“Barwise and York argue, on the question of bias, that large-scale surveys tend to show that ” whatever we at home may think we know ” the BBC is not systematically biased: at least, inasmuch as these things can be quantified.”

Without citing a source for such a claim, it is empty.

For anyone who listens carefully to the BBC, as I used to (I have ceased pay a licence fee, and no longer bother with TV), the claims of impartiality of impossible to sustain. How long is it since the constitutional case for Brexit was examined? When was there last an open and non-hectoring examination of the pros and cons of mass immigration? A non-saccharine appraisal of NHS performance?

Bias shows up in editorial policy – in what is left out as well as what is said. There is a huge array of opinion and fact that the BBC elects to ignore. It does this because it seems to see its job to be to instruct us on correct opinion, not just to inform us on facts.

Tough – the BBC deserve all the sh*t they get.

Just look at today’s Brexit piece on their News website for example :

“What took so long? The UK voted to leave the EU in 2016 and actually left on 31 January 2020, but leaders had until the end of 2020 to work out a trade deal”

Totally disingenuous as always, not reflecting the fact that the BBC spent 4 years pushing their own agenda of trying to undermine the democratic result.

They generally cover only the opinions on issues that they like, and are completely uncritical of anything that supports their social-engineering objectives.

Dreadful, dreadful organisation.

Hmm…the Literary Editor of the Spectator uses this site rather than his own to air this puff piece eulogizing the BBC. Does he think the readership here will be more receptive to his fawning view of the organization? I fear he will be disappointed.

I was particularly taken by the author’s comment “in so far as these things can be quantified” as he then proceeds to studiously avoid any mention of the numerous quantitative studies that show how certain issues are clearly pushed by the BBC at the expense of others (numerous examples cited by previous posters). This is carried out by a very narrow sliver of society – I’ve had firsthand dealings with the BBC and its personnel bias is so Oxbridge-based it would be funny if the effects weren’t so stultifyingly serious.

I used to be an avid watcher of Newsnight until its bias became too much even for my strong stomach. A particular “highlight” was watching the novelist Jeanette Winterson opine about Brexit – not from any uniquely qualified perspective relating to politics or economics, but apparently because she felt the loss of EU membership more keenly than mere mortals. There was nothing other than her feelings – not even a pretence anymore by the producers that the programme is about evenhanded analysis of complex issues.

This goes beyond Left wing vs Right wing bias – there’s a horrible sense of entitlement within the BBC that fuels the disenchantment felt by many towards it. A series of “momentous” political events in recent years is only such a surprise if you’re as cloth-eared and parochial (in a paradoxically Metropolitan manner) as your average BBC journalist. E.g. if you live in the North, the “shock” fall of the Red Wall was a no-brainer …

(Apologies – ironically, given my theme of self-entitlement, my fat thumb led to an accidental self-upticking).

Let’s see now…. the Andrew Sachs case on Radio 2… the Cliff Richard harassment by BBC news…. Jimmy Saville’s victims….. In each case, the perpetrators thought they were untouchable and responsible to nobody else. A bit more humility and humanity in the BBC would go a long way to reverse that…. And the portrayal of a wider range of opinions to the ones usually showcased.

“Stop bad-mouthing the BBC”
I’ll stop bad-mouthing the BBC when the BBC stops threatening to prosecute me.
Perhaps you could have a word with one of your chums on my behalf.

“Peter York…a multimedia gadfly remembered inter alia for minting the epithet “Sloane Ranger”)” The bathos is just killing me, Sam and I dread to think what the inter alias might have been.
Sam, you have a talent for unintended comedy. You deserve your own slot on the BBC.

This article is not a ‘good look’ when we learned yesterday that countless BBC employees had been given 100k to leave the organisation – and we all know that a lot of them will return to the BBC as freelancers or whatever. Ironically, they could have been redeployed to take calls from the hundreds of people who call up every day to cancel their license. Apparently it’s very difficult to get through and the BBC puts up obstacles to cancellation whist lying to people by telling them that they need a license to watch Netflix and YouTube.

Whatever, I threw out the TV 20 years ago because I refused to fund this endlessly grasping, biased, sanctimonious and deceitful organisation. I barely even listen to the football commentaries any more, preferring instead the ‘walch-alongs’ on YouTube.

What?! The b**b is scientifically illiterate from top to bottom, never mind being ‘PC’-totalitarian — ‘PC’-Fascism Central.
Whether it’s men-women, the climate, race, cosmology/astrophysics … the b**b is always there to get it spectacularly wrong. Totally out of the loop of scientific enquiry, adhering to long-dead notions and fully signed up to inappropriate ideological paradigms.
The BBC doesn’t get enough bad-mouthing.
It’s beyond the pale and nobody should pay it’s outdated, outrageous, obscene ‘pay for your own oppression’ poll tax.

