O/T:- Banks

[Newish Pie]

At last, Alison Rose has done the right thing although again the resignation statement stinks of arrogance. More to follow please along with the rights of freedom of speech not to be assessed and acted on by Banks and Large corporations (or Governments)

Anyone else see the Irony in the 'BBC Verify' campaign launched recently and the inaccuracy of what they reported, you couldn't make it up.

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

[keldsyke]

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

They used to be held in high esteem by me, and as someone who lived and worked in the EU I would always be the first to praise them to fellow Europeans, but what with Saville, Bashir etc coverups and particularly how they report with bias I don't trust them at all, but you are right it applies to I'm guessing nearly every news organisation and how they want to push their narrative.

[Newish Pie]

They used to be held in high esteem by me, and as someone who lived and worked in the EU I would always be the first to praise them to fellow Europeans, but what with Saville, Bashir etc coverups and particularly how they report with bias I don't trust them at all, but you are right it applies to I'm guessing nearly every news organisation and how they want to push their narrative.

Saville and Bashir are really good examples. And, to be clear, I'm not saying that everything the BBC has ever said or done is great, and I've got plenty of criticisms of my own about their false balance reporting, the fawning treatment of the Johnson maladministration, and the platforming (without declarations of interest) of the Tufton Street cranks as neutral experts.

But with Saville... the BBC has its share of responsibility. But so does the NHS, social services, the Royal Family, and the Conservative Party. By all means blame the BBC, but not at the expense of diverting attention away from what really let him offend with impunity... his links to the broader establishment, which is much wider than the BBC. And let's not pretend that all the critics who want to pin the blame for Saville solely on the BBC care one jot about his victims... they're much more interested in using anything to bash the BBC.

See also: recent reporting on the conduct of a prominent newsreader. As I understand it, the billionaire paper reporting the story had a denial but chose not to include it. That's a worse offence against basic journalistic standards than anything that the BBC have done re Farage. Doesn't matter whether you believe that denial, whether you believe there's more to that story or not.

Compare with: the relative non-reporting about the conduct of another TV personality on a so-called "news" channel whose employers have not only failed to suspended him, but given him a platform to blame "dark forces" for it all. If the BBC behaved like that, we'd rightly never hear the end of it. I've no idea whether any of these allegations are true, but they've been bubbling under for a while, and it seems to me that suspension and investigation would be the normal course of action.

Bashir's behaviour was reprehensible, and the fact that it was about 24 years ago now doesn't make it any better. But if we're going back that far, we have far, far worse behaviour from the billionaire press. The hounding of Diana, the phone hacking scandals, the reporting of Hillsborough, homophobia, racism, the treatment of people with mental health problems, and so on. Much more recent behaviour - the smearing of judges as traitors, attacks on lawyers, stories about Carrie Johnson being pulled because Downing Street doesn't like them.

I'd also add Cliff Richard to the BBC's list of shame, and I'm sure someone's mentioned that recently.

But... if you add up the total list of media scandal, misstep, misjudgement, and misbehaviour... the BBC is very far from top of the league table of bad behaviour. And that's quite right. We should all continue to hold the BBC to the highest of standards... but it's time that at lest some standards were applied to the billionaire press too.

And we see selective criticism for what it really is.

[SwalePie]

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

This ^

[jackal2]

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

My issue with the BBC is that it gets to demand money (with menaces) for its upkeep rather than earning its income on merit, which is an unfair competitive advantage no longer justified in an age when the broadcasting market is fully mature and broadcasters should be perfectly capable of fending for themselves. Maybe that's why the public feel the BBC should be held to a different standard, but actually in this case I agree that the "fault" lies with the bank who spread the misinformation rather than the broadcaster. Given the seniority of the people who apparently communicated this misleading information, you can forgive the BBC (or any other) journalist for assuming it was coming from a 'reliable' source.

[Newish Pie]

My issue with the BBC is that it gets to demand money (with menaces) for its upkeep rather than earning its income on merit, which is an unfair competitive advantage no longer justified in an age when the broadcasting market is fully mature and broadcasters should be perfectly capable of fending for themselves. Maybe that's why the public feel the BBC should be held to a different standard, but actually in this case I agree that the "fault" lies with the bank who spread the misinformation rather than the broadcaster. Given the seniority of the people who apparently communicated this misleading information, you can forgive the BBC (or any other) journalist for assuming it was coming from a 'reliable' source.

About 71% of the BBC's income is from licence fee payments, so they're also attracting substantial commercial income. I'm not a fan of the licence fee because (a) it's a flat tax that makes no account of the ability of people to pay; (b) it's inefficient and expensive to collect and enforce. But the alternative is direct government funding, which people seem resistant to, because it might imply greater control and a threat to editorial independence. I'm sure there's a way of managing that through consensus, multi-year settlements etc.

The alternative is not to have a national broadcaster, cut it right down to something like PBS in the US, or put it entirely behind a paywall like Netflix or Sky. Or introduce adverts. Or put it behind some sort of paywall. Or some combination of all of them.

But as I've said before, I think we need a national broadcaster for national coherence and for soft power and influence around the world, where the BBC is globally respected because of the quality of cultural output, news, and the world service.
Otherwise, we risk ending up like the US where a percentage of the population live in a parallel Fox universe, and they can't have meaningful political discussions any more because there's no agreement on basic facts. It's bad enough that we've got the billionaire press with outsize influence, but billionaire TV would just be a political and cultural disaster.

The only thing worse than the BBC is not having the BBC. And long may we argue about how balanced it is, and long may we hold it to the highest of standards. While not neglecting to apply those standards to other media outlets once every so often.