Talk:Criticism of the BBC: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
HasbroSaban (talk | contribs) →TLDR - Awful article.: Reply |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
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. |
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. [[Special:Contributions/80.41.186.142|80.41.186.142]] ([[User talk:80.41.186.142|talk]]) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
Delete. [[Special:Contributions/80.41.186.142|80.41.186.142]] ([[User talk:80.41.186.142|talk]]) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
:I'll... do not that and try to fix it instead. [[User:HasbroSaban|HasbroSaban]] ([[User talk:HasbroSaban|talk]]) 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Allegations of bias surrounding reporting of Brexit pre- and post-referendum. == |
== Allegations of bias surrounding reporting of Brexit pre- and post-referendum. == |
Revision as of 19:22, 3 February 2023
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. |
Article policies
|
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 removed or refactored. 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. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
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 of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
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
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)
- I'll... do not that and try to fix it instead. HasbroSaban (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2023 (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)
- 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)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- B-Class BBC articles
- Top-importance BBC articles
- WikiProject BBC articles
- B-Class Media articles
- Mid-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class television articles
- Mid-importance television articles
- B-Class British television articles
- Top-importance British television articles
- British television task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class England-related articles
- Mid-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press