Disgusted by BBC news.

[thom]

There are so many poorly (un)reported matters that one might suggest your post which I responded to was wildly inaccurate.

All I'd say is if you want an idea of how the BBC actually works, take a look at "W1" when it gets recommissioned.
Seems like a place where management structures are just perverse - the notion that someone has or could maintain tight control over what goes on there belies the unfortunate reality of inept management.

 

[Drago]

I like BBC local radio journalism.

"And this morning Mrs Smith, age 58, fell while shopping in St Mungos. Her knee was grazed slightly."

 

[just jim]

My partner works in BBC current affairs TV journalism and has been an active Union rep over the years.
The impression I get is there is a massive variety of views amongst BBC journalists.
The notion that a conscious centralised controlling editorial policy could exist at the BBC is implausible. BBC journalists have a variety of motivations and a good capacity to express themselves or their story should they believe things are wrong.
That is how the Saville story got to ITV for example.

Edit : something to be careful of as well is the BBC has definitely screwed things up recently, Saville being the most glaring example. IT project over spend, costly relocations out of London, etc. etc. This does make it very vulnerable to criticism. With charter renewal issues around the corner and a semi-Tory government, there's a real possibility for some damage to be done to the high quality programming that they do produce. It's worth thinking about that.
Due to funding constraints, Tony Hall apparently is about to send out a larger proportion of programming to the private sector. Its about trying to save money but I suspect it will end up with lower quality.

You mean, I think, get a corporate competitor to break a story BBC staff are too scared to run themselves?

 

[thom]

You mean, I think, get a corporate competitor to break a story BBC staff are too scared to run themselves?

That wasn't the point I was making.
The point I made is if you think BBC journalists keep stories under wraps because their boss says no, then you're wrong.
If you think there is some stipulated policy dictating biased reporting one way or the other on an issue, then you're wrong.
This is not saying mistakes aren't made, just that the notion that bias on individual issues in the public realm is somehow a conscious decision, is paranoia.

 

[swee'pea99]

I think the worry is precisely that bias on issues is so deeply embedded in the culture of what is when all's said & done an Establishment institution that 'conscious decisions' are not required. Whether it's the US-centric world view complained of in the OP or the obsessive coverage of every Royal belch, 'what matters' - ie, what counts as news - is so taken as read by the overwhelmingly private school>Oxbridge Beeb that no directive is necessary.

To what extent this causes and to what extent it reflects attitudes in the population at large is a chicken & egg debate that can go on long into the night. But there's certainly been more than one case to answer, such as the notorious occasion during the miners strike when the BBC admitted 'a mistake' in reporting events at Orgreave:

The miners were not fighting, in fact it was a hot sunny morning and they were mostly lazing around when, without provocation, the police launched what amounted to a cavalry charge against them. The miners obviously responded in kind, and attempted to defend themselves from this police violence.
In a BBC news report later that day, in a case which is famous in media studies research, the BBC changed the order of these two linked events. The police charge that provoked the miners, was shown after the the miners response, so the unaware viewer would assume the police were responding to violent miners and not the opposite, which was the case.
The BBC now admits they ran the footage out of order, but claims it wasn't deliberate.
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/orgreave-miners-strike.html

I'm a long time fan of the BBC, and consider it one of our greatest assets and achievements - almost up there with the NHS. But when it comes to the news, (where, let's face it, the notion of objectivity or impartiality is a logical absurdity), its Establishment credentials do tend to show through.

 

[IncoherentJeff]

I check the BBC news website daily but most of it's not worth reading. It went really down hill when the website changed to the magazine format, not had much luck finding somewhere worth switching to.

As for watching a news I watch NHK World News, started watching it when I worked at Toyota UK as events in Japan affected us. Not worked there for 3.5 years & I still watch it daily, great reporting.
It's astonishing what goes on on the otherwise of the world that doesn't even get a mention/sentence in UK news outlets.

 

[CopperBrompton]

The point I made is if you think BBC journalists keep stories under wraps because their boss says no, then you're wrong.
If you think there is some stipulated policy dictating biased reporting one way or the other on an issue, then you're wrong.
This is not saying mistakes aren't made, just that the notion that bias on individual issues in the public realm is somehow a conscious decision, is paranoia.

Indeed: the type of nonsense suggested in this regard is akin to some overlord deep within the bowels of the BBC stroking a white cat while dictating stories to journalists.

The right accuses the Beeb of left-wing bias; the left accuses it of right-wing bias; those on both sides of pretty much every issue think the Beeb favours the other side - all excellent evidence that the BBC is good at its job.

 

[hoopdriver]

No, it is not good at its job.

Neither is it under the control of any cat-stroking news manipulator. It is a bloated, unwieldy organisation that couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.