Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

As you say MA it would be nice to see a truthful, unbiased view on the veracity of those 4 organisations.

[SithHappens]

The BBC edit issue is probably just a deflection anyway for Trump considering he's been mentioned in the latest Epstein file release

[MadAmster]

It's starting to look like Panorama didn't air in Florida so the Fanta Flavoured F*ckwit can't sue there and he'd have no chance in the UK.

[swaledale]

https://writesbright.substack.com/p/...-bbc-hypocrisy

Sam Bright. Trustworthy? Also involved with Byline Times, Bullingdon Club Britain and the DeSmog. I know nowt about these 3 organisations, ditto with Substack. Maybe on of my fellow posters can give me a truthful, unbiased view on the veracity of these 4 organisations.

They are reasonably trustworthy, though one does have to as always exercise due diligence. But the claims re Torygraph are a matter of record, either those of the regulator or the Torygraph and reflect what Private Eye has often reported.

[swaledale]

Hmm over 100 ? That's 3 examples. You'd crucify anyone else for a similar crime of ocerexaggeration. Source

Ah but thats your interpretation of what I've put, for a start I'm hardly going to spend the time on a post listing all the examples where the Torygraph has had to print its own corrections am I? One can do the research quite easily.

The regulator judgements are a matter of public record on its website, not really hard to access if your cynicism requires a verifiable source, which is what your asking for.

Now I accept that you most likely don't read across a range of media as I do, but for those who do, the increasingly shrill and inaccurate claims made in the Torygraph either as "news" or by certain columnists in recent years has become very obvious.

But as is your style, rather than engage with the message, which is true and not exaggerated, you choose to nit pick. But that doesn't change the fact a media source which has constantly attacked the BBC on issues of fact, bias etc. has itself been held to account by the regulator recently for the very same issues and has had to print 100's more corrections about what it has published.

Those in glass houses should be careful before throwing stones is one such phrase that comes to mind.

[swaledale]

As you say MA it would be nice to see a truthful, unbiased view on the veracity of those 4 organisations.

Well you could just go on the IPSOS website and see for yourself the examples I've quoted.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Thankyou for the link Swale....

[Geoff Parkstone]

So the 2024 IPSO report noted over 300 complaints against the Telegraph (for comparison the Sun received over 3 times as many.

But looking more deeply into the stats they indicate that none were entirely upheld and 3 partially upheld (I guess the three you identify). I have not got your axe to grind against right wing media but I'm also not one to bend statistics to suit my objectives - and present wholly valueless conclusions..

To put it in context the Horse and Hound had exactly the same number of wholly upheld complaints as the Telegraph - none.

If I were to complain about you (on a wholly inaccurate basis) to FM and they dismissed the complaint as poppycock, would you expect to be vilified for it.

Or have I misread the stats

[Geoff Parkstone]

Oh and incidentally IPSO have not yet issued it's report for 2025 (how could it since the year is yet to conclude). Hence your source for the 100+ cannot be IPSO

[swaledale]

So the 2024 IPSO report noted over 300 complaints against the Telegraph (for comparison the Sun received over 3 times as many.

But looking more deeply into the stats they indicate that none were entirely upheld and 3 partially upheld (I guess the three you identify). I have not got your axe to grind against right wing media but I'm also not one to bend statistics to suit my objectives - and present wholly valueless conclusions..

To put it in context the Horse and Hound had exactly the same number of wholly upheld complaints as the Telegraph - none.

If I were to complain about you (on a wholly inaccurate basis) to FM and they dismissed the complaint as poppycock, would you expect to be vilified for it.

Or have I misread the stats

Sigh!

I've not got an axe to grind against right wing media, I've got an axe to grind against media that continually publishes false, inaccurate and misleading stories, of which the Torygraph and the Daily Fail are the leaders.

I'm also deeply suspicious of media that is funded by billionaires (which in the case of the Torygraph and Fail are also exp pat tax avoiders) that in addition to publishing false, inaccurate and misleading stories, push a certain agenda.

Maybe that's just me, because it seems many people are quite happy to believe these things which can easily be proven not to be true.

