Talk:Criticism of the BBC

BBC has made many edits on this page

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)

Being slated about immigration by Farage and surveys. Someone put this in.

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

Digital TV promotional campaign

Has anyone here considered opening up a page for the Beeb's more controversial promotional campaigns, such as "Unmask" and "Faces"? MotleyCatReturnz (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are they "controvesial"? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this criticism of the BBC, or Criticism of BBC World News? Also, 'BBC Controversies' should probably be merged

The vast majority of criticisms from foreign audiences seem to be in reaction to the BBC World Service, an organisation under the umbrella of the BBC Trust, but which receives government funding to promote British soft power and project the British government's point of view on the world (though they maintain full editorial independence to deliver the government's message). For example, the controversies aforementioned in regards to Russia and Pakistan are controversies coming out of reportage intended for the BBC World Service (that same government-controlled aspect of the BBC), not the domestic BBC (which isn't directly controlled nor funded by the government). So should such criticisms of the BBC World Service (of which there are plenty) be spun off into a separate article?

Additionally, I think the controversies and criticisms article should be merged, or at least edited for clean up, as much of the controversies are really just criticism. Don't need too many articles on criticism or controversies regarding the BBC, when it's under their different organisations, no? PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There have been discussions of merging "Controversies" and Criticisms" in the past (see talk page archives). I've never been able to understand what the distinction between the two is, but both articles are rather large...

I'm not sure that a topic such as controversies in BBC coverage of Arab/Israeli conflicts can be neatly divided into Domestic vs. World. AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Alleged BBC misreporting on Indian Army

Reporting on Kashmir, the BBC showed shots from Chechnya operations. On another occasion, it is reported that the Tsrar-I-Sharif shrine had been stormed by the Indian security forces. When the other media pointed out the blunder, the BBC, after weeks, apologised.
— Rai, Ajai K. (2000-06-01). "Conflict situations and the media: A critical look". Strategic Analysis. 24 (3): 594. doi:10.1080/09700160008455233. ISSN 0970-0161.

Kautilya3, do you know of the details? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I haven't heard of these. But, from what Premen Addy says, BBC was using substandard axe-grinding editors for South Asia. Hopefully, those days are behind us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you got rid of Premen Addy! Why? He is a respectable journalist and historian [2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Rwanda's President says he doesn't need lessons from BBC Comment

During the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting the President of Rwanda had quite the ridicule for the BBC.Video CaribDigita (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"The Secret Agent (documentary)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Secret Agent (documentary) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21#The Secret Agent (documentary) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

TLDR - Awful article.

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)

Allegations of bias surrounding reporting of Brexit pre- and post-referendum.

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)