#bbc impartiality

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

The BBC is already not being impartial during the UK election 2024

I shouldn't even be surprised but here we are. So much for any kind of journalistic standard.

Those of you who were around for the last election campaign may remember at that point a far-right party member's claim, which was repeated uncritically and as if it were factual by many media outlets, that he was 'assaulted' by 'a youth on a bicycle' throwing a yogurt at him while he innocently campaigned for his party, which was an example of political violence against his beliefs.

Except it turned out that there was CCTV in the area and no 'youth on a bicycle carrying yogurt' was seen.

What was in fact seen, was the man in question had brought a packed lunch with him for his day out, which contained... a yogurt. Which he either accidentally or deliberately spilled on himself while campaigning, and then took the opportunity to report to his party leadership and the media as an assault, which was then spread around as if factual and it definitely happened, inciting sympathy for the poor innocent far-right people.

Well folks. They're at it again this year.

Here's a fun uncritical headline from the BBC that dropped today:

"Reform election candidate 'attacked' in Cornwall"

What evidence is given for this attack, I hear you ask, given that the BBC has reported it as a factual event in the title?

Well, the chairman of Reform, the party in question, has claimed that it happened, and has made a social media video stating that it happened. Three days ago.

Here's how the article describes it:

"A statement from Reform UK said Mr Rubidge, 51, was handing out election leaflets in Event Square when he was verbally abused by a man believed to be in his 20s. The party said that, as Mr Rubidge tried to leave the scene after two other men turned up, he had a bag he was carrying grabbed off him by the first man.

He was eventually able to "wrestle the bag" back off the man, but he was punched and kicked multiple times, leaving him with injuries to his ligaments, Reform added. The incident left Mr Rubidge shaken and shocked, the party's statement said.

In his social media video, Mr Tice said he was "appalled" after hearing about the alleged incident. He said: "This is no way of having a democratic debate and discussion. "We can disagree, but we don't fight each other. That's not what our democracy is about."

He added Mr Rubidge did go back on the campaign trail for a further four hours on Saturday."

Nowhere in the article (archived ver. June 18th 2024) does the BBC make clear that this is not an impartial account of what has been determined to have actually happened, but rather, a biased account from a political party representative that has likely been crafted in conjunction with a PR specialist in order to stretch the truth as far as possible in order to present the campaigner as innocent, a victim, and suffering due to his innocent political beliefs that are UNDER ASSAULT by vicious strangers who are JUST INTOLERANT for no reason.

The article, of course, comes complete with a smiling image of the campaigner in question, looking as innocent as possible. The article is careful not to mention any of the content of the leaflets that the campaigner was handing out which may have caused some backlash if, perhaps, the camapigner was also shouting about some of the content of the leaflets while handing them out in a city center at midday on a Saturday: for context, Reform UK as a political party want to ban ALL immigration to the country, to deport international students even if they have already paid for their education in the UK, to remove all unemployment benefits from citizens who are struggling, to stop investing in any kind of renewable energy sources, to get rid of all diversity and inclusion practices, and to ban 'transgender ideology' including the admittance that trans people even exist from all schools and educational institutions. They also believe that 'the majority of mothers want to stay at home' instead of working.

Going back to the article, apparently the poor campaigner in question who was definitely ASSAULTED HORRIBLY and completely UNPROVOKED ended up with 'injuries to his ligaments'. This is a serious injury and would be quite debilitating to deal with and would require immediate treatment and some bed rest and gentle exercise for days therafter to aid recovery.

Interesting then, isn't it, that the campaigner in question was then able to then keep campaigning for a further four hours with such a horrendous injury?

The BBC and other media outlets need to realise that this isn't a fun RPG or game of who can present something the most quickly to 'win', accuracy be damned, or a situation where it's fine to save time doing your own research by just repeating a political organisation's press release about an incident as factual, verbatim.

This is a real election, the only election that will happen between now and 2029. The BBC is supposed to be impartial. Reporting an alleged assault as if it were factual and exactly as described by somebody with an interest in making it out to be as bad as possible, and trusting that all readers will be able to read between the lines of what is said and understand that your write-up of the event is actually just reporting what someone else SAID about the event rather than an unbiased record is at this point in time EXTREMELY irresponsible.

Journalists, your job, especially now, is to report what's happening to inform the public. You can report what someone THINKS is happening, but only if you make very clear that you are doing so, and ideally only report that within a larger piece that discusses just the facts of the situation. It's okay if details are unknown - it's better to note that than to put anything in, no matter if it's been fact-checked or not. The BBC is publicly funded, it and its staff don't need to be the first on the scene to react or comment on any given situation, it's not like anyone's going to get more funding or any reward for doing that.

You can't claim to be impartial on the one hand and on the other, uncritically report something that a political party has a vested interest to lie about as if it were definitely and wholly factual. And the BBC keeps doing this, as if there's no way anyone could ever lie about a situation in order to advantage themselves.

Wake up, BBC.

[sconesfortea]

Listen I know it's not perfect or enough but in context, having the BBC's longest running fictional show have an episode about a song contest with a genocidal sponsor directly airing before a real song contest with a genocidal sponsor, is actually huge.

