I'm also generally a big supporter of the BBC, but I think their left bias is extremely apparent on their radio content. It must be down to internal culture in different offices, because the bias is different in different parts of the Corporation. Might be a diversity problem in hiring?

Those on the left (e.g. Owen Jones) think it is a pillar of The Establishment and those on the right think it is has a left-liberal bias.

I guess it is doing something right!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#21st_cent...

Can't we aim for 'not appearing biased to anyone' rather than 'appearing biased to everyone'?

I think the simultaneous accusations of both left and right bias are because separate parts of the Corporation are biased in this way. If you sum those biases then yes maybe it sums to zero, but I'd rather the individual parts were not biased at all.

I don't think politics can be made to work like that.

Politics is about rhetoric, persuasion, spin and - if you can get away with it - outright lies, smears, and distortions.

Claiming that reporting is biased, when in fact it's merely objective but unfavourable, is an absolutely standard weapon in the arsenal of spin.

The only way to attempt to enforce a lack of bias would be to have independent editorial oversight - much like the journalistic equivalent of an independent judiciary.

The Board of Trustees used to attempt that, but the financial reality is that the BBC gets most of its funding from the government, and so is always vulnerable to financial pressures.

IMO lack of access to "clean" unspun fact-based reporting is probably the number one political problem of the moment. Knowingly lying to the public or attempting to influence opinion for personal/political gain should be as much of a crime as dumping asbestos in a school yard.

But currently the political system relies on dishonesty to operate. It's essentially built on denying facts and replacing them with expedient lies, emotional manipulations, and fake "explanations" of why things are the way they are.

So you can't solve one problem without solving the other. And that's a huge, huge challenge.

This could also mean that their coverage is getting less accurate overall. It's not a one-dimensional space (left/right), more like a multidimentional (left/right,accurate/inaccurate,...) space. It serves nobody to be in the "centrist/inaccurate" spot on that graph.

BBC4 documentaries and things like Arena remain amazing, so they can do quality if they want to and it's not overwhelmingly a cost matter. It's more like populism vs Reithianism, and if the BBC isn't Reithian it will end up not existing.

The BBC was recently reorganised, and the one thing you won't find anywhere in the new Board is political diversity.

It's Tory through and through, and apparently unapologetically so.

See also:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/tim-holmes/is-question...

That's just one example from a list that is becoming worryingly long now.

I'm curious about this. What specifically did you feel they were biased on in regards to the Scottish independence referendum? Do you have any links?

Not the BBC, but you've reminded me about my least favorite bit of "fake" "news" from the Indyref: the government's Buzzfeed propaganda account. https://www.buzzfeed.com/youdecide2014

Apparently there were "no costs" associated with this, which is even harder to understand. https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-ques...

Would probably make a good test case for anyone's "fake news" detectors.

Most of the points linked in the buzzfeed myths article are linked to gov.uk sources. Do you feel that these sources are themselves propaganda? I'm not sure which of the points can be confirmed or debunked now except maybe for the oil revenue one.

As for the second article, how to spend your extra £1,000, yes, that one is atrocious.