vs country that done a bunch of stuff like settling villages outside of its borders and protecting them with violence, fighting that jihadist organization with civilian casualties, blocking borders etc. if what you are saying is that things are clear and there is no "bias" in painting one side as baddies and the other as goodies, I can't see that. therefore it's important to stick to factual reporting and if you work for a big news org regular people trust you and you should avoid bias even if you publish on your own twitter. from https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartial... > They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience, but may not express personal views on such matters publicly, including in any BBC-branded output or on personal blogs and social media. > Achieving due impartiality requires awareness that unintended biases can result from the use of loaded language, from subconscious assumptions and from choices about prominence. For example, a phrase like 'the burden of taxation' might imply a view of taxation that is biased. Advice is available from Editorial Policy I think BBC is very cool for having this rules. And it sucks they broke their own rules editing Trump speech. And I say that as mostly Trump hater > accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025... Ah yes. I have not mentioned race but there we go American white guilt... people from Palestine are ethnically all super similar including Jews, just with different religions/politics. I didn't watch/read BBC Arabic but on main channel I think they so far had pretty factual coverage and I hope they keep it up...
- constantius 1y ago
  > bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think This is accurate: the BBC is definitely not seen as speaking truth to power by anyone, independent of their political allegiance. Their coverage of the genocide was revealing of this, if one only cared to look.
jack_tripper 1y ago
>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. The government should moderate that 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, like gravity, the speed of light or the earth's rotation around the sun, but only someone else's interpretation and opinion, that is biased from their viewpoint.
- ForHackernews 1y ago
  >the reality that matters is only how the majority of people feel. Boy, if that ain't a motto for the 21st century.
  - jack_tripper 1y ago
    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.
    - ForHackernews 1y ago
      Nice to see the party of "facts don't care about your feelings" finally embracing the gospel of Lived Experience.
      - 1y ago
lucasRW 1y ago
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.
- elric 1y ago
  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.
  - jack_tripper 1y ago
    > exposes your own biases Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy? >I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being more inclusive". Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here? The masses of previously excluded pregnant men out there? What is that if not an agenda? You see, this is why people hate and distrust the BBC and left leaning MSM in general and swung a lot to the right. Because they're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on when people have other way bigger problems right now they want covered. What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, addressing corruption scandals and false political promises, not to focus on making the word pregnancy more inclusive.
    - dwb 1y ago
      Trans men are men, socially and legally. Describing them as women is simply incorrect.
      - marliechiller 1y ago
        Not in the UK
constantius 1y ago
> 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 elite 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. Get out of American team-based politics.
bko 1y ago
Yes you should watch for yourself. But you forgot to include a link to the edited video, rather you appeal to authority and link how some other org says that theyre not biased. The offense is pretty egregious and serious. This was a huge issue w dire consequences, and BBC wilfully spread doctored evidence. Watch the clip yourself https://youtu.be/xben0eSBQmE https://youtu.be/xben0eSBQmE
- pupppet 1y ago
  It’s interesting how any news organization even slightly left of center needs to be accountable for their actions while Fox News rage baits their viewers 24/7 and no one bats an eyelash.
  - bko 1y ago
    Two things: BBC is government funded and running misinformation and fraudulent editing to affect a foreign regime There is no pretense that fox news is somehow objective. At best people say it balances out the bias of nearly every other mainstream publication. For instance check 2016 newspaper endorsements Trump had 28 compared to over 600 for not trump Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia https://share.google/jOTQxKDCycI7bm04i https://share.google/jOTQxKDCycI7bm04i
    - devsda 1y ago
      I never understood the concept of newspapers endorsing a candidate. Don't newspapers have to at-least pretend to be neutral in a democracy i.e. on the side of people. Is there some dynamic here due to America being effectively a two party democracy that I'm missing. I feel like endorsing one candidate over the other is a public declaration/acknowledgement that their future reporting on failures of their endorsed candidate will be soft and reporting on the other party will be aggressive. Someone who regularly follows news on both sides may be able to tell whether this has been true so far or not.
    - LeoPanthera 1y ago
      > BBC is government funded While the BBC does receive government money, that money is used exclusively for the BBC World Service. It is misleading to say the BBC is "government funded", when the majority of their output is funded by the license fee.
sebow 1y ago
I've watched the doctored video myself. The CEO resigning is "nothing" compared to the accountability they should be held to for propaganda they constantly push, and specifically to the extreme bias in this case. If it was incompetence, one could argue that nothing should happen, perhaps an apology or some useless corporate article. But it was malice, and to deny that is (imo) the real issue here. (I'm not saying you're doing it, I'm just saying some people do/did it) I'm curious if you think people outside US/Western Europe (like me; greetings from EE[we've seen such edits in our communist period, fyi]) who disagree with the assessment that the BBC is "centrist with a slight leftward skew" are far-right with obvious biases? And if so, on what grounds? Most people who say BBC is propaganda(like me) don't consume MSM at all(or, in the case of US, stick to Fox or something). To say all alternative media I consume(which you'd be correct in assuming) is "skewing far-right" is to, ironically, behave like the ones you're pointing to. It's also incorrect: alternative media is infinitely more diverse today, even after all the reshuffling/restructuring in the past 10-12 months(which culled a decent amount of the left-leaning alternative media) than MSM.
kcplate 1y ago
Just one egregious act can destroy a reputation of anyone and anything…and should.
kurtis_reed 1y ago
Centrist doesn't mean unbiased
greenchair 1y ago
Brigading is certainly one possibility. Another more likely possibility is that the majority views BBC's actions as being wrong and further eroding trust in the media. How would you like it if BBC did what they did to you?

