Yes you should watch for yourself. But you forgot to include a link to the edited video, rather you appeal to authority and link how some other org says that theyre not biased.
The offense is pretty egregious and serious. This was a huge issue w dire consequences, and BBC wilfully spread doctored evidence. Watch the clip yourself
It’s interesting how any news organization even slightly left of center needs to be accountable for their actions while Fox News rage baits their viewers 24/7 and no one bats an eyelash.
I note that the complaint about clips taken out of context is supported by a clip taken out of context ( ie a very short segment of the entire programmme ).
Now I'm quite willing to accept that that particular Panaroma episode had a slant - they are not 'news' per se but an in depth perspective type programme - and so they reflect the views of the authors.
But that's just one episode by one set of programme makers - it's not such evidence of clear and consistent bias - it's just evidence that some programmes take a view - whether that balances out over time requires you to look at the output at a whole, not just a single clip of a single programme.
The documentary went out about a year ago with no direct airing in the US ( and to watch via iplayer you'd need to circumvent geographic controls ). I don't believe the documentary was an issue in the US at the time and I note Trump still won.
I watched the video a few times. I don’t think Trump himself would object to the edit. But I’m sure that, if he had to explain that speech or Jan 6, it would be damaging.
So this is really about what he wants with the lawsuit.
Brigading is certainly one possibility. Another more likely possibility is that the majority views BBC's actions as being wrong and further eroding trust in the media. How would you like it if BBC did what they did to you?
I guarantee you that the vast majority of people talk about "pregnant women", not "pregnant people" like the BBC. I could quote many other small indicators like that which demonstrate that the BBC is NOT unbiased at all.
Focusing on their attempt at inclusive language seems a bit trite, and certainly exposes your own biases. It's not perfect, and we'll see how it evolves, but I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. You're welcome to be offended by that, but it seems like a silly thing to be offended by.
The presenter was quoting a report which had written "pregnant people", and decided to change that to "women" - which is not what the report said.
Even worse than the Trump edit (which was bad -- for want of a flash of white to make it clear the second part of the quote was from later in the same speech, not directly after)
> slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability
Nuance matters.
That it's generally accurate and generally leans left doesn't contradict the issues raised in the article and comments. Most topics MSM reports on are not critical for artificially pushed narratives, so MSM can afford being generally accurate.
The Guardian leans way left, scores highly on accuracy, but, for a lot of leftists, has demonstrated its bias and subservience to the elite narrative by cheerleading the slander efforts against Corbyn.
Those people should have resigned in any case: whether it's over their coverage of the genocide or over some right-coded scandal doesn't matter much.
> commenters showing up suspiciously quickly
> useful canary for that persons own biases
Thinking that HN is a prime target for organised covert BBC defacement (?) and making dark implications on the BBC critics' character is ridiculous. Get out of American team-based politics.
I've watched the doctored video myself. The CEO resigning is "nothing" compared to the accountability they should be held to for propaganda they constantly push, and specifically to the extreme bias in this case.
If it was incompetence, one could argue that nothing should happen, perhaps an apology or some useless corporate article. But it was malice, and to deny that is (imo) the real issue here. (I'm not saying you're doing it, I'm just saying some people do/did it)
I'm curious if you think people outside US/Western Europe (like me; greetings from EE[we've seen such edits in our communist period, fyi]) who disagree with the assessment that the BBC is "centrist with a slight leftward skew" are far-right with obvious biases? And if so, on what grounds? Most people who say BBC is propaganda(like me) don't consume MSM at all(or, in the case of US, stick to Fox or something). To say all alternative media I consume(which you'd be correct in assuming) is "skewing far-right" is to, ironically, behave like the ones you're pointing to. It's also incorrect: alternative media is infinitely more diverse today, even after all the reshuffling/restructuring in the past 10-12 months(which culled a decent amount of the left-leaning alternative media) than MSM.
it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew".
realistically it generally functions more of a bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think rather than as a news outlet.
the cackhanded attempt to smear trump that led to this resignation was part of that and the crackdown signifies that the British establishment has largely shifted from "fervently anti trump" to a policy of appeasement / cordial relations. Two years ago this kind of dishonest editing would probably have been tolerated if not outright encouraged (as it was when done to Jeremy Corbyn).
The way that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy declared powerless "not President Trump" a "tyrant" and "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" but is now keen on cordial relations is another reflection of this narrative shift: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o
> it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew".
a measure of how out of touch this comment is:
among the reasons for her stepdown and accusations of bias according to this article was literally that BBC (especialy BBC Arabic) parroted Hamas a little too much at times.
Edit to reply: Do you actually watch BBC? I watch BBC a lot. As in I sub and don't just get what algorithms throw at me. I didn't get even a slightest feeling they were slavishly pro Israel. Their videos about Gaza were regular and almost all negative of Israel reporting about destruction and suffering in Gaza. Just go to bbcnews youtube and search Gaza. You can also search Gaza genocide. didn't watch every video but headlines are telling.
