They have this linked at the bottom of every news article now:
Learn how the BBC is working to strengthen trust and transparency in online news
They claim to be trusted and yet have to tell us that we should trust them. What a laugh! Usually I would dispute their claims but the entire Biased BBC blog already shows how often they can’t be trusted. For a change let’s look at how they are completely incompetent rather than just biased.
1. They claim to provide “high-quality” output, yet this has a basic spelling mistake: “We will consider all the relevant facts fairly and with and open mind.”
2. If you click on ‘BBC News Services’ either above or below the title, it leads you to this page which currently displays a 404 error.
3. The page includes the ‘Why you can trust BBC News’ link at the bottom, so if you click on it, it just loops back to the page you are already on. See here for more information about that.
I wouldn’t trust the BBC for all the tea in China.
They don’t merit trusting, or believing, or supporting, or watching, or listening to. They are the pits of an already corrupt and manipulative mainstream media. They know it, we know it. But they’ll never admit it.
I never watch, nor do I listen. I get my entertainment from elsewhere, and they are the LAST resort I would ever go to for news or information.
They should be sold off, or preferably, disbanded.
Sadly, they are just lightweight opinon tweeters these days. The inference of their beliefs and foibles, paid for by pensioners etc, are not worth a light anyway, and so if you hear or see anything from their autocue readers, manned by ‘under-managers’, then think the opposite, and you’ll get the picture!
Works every time.
I am always grateful for posters here, who do a sterling job in actually watching or listening to the BBBC, as they make the points succintly.
I have to confess to listening to the late night ‘news’ on Radio 5 Dead, when I don’t sleep, but all that does is either make me very cross, or I drop off with boredom…
Snore…
“I wouldn’t trust the BBC for all the tea in China.”
Nor can you trust SKY now!
Just of late SKY sports news reporters can be seen wearing “Raindow Badges” on their clothes! No doubt a ploy to encourage the gay footballers to come out!
Devious? No! Its all in the open now!
More project fear?
As I posted yesterday ‘they’ are getting desperate.
HYS ? I am sure you would like to add to the comments……………………………
“UK warned on cost of ‘hard Brexit’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42199262
That’s great news –
When a news organisation has to put that string on its out put you know they have issues . It’s a bit likely the “ fact check” which involves neither facts nor checks…just a version .
Yeah well we know they might not tell absolute porkies on the news programmes , but it’s about emphasis , linking and omitting that makes the bias . But that just the news programmes , what about all the others . Listen to the Now Show and you see the mob mentality of this organisation .
From checking tweets mention the page
Half are fawning from BBC lovers
Half are critical ..and point out mistakes/contradictions
https://twitter.com/DaveyJohn82/status/934090744943570945
The BBC parading it s honesty credentials is a bit like a really belligerent, fat bird going out on the pull who has spent all afternoon on the bed pulling on her unsuitably “too tight” jeans over her over generous thighs. She knows she is a fat arse but cannot admit it to herself.
She asks her friends “does my arse look big in these” and because they are mates and she is good for a round or two all her friends tell that “you look great darlin”
Out she goes on the pull gets nothing but sidelong looks and blokes laughing at her and blames them all for being “poofters or up themselves”
Such is her self belief (and despite secretly knowing she is very obese) at no point does it ever occour to her that her weight may well be an issue. Consequently surrounded by her sycophantic mates the same cycle is repeated and all that changes is that her size, volume and self belief (upwards) .
What of course she really needs is an Uncle Donald to tell her how it is but I am afraid he lost patience with her years ago. And these days after having years of fat bird being rude to him – He now allows himself a chuckle at her too.
“The BBC parading it s honesty credentials is a bit like a really belligerent, fat bird going out on the pull who has spent all afternoon on the bed pulling on her unsuitably “too tight” jeans over her over generous thighs. She knows she is a fat arse but cannot admit it to herself.
She asks her friends “does my arse look big in these” and because they are mates and she is good for a round or two all her friends tell that “you look great darlin”
Out she goes on the pull gets nothing but sidelong looks and blokes laughing at her and blames them all for being “poofters or up themselves”
Such is her self belief (and despite secretly knowing she is very obese) at no point does it ever occour to her that her weight may well be an issue. Consequently surrounded by her sycophantic mates the same cycle is repeated and all that changes is that her size, volume and self belief (upwards) .
What of course she really needs is an Uncle Donald to tell her how it is but I am afraid he lost patience with her years ago. And these days after having years of fat bird being rude to him – He now allows himself a chuckle at her too.”
And to think that these ruling elites are permitted to gain access to the minds of our children in our school!
Poor teachers!
@jamesmontgomery Director of digital development
describes the #BbcTrustProject ORWELLIAN plan
The words “NOT” and DON’T are missing from phrase at top of page
\\ We are NOT committed to achieving the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality
and DON’T strive to avoid knowingly or materially misleading our audiences.//
similarly
\\ In all our output we will treat every subject with an impartiality that reflects the full range of views NOT !