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.
- iso1631 1y ago
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o Note that they took two parts of the speech and merged them together so it sounded like "We're going to march down to the capital and we fight like hell" Rather than "We're going to march down to the capital. (later in speech -- usually something like a fade to white and back) We fight like hell" Of course in reality Trump didn't march down to the capital, but his supporters did fight like hell.
throwaway290 1y ago
> 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 (especialy BBC Arabic) parroted Hamas a little too much at times. Edit to reply: Do you actually watch BBC? I watch BBC a lot. As in I sub and don't just get what algorithms throw at me. I didn't get even a slightest feeling they were slavishly pro Israel. Their videos about Gaza were regular and almost all negative of Israel reporting about destruction and suffering in Gaza. Just go to bbcnews youtube and search Gaza. You can also search Gaza genocide. didn't watch every video but headlines are telling. It feels like talking to somebody who says things that exist in their head and not reality
- pydry 1y ago
  oh yeah ive no doubt not being slavishly pro Israel enough was part of if not most of the reason why the establishment cracked down here. (accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025...) the bbc journalists have been in near open revolt about being told to misrepresent and lie on behalf of Israel: 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-... The current leadership relented a little on the crackdown on their journalists in the last ~6 months ever since the UN declared it a genocide and allowed slightly more honest reporting of the genocide. Im pretty sure that recent glimmer of honesty will stop under new leadership. >Do you actually watch BBC? Yes, and I know people who work there too. Which is why found the journalists' revolt over management's orders to push racist Israeli tropes about "avoiding being too pro hamas" to be entirely unsurprising.
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    > They claim staff have faced accusations of bias for sharing articles critical of Israel on social media I heard if you work for BBC you can't even mention a toothbrush maker without going through alternatives. yes they are anal about bias. in this case on one side there is a jihadist organization (and civilians who judging by polls support it) with stated goal of genocide and many examples of attempting it as best they can, currently shooting its own people accused of collaborating with the enemy, vs country that done a bunch of stuff like settling villages outside of its borders and protecting them with violence, fighting that jihadist organization with civilian casualties, blocking borders etc. if what you are saying is that things are clear and there is no "bias" in painting one side as baddies and the other as goodies, I can't see that. therefore it's important to stick to factual reporting and if you work for a big news org regular people trust you and you should avoid bias even if you publish on your own twitter. from https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartial... > They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience, but may not express personal views on such matters publicly, including in any BBC-branded output or on personal blogs and social media. > Achieving due impartiality requires awareness that unintended biases can result from the use of loaded language, from subconscious assumptions and from choices about prominence. For example, a phrase like 'the burden of taxation' might imply a view of taxation that is biased. Advice is available from Editorial Policy I think BBC is very cool for having this rules. And it sucks they broke their own rules editing Trump speech. And I say that as mostly Trump hater > accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025... Ah yes. I have not mentioned race but there we go American white guilt... people from Palestine are ethnically all super similar including Jews, just with different religions/politics. I didn't watch/read BBC Arabic but on main channel I think they so far had pretty factual coverage and I hope they keep it up...
constantius 1y ago
> bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think This is accurate: the BBC is definitely not seen as speaking truth to power by anyone, independent of their political allegiance. Their coverage of the genocide was revealing of this, if one only cared to look.

jack_tripper 1y ago

>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. The government should moderate that 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, like gravity, the speed of light or the earth's rotation around the sun, but only someone else's interpretation and opinion, that is biased from their viewpoint.