[useless-englandfacts]

oh good! will this article finally recognise the bbc’s constant use of the passive voice when describing the actions of israel, or perhaps their love of the word ‘alleged’ whenever a palestinian speaks?

no, apparently accusing israel of anything is only fair if you accuse palestine of the same thing

[the-casbah-way]

mad respect to gary lineker for calling the bbc out on their bullshit reporting on palestine

[hailqiqi]

Don't Let Them In

The BBC wants their money.

Notes: Absolute crack inspired by a short conversation in the Chaos server. Also, because I wanted to write Lucy playing a part like she did at Winkman's in the books.

Tags: Gen, Crack, Brits writing Very British Things, First Person POV (because that's how the books are written and it works for Lucy idk), one or two swear words Words: 2297

Read on AO3 here, or read on tumblr under the cut

'Television licence inspection, open up!'

Lockwood halted and whirled around, blocking the kitchen doorway. 'I told you it was their van, George!' he hissed.

'And I told you, my brother says that's impossible—'

'Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows they send out TV detector vans—'

'And how exactly are they supposed to detect TVs?'

Lockwood huffed. 'How am I supposed to know?! But everyone knows it's a thing, right Luce?'

'Yeah, actually, my mam was always worried when—'

'See?'

'Oh for God's sake.' The banging on the door had continued throughout our whispered conversation, but George ignored it, instead removing his glasses and cleaning them on his shirt with a huff. 'Whatever you two numpties believe, the facts are that we have a TV with no licence. We can't let him in.'

'Do we have to let him in?' I asked, glancing at the door. 'Mary said Andrew's boss says you can just tell them to sod off and they'll leave.'

The banging grew louder, now accompanied by flicks of the letterbox and shouts of 'I know you're in there! I can see you through the glass!'

Lockwood winced. 'He doesn't sound too happy,' he said, eyes darting around before landing on our offending TV set. 'Right, okay, here's what we'll—'

'Open up already!'

'Just a minute! I can't find the key!' he shouted a response at the door, then turned to us. 'Okay, so, we'll put the set in the high-security storage room. He's an adult, he won't want to go in there.'

'He'll probably leg it the second he sees our kit,' George said, snorting.

'Exactly. So, Lucy, you answer the door and stall him, while we carry the TV down the stairs.'

I ignored George's groaning in favour of staring at Lockwood, incredulous. 'Why should I be the one to open the door? You're much better at the whole people thing!'

Lockwood shrugged. 'It's a man, just smile and give him the pretty girl look — don't look at me like that, you do it to me all the time!'

At my shoulder, George made a choking sound; I felt my face flush. 'I'm sorry, what—'

The banging at the door intensified and Lockwood gave me a blinding smile, the same bright, dazzling grin he'd give me when trying to convince me to face off with a Wraith without flares. 'Come on, Lucy, you've got this.'

Warmth fluttered through my chest, and the next thing I knew the boys were fumbling the set out of the sitting room while I (slowly) headed for the door. Dangerous things, Lockwood's smiles; they tended to spark momentary insanity in whoever he turned them on — child, colleague, client, adult. George alone seemed immune, with all his surliness, but I hadn't built any sort of immunity up in my ten or so months at the company and could only hope that would come with time. Though we all know how that turned out, I'm sure.

The banging on the door was echoing in the hall so loudly I was surprised the door hadn't been knocked off its hinges. I watched the crystal skull on the key table vibrate for two more bangs as the boys manhandled our illicit TV into the kitchen, then summoned my most vapid smile and opened the door.

A man stood on the top step, his hand raised mid-knock. He was balding and wore a wrinkled white shirt with visible sweat stains large enough to rival George's rapier training shirt, and the tie loosely-knotted at his collar was over-large — perhaps in an attempt to compensate for his lack of neck, who knows. His sleeves were rolled up over meaty arms against the unseasonable weather, the cuffs tight and reminiscent of bread dough exploding from a loaf tin, and he carried a clipboard and small, black box in the hand that was not currently raised in a fist at my head-height. If a gorilla with mange had been stuffed into a suit, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that he wasn't currently standing at our door.

He narrowed his small eyes further at me, and I gave him a simpering smile. 'Hello! I'm sorry it took me so long, I couldn't find the key for the door!'

A pause followed, in which his eyes grew so small they should by all rights have imploded. I kept my smile fixed firmly in place and hoped the inspector wouldn't notice the door was a latch lock.

'You were a bloke a second ago.'

Shit. 'No, I wasn't!' I pitched my voice higher than usual and feigned offence. 'I certainly am not a boy!'

'Yeah, you was. You weren't a Manc, either.'

I didn't have to feign it now. 'Excuse you, I'm from Northumbria.'

'What's it matter? You lot are all the same, anyhow.' I glared at him and considered the benefits of shoving him down the steps and slamming the door, but then I’d probably have to deal with DEPRAC and the police instead of just the BBC. The man cleared his throat, unperturbed, and started what was obviously a practised spiel. 'Right, I'm here to check for TVs. We don't have a licence on file for the property, so I'll need to take a look around to make sure you're not doing anything illegal.'

