Aah, the good old days when the BBC was un-biased.
These days you would get a government flunky, and on the other side of the table a pro-government flunky from a lobbying outfit whose real accreditation has been carefully omitted by the BBC and they have been instead been given some generic independent sounding job title.
I'm not joking! BBC Radio 4 famously recently did a "Brexit anniversary programme". Three people in the studio, the presenter and two guests. The two guests were .... Theresa Villiers and Daniel Hannan, two hardcore Brexteers who, of course, spent the entire interview session fighting completely unchallenged over who could give the most sycophantic sunlit-uplands view of Brexit.
???: "Peter Mandelson is a hom… owner"
Regular guest: "Why can't gay people own homes?"
Host: "Well, new Director General, let's see if that goes out."
At the time, and I'm pleasantly amazed how fast this has changed, being gay and in charge was still mildly scandalous in the eyes of tabloids, and that was about the same time the age of consent was equalised.
However such (entirely valid) reasons for respecting privacy should be for all, but as far as I remember Mandelson was the only person who got to keep that particular secret.
Conversely, right after the referendum someone said the BBC should play "God Save The Queen" at the end of the day's programming in concordance with the departure from the EU, and Newsnight responded with this, which is still up on their official channel: https://youtu.be/WwsQ_5Wm4oo
I thought Alastair Campbell was Blair's Cummings ?
Imagine if they'd shared a contemporary work calling the monarchy a fascist regime.
As it stands it was just a cute joke, and in a way only served to reinforce the soft power of parliament by entering into a playful discourse with it.
The recent attack on Gary Lineker for not being "impartial" (not being sufficiently uncritical of Government policy) was particularly galling.
I'm curious, around when do you think that changed? And was there a specific story they reported on (or didn't report on) that really solidified the change for you?
The smell of change appeared more clearly in the run-up to Brexit. Certainly post-Brexit I would say it is very much evident.
> And was there a specific story they reported on (or didn't report on) that really solidified the change for you?
To be clear (as per my Radio 4 example cited above), it is not necessarily a case of "reported on / did not report on", it is frequently more a case of bias / lack of impartiality, again as nicely exemplified by my "two hardcore Brexiteers fight over Brexit" example[1].
However, I could also give you many examples of "reported on/did not report on". Perhaps one of the most well known is Lady Mone of House of Lords fame. She is/was subject to various investigations regarding supply of PPE during CoVID.
For a long time, Lady Mone's investigations were widely reported in all mainstream media (tabloids, broadsheets, other mainstream TV/Radio news ... you name the place, it was reported there).
But the BBC ? Nope. No mention on TV/Radio news, and for a long time a search for "Mone" on the BBC News website yielded exactly zero results.
Even today although you can now find a small number of mentions on the BBC website, you'll have to go looking on other mainstream sources for the actual detail.[2]
[1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/23289638.bbc-slated-insult... [2] https://www.thenational.scot/news/20107509.bbc-refuses-say-h...
EDIT TO ADD (because I can't reply to the @Veen directly)
> Leftists think it's an establishment mouthpiece run by the Tories.
Well....
I see how they could feel that way when the recently appointed BBC Chairman is a chap who appears to have more than a few ties to Boris Johnson[3].
[3] https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/digital-cultu...
Regardless of the fine detail about who knew what at what time, history has vindicated people who were skeptical about the claims being made to provoke the invasion of Iraq, and it was not right of the Blair government to attempt to suppress them.
(Mind you, the BBC has never been really able to report on the security state; see the Troubles, or the Zircon Affair)
The chair is a Tory. We can then quibble over "run by", but you can't ignore the significant connections at high level.
For all its flaws, it does a huge amount of good. All reporting will inevitably hold a bias simply because selection of story for time scheduled news will _always_ involve excluding other news items.
The amount of criticism the BBC recieves is significant, and it's gone up a lot more recently.
I think it's a reflection of the incumbent gov more than the state of the organisation. There are strong forces working against the BBCs more egalitarian aims.
One of the funnier stories supporting this is that MI5 had to ask the BBC to stop sending everyone for vetting because it was unnecessary!
> when MI5 suggested scaling back the number of jobs subject to vetting, the BBC argued against such a move.
Something the BBC lied about repeatedly and only admitted years after other news agencies broke the story.
Now it's run by the guy who was the PMs boss and who organised a loan for the last PM. And people claims it's totally independent? These sound like stories about RT.
If you're referring to the Electronic Communications Bill, it did indeed become an act. And in fact it contained an explicit section prohibiting the imposition of escrow (which has not been removed by any subsequent amendments): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/7/part/III
14 Prohibition on key escrow requirements
(1) Subject to subsection (2), nothing in this Act shall confer any power on any Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales or on any person appointed under section 3—
(a) by conditions of an approval under Part I, or
(b) by any regulations or order under this Act,
to impose a requirement on any person to deposit a key for electronic data with another person.
What's more, you can read a transcript of a parliamentary debate about escrow where all sides were keen to ensure it was clearly not part of the final text https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2000-01-25a.174.1
The debate on key escrow raged for some time. Foremost among the original proponents of key escrow was my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). However, the debate has moved on—as has my hon. Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that.
It was thus crucial that key escrow should not be included in the Bill. There would be no power for the Government, or for some agency, to demand that the key—as between public and private—for the de-encryption of material could be deposited with a third party. However, we were concerned that key escrow might be introduced through the back door.
Complimented for being a rational human being, no less.
No wonder he quit.
https://www.telepolis.de/features/UK-Electronic-Communicatio...
I mean, I literally quoted an MP saying "The debate on key escrow raged for some time" and linked to the full debate in which it was spoken; hardly a sensible "escrow was never a concern" move. The Telepolis link backs this up with detail - escrow was proposed by the Tories, pledged against yet initially retained by Labour, and eventually withdrawn.
The comment to which I was replying said that an entire bill was junked. I think it's much more interesting, and indeed important, to note that in actuality the act passed with an explicit prohibition of escrow. If the bill was dropped then it would likely have been a case of the govt going, oh, damn, we got embarrassed - kill it for now, we'll come back to it later, but bury it under something else. But no - there was public debate, and democracy functioned as we would all hope - a terrible idea was proposed, defeated, and legislated against.
Also I don't trust any government not to mishandle crypto keys, so backdoored encryption = broken encryption
While I understand what you mean, there are already keys which are "infinitely valuable": root CA keys. If you have those, you can essentially impersonate anyone. Therefore, we must have ways to protect these sort of keys.
That being said, a root CA key is probably locked up on an air gapped machine vs some machine which actively using the key to scan through traffic.
Mainly pointing out here that the idea of value vs cost has to have some point at which we protect it regardless of the value because thats how the hierarchy of trust works in our CA system.
CAs have been nuked on occasion without much fanfare to everyday users.
https://www.cloudflare.com/dns/dnssec/root-signing-ceremony/
Once. This would be immediately detected through Certificate Transparency and there would be front-page headlines around the world about the chaos that ensued as vendors issued a critical update blocking that CA certificate.
They'll eventually get it.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
Diffie just started by explaining that cybersecurity is all about securing some asset from threats such that the cost of attack was too great given the value of the asset. How do you protect the store that has all the cryptographic keys in the entire United Kingdom? It would be essentially infinitely valuable as a cyberattack target. Government dude was totally out of his depth and the bill was eventually dropped.
[1] Turing award winner and the Diffie in Diffie-Hellman. Fair to say he's a guy who knows a thing or two about cryptography.