The bbc, again.

[Spiderman]

I don’t watch it. Because when I have I dislike the approach.

For me they aren’t a news channel. They are the daily propaganda outlet for the Tories and now increasingly, Reform.

You don’t watch it but you do 🤔. Unfortunately for you, they are a News Channel and atm the most popular

 

[Spiderman]

You mean they told the truth in two different programmes?

Shame on them!

That would be a first

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

But they were set up to reflect their bias not try to sneak it through under the guise of impartiality consequently if you don't agree with their position you know it going in.

The BBC are bound by their Charter and broadcasting licence. No sneaking possible, other in the minds of those determined to see it. Ofcom would quickly point it out.

GBNews doesn’t need to even risk being accused of sneaking. It’s what they are.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I don’t watch it. Because when I have I dislike the approach.

For me they aren’t a news channel. They are the daily propaganda outlet for the Tories and now increasingly, Reform.

How is that any different to a newspaper having a political viewpoint?

 

[Spiderman]

The BBC are bound by their Charter and broadcasting licence. No sneaking possible, other in the minds of those determined to see it. Ofcom would quickly point it out.

GBNews doesn’t need to even risk being accused of sneaking. It’s what they are.

Oh dear

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You don’t watch it but you do 🤔. Unfortunately for you, they are a News Channel and atm the most popular

Other opinions exist.

Including those of some advertisers who refuse to use it because of the lack of balance.

Ofcom have ruled against them 5 times already.

Don’t rule out more aggressive action if they fail to wind back their bias.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The BBC are bound by their Charter and broadcasting licence. No sneaking possible, other in the minds of those determined to see it. Ofcom would quickly point it out.

GBNews doesn’t need to even risk being accused of sneaking. It’s what they are.

At least they don't edit speeches to fit their preconceived ideas.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

How is that any different to a newspaper having a political viewpoint?

It isn’t but they aren’t a newspaper. They are a broadcaster. They are regulated by Ofcom and required by their licence to abide by the Broadcasting Code of Conduct to ensure both accuracy and fairness. In other words, impartiality.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It isn’t but they aren’t a newspaper. They are a broadcaster. They are regulated by Ofcom and required by their licence to abide by the Broadcasting Code of Conduct to ensure both accuracy and fairness. In other words, impartiality.

And newspapers are regulated by IPSO.
Do Ofcom ensure the BBC are any more impartial than Channel 4 news or ITN?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

At least they don't edit speeches to fit their preconceived ideas.

They just make their own speeches full of preconceived ideas!

The BBC don’t. Nor do they edit others to tell their ideas. They don’t have ideas. They report the truth, as they perceive it. If they need to edit a speech to distill the truth from it that’s good journalism. Finding the essence of any story is what is its true purpose.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They just make their own speeches full of preconceived ideas!

The BBC don’t. Nor do they edit others to tell their ideas. They don’t have ideas. They report the truth, as they perceive it. If they need to edit a speech to distill the truth from it that’s good journalism. Finding the essence of any story is what is its true purpose.

And who decides the truth other than the person making the speech? If they really didn't intend to deceive they'd have indicated where it was edited. How do you know they don't do it all the time?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And newspapers are regulated by IPSO.
Do Ofcom ensure the BBC are any more impartial than Channel 4 news or ITN?

IPSO is nothing like as stringent and allows for a much wider interpretation of what is considered fair. You have only to see the way the same story is covered in various outlets to see that. Essentially there is no requirement to tell the truth, only not to openly lie.

All broadcasters are regulated by Ofcom.

 

[Common Sense Club]

You mean they told the truth in two different programmes?

Shame on them!

Why the need to apologise if they told the truth?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

IPSO is nothing like as stringent and allows for a much wider interpretation of what is considered fair. You have only to see the way the same story is covered in various outlets to see that. Essentially there is no requirement to tell the truth, only not to openly lie.

All broadcasters are regulated by Ofcom.

So you agree the BBC are no more impartial than other channels - ones we don't have to pay for.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And who decides the truth other than the person making the speech? If they really didn't intend to deceive they'd have indicated where it was edited. How do you know they don't do it all the time?

Ofcom are the regulator.

They have conceded the way the edit was made wasn’t up to their normal standards and apologised. It should have been faded, otherwise separated or a voice over added to indicate the two passages weren’t contemporaneous.

If they did it all the time, with the level of scrutiny they are subjected to by the pack of right wing wolves snarling at their every word, we would soon know.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So you agree the BBC are no more impartial than other channels - ones we don't have to pay for.

All are subject to the same requirements.

Not all though provide the same value to our country.

The BBC are our national broadcaster and our voice and image around the world.

They represent us and are one of our greatest remaining assets. Despite people like you despising them. Whether you appreciate them, or not, is immaterial. You benefit from the BBC alongside every other citizen. We all pay taxes. We must all pay for the BBC.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Why the need to apologise if they told the truth?

They apologised for not making the edit clear.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Ofcom are the regulator.

They have conceded the way the edit was made wasn’t up to their normal standards and apologised. It should have been faded, otherwise separated or a voice over added to indicate the two passages weren’t contemporaneous.

If they did it all the time, with the level of scrutiny they are subjected to by the pack of right wing wolves snarling at their every word, we would soon know.

They didn't concede it was the second time they'd shown an edited version and since it's taken three years for the Newsnight story to come out these Wolves are snarling very quietly.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They apologised for not making the edit clear.

Even though it had been pointed out to them three years earlier.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

All are subject to the same requirements.

Not all though provide the same value to our country.

The BBC are our national broadcaster and our voice and image around the world.

They represent us and are one of our greatest remaining assets. Despite people like you despising them. Whether you appreciate them, or not, is immaterial. You benefit from the BBC alongside every other citizen. We all pay taxes. We must all pay for the BBC.

See what happens when you think you know what others mean? I don't despise the BBC; I just don't see why I should pay them in order to watch their competitors.