I fluttered my eyelashes in an attempt to recover. 'Of course we're not doing anything illegal! We don't even own a TV!'

We were, in fact, doing multiple things DEPRAC would take issue with, but that wasn't the point.

'Then you won't mind me taking a look around.'

'Normally, yes, but I'm home alone and that would be terribly improper…'

He peered around me and down the hall. 'You lose ten stone between that door and this one, then?'

'What?'

'Your shadow was a lot larger a minute ago. It's just a quick look love, then I'll be on my way.' 

The inspector moved to walk around me and I draped myself against the doorframe to block his way, desperately wishing I knew what 'pretty girl' nonsense Lockwood had been on about. Maybe Floating Joe had got him in the head earlier, because the inspector simply rolled his eyes.

'If you'd just—' a yell from the kitchen interrupted him, and he raised an eyebrow at me. 'Home alone, are you, love?'

'Yes,' I said, nodding enthusiastically. 'That was my cat.'

'Odd-sounding cat.'

'No, it isn't.' More yells came from behind me and a smug smirk slowly settled on the man's face which, if you remember his gorilla-esque looks, made me want to vomit more than it made me want to let him in. I gritted my teeth; the boys obviously needed more time, and my dignity was shot anyway. With what I hoped was a dainty gasp, I widened my eyes theatrically and summoned my most injured cry: 'Are those my keys?'

He paused. 'Sorry?'

'There!' I pointed to the keychain hooked at his waistband, which was quite clearly his own. 'You've got my keys!'

'What?! No, these are my—'

'I can't believe you!' I wailed. 'I looked everywhere for them! No wonder I couldn't find them!'

'Look, love, these—'

'You rotten thief! I bet you're not even a TV man after all! You're nothing but a—'

Alas, neither of us got to find out what nonsense I was about to spout next as at that moment a gigantic crash sounded from the kitchen, the noise reverberating in the hall and cutting me off quite effectively. Raised voices followed — though who was shouting at who, I couldn't tell — and, without thinking, I abandoned the door and dashed towards the commotion.

Lockwood and George both stood half-way down the basement stairs, locked in a shouting match and completely oblivious to my arrival. The source of the crash I’d heard was not immediately obvious, but when I chanced a vertigo-inducing glance over the bannister there on the floor was our TV set, face down and surrounded by shattered glass, looking somewhat like a large-bottomed lady after an over-indulgent afternoon at the pub. It was no wonder they were both so upset about it — while our set was ancient, there was no way we could afford a new TV if we couldn’t afford the licence fee in the first place, and both boys liked to watch the football when they could.

Heavy footsteps sounded behind me. ‘Home alone, were you, love?’

I turned meekly to face the inspector, who stood at the top of the stairs looking thoroughly unimpressed, clipboard at the ready. The boys were still wrapped up in their blame game, and the inspector had clearly noticed the broken TV on the floor, and there I was trapped on the stairs between an argument and authority — but I did my best to muster up a winning smile and tried my luck anyway, because that’s what we did at Lockwood and Co.

‘See? I was telling the truth when I said we don’t have a TV!’

— — — 

A year later saw us huddled in the corridor outside the kitchen door, older, wiser, and more competent, yet reliving a hushed argument from the past (albeit with one extra player).

‘What do you mean you haven’t paid the licence fee? I saw you in the papers all winter, I know you can afford it!’

‘Look, there was so much going on that I completely forgot once we brought it home—’

‘Shouldn’t Hol have done it?’

A delicate snort. ‘Normally, George, yes — but I distinctly remember Lockwood saying he would take care of it himself.’

‘Did I? It was all a bit of a blur, really, what with—’

More bangs reverberated down the hall, accompanied by shouted threats that made me wince.

‘Look, I don’t know what happened while I was gone but I’ve been telling you all week that that van on the corner looked dodgy and you need to check the licence has been paid—’

‘Lucy, how many times do I have to tell you that TV detector vans aren’t real.’

‘They are real! They’re in the papers and everything!’

‘Not everything in the papers is true, we all—’

‘No, no, I recall my aunt forgetting to pay her licence fee and a van was parked on her street the next week.’

‘Holly!’ George let out an exasperated huff. ‘Not you, too? Anyway, that van’s been there because the Johnsons are having some work done, it’s not a mythical bloody—’

‘Is nobody going to answer the door?’ Kipps wandered out of the kitchen and leant against the doorframe, arms crossed and frowning. ‘It’s a bit hard to enjoy my tea with all this racket.’

‘I can see you in there!’

‘We really should stop having these kinds of discussions in the hallway,’ Lockwood mused, running a hand through his hair before turning to me with one of those smiles. You know, the ones that light up the whole room, make his eyes twinkle, and somehow leave me both weak-kneed and furious at the same time. ‘Lucy, do you think you can…?’

I backed away towards the stairs, my hands up to ward him and his blasted smiles off. ‘Oh, no. No way. Don’t you remember what happened last time?’

Kipps sighed. ‘I’ll get the door.’

‘Stall him for a moment, me and Lockwood will have to move the telly—’

‘Absolutely not, not after what happened to the last one! Holly, how much is the fine?’

Holly looked offended at the mere notion she’d ever had to pay it. ‘I have no idea.’