My wife and I faithfully listened to BBC for 30+ years. Our children graduated from Tellytubbies to Attenborough and as family we cherished it all. We still listen to programmes like In Our Time and Desert Island Discs. I personally would be happy yo pay the license fee for Radio 3 alone.
And yet, we can no longer stand Today, the comedy shows or the narrow social agenda of much of BBC’s output. When did the BBC have Roger Scruton or Theodore Dalrymple as an expert on anything? When did Black voices like Thomas Sewell ever appear on any BBC programme? When did the likes of Andrew Marr declare conflicts of interest in being married to senior Guardian journalists? Doctors have to declare the financial interests of their spouses in Pharma industry? Why not the BBC staff?
I don’t care about waste, bloatedness or competition monopoly. What I care about is bias and blatant left-wing woke ideology that permeates BBC. You can sense its stench everywhere in BBC.
I would not defund the BBC. I don’t want it gone. But it will have to change. Or perish. WE will all miss it when it is gone. So change it must.

I live in South Africa and when I do watch MSM I now avoid BBC, CNN and Sky…. it became impossible not to notice their agendas and bias during Covid lockdown, which gave plenty time to witness their mediocrity and transparency. I flick over to RT and Al Jazeera with caution, but mainly I go off mainstream now. That is where the real news is – when allowed through by Silicon Valley that is.

I gave up BBC Radio 4 morning news years ago, when John ‘Hector’ Humphrys gave such unpleasantly interruptive interviews.
Since then, output across the BBC has been downhill all the way, steered to the iceberg of doom by the previous Director General.

I hugely support the “idea” of the BBC, what the BBC used to be. But its current incarnation needs to change.

When a national broadcaster fails to give viewers accurate and impartial information, when it distorts the debate to fit in with its own narrow worldview, then that damages democracy. There is no more intellectually bereft argument than “both sides think its biased which means they must be doing a good job”. But every time the BBC comes under fire for their bias, some unctuous BBC Corporate spokesperson is wheeled onto a show to “laugh off” such criticism by making precisely that case.

The BBC has chosen willfully to bite the hand that feeds it ““ over and over again.

BBC news and current affairs is nakedly partisan. Any sense of impartiality has gone.

They have been openly disdainful of the choices of over half the electorate ““ sneering at any who don’t fall in with the BBC approved view of the world.

BBC programming in general has decided that older viewers should be ignored ““ all in a vain attempt to chase a younger audience, none of whom would ever think to spend an evening in watching 2 terrestrial channels.

They’ve taken long running and much loved series ““ Dr Who being a good example ““ and remade them as activist propaganda.

BBC Drama has decided to rewrite the classics by inserting C21st liberal agenda issues into adaptations of 18th and 19th century literature.

Each one of those decisions has actively discouraged previously loyal viewers.

Issues that chime with BBC virtue projection, such as Climate, Austerity or most recently with Covid or BLM stories, are presented with no balance, no counter-narrative. Simple propaganda is enough.

When it came to Brexit the bias was all the more stark – not merely in the news coverage but right across the piece. Take almost any panel show and the sneering tone it adopts to all things Brexit. Look at the shoehorning in of the topic into programs that have no relation to our leaving the EU – where viewers/listeners are constantly reminded by phrasing stories in terms of “Despite Brexit” or “Amid fears surrounding Brexit” … it is always slanted negatively, never looking at potential opportunities Brexit may offer, only the difficulties and downsides.

This is probably understandable given that programme makers are almost entirely pro-EU, pro-Remain, young metropolitans so even whilst they might try to maintain a balanced tone they cannot see the bias that creeps into every report and programme. The fact that it is understandable, however, does not excuse it or nullify it. It is the job of senior editors and exec producers to maintain an even-handed and informative tone – this they have singularly failed to do.

The BBC has a charter obligation to provide balanced and impartial news and comment. It no longer comes even close to achieving that.

I am a great supporter of “the idea” of the BBC. To have TV & Radio channels entirely free from advertiser or owner-led interference, supported by licence fee payers, that can produce quality programmes without having to pander to lowest common denominator tastes to chase viewing figures, was (and should still be) what made it one of the great British institutions.

However, if the BBC fails to meet its charter obligations then it gives up the right to its funding. If they want to continue receiving state funding then the BBC needs to face up to this and be brave enough to change.

Auntie needs to grow some balls!

As a native Brit and having watched the BBC news etc.for 65 years I can honestly say it is now, without question, simply a highly paid propaganda arm of the UK’s Cabinet Office, the UK having transformed itself from a democracy into a dictatorship. Clearly the author is short on both experience and just plain savvy.. Follow the money and funding!

I’ve not had a TV licence since 2016. I don’t miss the BBC, but I do resent not being allowed to watch commercial TV.