Seriously? Nobody beyojd a few OAPs actually thinks the BBC is a font of perfect vision. It's simply a but less crassly propaganda ridden then most other sources, and more centrist (if you believe in the 1d political tribalism meme).

The anti BBC narrative is largely political posturing to discredit one if the few remaining sources that aren't bought by private individuals to further their personal objectives. It's an obvious business move to increase their traction and value proposition.

Within the UK the "anti-BBC narrative" as you call it is indeed political, but I don't think it's posturing or a business plot, at least at grassroots level. I think it's based on the perception that the BBC itself tends to have a political and geographical bias.

Most European public broadcasters have a deep political bias, so much so that many advocate for their privatization. Previously in Norway you at least had the option to not pay the mandatory subscription by claiming that you didn't own a TV, but then the leader of the party with the most voters who wanted it privatized, the Progress Party (FRP), made sure that it came on the tax bill instead...

Those people who advocate for privatisation just want to replace it with their own bullshit. You'll be amazed how few actually want unbiased reporting.

So that's why they should be forced to pay for biased reporting that they do not want in the first place? Tell you what, Norway has a proud tradition of honest biased reporting; the party press. It's been toned down now, but I'm not sure it's for the better. Used to be that if your read Aftenposten (The Evening Post), you would know that you read an outlet for the Conservative Party. Meanwhile, if you read Arbeiderbladet (The Worker's Paper), you know you got an outlet for the Labour Party. And that was a good thing! Because you got what you asked for, and if you wanted more view-points - and many did - they'd simply buy both! But nobody likes getting something they don't want, much less paying for it.

You want other people to be forced to pay for the content you consume.

OAP = Old Age Pensioner?

I never heard of that acronym before.

Correct. It's a common acronym in the UK.

The BBC actually used to be independent and held the government to account. That all changed with David Kelly.

It isnt bought by private individuals but if the rest of the media that is is bleating the same tune it will follow. The end result is the same.

Every time they step out of line the government threatens to cancel the TV license.

Theyre also lacking in sheer journalistic manpower these days. It almost doesnt matter how impartial they are if they mainly crib from twitter, reprint press releases and report on government edicts.

The license has been set to end in 2027 already.

The current agreement ends in 2027 and the current government has said they won't renew it. Whether they are still in power remains to be seen.

I'm getting sick and tired of baseless comments like this being the top comment.

I want to read about the real topic, additional information, different insights, ... a real discussion about the original article, link, project.

Too many discussions are getting hijacked and turned into irrelevant clickbait and a waste of time.

HN could maybe offer a workaround to this by allow the reddit-like three option sort, "top new controversial" (then also allow per account default sort setting?)

I vaguely remember HN pages are built statically though, so three versions would have to be built? That might have been many years ago and has changed.

If voting weight cannot be trusted anymore in the world we live in, then change the sort.

Email [email protected], then, and let them know what you think. They're the ones with the power to change it.

What was there to discuss about the original article? It was a series of very short instructions on how to access the BBC in English, Russian, and Ukrainian.

Maybe you can be the change you want to see in the world and start one yourself.

There are two BBCs. BBC News and BBC TV programmes.

BBC TV programmes (from fiction to documentaries) are among the best of in the world in terms of productions.

BBC News is incredibly biased pro-government. IMO, this all stems to the changes David Cameron did to its structure and funding, making it effectively averse to "upset" the government. They also have this view of "balance" that is best exemplified by inviting a flat-earther to a debate on Earth's geology to offer a alternate POV.

EDIT: Also, if anyone is not in the UK or following it, catch up on Nadine Dorries, the "culture" secretary of state. Her agenda is to discredit the BBC, bring "culture wars" to the public service debate (e.g. "Woke BBC") and threats of defunding.

> BBC News is incredibly biased pro-government.

If anything it's pro status-quo or pro establishment it has a bias towards liberal democratic values and the norms. As politics swings about, the BBC has a dampening effect which is valuable.

So if you look at the extreme of Johnson's incompetance, you will see the BBC scrutinising it quite heavily - but similarly with Corbyn in the past.

The fact that government culture secretary Nadine Doris is attacking the BBC puts into context your assertion that it is 'incredibly pro government'.

The BBC News department recognised the problems with 'false balance' several years ago and I think that it's got a lot better on that front. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-g...

I gave my opinion on Dorries' approach further down on the thread.

Interestingly, the heavy scrutiny only came after the govt's threat of "defunding" the BBC in 2021. It was never there for the 2019 election, for instance or the Brexit referendum.

Also, the Tory party never accused the BBC of political bias, but rather "wokeness", so this is just an attempt to shift to the public debate to "culture wars", rather than other issues, in my view.

