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 subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3: 3 months

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, use 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.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms 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.

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.

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

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (British TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy ProjectBBC 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

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:

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

	Journalism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British Mid‑importance

	Television portal 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
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

	United Kingdom portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal 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
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 article 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'."

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

Refusing to call Hamas terrorists "terrorists"

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]

Quality of BBC journalism in decline

Aside from the old and well-worn issues of perceived bias etc, etc, in recent years the quality of the journalism on the BBC News Website has degraded significantly. From typos to tabloid themes, and from inappropriate ads to increased advertorials, the BBC site is now awash with click bait slop.

Does anyone want to do a section on this? Reddit is good source for examples on this theme. 202.138.32.160 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TardBBC was murdered in the mid-80s. The regime stooge posing as the BBC is better called CommericalPrivateEquitybbc, a simulacrum. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive purge?

The article has had a lot of material removed (diff) which was (apparently) sourced to critical commentary. Where the criticism comes from notable people such sourcing might be acceptable and the extent of the removal seemed overaggressive to me. When I see a lot of content being removed then I tend to revert pending discussion but when I tried to verify the "Stateless Person's Broadcasting Corporation" quote I came up blank which made me think again. Probably at least some, maybe most, of the removals are valid and I won't revert. Nonetheless, it is quite a lot so I invite people to look at what was removed and see if any of it should be brought back, possibly with better sourcing. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Around half of references in the Thailand: The Dark Side of Paradise article focus about its critism in Thailand. (The rest is mostly arguably routine coverage of the series) Thus I propose that article be merged into this article. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 02:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I don't think it should be merged but i definitely think information on the case should be added to the article. Rockwizfan (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]