You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
BBC controversies
BBC controversies
I think all of the above controversies are made up. People are out to get this magnificent corporation, and these types, we all know the kind, free thinkers, critical thinkers and anarchists are the real threat to our freedom and very democratic democracy.
I'd happily paid £1000 or more a year for a TV licence just to know that the twee couple on the sofa and the Oxbridge elite have nice cushy jobs for the rest of their lives.
I may be wrong but I'd never admit it because I'm too thick to think for myself.
I think all of the above controversies are made up. People are out to get this magnificent corporation, and these types, we all know the kind, free thinkers, critical thinkers and anarchists are the real threat to our freedom and very democratic democracy.
I'd happily paid £1000 or more a year for a TV licence just to know that the twee couple on the sofa and the Oxbridge elite have nice cushy jobs for the rest of their lives.
I may be wrong but I'd never admit it because I'm too thick to think for myself.
Comments
Enough bashing of the BBC! Worth every penny, ask Bill Gates if you don't believe me.
BBC Quietly Owns Up to Blatant Propaganda Lies
I blame the BBC.
I just hope I never catch the conspiracy theorist disease.
2022: Flat earthers comment
In January 2022, David Jordan, the BBC's director of editorial policy and standards, attracted controversy when he said: "Flat Earthers are not going to get as much space as people who believe that the Earth is round, but very occasionally, it might be appropriate to interview a flat Earther, and if a lot of people believed in a flat Earth, [then] we would need to address it more than we do at the present time."[256][257]
I don't think any of them are "made up." The BBC tries to be impartial. It does not always succeed. It sometimes gets attacked by people who think it is Left Wing. Or Right Wing.
And sometimes it gets attacked because it has failed to maintain the standards we expect.
All of those controversies were genuine controversies at the time. Some, with the passage of time, look ridiculous. BBC doesn't play enough jazz? BBC has a drug-taking employee, and sacks them the minute they find out? Not saying they were not genuine controversies at the time. Just that they look faintly ridiculous now.
Some of these allegations were clearly more important. To my mind, they include:-
1. Biased anti-Labour stance in 1926
2. Biased anti-Labour stance in 1930s via MI5 vetting
3. Biased coverage against Winston Churchll in the 1930s (not during the War)
4. Whether the BBC was "excessively even-handed" during the Falklands War
5. Falsified pro-Conservative coverage during the Miners Strike
6. Ageism/sexism allegations
7. Executive Pay-Offs
8. Cliff Richard coverage
9. Emily Maitlis comments (far more planned and biased than Naga Munchetty's IMO)
There are reasons both to criticise and defend the BBC in all of those. Pick any 1 if you wish. And I will explain why I think there are arguments both for and against.
There are 2 that are clearly indefensible to my mind:-
1. Jimmy Savile. There were lots of other organisations equally to blame, such as the NHS and the Prison Service. But it remains that the BBC were terrible
2. The Martin Bashir interview. Appalling from every angle. Amazed that it took so many years for his actions to be identified. The BBC must have known at least some of this at the time
Now-that is my, purely personal, take on those controversies. Not right, not wrong.
Considering that those are the controversies in 100 years, I believe the BBC has (overall) done a very good job. I appreciate you do not. Everyone has different views on such things.
His issues appear to be as follows,
The BBC apologised for the inaccuracy of their coverage of the protest.
This was in response to complaints by all of two listeners.
He is not complaining that the BBC didnt apologise, but the fact that the apology wasnt made in a timely fashion, and that it could have been more prominently displayed.
His second point was that the target of the protest was Stella Creasys constituency office rather than her home.
The irony of this claim is that he had to publish apologise for this, as the protest did pass her home on the way to her constituency office.
He tries to conflate this event with the BBC Scottish Independence Referendum coverage, and the Alex Salmond court case.
More irony, as he received an 8 month jail sentence for his own coverage of the Alex Salmond court case.
The other issue was the question of whether the protesters were intimidatory or not.
I have seen many protests where some of the protesters are well behaved, but others arent, and rarely one where all the protesters behave perfectly.
In summary,
Two listeners complained, the BBC apologised, but not in a timely fashion, this occurred years ago, and could hardly be considered as earth shattering.
The guy had to apologise for his own coverage, and received a jail sentence for his coverage of another event that he refers to in this article.
Other topics referred to on this thread relate to the amount of coverage flat earthers receive from the BBC,
Really?
As an alternative we could refer to controversies in an alternative beloved British Institution, like the NHS.
This list would not consist of events where two people complained, but many instances where bungling led to instances where many lives have been lost.
I cant really get irate over stuff that has led to two complaints.
Alex Salmond was at the forefront of criticism of the BBC during the 2014 referendum. There was certainly at least some facts in support of claims that the BBC gave undue prominence to the "No" campaign. I believe that the BBC is, on occasions, pro-Establishment. However hard it may try not to be.
Then again, during the Criminal cases against Alex Salmond, I think it is fair to say that the BBC was rather more even-handed than, say, the SNP. Simply because, IMHO, it does not have a Political agenda.
I am not aware of any BBC reporter receiving a jail sentence over their coverage of any of the above.
My own view is that very few, if any of the above list reach the seriousness required to classify them as controversies, or blatant propaganda.
At a time when the pundits thought the referendum was a 50/50 call, the BBC was giving twice as much airtime to "No" as "Yes".
I'm not Scottish. My own political leanings would have been to vote "no". But I do believe that the BBC should have given more prominence to the "yes" campaign. Like, er, 50% of the coverage.
Controversy? Yes.
Propaganda? Possibly.
Deliberate? Unlikely. But not impossible.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17506742.bbc-bias-row-senior-journalist-criticises-colleagues-indyref-coverage/
Still a lot more even-handed than alternatives in the media. And those media would have, to a man, stuck the boot into Salmond the first chance they got. Which the BBC did not.