4 ms·

Excusing the BBC for lying just because other people are lying too doesn’t really work.

by db48x 11mo ago

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.
  - foldr 11mo ago
    I addressed the other claims in the report in my original comment. Anyone who writes a report complaining about a ‘trans agenda’ clearly has more of an axe to grind than anyone at the BBC. Your last comment is bordering on a rant (e.g. the far out claim that “it’s literally not worth trusting anything that [the BBC] says”), so I will leave it here.
    - db48x 11mo ago
      I think you’re ignoring the problem. Regardless of anyone’s opinion on the matter, the BBC’s strategy of supporting one viewpoint and burying another is unethical. If you want people to trust the media then the media must report the facts even when the individuals within the media dislike them. If they don’t do that they they’re not trustworthy.
      - foldr 11mo ago
        The BBC doesn’t have a “strategy” of doing that, but any news service will have a detectable lean towards some viewpoints and away from others. When it comes to Israel/Palestine or trans rights, there is little general agreement as to what the facts are, so you cannot please everyone with some simplistic notion of “purely factual” reporting. In fact the BBC, following the general transphobic climate in the UK, has given a lot of airtime to people trying to create a moral panic around trans people. They’re using virtually identical tactics to those used to stir up panic about gays in the 80s. This won’t look good with hindsight any more than the 80s and 90s “debate” about homosexuality does now. (Will the Telegraph demand that the BBC give airtime to homophobes in the interests of fairness and balance? No, they have quietly forgotten about that issue, and moved on to the next vulnerable minority group.) In short, you’re holding the BBC to a standard that you don’t apply to any comparable broadcaster.

Excusing the BBC for lying just because other people are lying too doesn’t really work.

by 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.
- foldr 11mo ago
  I addressed the other claims in the report in my original comment. Anyone who writes a report complaining about a ‘trans agenda’ clearly has more of an axe to grind than anyone at the BBC. Your last comment is bordering on a rant (e.g. the far out claim that “it’s literally not worth trusting anything that [the BBC] says”), so I will leave it here.
  - db48x 11mo ago
    I think you’re ignoring the problem. Regardless of anyone’s opinion on the matter, the BBC’s strategy of supporting one viewpoint and burying another is unethical. If you want people to trust the media then the media must report the facts even when the individuals within the media dislike them. If they don’t do that they they’re not trustworthy.
    - foldr 11mo ago
      The BBC doesn’t have a “strategy” of doing that, but any news service will have a detectable lean towards some viewpoints and away from others. When it comes to Israel/Palestine or trans rights, there is little general agreement as to what the facts are, so you cannot please everyone with some simplistic notion of “purely factual” reporting. In fact the BBC, following the general transphobic climate in the UK, has given a lot of airtime to people trying to create a moral panic around trans people. They’re using virtually identical tactics to those used to stir up panic about gays in the 80s. This won’t look good with hindsight any more than the 80s and 90s “debate” about homosexuality does now. (Will the Telegraph demand that the BBC give airtime to homophobes in the interests of fairness and balance? No, they have quietly forgotten about that issue, and moved on to the next vulnerable minority group.) In short, you’re holding the BBC to a standard that you don’t apply to any comparable broadcaster.