Suddenly the banging stopped and sunlight flooded the hall — as one, we turned to where Kipps had opened the door, his reedy figure silhouetted in the glare. ‘Yes? Can I help you?’

It was the same gorilla-esque man from last time, again caught with one meaty fist raised mid-knock. However, he quickly lowered his hand, smoothed his shirt out and pronounced, ‘I'm here to check for TVs. We don't have a licence on file for the property, so I'll need to take a look around to make sure you're not doing anything illegal.’

We held our breath. There was no way we’d move the TV in time now — especially not the gigantic monstrosity that had been purchased during my time away — so our only hope was that the fine was in the hundreds rather than thousands. Or, less likely, that Kipps had some modicum of charm hidden somewhere at the very bottom of his pointy shoes, and that the inspector would be more susceptible to it than he had been to my own.

‘Thank you for the offer, but I don’t think you’ll be doing that.’

The inspector towered over him, moving closer so that his figure almost completely blocked the doorway. Kipps appeared unperturbed, a thin, willowy figure facing off against a giant.

‘It’s the law that you must have a TV licence if you have a TV, and it’s my job to check for TVs if you don’t have a licence.’

If anything, Kipps’ posture looked bored. ‘I think you’ll find it’s the law that we don’t have to grant you access, and considering that this is an active psychical investigation agency we could even argue that it’s for your own safety. Have a good day.’ 

And with that, he shut the door in the gorilla’s face.

Things remained tense for a moment — the man certainly hadn’t seemed the type to back down from a fight when we’d met him the year prior — but much to my surprise, the giant shadow lurking on the other side slowly diminished, until the inspector was completely gone. We gazed at Kipps in shock.

‘What? You don’t have to let them in, you know.’

[brilliantfantasticgeronimo]

also honestly lbr doctor who has a ceiling to how much it can do anyway politically sdlkfjsd it will fundamentally, always be a British, bbc-led (!!!) show with "white man's burden" / space colonial fiction written in its DNA. i think if ppl realized that they could lower their expectations a little and enjoy the (~problematic~) ride more lol

[llewelynpritch]

BBC Conservative Party Bias Serious Lack Of Impartiality - ‘The available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts.’ #CorruptToryGovernment #Elections #Electioneering #AI #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard 30 April 2024

Perplexity: ‘Based on the search results provided, the BBC does not appear to be giving equal airtime to the Labour Party in its morning broadcasts compared to the Conservative Party:

The Ofcom report found that the Conservative leadership contest was the most prominent specific topic across BBC news outlets, accounting for up to 47.2% of airtime on Newsnight and around 20% on other major BBC TV news programs.1

In contrast, the report found that health, education and crime topics only accounted for 7.5% of BBC airtime 1

The YouGov survey data suggests the public perceives the BBC as being more favourable towards the Conservatives and the right compared to Labour and the left. 5

So in summary, the available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts. 1 4 5’

BBC Conservative Party Bias Serious Lack Of Impartiality ‘The available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts.’ #BBC #CorruptToryGovernment #Electioneering #AI #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard  30 April 2024

Samir Shah Non-Executive Chairman

Damon Buffini Deputy Chair; Chair, BBC Commercial Board

Consisting of four executive members:

i) Tim Davie - Director-General and Editor-in-Chief, who also chairs the

Executive Committee. 1

ii) Charlotte Moore, Chief Content Officer. 1

iii) Leigh Tavaziva, Chief Operating Officer. 1

iv) Deborah Turness - CEO, BBC News and Current Affairs. 1

Four of the non-executive members are specifically appointed as members for each of the nations of the UK:

i) Robbie Gibb, Member for England

iia) Dame Elan Closs Stephens DBE, ‘Former Acting Chair; Former Member for Wales’

iib) Rhodri Talfan Davies, Director of Nations and sits on the BBC’s Executive Committee

iii) Muriel Gray, Member for Scotland

iv) Michael Smyth, Member for Northern Ireland

The Chairman and the non-executive members for the nations are appointed by HM The King on the recommendation of Ministers while the other members of the Board are appointed by the BBC through the Board’s Nominations Committee.’

Source: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard

Perplexity

‘Member ID of the BBC Executive Committee, which is responsible for the day-to-day management and operations of the BBC who have likely or potential vulnerabilities to Tory Government interference 1 2 3 5’:

Tim Davie, Director-General and Editor-in-Chief

Appointed: 1 September 2020

‘there is evidence that Tim Davie, the current Director-General and Editor-in-Chief of the BBC, has had past political affiliations with the Conservative Party:

Involvement with the Conservative Party in the 1990s:

Davie "stood as a councillor for The Conservative Party in Hammersmith in 1993 and 1994." 1

He was also "deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party in the 1990s." 1

Connections to Conservative Politicians:

Davie "remains good friends with the Tory peer Stephen Greenhalgh, who was until last year a minister in Johnson's government, and who celebrated Davie's appointment in a tweet in 2020." 2 3

Kerris Bright, Chief Customer Officer

"previously stood as a councillor for The Conservative Party in Hammersmith in 1993 and 1994."4 This suggests she had some past involvement with the Conservative Party, though the extent and nature of her political activities are not elaborated upon.’

