Talk:BBC

A State-Funded Media Outlet

Since BBC is funded with public money, does not this make it state-funded? Is not this a point that this acticle could highlight? 2.27.2.54 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The very first sentence reads 'public service broadcaster', implying government funding. Also, 'state-media' carries a different implication regarding independence from the funding government than the large degree of independence the BBC enjoys. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes a BBC journalist more independent in his reporting than a CGTN or RT journalist? Obviously that journalist is not allowed to display information that is contrary to whatever narrative the State is pushing to show by virtue of him receiving his paycheck from the State. It is a state-funded media outlet by definition of the term. Chastizement (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

State media is accurate. 97.106.148.231 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this even real news Sheffwayneuk (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Media bias regarding the Israel-Hamas war

This middle east conflict is obviously a contentious issue. This proposed edit asserting "Anti-Israel bias and antisemitism" of the BBC is contentious in itself. John Simpson, the World Affairs editor for the BBC, commented on the BBC's approach to conflict, "We don't take sides. We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy. But the BBC gets particular attention, partly because we've got strong critics in politics and in the press, and partly because we're rightly held to an especially high standard. But part of keeping to that high standard is to be as objective as it's possible to be." The proposed edit and its loaded accusation is non neutral, and also overlooks complaints from the other side that for the BBC, and western media, "Israeli life is deemed to be worth more than a Palestinian life". Inserting material that furthers the agenda of either side or discredits a news source, and the BBC is one of the more reliable news sources on the conflict, is a breach of neutrality. It is also a subject that belongs on the talk page of the conflict article itself, rather than singling out just one media source (BBC in the case here), in how the media is critiqued on its reporting. Gabriella MNT (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Extensive external sources have singled out BBC for antisemitism. It is misleading to censure the referenced claims. Certainly, one can add other referenced claims that disagree, but our job is to work with sources. Minden500 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've broadend this discussion out to the Israel-Hamas war talk page. Gabriella MNT (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_451#informational_report:_BBC_according_to_Telegraph Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The extensive and well documented evidence of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the BBC should not have been censured, especially since someone has added alleged evidence of the reverse (pro-Israel bias).

The deletions should be reverted. CuriousViperGarage (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Despite most government’s in the western world declaring Hamas a terrorist organization, BBC refuses to use that label. They defend it. This shows their bias. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432

They call Hamas terrorist activities “atrocities”. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

They call Israel’s attacks on civilians as…nothing, they barely report it

what’s your point? 2806:2F0:A0C1:FCC3:225D:DFF:FE1B:5350 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Centre-left

Why won’t you write political alignment: center-left? 2A06:C701:4F2B:3C00:10D0:CAC5:578C:B87A (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this from reliable sources? The BBC is meant to be impartial, and the topic of left-wing and right-wing political bias is covered near the end of the article. TheHarveyWallbanger (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

BBC insiders accuse broadcaster of acting as ‘PR for Israel’ in Gaza coverage

Staff say the UK broadcaster is ‘crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government’, leading to a culture of censorship. This important info needs to be added in the article. 157.167.128.180 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

For future reference if anyone wishes to add this to the article: Guardian reporting on the story. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The world's first regular high definition television service was inaugurated here by the BBC 2 November 1936.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

So bias in polling translates as argument of no bias

The article contains this paragraph: A 2018 opinion poll by BMG Research found that 40% of the British public think that the BBC is politically partisan, with a nearly even split between those that believe it leans to the left or right. which then quotes an Economist article that is behind a paywall that states the same. The problem is that polls have long been controversial, and their interpretation in publications that themselves are biased does not help. I can easily quote this YouGov poll from 2025 and say: "nearly twice believe BBC is left leaning", but I know that would not be fair either. I think the opinion poll paragraph quoted should be removed, it is both dated historically and subject to intrinsic bias. ~2025-39629-81 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)