Off Topic Politics Thread

In fairness didn't BBC verify actually verify that they had ****ed up .

I mean I laugh, but that is a point in its credit.

 

If the BBC is to remain as it is it needs to present facts that are not based on opinion. Ian's comments above about generational mindsets is utter tosh! He is actually saying that older people's bias is different to younger people's bias in defence of something being unbiased. lol. It doesn't matter what old people or young people think! unbiased means the same thing no matter if old people now view something more modern as being different to their own bias.

BBC will never become GB News 2. GB News is a discussion channel. BBC is a behemoth that wants to be the pinnacle of all genres and subjects. It should stick to producing good programs and unbiased actual news and not lecturing people or trying to feed narratives into its non news/political programming! I don't particularly care about ethnicities playing wrong characters in dramas but lets not start changing history to be what we want it to be!

BBCs main problem is that it thinks middle class is where normal is and its whole programming on the main 2 channels is based around affluent people buying houses, needing to be told how to save money (stop buying Omega watches and £100 bottles of Prosecco <--both true stories there) building property portfolios and now falling into the rest of the media trap where we've all got bored of watching normal people do reality TV so lets watch a load of no name Z listers doing reality instead. Popular but its tabloid style crap!

All the comedy is middle class making fun of anything right wing or working class or poor people etc yet they bang on about punching up!

And any critique of anyone of any minority is responded to with claims of racism or xenophobia or abelism or etc etc. For example. Nish Kumar is not targeted because of his skin colour or religion (I'm assuming he is muslim) It is because hes not very funny and just sneers at most of the country, thinking he's really clever.

The BBCs failing is the culture within it where everybody in the building thinks they are THE only moral purveyors of right and wrong with an obligation to educate the masses. If they actually did the latter instead of trying to lecture and preach intending to turn us all into like minded yes nodding clones that would be a bonus...but it isn't. Its a channel that actually sneers at most of the country they they themselves believe should be watching for their own good!

So I tend to watch the history channels, a bit of science, TNT/SKY for sports and a little bit of GB News these days. in the background while I'm on my laptop. I used to religiously watch BBC and mostly BBC News but way before Brexit I was losing interest in them. recycling the same 5 recorded segments every half hour is piss poor for such a budget. snip them into 5 minutes and do some more of the news they're ignoring. They've got gazillions of journos and correspondents across the world yet they've spent the last 15 years presenting Guido articles as "The BBC has learned!" What do their multitude of correspondents actually do?

Its a pity because I'm 50 and I remember when the Beeb was actually pretty good. Wide range of all sorts of programming, great comedy but since the internet era they have spent so much on being the world's dominant website, world's moral guide and most of their actual programming has slipped drastically in quality!

And I'm not just saying "Its a pity" for effect. I genuinely do care. Like a poster above. I have grown up with the BBC and proud of how good it was. The current iteration however is just far too big, far too lecturing and provides very little quality programming. Maybe conceding they can't afford things like Premier League or high profile sport would help in terms of more budget to produce quality stuff but it wouldn;t stop the attitude of "We are the gospel, praise be to the BBC."

 

"The BBCs failing is the culture within it where everybody in the building thinks they are THE only moral purveyors of right and wrong with an obligation to educate the masses."

Sounds awfully similar to Not606...

 

Not606 is nowhere near as bad as the BBC. lol. I get what you are saying though. The internet is dominated, no matter what people on the left seem to believe, by left wing opinion and voices. I have no idea why they think twitter is a right wing cesspit because its mostly left wingers posting links to bad right wing stuff. lol. Still heavily dominated at least 60:40 left to right. The rest of the internet maybe higher still. Its all pretty representative of each other on the internet but this era is all about saying how bad the other side is a crazy high proportion of internet content, not just social media, is one side calling out the other.......while actually promoting it by doing so!

 

It was the Telegraph that exposed it after a leaked memo. I think in this case they had their arms twisted.



Charlie Walsham
The leaked BBC memo is no surprise

• 8 November 2025, 1:16pm
• As a BBC news journalist who has been driven to distraction by the corporation’s repeated displays of apparent bias, I didn’t think I was capable of being shocked anymore. It turns out I was wrong. Reading The Telegraph’s revelations about serious editorial lapses within BBC News was utterly sobering.

As I digested the information contained within a leaked internal memo, a range of now familiar emotions washed over me – dismay, disappointment, anger, sadness – but also a sense of vindication, albeit rather hollow. What originally prompted me to start writing articles in this publication back in 2021, criticising the BBC’s one-sided coverage of the pandemic, was deep frustration that my concerns over impartiality were either ignored or derided when I raised them in-house. The leaked memo, written by former journalist Michael Prescott, proves my experience was merely the tip of an enormous iceberg.

