Forum menu
Is it just me or has anyone else felt that the BBC's content and the quality of the writing has fallen off a cliff recently.
I've noticed, particularly with pieces concerning government, that they don't seem very critical.
Recently?
Recently?
Yes it has got (even) worse recently, I think the Tories gave one of their mates a top job in the last 6 months or so, I would assume the reporters/ editors are watching how they slant some sensitive (government) stories.
It went off the boil many years ago when they were told that it was anti competitive with other news organisations, can't have got worse surely?
Bye bye BBC?
I thought as much. I've gotten rid of the news app.
Didn't dip into it that often but found myself disappointed each new I did so.
Yes. I have too. One recent highlight, which was a top news story on the main feed. Was how HSBC were introducing Zoom free Friday afternoons for some UK staff.
I agree, it does seem to be sliding. I couldn't put a finger on when it started but definitely, it's gaining an air of click-baity, attention grabbing poo, as though it's already competing with commercial news operations rather than standing out.
There's still tons of great BBC content elsewhere, but the news part has lost it's shine.
Been going downhill for years IMO - since they started pushing video over written content.
Does anyone really want to watch a series of 1-4 min videos to get the news?
If you dare to read the comments under their news stories you'll find all the swivel eyed loons believe all it does is criticise the government and everyone who works for them is an anti-british woke lefty 😂
I stopped using it as a source of news content a few years ago. But, in their defence, they are under constant threat from the Tories with regards to their source of funding. I do sympathise with the situation they are in.
Been in decline for years, partly as I belive the management are over a barrel for govenment funding, which makes it state sponsored media in all but name.
In times past you could read say a guardian article and an express article on the same story, then read the bbc one for a more balanced view, but not any more.
We used to have people like Paxman ripping the MPs to shreds on tv on a regular basis, the closest thing we have to that now is satire show 'have I got news for you', and even that seems to be taken off air at 'convinient' times.
Does anyone else find a lot of the headlines undecipherable, almost cryptic? Maybe I'm developing dyslexia but sometimes they just look like a collection of words. I mean, it's the BBC so pretty easy to narrow it down to something about the royal family or a social justice issue but still...
BBC news has been fairly weak for a long time. I gave up on it a few years back.
Even in 2001 they weren’t at the forefront of stories. Since then they seem to have given up somewhat on ‘news’ and are more a PR regurgitation machine.
a big shame as they used to have a fair degree of investigative reporting and some challenging editorial angles.
I find I look more towards foreign news sources and even Vice for more researched and informative news. Though this is fairly rare. ‘News’ is not that useful really. Though I was fascinated to hear about petrol shortages on the east coast of America from a colleague in NC last week I had no idea.
Does anyone else find a lot of the headlines undecipherable, almost cryptic?
given some of the gibberish in some BBC headlines when family show me stories I wouldn’t be surprised if they were written by AI
given some of the gibberish in some BBC headlines when family show me stories I wouldn’t be surprised if they were written by AI
cynic-al?
They have some good journalists - Orla Guerin and Emily Maitlis spring to mind - but the website and the broadcast news is just a Tory media outlet.
It’s not great, but still holds up well on the whole I think. Although, there’s not as much that’s as great as it used to be (rose tinted specs).
The Long Reads section on the News website can often be excellent and better than you find in any paid for journal.
Interested to know what source of news alpin uses in Germany that even begins to compare to the BBC online content for example. Then or now.
And for alpin and people outside the UK, the BBC is free.
There continues to be some very, very decent interviewing: Newsnight; Andrew Marr (on a good day); Today and HardTalk.
And in terms of ciriticising government, Maitlis was profoundly critical of Cummings last summer and is still presenting in the same job, so it’s not a complete whitewash.
The bigger issue is that people just don’t seem to react to decent interviews. Our PM has repeatedly been exposed for failing to declare interests and / or lying (often by the media) but seems able to continue to lead his party to election wins despite this.
I don’t think that’s a result of changes at the BBC. A wider societal shift that places less importance on integrity and virtue of leaders?
I don't read any news source in isolation. above everything else, but have a list of "not mad" sources from all parts of the spectrum, includes what I would call reportage (Reuters, AP, Financial times) all the way through the Mail to Washington Post and Guardian. IMO, the BBC is still reasonably free of influence, but timid
There is still some good content produced in current affairs or whatever but in terms of actual news it's very weak these days, as a deliberate result of political interference.
news it’s very weak these days, as a deliberate result of political interference.
All it takes is for good men to do nothing. And we're all doing nothing. One day we can say someone should have done something.
It does feel like the BBC is a a bit too Boris friendly. They don’t need to be anti-government but they do need to scrutinise them properly with a skeptical, not cynical, approach. There needs to be some quality critical analysis in the interviews.