ForHackernews 1y ago
>the reality that matters is only how the majority of people feel. Boy, if that ain't a motto for the 21st century.
- jack_tripper 1y ago
  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.
  - ForHackernews 1y ago
    Nice to see the party of "facts don't care about your feelings" finally embracing the gospel of Lived Experience.
    - 1y ago

lucasRW 1y ago

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.

elric 1y ago
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.
- jack_tripper 1y ago
  > exposes your own biases Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy? >I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being more inclusive". Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here? The masses of previously excluded pregnant men out there? What is that if not an agenda? You see, this is why people hate and distrust the BBC and left leaning MSM in general and swung a lot to the right. Because they're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on when people have other way bigger problems right now they want covered. What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, addressing corruption scandals and false political promises, not to focus on making the word pregnancy more inclusive.
  - dwb 1y ago
    Trans men are men, socially and legally. Describing them as women is simply incorrect.
    - marliechiller 1y ago
      Not in the UK

constantius 1y ago

> 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 elite 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. Get out of American team-based politics.

bko 1y ago

Yes you should watch for yourself. But you forgot to include a link to the edited video, rather you appeal to authority and link how some other org says that theyre not biased. The offense is pretty egregious and serious. This was a huge issue w dire consequences, and BBC wilfully spread doctored evidence. Watch the clip yourself https://youtu.be/xben0eSBQmE https://youtu.be/xben0eSBQmE

pupppet 1y ago
It’s interesting how any news organization even slightly left of center needs to be accountable for their actions while Fox News rage baits their viewers 24/7 and no one bats an eyelash.
- bko 1y ago
  Two things: BBC is government funded and running misinformation and fraudulent editing to affect a foreign regime There is no pretense that fox news is somehow objective. At best people say it balances out the bias of nearly every other mainstream publication. For instance check 2016 newspaper endorsements Trump had 28 compared to over 600 for not trump Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia https://share.google/jOTQxKDCycI7bm04i https://share.google/jOTQxKDCycI7bm04i
  - devsda 1y ago
    I never understood the concept of newspapers endorsing a candidate. Don't newspapers have to at-least pretend to be neutral in a democracy i.e. on the side of people. Is there some dynamic here due to America being effectively a two party democracy that I'm missing. I feel like endorsing one candidate over the other is a public declaration/acknowledgement that their future reporting on failures of their endorsed candidate will be soft and reporting on the other party will be aggressive. Someone who regularly follows news on both sides may be able to tell whether this has been true so far or not.
  - LeoPanthera 1y ago
    > BBC is government funded While the BBC does receive government money, that money is used exclusively for the BBC World Service. It is misleading to say the BBC is "government funded", when the majority of their output is funded by the license fee.

sebow 1y ago

I've watched the doctored video myself. The CEO resigning is "nothing" compared to the accountability they should be held to for propaganda they constantly push, and specifically to the extreme bias in this case. If it was incompetence, one could argue that nothing should happen, perhaps an apology or some useless corporate article. But it was malice, and to deny that is (imo) the real issue here. (I'm not saying you're doing it, I'm just saying some people do/did it) I'm curious if you think people outside US/Western Europe (like me; greetings from EE[we've seen such edits in our communist period, fyi]) who disagree with the assessment that the BBC is "centrist with a slight leftward skew" are far-right with obvious biases? And if so, on what grounds? Most people who say BBC is propaganda(like me) don't consume MSM at all(or, in the case of US, stick to Fox or something). To say all alternative media I consume(which you'd be correct in assuming) is "skewing far-right" is to, ironically, behave like the ones you're pointing to. It's also incorrect: alternative media is infinitely more diverse today, even after all the reshuffling/restructuring in the past 10-12 months(which culled a decent amount of the left-leaning alternative media) than MSM.

kcplate 1y ago

Just one egregious act can destroy a reputation of anyone and anything…and should.

kurtis_reed 1y ago

Centrist doesn't mean unbiased

greenchair 1y ago

Brigading is certainly one possibility. Another more likely possibility is that the majority views BBC's actions as being wrong and further eroding trust in the media. How would you like it if BBC did what they did to you?