Until as recently as June, Prescott was an independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. Although he was operating at a much higher seniority level than I ever have, there are parallels between his experience and mine. Like me, he had seen repeated examples of apparent bias in the BBC’s coverage of a range of contentious issues. Like me, he had raised his unease in-house. And like me, he found his concerns downplayed or dismissed. His despair at being rebuffed led him to write to the BBC board last month. His memo, which was soon circulating in government departments, was passed on to the Telegraph by a source who thought licence fee payers had the right to know its contents. Too right they do.
The full dossier is well worth reading, demonstrating skewed coverage of the US election, racial diversity, biological sex and gender, and the Israel-Hamas war. The detailed evidence is utterly damning not simply because it enumerates grave instances of editorial bias, but because it shines a light on the cavalier arrogance and detachment from reality of those at the top of the BBC.
From my perspective, Prescott’s experience proves what I had come to conclude some time ago: the BBC’s editorial leaders are either ideologically captured or morally craven. They have either drunk the progressive Kool-Aid in such quantities that their concept of impartiality has become treacherously distorted, or they know full well that they are churning out slanted coverage, but they are too cowardly to stand up to the DEI hires, woke warriors, and sectarian antisemites on the staff.
A fish rots from the head and, right now, the BBC stinks like a decaying trout on a blazing hot beach. The salaries of Director-General Tim Davie and his key lieutenants – Deborah Turness, Jonathan Munro and Richard Burgess – add up to a cool £1.5 million a year. You may view such generous remuneration as reasonable for those who hold significant responsibilities. But how can anyone possibly justify paying this when they appear to have failed, time and again, to ensure the BBC fulfils its basic mission statement to achieve ‘due impartiality in all its output’?
Perhaps we should take as mitigation the remorse they have shown since the Telegraph published the dossier, the public apologies they have issued for breaching the trust of the nearly 24 million households who still pay the licence fee, and the joint pledge they made to work tirelessly to fix the BBC’s editorial compass. Only joking. Of course, none of those things have happened. As The Telegraph’s Gordon Rayner stated on X, the BBC’s top tier ‘clearly believe that if they just ignore The Telegraph’s revelations, the whole thing will go away’.
The official radio silence from management has been maintained at Broadcasting House too. Managers love nothing more than a self-congratulatory all-staff email. But when a presenter turns out to be a sex pest or a *****phile, a Gaza documentary is presented by a Hamas-adjacent youngster, or antisemitic death chants are broadcast during a music festival, the enthusiasm for a candid electronic missive is somewhat diminished. Still, one usually arrives in my inbox from on-high eventually. It appears, however, that in the case of the Prescott memo, the BBC has no defence to mount, no context to provide, so its leaders have decided to stay shtum and hope the scandal blows over or is buried by other news.
You might think frontline BBC journalists would down tools in protest and demand senior heads roll. Regrettably, what the dossier also clearly illustrates is that too many BBC hacks are complicit in the corporation’s decline. With increasing diversity in the workplace a key function of BBC recruitment, the new generation of BBC journalists are as woke as a joke. Refusing to leave their politics at the revolving doors of Broadcasting House, they instead filter every event they report through the prism of their progressive prejudices: Israel is a genocidal rogue state; trans women are women; JK Rowling is a dastardly ‘TERF’; Trump is an evil dictator; diversity is strength, etc.
Rather than contrition, BBC bosses continue to give a two-fingered salute to anyone who craves a return to measured, sensible, balanced, rational reporting by the national broadcaster.[Are we saying here they are doing nothing about the allegations of bias? Just want to clarify given the following line shows some action albeit I appreciate the point being made that it’s not the action you want to see] On the same day the Telegraph published the full damning dossier, the BBC reported it had upheld 20 impartiality complaints against News Channel presenter Martine Croxall. Her crime? Correcting a script live on air that had absurdly referred to ‘pregnant people’. The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit decided Croxall’s facial expression when she added the word ‘women’ gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view’ on a controversial matter.
So, there you have it. It seems fine to peddle Hamas propaganda, platform anti-Semites, doctor footage of the US president, leverage racial grievance for clicks, promote damaging trans ideology to kids – but acknowledging biological realities that have existed since the dawn of humankind? That’s bang out of order.
Unless the government steps in and forces the BBC’s top tier to quit and ride off into the sunset on their Brompton bikes, the corporation is finished. Its reputation is already shot, trust has been on the slide for years, and all the signs are it’s only going to get worse. No one should be forced to pay for a product that is being mis-sold. Perhaps licence fee payers should take out a class action for compensation. I’d sign up.
Written by
Charlie Walsham
Charlie Walsham is the pseudonym of a BBC News employee who has worked at the Corporation for several years.

 

Again it is even more of a farce because any right minded person already knows Trump is bang to rights over 06/01/21 as it is, they really didn't need to splice any misleading nonsense together.

Probably a sign of the general declining editorial quality of the BBC since the Conservative Party dispatched its cronies who have a well worn track record of enshittifying anything they touch into leadership positions, it feels less bias and more incompetence to me , in the pursuit of making a more juicy bit of tv and juicy tv should not be the primary concern of BBC News.

Be an interesting one for the government to handle with Trump this, maintaining the relationship between the UK and US thus far has been genuinely surprising, but if Trump manages to sue the BBC for $1bn as he threatens then the UK government is duty bound to UK citizens to block payment imo. Although I don't even know how this kind of thing would work in reality anyway. Who would arbitrate that kind of legal action?

 

I don't know if Trump could stand the dissection his part in the lead up to the insurrection in open court and of course an examination of the events on the 6th.

CNN points out there were no complaints at the time of broadcast and that the Telegraph has been a long time critic of the Beeb.
"A lawyer for Trump asserted Monday that the BBC defamed the president “by intentionally and deceitfully editing its documentary in order to try and interfere in the Presidential Election.”
The letter, obtained by CNN, charges the broadcaster with defamation and claims that Trump has suffered “overwhelming financial and reputational harm,” despite no one seeming to call out the error at the time of the broadcast."
"Last week, The Telegraph, a longtime source of anti-BBC commentary, wrote about an “internal report” revealing the bad edit, and the story has since snowballed."
Trump is all wind and piss he can sue and be damned.