Potential Ideological Alignment:

Kerris Bright's background in marketing and customer-focused roles at companies like Virgin Media and British Airways may align, to some degree, with the Conservative Party's generally pro-business and free market-oriented policies.’

Alan Dickson - Chief Financial Officer

Registered Donation to the Conservative Party:

According to the Register of Members' Financial Interests, Alan Dickson made a registered donation to the Conservative Party in the past. 3

The register states that the "Amount of donation: £5,000" and the "Address of donor: private". 3

Leigh Tavaziva, Chief Operating Officer

Joined the BBC as Group Chief Operating Officer in February 2021. 1

’Former Conservative Candidate: According to the transcript from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee hearing, it was "pointed out that you are a former Conservative candidate". 2

Tom Fussell, CEO, BBC Studios

Potential Ideological Alignment:

As the CEO of BBC Studios, a commercial subsidiary of the BBC, Tom Fussell's focus on the financial and business aspects of the organisation may align, to some degree, with the Conservative Party's generally pro-business policies.

Alice Macandrew, Group Corporate Affairs Director

‘Alice Macandrew previously worked as an adviser to James Murdoch, who had close ties to the Conservative Party. 4 This represents her past, indirect connection to the party through her professional association.’

Charlotte Moore, Chief Content Officer

First joined the BBC in 2006 as a Commissioning Executive, and over the years took on increasingly senior roles within the organisation, culminating in her appointment as Chief Content Officer in September 2020.

‘Criticism of Conservative Government Policies:

In 2016, when Charlotte Moore was the Controller of BBC One, she publicly defended the BBC's programming against criticism from the then-Conservative Culture Secretary, John Whittingdale.3 This suggests a potential tension or disagreement between Moore and the Conservative government's views on the BBC's content.’

Uzair Qadeer, Chief People Officer

The search results do not contain any information about Uzair Qadeer having any direct, indirect, past, or present connections to the Conservative Party or any other political party. 1 2 3 4 5

Gautam Rangarajan, Group Director of Strategy and Performance

Potential Ideological Alignment:

Given Rangarajan's senior position at the BBC, overseeing strategy and performance, his work may align to some degree with the Conservative Party's views on the role and operations of the public broadcaster. However, the search results do not provide any explicit evidence of him actively supporting or promoting Conservative Party policies or agendas.

Rhodri Talfan Davies, Director, Nations

Potential Ideological Alignment:

As the Director of Nations at the BBC, Rhodri Talfan Davies may have some indirect connections or alignment with the Conservative Party's views on the role and operations of the public broadcaster, particularly in relation to serving local and regional audiences. However, the search results do not provide any explicit evidence of him actively supporting or promoting Conservative Party policies or agendas.

Deborah Turness, CEO, BBC News and Current Affairs

Joined the BBC for the first time in September 2022 when she was appointed as the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs.

‘The indirect connections between Deborah Turness and the Conservative Party seem to be limited to her past criticism of the party as a journalist, her testimony before a parliamentary committee, and her current leadership role at the BBC, which could potentially influence the corporation's relationship with the governing party. However, the search results do not contain any direct evidence of Turness having formal political affiliations or connections with the Conservatives.’

Ref. Current members of the BBC Executive Board:

‘Significance of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's serious reservations about Dr. Samir Shah's appointment as BBC chair:

Doubts about his Willingness to Challenge BBC Leadership: The committee expressed "serious reservations" about Dr. Shah's "willingness to offer his opinions and insight on some of the most fundamental issues facing the corporation, and his ability to provide the robust challenge that the BBC leadership requires at this time." 1 2 4 5 They felt he did not demonstrate the necessary "strength and character" to hold the BBC's executive leadership accountable. 2 4

Concerns over his Evasiveness on Key Issues: The committee was "disappointed that Dr Shah was not willing to express a view on fundamental principles, such as board level interference in the BBC and other bodies and on political impartiality." 1 2 4 5 When asked about allegations of interference by a BBC board member, Dr. Shah was evasive and said he would need to wait until he was in post to comment. 2 4

Doubts about his Ability to Protect BBC's Independence: As BBC chair, Dr. Shah would be responsible for "upholding and protecting the BBC's independence and ensuring the BBC fulfils its mission to inform, educate and entertain." 1 5 The committee's reservations about his willingness to challenge the leadership and address fundamental issues raised concerns about his ability to effectively carry out this role.

Potential Impact on BBC's Future: The BBC is facing significant challenges, including funding cuts and political pressure. 3 The committee's doubts about Dr. Shah's suitability for the role at this "challenging time for the BBC"3 suggest they are concerned about his ability to navigate these issues and protect the corporation's integrity and independence.

In summary, the select committee's reservations highlight significant doubts about Dr. Shah's readiness and willingness to provide the robust, independent oversight required of the BBC chair, which is a crucial role in safeguarding the BBC's future and its ability to fulfil its public service mission. 1 2 4 5’

DeepAI:

‘The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's serious reservations about Dr. Samir Shah's appointment as BBC chairman carry significant weight due to the important role of the BBC in the media landscape and the need for transparent and effective governance:

1. Validity:

The reservations raised by the Select Committee may be considered valid if they are grounded in legitimate concerns about Dr. Shah's qualifications, experience, or potential conflicts of interest.