From the effort your taking to counter my argument, that the Torygraph, which has a track record of regularly publishing exaggerated, biased, sometimes false information is not really in a position to attack the BBC, which though it makes mistakes and in the case being discussed an unnecessary one. Its pure hypocrisy, when time and time again, irrespective of the 3 cases the (rather ineffective) press regulator, has adjudicated on, has been shown by a number of sources to be wrong and has been forced, not by the regulator I might add, to publish corrections. It seems to me that you gloss over the FACT that misleading and exaggerated information was published by this paper and that a reasonable person would think, "Mm this is a bit hypocritical, the Torygraph hasn't exactly got clean hands itself here"

These attacks on the BBC are constant and coordinated, sometimes they might have merit, to an extent. Most times they are an agenda being pushed by their owners who don't like the concept of a reasonably impartial state broadcaster. They would prefer a US style situation, where there is no attempt at impartiality or truth or facts, merely each station pushing its own agenda. Plus the BBC for all its faults, does act as a reasonably reliable source of information in a world where "news" is largely utter *******s.

I generally work on the principle with people, media and other sources of information, that yes there will generally always be an agenda that influences how information is presented and occasionally false information either deliberately or accidentally may be given, but if its done on a regular basis, or there is a consistent pattern of lies and falsehoods, I wouldn't take anything at face value.

Effectively what your saying is, that despite having proven the Torygraph does publish exaggerated and even false information, that it has got a reputation over the last few years for being a "culture war" paper, than a Newspaper doesn't in your opinion devalue its attack on the BBC.

[swaledale]

Oh and incidentally IPSO have not yet issued it's report for 2025 (how could it since the year is yet to conclude). Hence your source for the 100+ cannot be IPSO

Sigh! I never said it was, which you will realise if you read my post.

I will leave you with this quote. Its not mine but I'm sure if you do your research, you'll find the link.

"Looking to The Daily Telegraph as an arbiter of journalistic accuracy and ethics is like calling on the fox to give you advice on securing the hen house.

The paper's attacks on the BBC are not remotely done in good faith and are the result of the publishers ideological and commercial interests. There is no world in which The Telegraph’s output would survive the level of scrutiny applied to the BBC’s journalism. ”

Now you can continue carping at me and being pedantic about what I posted, or you could cast around for other views on the Torygraphs output, if after that your not convinced I've made a case for at the very least highlighting the hypocrisy of the Torygraph's attacks on the BBC which after all was my basic intent. then either you believe what you choose to believe or you couldn't give a toss and are being a wind up merchant as usual.

[Geoff Parkstone]

When the Telegraph are found to be in the wrong, and then partially only, over the course of a year (and from what data is available much the same in previous years) out of countless numbers of column miles, then no. No one is perfect and pointing out oversights in others is just part of dog eating dog commercial in fighting. If there had been upheld complaints as you first suggested I'd agree with you. But there were 3 and non of them fully upheld. That's not a bad success rate - nor is the BBC's for that matter


In many ways it's good to see different components of the media ratting each other out. That way lies do not persist across the industry that could easily get together and cover up falsehoods. But in the end, there is noone without sin who can throw stones at anyone else. But it doesn't help when people such as you, who tend to speak with authority here, overexaggerates for effect - and it gets swallowed not challenged

[swaledale]

Byline Times is a monthly newspaper which claims to search out the truth the more official media suppresses. De Smog claims to investigate the real impact of climate change and Bullingdon Club Britain is a book by Sam Bright about how the rich elite have infiltrated various UK institutions to inflate their own power and wealth.

All sound intelligent and reputable, as does Sam Bright. That’s just first impressions and you can never be too careful, but I’d say they seem like sources worth taking notice of.

Indeed RA, but then I guess that depends upon whether one holds the view that a paper which regularly publishes inaccurate, misleading views is being a touch hypocritical when attacking the BBC or if your more concerned with nit picking on details and ignoring the basic premise?

Of course if said person has a track record of being pedantic and ignoring the main issue, then its quite easy to reach a conclusion.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sigh! I never said it was, which you will realise if you read my post.

I will leave you with this quote. Its not mine but I'm sure if you do your research, you'll find the link.

"Looking to The Daily Telegraph as an arbiter of journalistic accuracy and ethics is like calling on the fox to give you advice on securing the hen house.

The paper's attacks on the BBC are not remotely done in good faith and are the result of the publishers ideological and commercial interests. There is no world in which The Telegraph’s output would survive the level of scrutiny applied to the BBC’s journalism. ”

Now you can continue carping at me and being pedantic about what I posted, or you could cast around for other views on the Torygraphs output, if after that your not convinced I've made a case for at the very least highlighting the hypocrisy of the Torygraph's attacks on the BBC which after all was my basic intent. then either you believe what you choose to believe or you couldn't give a toss and are being a wind up merchant as usual.

And so we end up back with Sam Bright again - the circle squared

[MadAmster]

Having read through the back and forth, one question, and it's a simple one, comes to mind and it's one I'd like both Swale and GP to address:

Has The Telegraph placed 100 (ish) retractions/corrections?