[jmtd]

Perhaps the title-writer has been infected by the BBC news editorial policy. They seem to be turning clickbait titles into a fine art, combined with renaming articles so you think it's a new piece on the same story, but turns out you've already read it. (If you read BBC News at all that is: my wife still does, I gave it up years ago and haven't looked back.)

I love many aspects of the BBC but sadly not their news output anymore.

(Sorry I realise this has very little to do with the R&D article.)

[thorin]

I used to think the BBC news was definitive 5-10 years ago. I'm not sure what has changed? Have the recent governments and their pressure on the license fee really made the difference or is it just my perception?

When I was young the BBC was always seen as pretty left wing (it certainly wasn't at it's inception though) it seems pretty conservative (and sensationalist) right now.

[vidarh]

Both sides of the political spectrum regularly complains about the BBC being biased towards the other side. It's the best evidence that whatever bias there is either is minor or short-lived.

In my eyes, the biggest problem with the BBC isn't bias, but that they're terrified of seeming too biased, and as a result they're wishy-washy in ways that ironically makes them seem biased.

E.g. the left will accuse them of being right wing because they don't write in more critical terms about the governments willingness to deal with the Saudis, while the right will accuse them of a left wing bias for not writing in more critical terms about Chavez, and so on. Similarly they're often accused of bias for not reporting something, or very carefully reporting something, that either side believe to be fact, but where there's not (yet) actual firm evidence. Of course, if done "against" just one side, this too would be actual bias, but the BBC appears to be pretty consistent about it.

So we're left with reporting that is rarely very biased, but often exceedingly unsatisfying for everyone.

I'm not saying there's no bias - I don't believe that would be possible. But I do think that the allegations of bias against the BBC tend to be wildly exaggerated.

[newjersey]

There was a comment here a few months ago which mentioned a term. I have forgotten the term since but it effectively described a situation where an expert in subject matter foo reads an article about foo in a well-regarded news source (like say the Economist) which is either pretty incorrect or pretty biased and then the subject matter expert goes "wow they know nothing about foo" and then turns the page and reads about another topic let's say bar (or maybe let's say Middle East politics) which our subject matter expert knows little or nothing about and then our subject matter expert says "wow, this news source is very insightful".

If we read about articles on key escrow or actually anything about cryptography and surveillance in general, we will find it hard to see BBC is accurate (neutral is not the same as accurate because to be neutral about anything -- and here comes Godwin's law -- involves saying that there was a legitimate excuse governments to act in a way that is not beneficial to millions of its citizens. Anti-terrorism rhetoric is way overboard and news outlets like BBC are fully on the bandwagon (although thankfully much less so compared to CNN, Fox News, and other low lives). Honestly, I think our fear of terrorists has caused more damage to the world economy than all the "acts of terror" combined. Ordinary people should not be afraid or even mindful of "acts of terror" in their daily life any more than they need to be afraid or mindful of a meteor shower hitting them in the head. Everyone goes over the top with "security precautions" because they don't want to be seen as doing nothing. The point here is BBC does not preserve this neutrality at all. I bet even CNN and Fox could do better if they were organizations that has their funding guaranteed, as opposed to being under the mercy of its advertisers. Sorry but what BBC does is nothing exemplary for someone in its shoes.

[jameshart]

It's called the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, a name coined by Michael Crichton: http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/the-gell-mann-amne...

[vidarh]

> Sorry but what BBC does is nothing exemplary for someone in its shoes.

I didn't suggest they were exemplary at all. On the contrary, I criticised them for not doing a proper job because they're worried about coming across as biased.

They've chosen to deal with criticism of bias by essentially trying their utmost to never say or do anything controversial, but the nature of the real world is that a lot of the most important journalism necessarily steps hard on someones toes.

[7952]

When you just look at the website it is easy to forget just how much current affairs content the BBC produces. Across TV and radio their are numerous news programs with different skews. News Night or PM can sound completely different to Breakfast or Five Live. I would rather individual programs are allowed to show bias as long as the output in general is balanced. It is ridiculous that every single program acts like it is the only thing the viewer will ever watch.

[roywiggins]

Notably, they've taken flack for being wishy-washy on climate change, and eventually had to put out a directive to stop giving equal time to deniers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/0...

[a_humean]

The Iraq war and David Kelly's suicide is what happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry

Add things like the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal, and the ongoing threat from the conservative government to turn the BBC into the equivalent of America's PBS (irrelevant on the political landscape, lacking financial heft, and in close to nonexistent viewership) and you have a recipe for a neutered public news broadcaster too afraid to do anything meaningful.

[silicon_wally]

Where do you read news? I'm looking to find a source other than the BBC

[MistahKoala]

Although it's foreign, I've found Christian Science Monitor to be fairly diligent and insightful. If nothing else, I've found it difficult to identify an institutional bias in their coverage and outlook.

[SixSigma]

Agreed. The science section has a fine selection of rehashed press releases.