Not really a good example in the way you think it is, but actually a good example of how the BBC ties itself in knots trying to be fair to everyone. The policy on naming Derry is to, in the first instance of a report name it as Londonderry, then it can be referred to as Derry in subsequent mentions. It’s not a sign of bias, and is actually quite the opposite in trying to be “fair” to both sides.
We’ll, NI is part of the UK and it’s official name is Londonderry. If it becomes a part of a unified Ireland then I’m sure it will be known as Derry. Until then the BBC is clearly obliged to stick to its current official name
Odd one to pick because they have an arrangement for Derry/Londonderry where they refer to it as Londonderry at first mention and then Derry after.
This is a prime example of the BBC attempting to be impartial and people are criticizing them for it, whilst simultaneously complaining that they aren't impartial enough. Shows the scale of their challenge.
It's been mentioned before of course but the inordinate air time given to reform needs addressing, question time in particular.
I really agree with this but i would reiterate that there is a generational divide too and the BBC is trying to attract back the younger demographic it is losing. This is gender issues are being pushed and why si much of the BBC website content feels juvenile. I can therefore appeeciate the sentiment , to a degree , when IOAG types away at his computer, sitting in his corduroy trousers. I do not agree in the least and feel that the consequences of foreign interference aee as bad if coming frim America or China. Just feel that Trump's actions hsve broader consequences in shutting down journalism.
You've got that wrong Ides. Longstanding BBC guidelines are that Londonderry is used for first reference, and Derry thereafter. A classic example, one might say, of the BBC working to be impartial, while inadvertently offending anyone who wants to be offended.
The BBC is a long, long, long way from being perfect, and it's going through a really bad period in it's history right now (much of it self-inflicted idiocy), but as always a lot of the criticisms levelled at it (not least on here) revolve around "they don't do/see things exactly how I'd like them to and how I do/see things". In a normal, healthy society that would be seen as a good thing, but...yeah... As has been said, the fact that half the people think they're some right wing led mouthpiece for Farage and co, and the other half think they've been taken over by lefty trans-activists actually shows they have something right.
I cut and pasted the following from the BBC's Mission Statement https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission. They may fall well short of these values at times, but at least they aspire to them; 1. To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them The BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.
It’s been said many times by people far wiser than me, but the fact that the BBC is consistently and continually accused of bias by the whole range of the political spectrum is an indication of its success in maintaining its balance. On the other hand, Emily Maitlis left the BBC for pretty much that exact reason. As she points out, during the Brexit debate, even though 99% of economic analysts believed that leaving the EU would be disastrous, panel discussions always had to have 50/50 balance. An example of the BBC tying itself in knots to please everybody.
It's the responsibility of the BBC and others across the media to present the facts expose mis/disinformation and lies so the brexshit campaign should have been held to account for the utter bollocks spouted during the campaign in a far more rigorous manner. The vote was lost not won. Likewise issues of the day need dissecting not by a 50/50 balance but by a full recognition of the facts, pros and cons.
The comments that "because both sides of the political spectrum accuse the BBC of bias it points to a balance", don't really hold much water. The fact that those defending the BBC are overwhelmingly from the left gives a truer reflection of how things are.
How is that tying itself in knots? Discussions and Debates should be represented as close to 50/50 otherwise there would be nothing to discuss
And the arguments presented by all sides should be rigorously scrutinised and verified with any misleading statements, assertions whatever exposed as such.
Denouncing the BBC and saying they've become more and more biased as time goes on does not equal wanting rid of the BBC! Stop either/or-ing. For the final time BC needs to actually change and understand why they need to change and understand and accept what their problem is! Its no good shifting the manager and then playing the same team, with the same tactics! It isn't about moving to the right or moving to the left! It is about them, as an organisation that constantly advertises itself as being the pinnacle of truth, to actually focus on facts and truth and not attack others for bias / misinformation while doing it themselves! And get outsiders that aren't fully paid up members of the same mind to actual review if their content before they put it out! Its much wider than just BBC News. The spread of sneering and stuffs is all over the Beeb and while some of it is probably deserved that does not work with an organisation that promotes itself as unbiased and neutral! Also nobody seems to care just how big the BBC behemoth has become! It is a dominant organisation atm bordering on monopoly and refuses to accept any outside "interference" marking its own homework constantly! It isn't enough to say it is a public service broadcaster forcing anyone not watching it to pay the TV licence anymore! The licence should be the subscription and the BBC itself should not continue to be a "compulsory" payment to anyone that wants to watch any TV channel! I pay it because I'm a good boy and watch telly, even a bit of BBC. Would I pay it if I i didn't have to? Probably. Would have to think to myself how much of it I do watch and if it was worth the money as I don't watch any of their primetime BBC1/2 stuff....but they have to stop going around with this idea they are there to keep everyone else in check when they are the ones that are getting caught out endlessly for all sorts of things! My biggest grievance with the BBC is one thing I have always liked is no adverts but increasingly the BBC puts up no end of adverts about its own programming inbetween programs including on the News channel and they even dedicate parts of their current affairs programs and news segments to advertising the BBC. So it does have adverts........just they are advertising how good and gracious and clever and quality the BBC is!
Because of course they need to spend even more time on the left wing? Should be sticking to just the Tories for right wing and then Labour, Lib Dems, SNP for balance? Hmmm. Fair enough 1 either side? Not 1 vs 3? Or maybe 3 Tories vs the 3 lefties? (and yes I am talking about the Lib Dems as left wing even though anyone from the actual hard left calls them right wing! They call Starmer right wing! everyone who isn't wearing sack cloths they call right wing.
Life's all about perspective. To the average Daily Mail reader, almost everything is "from the left".
The problem is that they think they are helping the viewer by presenting what they think you should know rather than what the truth is. Like they can just present an example of herd mentality to sway viewers into being the "norm" they see or hear on the screen. duly accurate and factual we all know this is a problem. Its a version of truth rather than the truth. They lean in on the truth in their own viewpoint rather than looking at it from neutrality and very often provide opinion instead of fact, normally interviewing their own correspondent to tell us what stuff means. They cherrypick experts to confirm their reports rather than anything else and they are often linked in some way to the thing they are there to confirm! And they often don't disclose those political links when they have these people on presenting them as if they are some neutral expert when in fact they are a left wing activist or lobbyist that actually was lobbying for the change that the BBC report has just been trying to promote as something good! freedom of expression? By letting a handful of righties on occasionally to speak? They refuse to bring on people who might actually resound with their audience or could debunk something they've decided is the future good! This upsetting argument of both sides thinking they are biased does not in any way mean they are unbiased or neutral! That's like saying if reform is right and Labour are left that the Tories are the centre! Do you not consider that they could actually be lying and skewing everything and thus everyone is accusing them of bias? But thats OK as long as they lie and skew things against everyone?
