Let’s talk about BBC

[icowden]

As I said last week, the lawsuit has done its job and cowed them from saying anything Trump might decide is biased against him or his regime.

Possibly not the lawsuit.

An interesting titbit in Private Eye this week is that the BBC has an official "US News partner". The Beeb has a deal with CBS who provide them with US news coverage. The problem is that CBS was acquired by Paramount last year, and since being acquired has had lots of personnel changes not least of which is Bari Weiss (former NYT opinion columnist) being made editor in chief. Her main influence on CBS is to trumpet whatever the White House put out - so CBS is now a Trump mouthpiece.

The eye don't give details of the constraints of the partnership with CBS, but at the moment it is releasing CBS news material as news without mentioning that it is heavily biased.

 

[briantrumpet]

Possibly not the lawsuit.

An interesting titbit in Private Eye this week is that the BBC has an official "US News partner". The Beeb has a deal with CBS who provide them with US news coverage. The problem is that CBS was acquired by Paramount last year, and since being acquired has had lots of personnel changes not least of which is Bari Weiss (former NYT opinion columnist) being made editor in chief. Her main influence on CBS is to trumpet whatever the White House put out - so CBS is now a Trump mouthpiece.

The eye don't give details of the constraints of the partnership with CBS, but at the moment it is releasing CBS news material as news without mentioning that it is heavily biased.

Hmm, that might explain the extremely two-sides coverage lately... it is very formulaic. Very disappointing if they have left themselves open to that kind of pressure to comply.

 

[Psamathe]

(Partial quote) Hmm, that might explain the extremely two-sides coverage lately... it is very formulaic.

I've found BBC current affairs reporting very formulaic from before the Trūmp legal case. Fairly clear example is Newsnight that used to be excellent until BBC decided to focus of Strictly and Newsnight bacame a couple of "panelists" normally a Reform representative and some contrary interviewee. Never useful as both "panelists" are 110% predictable but "both sides positions are represented".

 

[Pross]

I think the worst BBC report I heard on the shooting at the weekend was on a Radio 2 bulletin yesterday evening. They stated that the parents had asked for the truth about his death which made it sound like there was doubt around what had happened and they were looking for answers as opposed to their actual comment that made it clear what the truth was and that they wanted that to be pushed.

 

[matticus]

Hmm, that might explain the extremely two-sides coverage lately...

You won't like this, but here's The Other Side to your (not unreasonable) view:

- BBC have finite resources. The "Verify" stuff has been excellent - but they can't cover everything (look at the breadth of what they have done in 2026). Makes sense to use free/cheap stuff from trusted partners.

- What they're covering in the US is a war in almost every aspect. Writing "Trumps officials have said ... " etc is giving us important info. ICE wouldn't be in Minnesota without Trump's dictates.
If they simply told us the BBC view/analysis of every event, that would be omitting key info i.e. HOW THE US GOVERNMENT IS HANDLING & MANIPULATING ALL THIS.

 

[briantrumpet]

You won't like this, but here's The Other Side to your (not unreasonable) view:

- BBC have finite resources. The "Verify" stuff has been excellent - but they can't cover everything (look at the breadth of what they have done in 2026). Makes sense to use free/cheap stuff from trusted partners.

- What they're covering in the US is a war in almost every aspect. Writing "Trumps officials have said ... " etc is giving us important info. ICE wouldn't be in Minnesota without Trump's dictates.
If they simply told us the BBC view/analysis of every event, that would be omitting key info i.e. HOW THE US GOVERNMENT IS HANDLING & MANIPULATING ALL THIS.

All agreed, but where the Trump regime is obviously exploiting the Jonathan Swift observation "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…", I would argue that Verify needs bolstering/prioritising, and should be seen as a central plank of any reporting: it would take too much to have a standard holding disclaimer "The veracity of these claims will be examined by BBC Verify as soon as possible." And I think that reporters should amend their reports if claims they have reported turn out to be false.

The overall current auditing system seems to be politically/legally defensive, rather than truth-seeking, with Verify almost as an afterthought. The speed at which things are moving suggests that that is not working robustly enough.

 

[Pblakeney]

If they simply told us the BBC view/analysis of every event, that would be omitting key info i.e. HOW THE US GOVERNMENT IS HANDLING & MANIPULATING ALL THIS.

That is very fair and good. However, the BBC are omitting that part.
They state Noem's comments as fact and the viewer/reader has to read between the lines. Not good enough.

 

[matticus]

That is very fair and good. However, the BBC are omitting that part.
They state Noem's comments as fact and the viewer/reader has to read between the lines. Not good enough.

Disagree. Look at BT's complaint:

Bothsidesism at its finest from the BBC. From what I've read, the videos would easily fact-check Noem's 'claims', but that apparently is beyond the BBC's journalists.

View attachment 12552

They have simply reported WHAT NOEM SAID. (And in the very same sentence give Governor Walz' rebuttal in this example!).

Where have they said it's fact? I think you and BT are seeing things that are not there ...

 

[AuroraSaab]

Unlike the US, where commentating and speculating on trials or incidents that might result in criminal charges is common, the position in the UK press has almost always been to hold back commentary/opinion in such cases. It might just be that the UK outlets are more reticent to take anything other than a reserved, neutral position, regardless of how obvious the incident appeared to others.

 

[Pblakeney]

Disagree. Look at BT's complaint:


They have simply reported WHAT NOEM SAID. (And in the very same sentence give Governor Walz' rebuttal in this example!).

Where have they said it's fact? I think you and BT are seeing things that are not there ...

That is exactly what I meant when I wrote that the viewer/reader has to read between the lines. What Noem said is blatant lies but the BBC are not calling them out. An uninformed viewer/reader may well take what she said at face value and be wondering what Walz is talking about.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That is exactly what I meant when I wrote that the viewer/reader has to read between the lines. What Noem said is blatant lies but the BBC are not calling them out. An uninformed viewer/reader may well take what she said at face value and be wondering what Walz is talking about.

Only if that uninformed reader/viewer has the attention span of a gnat and has read only Noem's comments and not the other stuff reported by the BBC that gives the lie to those comments. (I admit those people exist as demonstrated frequently by one such gnat on this forum)

I get the clear impression from reading the BBC stuff that Noem's comments have been given the lie by the other evidence available.

 

[C R]

Only if that uninformed reader/viewer has the attention span of a gnat and has read only Noem's comments and not the other stuff reported by the BBC that gives the lie to those comments. (I admit those people exist as demonstrated frequently by one such gnat on this forum)

I get the clear impression from reading the BBC stuff that Noem's comments have been given the lie by the other evidence available.

Or are wilfully ignoring what they can see with their own eyes. There's plenty of those.

 

[matticus]

BBC Verify does the 2nd shooting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cg4e0r1el5yo

 

[laurentian]

BBC Verify does the 2nd shooting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cg4e0r1el5yo

There have been several instances of this lately.

A few times lately I have heard the cry:

". . . why isn't the BBC reporting X or saying Y . . ."

It seems to me that the reason is that they are increasingly biding their time until the Verify team have done their bit and there can be (hopefully) an unbiased, factual account of matters.

 

[C R]

There have been several instances of this lately.

A few times lately I have heard the cry:

". . . why isn't the BBC reporting X or saying Y . . ."

It seems to me that the reason is that they are increasingly biding their time until the Verify team have done their bit and there can be (hopefully) an unbiased, factual account of matters.

But everyone knows that reality has a liberal bias, so the Verify conclusion will be biased, that's why we need people like Gibb keeping the BBC reporting under scrutiny. To ensure fairness, you see.