It feels like talking to somebody who says things that exist in their head and not reality
>A lot of commenters showing up suspiciously quickly to crow about how "biased" the BBC is
Yes, it's suspicious when too many people at the same time think for themselves and speak their minds freely, and not parrot the committee approved talking points. The government should moderate that via Digital-ID™ and Chat Control™.
- UK logic apparently
>In fact independent checking reveals the BBC is consistently centrist with a slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability.
In the same tune, all the "independent graphs" all show how the economy today overall is up-up-up since 2019, but if you talk to people on the street when life was better and more affordable for them, they'd all say 2019 and not today, so nobody cares what independent Name Brand™ think-tanks say.
The objective reality that matters, is only how the majority of people feel. You can deny this all you want, but you'd be in for an unpleasant shock at election times.
Because this "independent checking" you speak of, is not some scientifically indisputable facts, like gravity, the speed of light or the earth's rotation around the sun, but only someone else's interpretation and opinion, that is biased from their viewpoint.
Amazing that this what finally brought them down, BBC editorial has been so awful for so long. The worst part being that it is so obvious in its agenda's.
I really don't expect anything to change though the establishment will protect itself at all costs.
I think it’s unbiased to say that Jan 6 was about Trump more than any other person. No matter how you pore over his speech, he’s purposefully unclear about what “we” means and how the “fight” should start. No one analyzed the speech in realtime for its most-influential lines and this edit reflects what the rioters heard and felt.
This is a changing headline on a live stream but is centrally about senior resignations in response to allegations of systemic bias at the BBC, brought to a head by a controversial editing of a Donald Trump speech.
And frustratingly many allegations have to do with bias surrounding the Gaza war, currently being reported by The Telegraph, but every submission here being flagged.
This one got through because it doesn’t mention Israel, I presume. But the BBC bias has been egregious and constant with respect to the Gaza conflict, as opposed to a one time editing of a Trump speech.
The Israel lobby has a massive amount of power over British politics as does Trump. If there is a lie written about them or even an unsubstantiated truthhood they can both put pressure on and/or punish the people behind it.
Exterminated Gazans can not. They have no political power in the UK.
The only reason they get any air time at all is because A) it's usually a little too obvious to ignore and B) enough BBC journalists are close to being in open revolt over the management's attempts to crack down on honest reporting over the genocide: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-...
For US people who think Tim Davie is some sort of leftie. When he was younger he ran for political office for the conservative party and before the BBC he was a VP marketing and finance for Pepsi.
Sadly over recent years the BBC has become a political football in the UK and wider, with pretty much all sides complaining about bias. This is just the latest chapter.
I'd argue that most of this complaining is done by people who are frustrated that they can't buy or commercially bully the BBC to take their side.
The way I read this episode is that the US poltical pressure over the Trump speech editing, created the required pressure for the current government to get rid of Davie. Now all sides are trying to use this crisis to further their ends.
For what's it's worth, my view is that the BBC is made up of a range of people with a range of views - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, and the only bias is a tendency for a pro-establishment lens ( whatever that is at the time ).
Trump seems to be trying to suppress free speech in the UK now, which is deeply ironic given how upset the right wing was about alleged British attempts to control speech in the US.
Readit News
In fact independent checking reveals the BBC is consistently centrist with a slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability.
(For example: https://adfontesmedia.com/bbc-bias-and-reliability/ )
(And to be clear, this is on the non-US left/right axis. The entire US is skewed so far to the right that it's not comparable.)
Or you could just actually read/listen/watch for yourself.
What people think of the BBC is quite a useful canary for that persons own biases.
The offense is pretty egregious and serious. This was a huge issue w dire consequences, and BBC wilfully spread doctored evidence. Watch the clip yourself
https://youtu.be/xben0eSBQmE
Now I'm quite willing to accept that that particular Panaroma episode had a slant - they are not 'news' per se but an in depth perspective type programme - and so they reflect the views of the authors.
But that's just one episode by one set of programme makers - it's not such evidence of clear and consistent bias - it's just evidence that some programmes take a view - whether that balances out over time requires you to look at the output at a whole, not just a single clip of a single programme.
What dire consequences?
The documentary went out about a year ago with no direct airing in the US ( and to watch via iplayer you'd need to circumvent geographic controls ). I don't believe the documentary was an issue in the US at the time and I note Trump still won.
So this is really about what he wants with the lawsuit.
Even worse than the Trump edit (which was bad -- for want of a flash of white to make it clear the second part of the quote was from later in the same speech, not directly after)
Nuance matters.