We will NOT consider all the relevant facts fairly and with and open mind. //
and
\\ Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are
notinfluenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests. //and
\\ Corrections: The BBC is NOT committed to achieving due accuracy.//
and
\\ We are open in acknowledging
mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them.WE ALWAYS GET IT ABOUT RIGHT//\\If an article has been edited since publication to correct a material inaccuracy,
a note will be added at the end of the text to signal to the reader there has been an amendment or correction and the date of that changeWE JUST STEALTH EDIT LIKE CRAZY //(btw update notes should come right at the the title, not at the bottom)
\\Unnamed Sources: The BBC’s policy and guidance on the use of anonymous sources is detailed in the Editorial Guidelines. BUT WE DON’T CARE, we just add add our own opinion and then put “sources say”//
\\BBC News articles based on original reporting carry bylines NOT//
\\ BBC News distinguishes between factual reporting and opinion. NOT //#
\\Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, should be well sourced FROM CUTTINGnPASTING from our NGO Mates PR //
\\by showing .. caveats…margins of error, YES BOLLOCKS TO THAT WE DON’T BOTHER //
Whilst the bBC was happy to show you the devastation of Gaza, Mosul and of Raqqur (Blaming the Israeli, and Americans along the way) How many know of this story which only ended the other month:
Philippines: Battle of Marawi
There are 3 videos, if you are squeamish only watch the middle one.
Suddenly I remember a book I read back in the sixties. It was called: ‘You can trust the Communists’. If I remember correctly, the gist of the book completes the sentence hidden in the title: ‘To be Communists’. Nothing much has changed in half a century. There will be exceptions, but largely BBC content can be trusted to follow the basic direction of travel it has chosen. I think it’s probably that simple. It won’t -for example- have a positive feature on Trump. Ever. That you CAN trust.
Having had that much time to watch the scene, do the odd degree in Politics and Psychology, I do think ONE THING HAS CHANGED: what was the ‘left’ then is a little different from what it is now. In a political context, the term is almost meaningless, excepting for the fact that an obsession with ‘equality’ has now become a BLIND obsession with equality. The context of Marxism-Leninism has gone. There is SOMETHING ELSE in place now.
And while I write this, I suddenly realise what else has changed: Christianity has largely gone. It had an answer for GUILT, although that is now largely forgotten. And I do think THE EXPLOITATION OF GUILT issues are at the heart of the success of the ‘left’. Remember that. We are NOT dealing with Political Philosophy, in my humble opinion. We are dealing primarily with PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SPIRITUAL issues.
Feeling guilty about colonialism? You probably had nothing to do with it, but by gum, start feeling guilty. It was ALL BAD. Yup, no good features at all. FEELING GUILTY YET? What about Nazism? Had anything to do with that? No? Think again. Go to the mirror and look at your complexion. It could be that it’s a bit on the pale side. I suspect really, a bit of the R word in you. Get it now? You need to ATONE, my friend. You need to DEMONSTRATE some virtue, my friend. Cos, by gum you may not actually have done anything, but you’re guilty as heck. Atonement now. Show everyone.
I ask myself: How does someone like Mutti Merkel break national and international laws like they didn’t exist and still come up a heroine instead of being in jail? ANSWER: She’s in the most guilty country of all. (It may not factually be so but you better believe it.) The people are thus easiest to manipulate.
But be very afraid: Britain’s not far behind. When you start hearing about ‘decolonisation’ in this country, you can start guessing the name of the game.
In my humble opinion. I could be wrong, of course. I’m just an OAP. What do I know?
Original : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3018096-you-can-trust-the-communists
Free text online : https://archive.org/details/FredSchwarzYouCanTrustTheCommuniststoBeCommunists
: 40 year update
I remember a description of Queen Elizabeth’s Golden Jubilee as being similar to Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee. The only difference was that Victorian colonialism was an extroverted global colonialism while Elizabethan colonialism is an inverted British city based colonialism. Both were supported by Liberals who wanted to look after and care for vulnerable ethnics. Its funny how the Commonwealth was not turned into a united superstate like the Russian Empire was turned into the Soviet Union.
Instead the Liberals turned against the multiracial Commonwealth, and instead preferred to join a European Union in which only a common racial identity unifies. So I wonder if the Liberals are subconscious white supremacists, driven by guilt of this fact. This could explain a lot of the politically correct censorship based lunacy that we see today in the MSM.
I was rudely cut off. One more thing I wanted to say, which I learned from a ‘PEANUTS’ cartoon: If you didn’t do it yourself, you’re NOT GUILTY. Guilt is an individual thing, not a collective one. Many campaigns on the go. Some have some merit. But all don’t have ALL merit. What could be driving them, in part, may not be an issue of justice, as often pretended. Frequently, the driver will simply be the exploitation of perceived ‘collective guilt’. So take care out there.
White privilege : You are guilty cos you are white
Male privilege : You are guilty cos you are male
Hetrosexual privilege : You are guilty cos you are hetrosexual
.. To correct for this all special victim groups are #MoreEqualThan you
Pretty much ‘Tell it often enough’ incarnate.
If you have to resort to this to persuade people how trustworthy you are, you really are not.