I mean - you're wrong

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10373181/Tory-anger...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over-70-mps-w...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1559812/BBC-bias-Brexit-To...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1527642/bbc-bias-cha...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-tory-mp-accuses-bb...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/conserv...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8133800/tory-ministers-bbc-bia...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-bias-open-letter-...

https://www.digitalspy.com/media/a339323/tory-mp-criticises-...

The incumbent government complains about "wokeness" and not political (party) bias.

Also, those are mostly examples of a hand-full of famously fringe hard-Brexit MPs, over almost 7 years now, that cry foul for anything. Even the 70 MPs open letter said:

"Some of the signatories of this letter shared many of the concerns about the economic impact of Brexit, but all are delighted to find forecasts of immediate economic harm were at best misplaced. So-called ‘despite Brexit’ reporting may be expected of a partisan press, but licence fee-payers have the right to expect better."

This is a vague as possible.

It’s really not “incredibly pro-government”. It’s anti-rapid change; pro-middle class; pro-a-comfortable-quality-of-life; anti “changing the system” whilst still “improving on the details”.

Some of its reporting feels pro-government because it’s telling the story of what the government is saying it’s doing. Watch any of the “just off the peak time” broadcasting and it’s very keen to hold politicians to account, to point out unfairness and hypocrisy, regardless of which party holds more power. It’s had gentle leans towards, and against various governments over the past 20 years, and not in sync with the party in power.

All of this is fairly centrist.

I agree the editorial line is not uniform. But realistically, how many people watch Politics live or Newsnight? Mostly politics buffs. The vast majority of the population watches peak time news (which is mostly repeating the governments line).

In addition to your points, the perspective is rather "metropolitan socially-liberal". I would disagree that they are anti rapid change on social issues.

> I would disagree that they are anti rapid change on social issues.

Eh, no. The BBC is institutionally anti LGBT, like much of the establishment in the UK.

As just one example, a few months ago they did a hit piece, to equate trans people with sexual offenders. Curiously, the loudest anti trans voice in the article was herself a sexual offender. However the BBC was okay with not disclosing that, and then platforming her.

Later, emboldened by the BBC piece, said anti trans activist wrote a manifesto—just like a neo Nazi or a school shooter does—calling for the elimination of trans people. No apology from the BBC, and they didn't even pull the piece.

It's so pro-government that the government feels the need to discredit it?

Interesting...

Yes, it's strange. Mind you that the several accusations of bias (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says...) are political and Nadine Dorries' angle is "wokeness", not political party bias.

So I'm assuming it's a way to shift public debate to the "culture war" topic, where people are more emotional, less rational, than say the economy, etc.

This is not just a Dorries thing, she is merely working from the script. I believe that focusing on culture war issues as a front for Tory vote-winning was becoming a key focus under Munira Mirza, and I only expect it to intensify in spite of her departure.

Even within BBC News, there is notably different content between the World Service and home stations.

They go out of their way to try and represent both sides of a coin, to a fault. If it’s clearly raining, and they have a guest on to talk about the rain, they will also have a guest on who will try and argue “oh these precipitation levels don’t constitute rain” etc. A bit contrived but you get the idea.

That's not the case at all. They may do that for some topics but not for all. At the moment coverage of Ukraine really is "war reporting" in the classic sense, i.e, there is control and a line to follow to make sure one side is pure white and the other side pure black.

In what other way could they possibly represent the war?

Some people buy into the narrative that NATO is partially to blame for the war because it allowed Ukraine to seek membership.

It seems like nonsense to me because Ukraine has not joined NATO nor is it close to doing so.

Another side would be to compare the war to other US wars of recent years. This has a bit more merit as the US has done similar invasions including bombing civilians with even more flimsy justifications without becoming an international pariah state like Russia is now. You won’t find the BBC making such comparison for sure. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

One country invaded another.

There is no other position to take.

If Putin didn't Putin then there would be no deaths. Ukraine were not planning on invading Russia.

Yes one country invaded the other and that invasion should rightly be condemned. That does not mean that one side is absolutely 'good' in everything and the other absolutely 'evil'.

A few days ago Ukrainian forces apparently shot dead an Israeli civilian at a road checkpoint because they though he was Chechen, for instance. It's been barely mentioned.

Then, sorry for bringing this up yet again, but "one country invaded another" equally applies to what the US have done many times, especially recently in Iraq (~100k-500k deaths). This does not absolve Russia but provides similar examples to show that the way global events and wars are reported depends as much on what's happening as it does on who's doing it because the bottom line is always geopolitical struggle, not 'good' and 'evil'.

