Quote Originally Posted by Newish Pie View Post
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.