The BBC news is ALWAYS two stories mixed together and is always a pastiche of the actual real story.
Ros Atkins stuff is excellent. I think the BBC is doing pretty well under difficult circumstances, there is a real issue with people not liking hearing news presented in a way that does not enforce their own view . They get criticised from the left and right which suggests they are somewhat unbiased , sure they get it wrong sometimes but we would be in a much worse position without it .
Interested to know what source of news alpin uses in Germany that even begins to compare to the BBC online content for example. Then or now.
And for alpin and people outside the UK, the BBC is free.
I find Al-Jazera to be much better than BBC 24/world news .. Breadth of topics and seems more impartial.
The fact that I have both right and left wing friends complaining of bias makes me think that they probably have the balance about right, though like all the main media outlets they don't pursue the government hard enough on their failures - nor do they pursue the opposition over their failure to oppose. They are no worse than other media for dumbing down, though I'd like them to take a stand on that.
Would be nice if the big media players challenged the government more, to see if they then get barred from press conferences. I think it would expose the government quite nicely.
Local BBC has gone a bit click baity, on TV and online. I find the in depth articles on the BBC News site really good, often better than the TV news, and the Reality Check features are quite a nice alternative source of info to my usual anti-Tory/Trump echo chambers. A couple of times I've had to review my facts and position after reading it, which is never comfortable but a learning process.
....it’s very weak these days, as a deliberate result of political interference.
What changed everything wasn't a Tory government but New Labour, specifically Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell.
The BBC challenged and exposed the infamous Iraq "sexed up dossier".
As a consequence of telling the truth
the Director General of the BBC was sacked.
As far as I am aware the only person who lost their job over the debacle that the Iraq War was the Director General of the BBC.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if the BBC has become timid in challenging the government's narrative.
Lots of people lost their jobs. At the BBC. The fall out from that (moving away for separate teams of journalists for TV, Radio and web, and instead sharing far fewer people and their reports across all mediums) wrecked the BBCs ability to do serious journalism, and more importantly perhaps, reduced the plurality of styles and approaches across the organisation leading to charges of “bias” from, well, everyone.
It has got steadily worse still in the last six years though. Much worse. Far too much click bait single source reporting, and “reporting” what the papers are saying, and stuff on social media, in lieu of having teams working on their own stories.
Their website has always been a bit tabloid clickbaity as far as I can remember, but I thought the Today programme and PM on R4 were the last bastion of decent critical journalism on the beeb.
Sadly, even those have now gone the way of the rest. I've noticed the most marked decline in the past six months, since the appointment of Tim Davies has begun to take effect.
Their website has always been a bit tabloid clickbaity as far as I can remember…
No, it was once recognised as the best source of news, UK and international, on the web, in the world. It was neutered under Blair, Clegg, Cameron, May, Johnson to make room for the TV, newspaper and social media brands.
I thought the Today programme and PM on R4 were the last bastion of decent critical journalism on the beeb
I felt the same. Before it became “here is what the Daily Mail is saying, let’s amplify and respond to that for most of the programme.”
Lots of people lost their jobs. At the BBC. The fall out from that (moving away for separate teams of journalists for TV, Radio and web, and instead sharing far fewer people and their reports across all mediums) wrecked the BBCs ability to do serious journalism, and more importantly perhaps, reduced the plurality of styles and approaches across the organisation leading to charges of “bias” from, well, everyone.
Blimey. Were you formerly employed there?
There's a fair bit of truth in that, particularly in the digital service, where content was a lot better when the team was distinct from the other outlets. Cost-cutting and sharing of content was inevitable, though - who remembers when Ceefax had its own news team? I can't remember an era when we didn't get charges of 'bias' from all and sundry. Which was normally a sign we were doing something right.
who remembers when Ceefax had its own news team?
Me. It was my favoured source of news way back, and not just because it was the best place to get a proper uptodate weather forecast.
I can’t remember an era when we didn’t get charges of ‘bias’ from all and sundry.
Of course, but getting the same reporting of a story by the same people… on the website, Radio4, early evening news, late evening news… it really does make people think there is a “BBC position”, even when they are attempting to just report on an event.
Watching football on Ceefax was a great way to spend Saturday afternoons. 🙂
It was annoying, because when they canned their own writing teams, the first four paragraphs of every online news story needed a character count which fitted the Ceefax template. Exactly. Which is quite hard to do on some scientific stories.
One of the advantages of Online was that you could add a lot of nuance that wasn't in the much shorter 'package' produced by the correspondent for the main bulletins. So yes, it was quite useful as a counter-example to accusations of bias caused by oversimplification.
Remember the austerity protests around Europe? The people of Iceland besieging their parliament? Got bare bones coverage on the BBC and TBF the vast majority of British media, just in case our plebs got any ideas!
