Contents

Talk:Criticism of the BBC

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of the BBC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 100 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Criticism of the BBC. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Criticism of the BBC at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Barbara Plett was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Criticism of the BBC. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

BBC Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Media Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: British Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Top-importance). United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: John Bingham (2011-07-14). "Official BBC Twitter rules tell staff: 'Don't do anything stupid'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2011-07-15. BBC staff have been told: "Don't surreptitiously sanitise Wikipedia pages about the BBC", in an artcile which also says "It follows the disclosure that employees had made anonymous edits to a Wikipedia article entitled 'Criticism of the BBC' removing references to an internal report which found the corporation was seen as 'out of touch with large swathes of the population'."

I have archived this topic, as it is now well over a year since the main debate, and this is a very long debate on a very long page. However, I think it is worth leaving a note to say that edits were made to this page from BBC IPs (e.g. [1]), and that if you do work for the BBC and are reading this, please read WP:COI before making edits.Pit-yacker (talk)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10159325/Bloated-elite-at-BBC-biased-on-immigration-says-Nigel-Farage.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10157478/BBC-did-not-reflect-public-view-on-immigration-because-of-deep-liberal-bias-says-review.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 July 2013‎

This article is not worthy of any encyclopedia, and certainly not Wikipedia. It reads like a PMQs slanging match. It's too long, too inconsistent and too full of biased editors with axes to grind. Delete. 80.41.186.142 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll... do not that and try to fix it instead. HasbroSaban (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't have a consistent narrative because it's an overflow article with material that would make the main BBC article much too long if included there... AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A search engine rabbit hole prompted by this article - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/25/emily-maitlis-bbc-broadcaster-newsnight-government - suggests that there was BBC bias regarding reporting of Brexit.

Emily Maitlis, former BBC News night presenter, is paraphrased by the article above in saying that "But journalists still clung to an old idea of impartiality and balance – that both sides must get an equal say, and let the viewer decide – which is effectively now being weaponised against them. To have a pro-Brexit economist debate a pro-remain one on air was not “balance”, she said, if economists generally were so overwhelmingly against leaving that it took hours of ringing round to find one lone maverick in favour. Broadcasters now reject such false equivalence on topics where scientific consensus is overwhelming, from climate change to vaccination, so why not in economics?"

Top results on Google for ""BBC bias" highlight allegations of bias surrounding the EU and Brexit from both sides of the debate. The above quote suggests that equal representation of pro and remain Brexit voices did not reflect the expert view. That expert concensus was misrepresented through a commitment to give equal time to each side of the debate. This article is huge and I agree with the current talk topic that it is reads like it was written by people with an axe to grind, and whilst it has many subsections it lacks objectively summarised concensus and topics - it goes straight into subsections without any summary of them.

The allegations of BBC bias surrounding Brexit is one of the most common themes when Googling "BBC bias." Why then is there nothing on this very long and detailed article about this topic? 87.114.5.25 (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a broader issue here, which Maitlis raises, of False balance (aka "Bothsidesism") of contentious issues. The fact that the BBC has been accused of that is relevant more generally than just to Brexit and it's weird that we don't link to it at all in the article. Maybe that should be a short section of its own?

I think that Brexit itself is a big enough topic that having a short section on it could be legitimate here. Maybe also a section in False balance, as this is not exclusively about the BBC. (Did ITV, C4, etc really do much of a better job of keeping the facts straight?) It's a tough topic to write about objectively though. It would need to be done very carefully. DanielRigal (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claims against the BBC[edit]

Considering that claims by The Sun newspaper against the BBC have been made in good faith, would it not be shameful if the Govt was to mis-use this story to control the state media outlet? So, if Wikipedia reports this story (in another article), will it be in a way that is fair, balanced and in the public interest?

Please note: while not a big supporter of the BBC, I do not believe that it should be forced to give in to the Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.212 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another sign of their left-wing biases. 2003:DA:C742:6500:6003:6165:74FA:288 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add the refusal to go to the "Bearing Witness" screening. The film contained footage of brutal killings, torture and mistreatment of people, including children and the elderly. In attendance were the president of the Fox News television company, heads of other major companies - CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC - as well as journalists from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and famous television presenters and commentators. But a certain mainstream media corporation was absent, deciding not to attend. And there are no prizes for guessing who. It was the glorious and iconic British Broadcasting Corporation. That’s right, the good old BBC chose not to show even a morsel of respect for the dead and kidnapped and bother to attend.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sy9xnakvt 185.182.78.238 (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikipedia and the BBC are both far-left and biased. They say the Jan 6 guys are terrorists, but say Antifa and Hamas are peaceful protesters and militants. Same with the Pro-Ukrainian propaganda. 139.47.17.101 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]