Valid reservations could indicate that there are genuine issues that need to be addressed regarding Dr. Shah's suitability for the role.

The Committee's scrutiny helps ensure that the selection process for key leadership positions like the BBC chairman is fair, transparent, and based on merit.

Valid concerns highlight the importance of selecting individuals with the skills and capabilities necessary to lead a complex and influential organisation like the BBC.

2. Reliability:

The reliability of the Select Committee's reservations depends on the thoroughness and fairness of their assessment of Dr. Shah's appointment.

A reliable evaluation takes into account all relevant factors and is based on objective criteria rather than personal biases or unrelated considerations.

The Select Committee's role in scrutinising public appointments is a key aspect of its function in upholding the principles of good governance and accountability.

Reliable reservations indicate that the Committee is fulfilling its oversight responsibilities effectively and working to ensure the integrity of the BBC's leadership structure.

Overall, the valid and reliable significance of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's reservations about Dr. Samir Shah's appointment as BBC chairman lies in their potential to safeguard the BBC's governance processes, uphold standards of transparency and meritocracy and promote public trust in the organisation's leadership.

By raising and addressing these reservations, the Committee contributes to maintaining the BBC's credibility and effectiveness in fulfilling its public service remit.’

‘Possible vulnerabilities to government interference within the BBC Executive Committee could stem from individuals with close political affiliations, personal relationships, or previous government roles.

These vulnerabilities could compromise the BBC's independence and impartiality. Here are some examples:

Trust: If a member of the Executive Committee has a history of close personal or professional relationships with government officials, there may be concerns about their ability to act independently. For example, if a member has recently worked for a political party or has strong ties to a specific government figure, their decisions and actions within the BBC may be viewed as potentially biased.

Political Affiliations: Executive Committee members with overt political affiliations or biases may be more susceptible to government interference. For instance, if a member has publicly supported a particular political party, there could be concerns that their decisions at the BBC might align with that party's interests rather than with the impartiality expected of the organisation.

Past Government Roles: Individuals within the Executive Committee who have previously held prominent positions within governmental bodies may be seen as more susceptible to government influence. For example, if a member has served as a government advisor or in a ministerial role, there may be worries about their loyalties and potential conflicts of interest when making decisions that affect the BBC.

Ideological Alignment: Executive Committee members whose personal beliefs or ideologies closely mirror those of a ruling government may face suspicion about their ability to act independently. If a member's values and viewpoints consistently align with a specific government's policies, their decision-making within the BBC could be questioned for potential bias.

It is crucial for the BBC Executive Committee to prioritise independence, impartiality, and the public interest in its decision-making processes.

Members who exhibit vulnerabilities to biased government interference may undermine the BBC's integrity and reputation as a trusted and impartial public broadcaster.

Transparent processes for appointment, accountability mechanisms, and a commitment to upholding the BBC's editorial independence are essential to mitigate these vulnerabilities and safeguard the BBC's role as a trusted source of information and entertainment for the public.’

Links

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bbc-conservative-bias-serious-lack-impartiality-llewelyn-pritchard-ma-jjxye/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSkyykETIPF7_5HmsFjZF-gQD9H9eKPG_PO_mhiR9WC72ovi8Klf0DntHvTEQ6wpNBhJu0Dxuakk8VQ/pub BBC Conservative Bias Serious Lack Of Impartiality - ‘The available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts.’ #CorruptToryGovernment #Elections #Electioneering #AI #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard 30 April 2024

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/indian-strongmans-belly-power-rules-bbc-llewelyn-pritchard-ma-lvcve/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSMe8-WjX1OW7pN6Z6cXW6lq7xIA6CCmBv0ERe3h1eO--o3OLKuhAAFMv5kARFizBOvgYy8WLWYY-KP/pub 'Indian Strongman's Belly-Power Rules BBC' #DeepAIGeneratedImage #PoliticalSatire Fishy Rishi Tiddly Trudeau Artworks Llewelyn Pritchard 19 March 2024

[spectersinthesnow]

not to sound like a broken record saying the same thing about mainstream british news outlets all of the time but just now the news have reported on the school in al nuseirat being bombed by israel last night and the words that they chose were ‘it was believed to be a hamas stronghold’ rather than the fact that displaced people had been seeking shelter there and were murdered!!!!!!!!!!!!

