@pete if you enjoy watching GB News all day round, please do it. I don't watch news all day round. I value the BBC for its programmes on telly and in particular these are programmes I learn something. I'm sorry for you that you only have interests in GB News and Reform nowadays. It's a known side effect when people are permanently told how bad everything is that they start to believe it and it changes their character.
True. But you can blame them for transposing their view onto the coverage. The morning of the result, there was a funereal atmosphere to the discussion ... and this doom 'n' gloom permeated the endless reporting on the topic till the doom 'n' gloom of Covid took over 24/7. Personally, I have always felt Leavers behaved very well in the aftermath with practically no crowing or celebrating. Of course, at that time Farage was still subject to ridicule and disdain by all BBC presenters. They take him more seriously now (much to the annoyance of the Lib Dems).
Hang on,I watch a variety of things but I see more BBC news than GB news, at least GB don't pretend to be non biased. Thanks for being sorry for me.
My dad is 90 so doesn't get out much. He watches GB news all day long and has been totally brain washed. What he believes and what comes out of his mouth is just awful biased crap.
I don't exactly recognise the picture you are trying to paint, but then that's probably down to TV vs radio. However the morning after a small majority had voted for Brexit I was depressed as were a lot of my colleagues at work. The result was accepted but with sadness at the end of an era for those of us that had benefited from being in the EU. I was also sad that a lot of sensible people had believed the snakeoil sales patter of Farage and Johnston, common sense and or a look at readily available figures rapidly led to the conclusion that the "Boris Bus" slogans were misleading and there was not going to be a lot of cash for the NHS materialising anytime soon if ever. I'm now going to listen to an interview, on Radio 4, with a leading climate change modeller.
Sadness was absolutely justified. I felt sad too. But ... a public service broadcaster should have been neutral. It should not have had a stance, never mind shovelling this at viewers day after month after yr. You can present the news without viewers being aware of your position on the topics. I don't believe it is the BBC's job to try to be changing people's minds on various issues. Present the arguments for and against, by all means, but that should be the extent of their role, IMV.
I'm not disputing that there is bias in some areas but I think that happens when the majority of the staff seem to have one viewpoint, but I hear cries of bias from both sides, left and right. In the end if you are pee'ing off both political viewpoints, you are probably somewhere in the middle. People can fixate on a subject and it begins to be all you hear. If you know someone going through cancer then you focus on that and pick up on all the ads or mentions of it, even though it's being publicised at the same rate it once was. I'm not saying they don't over premote areas but I also don't think it's always as loud as people remember.
I've not massively followed the story but I believe the panorama programme was aired just before his third election last year. The edited speech was from January 6th 2021, so several years before. By the time it aired he was finishing his campaigning and had forgotten he lost the second election.
It's not really about Trump, it's about why was it edited that way,if they can sway people in that way what else is doctored to look a certain way. I guess because so many people are anti Trump they think it doesn't matter. Are they not supposed to report the facts, they even have a department called verify, which suggests they are over and above any other news outlet and are fact checking them. Fact checking should start at home, perhaps.
Well, BBC going to be somewhat cash light soon with all the lies and fabrications it did. Love it. Tried telling you folks you are getting the wrong information.
@redstar ,it's not the BBC that are going to be cash light it's the British taxpayer, if Trump's actions win. This is what is also annoying about the whole thing. The BBC just throw money around because they have a bottomless pit of it.
GB News would probably not exist if the BBC had not created a giant vacuum for it to occupy by constantly pushing its agenda on key topics. Tim Davie is busy saying how proud he is of the corporation, yada, yada, and how they must protect "our journalism". And there you have the problem. It should not be "their journalism". It should be "journalism" full stop. I am all for protecting unbiased, agenda-free reporting of facts. I am all for opinion programmes and balanced discussions, though these should be separate from new bulletins. BBC Verify is all well and good, but what actually needs attention is which stories are selected to air in the first place and how much time is given to these, and what is not reported because it does not "fit". It should reflect topics that those paying the licence fee might be interested in, not those the narrow pool of BBC employees want to shout about. I'm willing to bet very few people in the UK wanted hrs and hrs of repetitive coverage of the fact Dick Cheney had died. A short piece would have sufficed.
I don't think it's possible to get realisitc percentages of what people really think about certain issues. Polls take into account only a small %age of views when compared to the actual population. Some will also change their minds/attitudes depending on what they have seen or heard in recent days/weeks. Others will sometimes say what they think is "correct" /what the person asking wants to hear. Some are extremely vociferous on certain issues whilst others have no interest in giving their view point in a poll so will not be included Even a General Election can be a bit misleading - again dependant on what are the issues of the day and how the various media outlets cover it but also because some don't bother to vote or prefer to vote for a certain party because their local MP works for their constituency but the actual political party they represent does not have their full backing. It's the best method we have tho and preferable to some other countries. As far as the BBC is concerned, "A Day Like Today" by John Humphrys is an interesting read. Whilst Trump has every right to complain if he was a victim of "editing" by the BBC, suing for a billion $'s is just following his usual tactics of enriching himself. Unless of course he intends to donate the full amount to a worthwhile cause