It's standard operating procedure isn't it, run down a service so that the people who would have defended it instead say "it's not what it was" or "it's failing". Worked on british rail, will work on the BBC and NHS.
MoreCashThanDash
Full MemberThe fact that I have both right and left wing friends complaining of bias makes me think that they probably have the balance about right
That's just how gaslighting works- right wingers accuse literally everything apart from their poster boys of being biased, and then when centrists or left wingers point out actual bias people say "yeah but both sides think it's biased so it must be fair"
I'm in Germany and use the BBC via a VPN subscription for streaming and also, via the app. BBC is also available on our free to air satellite channel 931.
On our app and web news, perhaps driven by the IP address, it's stuffed with adverts, videos for companies and other stuff. An example would be a 60 second video advert for Dubai as a prerequisite to an article lasting 30 seconds.
I get regular "manage your preferences" boxes which I guess drives the adverts. plus, the Open Minds questionnaires which again, I'm sure drive advertising. Do you folk in the UK get this too?
BBC IMHO has moved to be more US driven than I remember. If I could block that or reduce it, I'd be happier.
They are not perfect but I still think the do a good job. However I mainly:
#1. listen to radio 4
#2. When I read the website I tend to click around and read more of the in depth stories.
I am disappointed when I see the TV.
I also think that people are very poor at seeing that just because a story doesn't represent their view doesn't mean its wrong or in support of "the other side". See Nigel Farage always claiming the the BBC was left wing and anti him because it questioned his stories.
If you dare to read the comments under their news stories you’ll find all the swivel eyed loons believe all it does is criticise the government and everyone who works for them is an anti-british woke left
Yep, you need to realise there are just as many people (possibly more) who think the BBC are too hard on the politicians!
The fact that I have both right and left wing friends complaining of bias makes me think that they probably have the balance about right
I think this is a common fallacy. Most people are probably comparing it to what they read in the newspapers, the vast majority of which is (hard) right-wing.
The people who think the BBC is a cultural Marxist propaganda machine are just dim I'm afraid.
This
"But, in their defence, they are under constant threat from the Tories with regards to their source of funding. I do sympathise with the situation they are in."
and this
"It’s standard operating procedure isn’t it, run down a service so that the people who would have defended it instead say “it’s not what it was” or “it’s failing”. Worked on british rail, will work on the BBC and NHS."
The fact that I have both right and left wing friends complaining of bias makes me think that they probably have the balance about right
This is commonly trotted out but doesnt really add up for several reasons.
The first is it assumes that the two sides have equal reasons to complain. You could have one side complaining that anything other than unquestioning devotion is a sign of bias. An example recently would be the complaints about Johnson being picked on by some of the leaks where I did see some right wingers complaining it showed bias against the right whilst missing the fact it was a case of tory party infighting. Hence why it vanished rapidly once it looked like it could actually end up being damaging.
The other reason and the more problematic one is the statement "both right and left wing". That both groups complain about bias could be valid since the BBC could be biased towards the "centre" who are a distinct group.
Started with Brexit, they nailed their colours to the Brexit mast and gave up on proper political jounalism.
Long since stopped reading BBC News as a result.
Last month there was an anti-lockdown rally in London with circa 150,000 marching. Some were saying that it was a similar size to the Iraq war rally. Two days ago was the worldwide freedom day rally, around 100,000 marching in London along with other rallies in Manchester, Bristol, Glastonbury etc etc. as well as cities around the world. At the end of this month will be the largest rally in London.
At Saturday's London rally the crowd stopped in front of the BBC building and many women were at the front singing. The crowd chanted their disgust with the BBC.
The child that is Marianna Spring tweeted after the April anti-lockdown rally that there were a couple of thousand anti-vaxxers and QAnon types there. Oh how predictable.
There has been a deliberate stance taken by the MSM to not cover these events due to them receiving money from the Government to be 'on message'. The BBC is simply the propaganda arm of the Government.
Whatever your views on this, it is clear that whilst there's a minority who're unhappy with current events, they are not an inconsiderable minority hence there being a likely Government-sanctioned blackout on reporting these rallies.
Meanwhile, the Online Harms Bill will be worrying cos they want to shut down independent news media. Remind me, what country am I living in?
There is no news blackout when it comes to anti-lockdown demonstrations. Their existence comes as no surprise to any of us, because they were reported by the media, including the BBC. Protesting against the BBC because of the measures introduced during this pandemic is a sign of understandable anger being misdirected by, well, those with little understanding about so many things, or with a political agenda well beyond the UK pandemic response.
they are not an inconsiderable minority hence there being a likely Government-sanctioned blackout on reporting these rallies.
Allow me to don my tinfoil hat before I consider that one.
There has been a deliberate stance taken by the MSM to not cover these events
A quick google reveals that to be slightly wide of the mark.