You mean like this story that was on the front page of the BBC News website a couple of days ago and also featured on the 6pm and 10pm BBC 1 news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-60573719

> > A few days ago Ukrainian forces apparently shot dead an Israeli civilian at a road checkpoint

> https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-israeli-dj-kille...

> However, Mr Brodsky's family reportedly told Israel's Channel 12 news site that they blame the "dictator" Vladimir Putin for his death.

I saw it mentioned in few UK news outlets. And the family blame Putin, as they should. If Putin hadn't put everyone under this much stress to survive then there wouldn't be any question about this DJ surviving. An accident during a period of surviving what is approaching a genocide, with indiscriminate murder from a tyrant, will happen.

Yes, I saw that... Civilian summarily executed by Ukrainian forces (which is not an 'accident' and one may even call this a war crime, to use the technical term) and the emphasise is on "parents blame Putin".

I'll rest my case.

What case?

> the emphasise is on "parents blame Putin".

Definitely not the emphasis in the link I provided.

You appear to be making up your own narrative.

Except for viewers in Scotland.

Or when the Irish elected Sinn Féin MPs to parliament and the voices of the MPs were banned from the BBC.

That wasn't BBC specific - it was a law for all UK media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...

Those Sinn Fein MPs also happened to occupy leadership positions in the IRA, a proscribed terrorist organisation responsible for assassinating several MPs, launching mortar attacks against Downing Street, blowing up a hotel the PM was staying in, and murdering numerous civilians in indiscriminate bombings.

I would recommend you search for "Military Reaction Force" - the terrorism started with the British Army.

Except for trans women in articles calling them rapists, which is interesting considering they had no problems interviewing a known cis porn actress who has raped multiple people on set.

The article was titled: "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" [1], and it's a genuine phenomenon.

Note that it says "some" - there are indeed some men who want to be women pressuring actual women who are only attracted to women, to pursue sexual relationships with them. In effect, it's no different to lesbians being told variations of "I'll fuck you straight", and similar homophobic abuse, by other heterosexual men.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

1) That has nothing to do with my point that no trans women were included in the article, disproving the claim that they care about presenting both sides

2) What do men have to do with this? Are you implying trans women are men?

1. This is demonstrably incorrect, please read the article. They interviewed Rose of Dawn and Debbie Hayton, both of whom identify as transwomen, and both of whom, being decent people, are appalled by the sort of sexual coercion that the article describes.

2. Yes: by definition, transwomen are men who want to be women to such an extent that they will attempt to masquerade as such in everyday life - adopting typically female names and attire, often also taking hormonal treatments to feminise their appearance, and sometimes even undergoing genital surgery.

Both left and right claim it is biased against them.

The arguments are more complicated than that. That response serves to shut down any criticism of the BBC, as in “oh no matter what they do, they’ll be criticised”

Even if the BBC is biased, it's still in the interest of both sides to claim it is biased against them.

One side may be accurately describing the problem, the other side protecting their territory.

Interesting! It’s the same here in Sweden with the public service TV channels.

I can think of a few occasions where they have reported on some less than truthful statements from government ministers without adding any commentary. This has certainly led to allegations of bias but do you have some examples of where their news output is “flat-out propaganda”?

> I wouldn't say they are noticeably worse than other media staples

My brain simplifies the double-negative to "I would say they are among the best media staples", which significantly changes the tone of your comment while (as far as I can tell) retaining the meaning. If you disagree with that simplification, though, I would suggest citing noticeably better sources of news that people can turn to.

You can't simplify a double negative like that, when there's more than 1 bit of information. "They are [not] noticeably worse than others" can mean any one of the following:

- They are worse, but not noticeable

- They are on par with others

- They are slightly better than others

- They are much better than others

- They are the best among others

Those all seem consistent with "among the best" to me. Otherwise you would have some outlets that are noticeably better than this one, which is precisely what is claimed to not be the case.

They are implicitly comparing media sources to non-"media staples", such as your gut or your dreams. There may be "general information sources" better than those.

Seems like Node.js isn't the only language where people notably introduce dependencies.

I find their domestic coverage to sometimes be problematic but their world service is in a league of its own.

But to each their own, I suppose.

They're probably still high on their status during WWII. With that said, I think there's nothing wrong in offering alternative viewpoints and news sources to peoples who are being blatantly censored. I think more providers should offer this service.

More neutral than e.g. German state media but still less neutral than AlJazeera (when it comes to non ME matters) IMO

"less neutral than AlJazeera (when it comes to non ME matters)"

Good thing you made that exception...

There is a lot of history with the BBC for Europeans. Their foreign language service in WW2 is the stuff of legends.