Also Nick Robinson seems to be getting even more deranged than already.
Someone challenged him on Tiwitter, on a daft photo op with a BFF.
He claimed he didn’t know who it was, which the BBC always allows others to use in excuse. Not.
He’s then torn apart on simple observable facts.
It’s the little things.
If we can trust BBC news, can we trust them to ask key questions of interviewees and other contributors? That is also important. By selective questioning, as any Barrister or Judge knows, one can lead a Jury.
For example, this morning on TODAY (BBC R4, 6-9am but in the 8.10am interview by Danny Shaw with Neil Lewis (a former policeman involved in the original investigation of Damien Green’s Parliamentary Office) Danny Shaw failed to ask Neil Lewis a key question: what security settings were set on the computer on which the claimed pornographic images were found? That is a very important question because it may provide a clue as to whether Damian Green had downloaded the material or whether it was added or ‘found its way on to the machine’ in some way.
Amazingly, both Danny Shaw AND Mishal Husain had both forgotten about the House of Commons computer security breach either earlier this year or at the end of 2016. (I at least remember the breach, not when it occurred. Bit better than the BBC people!)
Mishal Husain went on to state that Neil Lewis had had access to the computer. Danny Shaw had made no attempt to establish a trail of possession and control over the computer during the investigation by careful questioning of Neil Lewis. No questions were then asked about who else may have had access to the machine during the investigation, whether it was taken from Damien Green’s office, where it was held in the meantime and who might have had access to it.
Further, during WatO at lunchtime, Neil Lewis & Mark Mardell (BBC) raised the issue of public interest. They may not have been wise to do so. We – the public – now have an interest in whether Neil Lewis has any past or present political affiliations and Trade Union affiliations and also exactly what contact the BBC has had with him and when. I gather from subsequent news that the Metropolitan Police are not quite as lackadaisical as the BBC and are themselves asking more questions of Mr Lewis. An interesting contrast!
There is a strange lack of interest from BBC journalists and presenters with some matters presented for broadcast but not others. A lack of professional rigour? Perhaps. Laziness? Perhaps. Something more, an agenda? Perhaps. Deliberate attempts to disrupt or attack? Perhaps. These are all possible.
Whatever is the cause or causes, there is I think sufficient reason there to subject both Mishal Husain and Danny Shaw to BBC ‘Gilligan’ re-training sessions. We wouldn’t want the BBC to continue being guilty of broadcasting FakeNews and losing the trust of the listening and viewing public, would we?
Isn’t it the Editors rather than the presenters who decide what the material should be ?
Dadad
I think you are absolutely right. I’m sure that if, in the most unlikely event an “extreme right winger”were to get the job we would see a vast difference in the way the news was presented to the public. Communists and Liberals are the preferred candidates and it shows.
Dadad, yes – up to a point. The presenters are all journalists and once upon a time wrote their air copy and would have organised their questions, not doubt in concert with the Editors.
Now? Who knows. We might take the post-Christmas guest editing of TOADY as a guide: obviously news arising drives the overall agenda but the Editor includes some items of their own interest for BBC employees to pursue.
The presenters have an Editor or Asst.Ed. to jabber in their ear as well, during the broadcast. This is possibly to remind about a question or questions unasked but also with time reminders (TOADY Presenters are notorious for being unable to read a clock) and perhaps advice on re-scheduling due to, say, contributor travel delays or phone-link problems.
Obviously, with Danny, Mishal and the Neil Lewis interview, no-one – Editors, Presenters and correspondents – at the BBC was doing a very good job or … perhaps they intended it that way? Maybe they are fully involved in trying to smear a Government Minister so that he is sacked? We need to know.
There is now a public interest issue that is wider than the Green Cabinet Office investigation.
Ten reasons why you cannot trust BBC News:
(1) Censorship of facts
(2) Ignorance of facts
(3) Deceptions presented as facts
(4) Assumptions presented as facts
(5) Opinion presented as facts
(6) Wishful thinking presented as facts
(7) Guesses presented as facts
(8) Speculation presented as facts.
(9) Fears presented as facts
(10) Computer Model predictions presented as facts
Speaking of BBC trust, I was inspired to check one of their most ardent, if bonkers defenders. He has been oddly quiet of late. This went well.
Remember Hugs’ ‘don’t tweet anything stupid’? Nick clearly did.
I’m intrigued by all this tweeting by all those trustful people at the BBC. The BBC is supposed to be impartial. Yes? But on these tweets (which identify the culprits as part of the BBC) they seem to be able to reveal (revel?) all their blatant biases. How is this allowed to happen? I suppose the advantage of all the biased tweeting is that the individual biases of the ever-so-trusty staff of the ever-so-trusty BBC is revealed for all to see quite plainly.
“The BBC is supposed to be impartial. ”
But just think what the BBC will look like once those old BBC news presenters die-off!
Bet the young employees can’t wait!
No wonder Nick Robinson is tweeting so much!
Oh how they must regret the whole ‘fake news’ meme. The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. Nobody can ever watch ‘news’ again without questioning what they are seeing. Add to this Trump’s daily invective against them – they really are finished.