That it's generally accurate and generally leans left doesn't contradict the issues raised in the article and comments. Most topics MSM reports on are not critical for artificially pushed narratives, so MSM can afford being generally accurate.
The Guardian leans way left, scores highly on accuracy, but, for a lot of leftists, has demonstrated its bias and subservience to the elite narrative by cheerleading the slander efforts against Corbyn.
Those people should have resigned in any case: whether it's over their coverage of the genocide or over some right-coded scandal doesn't matter much.
> commenters showing up suspiciously quickly > useful canary for that persons own biases
Thinking that HN is a prime target for organised covert BBC defacement (?) and making dark implications on the BBC critics' character is ridiculous. Get out of American team-based politics.
If it was incompetence, one could argue that nothing should happen, perhaps an apology or some useless corporate article. But it was malice, and to deny that is (imo) the real issue here. (I'm not saying you're doing it, I'm just saying some people do/did it)
I'm curious if you think people outside US/Western Europe (like me; greetings from EE[we've seen such edits in our communist period, fyi]) who disagree with the assessment that the BBC is "centrist with a slight leftward skew" are far-right with obvious biases? And if so, on what grounds? Most people who say BBC is propaganda(like me) don't consume MSM at all(or, in the case of US, stick to Fox or something). To say all alternative media I consume(which you'd be correct in assuming) is "skewing far-right" is to, ironically, behave like the ones you're pointing to. It's also incorrect: alternative media is infinitely more diverse today, even after all the reshuffling/restructuring in the past 10-12 months(which culled a decent amount of the left-leaning alternative media) than MSM.
realistically it generally functions more of a bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think rather than as a news outlet.
the cackhanded attempt to smear trump that led to this resignation was part of that and the crackdown signifies that the British establishment has largely shifted from "fervently anti trump" to a policy of appeasement / cordial relations. Two years ago this kind of dishonest editing would probably have been tolerated if not outright encouraged (as it was when done to Jeremy Corbyn).
The way that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy declared powerless "not President Trump" a "tyrant" and "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" but is now keen on cordial relations is another reflection of this narrative shift: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o
a measure of how out of touch this comment is:
among the reasons for her stepdown and accusations of bias according to this article was literally that BBC (especialy BBC Arabic) parroted Hamas a little too much at times.
Edit to reply: Do you actually watch BBC? I watch BBC a lot. As in I sub and don't just get what algorithms throw at me. I didn't get even a slightest feeling they were slavishly pro Israel. Their videos about Gaza were regular and almost all negative of Israel reporting about destruction and suffering in Gaza. Just go to bbcnews youtube and search Gaza. You can also search Gaza genocide. didn't watch every video but headlines are telling.
It feels like talking to somebody who says things that exist in their head and not reality
I'm not even sure the Jan 6th reporting was dishonest. Does anyone have an edit/unedit comparison to show us that isn't ridiculously long?
This is accurate: the BBC is definitely not seen as speaking truth to power by anyone, independent of their political allegiance.
Their coverage of the genocide was revealing of this, if one only cared to look.
Yes, it's suspicious when too many people at the same time think for themselves and speak their minds freely, and not parrot the committee approved talking points. The government should moderate that via Digital-ID™ and Chat Control™.
>In fact independent checking reveals the BBC is consistently centrist with a slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability.In the same tune, all the "independent graphs" all show how the economy today overall is up-up-up since 2019, but if you talk to people on the street when life was better and more affordable for them, they'd all say 2019 and not today, so nobody cares what independent Name Brand™ think-tanks say.
The objective reality that matters, is only how the majority of people feel. You can deny this all you want, but you'd be in for an unpleasant shock at election times.
Because this "independent checking" you speak of, is not some scientifically indisputable facts, like gravity, the speed of light or the earth's rotation around the sun, but only someone else's interpretation and opinion, that is biased from their viewpoint.
Boy, if that ain't a motto for the 21st century.
This one got through because it doesn’t mention Israel, I presume. But the BBC bias has been egregious and constant with respect to the Gaza conflict, as opposed to a one time editing of a Trump speech.
Exterminated Gazans can not. They have no political power in the UK.
The only reason they get any air time at all is because A) it's usually a little too obvious to ignore and B) enough BBC journalists are close to being in open revolt over the management's attempts to crack down on honest reporting over the genocide: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-...
Sadly over recent years the BBC has become a political football in the UK and wider, with pretty much all sides complaining about bias. This is just the latest chapter.
I'd argue that most of this complaining is done by people who are frustrated that they can't buy or commercially bully the BBC to take their side.
The way I read this episode is that the US poltical pressure over the Trump speech editing, created the required pressure for the current government to get rid of Davie. Now all sides are trying to use this crisis to further their ends.
For what's it's worth, my view is that the BBC is made up of a range of people with a range of views - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, and the only bias is a tendency for a pro-establishment lens ( whatever that is at the time ).