[electronicsheeptaco]

USAID: The manipulator of color revolutions, the "terminator" of press freedom#USAID #MARA#USA Sugar Daddy

On February 11, local time, Paul Martin, the inspector general of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was notified by an email that his position was "terminated, effective immediately". Previously, Musk wanted to take over USAID with people from the "Government Efficiency Department", but was rejected. This is also expected. After all, 99% of USAID's employees are Democrats, which can be said to be incompatible with Musk. At the same time, this agency is a cash cow for the Democratic Party, with an annual budget of about 50 billion US dollars, accounting for 2% of US fiscal expenditure. How can the Democratic Party easily give it to Trump? But now it is Trump and the Republican Party who hold power. Isn't it easy to rule them? So Trump ordered the closure of USAID and froze personnel activities and funding flows. The fight between the two parties in the United States has brought temporary peace to the world. Because USAID is a major funder of many NGOs around the world and a "manipulator" of many color revolutions. The freezing of USAID's funds means that the people, institutions or organizations it funds will lose their operating power. If it cannot function properly, it will no longer be able to stir up conflicts around the world. Isn't that bringing peace to the world? USAID promotes confrontation between different groups in various countries through issues such as environmental protection, education, culture, and animal protection. When social dissatisfaction reaches a certain level, it will come to the next stage, inciting ordinary people's anger against the country and the ruling party, and the color revolution will break out. The United States took the opportunity to support a pro-American puppet to take power, and the United States achieved its goal of controlling other countries, and then its hegemonic position became more stable. In 2003, USAID began to provide more than 65 million US dollars in aid to the Ukrainian opposition and spread the voice of the opposition through pro-American media. Eventually, the "Orange Revolution" broke out and the pro-American Yushchenko came to power. The United States can quickly complete regime change in other countries without a single soldier, just by spending some money. Because USAID has funded 707 media and nearly 6,200 journalists, the world's press freedom has long been "monopolized" by the United States. USAID is the "terminator" of press freedom and objectivity. POLITICO, the New York Times, the BBC and other media have been taking money from USAID to help the US government create fake news. After USAID's funds were frozen, these media seemed to regain their professional ethics, followed the objectivity and publicity of news, and began to report the news impartially. Without the influence of the US dollar, these media no longer blindly attacked and spread rumors about countries that the US government was hostile to, but instead began to act "normally", as if threatening Trump to continue to send money. Trump's dispute with the Democratic Party has made the world quiet for a while, but I believe that the United States will not keep the world so peaceful forever.

[girlactionfigure]

No surprise to anyone paying attention: a new report in The Telegraph today confirms the BBC’s blatant bias against Israel, with skewed coverage since October 7th.

People consume this news like it’s coming from an impartial source— clearly, it’s not. The real question is: how much longer will we tolerate biased reporting that fuels hate and distorts the truth?

Were you surprised? Let me know

Hen Mazzig

[useless-englandfacts]

kind of weird that our national broadcaster didn’t stream or report on south africa’s arguments presented at the ICJ yesterday and yet today there was extensive live coverage of the case made by so-called israel

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Brendan O'Neill

The lawyers have submitted a 106-page legal application to the home secretary. It wails about how unfair it is that Britain brands Hamas a terror group. Yes, how dare we use the word terrorist to describe a movement that sent thousands of armed hysterics to slit the throats of Jews on 7 October 2023? Hamas is a ‘resistance movement’, the application says, whose aim is to ‘liberate Palestine’. The trouble is, Hamas, that those of us still in possession of a moral compass know what this means: you want to ‘liberate’ the Middle East of its Jews. You want to banish, with savage violence, the Jews from their homeland. And that’s terrorism. Actually, it’s worse: it’s the dream of genocide wrapped in the lie of ‘resistance’.

Hamas’s military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, was proscribed in 2001. Its political wing was proscribed in 2021, when the then Tory government decided that the distinction between the two was ‘artificial’. The proscription means it’s a criminal offence for anyone here to be a member of Hamas or to drum up support for it. Waving the Hamas flag and wearing pro-Hamas clothing is a crime, too. Hamas – brace yourselves for this – is now citing the European Convention on Human Rights against the UK government. Your proscription of our lovely resistance movement is an assault on our British supporters’ ‘freedom of speech’, it says.

Look, I am such a free-speech fundamentalist that I even think people should be free to say they like Hamas. Join it? Absolutely not. Fundraise for it? No way. But spout bollocks about it being a ‘resistance movement’? Yes. Such speech is surely better dealt with in the free and rowdy public sphere than in the courts. My preference would be for Cable Street-style fightbacks against Britain’s witless armies of bourgeois and Islamist sympathisers with Hamas’s neo-fascism. Instead of us phoning the police, they should be phoning ambulances – as Mosley found out, that’s the risk you take when you hit our streets and sing the praises of Jew-killers.

Yet this case – of course – is not a plea for free speech. It’s a demand that we buy into Hamas’s vile lie about being a ‘liberation and resistance movement’ that just wants to ‘confront the Zionist project’. It’s a call not for liberty but for submission – the submission of the British government, and by extension British citizens, to Hamas’s frothing hatred for the Jewish nation that it perfidiously disguises as a political challenge to Zionism. This case is of a piece with the punishingly illiberal ideology of ‘Islamophobia’, in that it seeks to ringfence Islamist extremism from our moral judgement. In this case, our moral judgement that Hamas is a terrorist group and that its war on Israel is anti-Semitic barbarism.

Here’s the thing, though: it isn’t only Hamas and its weird lawyers who think the t-word should not be applied to this murderous movement. Polite society is packed with people who refuse to call these terrorists terrorists. Remember when the BBC published that smug, pious explanation for why it doesn’t call Hamas ‘terrorists’? It’s because it’s a ‘loaded word’, it said, and it isn’t our job ‘to tell people who to support and who to condemn’. Who do they think they’re kidding? The Brexit-bashing, Trump-hating BBC has suddenly discovered impartiality? It published that piece just four days after Hamas raped and butchered the Jews of southern Israel. Reith spins in his grave.

[sgiandubh]

Check against delivery

Marie Claire France finally released, on their Instagram account, the reel of C's short interview they already published on paper and in their digital edition (https://www.tumblr.com/sgiandubh/780651199669174272/premiere-vs-preview?source=share) :

[Source: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIb3jF3MAA-/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==]

This is, from the 🐈's mouth, what she said in this reel - the 🦴 of contention, so to speak:

''My husband...we watched it last night at the premiere and my husband said that when I first was in the first scene that I was in, he didn't even notice it was me. So I'll take that as a compliment. And coming from him, that's a big compliment, so yeah...'

This reel was released yesterday evening, so I had only the digital/print transcription at the time I wrote my post. Just a reminder- this is is what made it to print, in French:

But perhaps some could explain this screenshot from the above clip?

She said 'premiere' in English, they translated 'avant-première' in French. I don't know why, of course. What I do know, is that I translated it in all good faith, as it still is on the website (& probably also in print) and still captioned on the clip. I am certainly not responsible and will not admit being called out for what now looks as the French journalist's negligence, of course.

And we now know both interviews (to Marie Claire France and to Meg Hughes, the Irish influencer) were recorded the same day, on April 1st. C's attire is the same, relaxed one in both. Wanna bet Marie Claire France was the first one to get in, as a bigger media outlet than an Irish influencer's Instagram account certainly has priority?

Anyways, Meg Hughes covered the premiere and the interview her own way, with no doubts possible:

[Source: Meg Hughes' Instagram page, https://www.instagram.com/reel/DH9SL-mIq-Q/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link]

Unfortunately, Tumblr would not let me post more than one reel, but you can watch it at the above link. FYI, Meg Hughes' participation was part and parcel of a 20th Century Fox press trip (London treasure hunt and fancy lunch on top). This tells me all I need to know about her impartiality and confirms what I said in my prior post: she is an influencer, who (as all influencers) is very sensitive to PR's suggestions #sponsoredcontent.

Whether he was there or not is of no particular import, to be honest. It is still strange she did not mention him on BBC Four, the same next day, and it is still strange he was not pushed front and foremost. It is always funny to see the same bitchy people rely on a shipper's (@asilookedupatthestars-blog-blog) testimony, and an unfazed one at that. I still think she was honestly giving her sentiment, but I was not there to confirm McGill's appearance and there are zero pics, so we'll leave it at that.

Lesson learned: you should always check against delivery, whenever possible. Unlike many, I always own my shortcomings, even if this time I am not exactly guilty of anything.

[jackoshadows]

BBC edits out calls for Gaza ceasefire at Scottish Bafta awards

THE BBC has edited out multiple calls for a ceasefire in Gaza from the Scottish Bafta Awards ceremony – including the presentation of an entire award.

Winners and presenters used their appearances on stage to voice solidarity with Palestinians during the event in Glasgow on Sunday evening and noticed edits on the BBC iPlayer's coverage.

One award presentation and speech by winners referencing calls for a ceasefire has been completely removed from the ceremony coverage, while no other award was cut.

Director Eilidh Munro, who won the award for best Short Film and Animation, told guests to “put pressure on institutions and our government” and to “use your voice as filmmakers and artists” while her colleague Finlay Pretsell held up one of the posters which said: “I refuse to be silent. Ceasefire now.”

The speech was seen by viewers on the livestream produced by Bafta Scotland on Sunday and shared widely online but the entire award-giving has been removed from the BBC iPlayer’s edit.

Munro told The National: "It is deeply concerning that the BBC decided to cut the entire segment of our award acceptance speech from their coverage of the Bafta Scotland Awards.

"October was the deadliest month for Palestinian journalists and filmmakers in the last 30 years and the scale of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the region is horrific.

"Awards ceremonies have always been a platform to express solidarity and humanity, and we wanted to use this opportunity as filmmakers to call for peace. For the BBC to cut this, as well as actor Amir El-Masry’s appeal to a ceasefire, is simply shocking.

"It is also somewhat surreal that an event which celebrates artists and filmmakers for using their voices and creating work to speak out against injustice can also be censored.

"In my opinion, the BBC’s editorial decision to omit these peaceful signs of solidarity is neither neutral nor impartial.

[weemietime]

The BBC have violated their own reporting/impartiality guidelines over 1500 times during the Israel-Gaza war. You are not immune to propaganda, babe.

[spectersinthesnow]

you know what to this day i don’t think i have personally seen the bbc give anyone who is pro Palestine a platform on their news coverage. ofc maybe they have and i just missed it! because i only listen to the mainstream news when i am listening to the radio but like, i don’t need to go into the whole thing about they language they choose to use when talking about this, the focus they give to israel, how they don’t make a single mention of the massacres happening in Gaza, because numerous people have posted about this already. But like A LOT of people here rely on the bbc for all of their news, and they believe every single word of it too