Talk:BBC/Archive 8

Is there a justification why the BBC is state owned?

Why not privatize it? What makes the BBC special from all the other state owned media in other “evil” countries?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to debate whether the BBC is or should be state owned or private it is for Wikipedia to report it's status from a Neutral Point of View. Your comment is your own POV as such does not belong in Wikipedia. Wilmot1 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As above, its not really a wikipedia comment to debate or make judgement. However for what its worth, you'll find the major difference is one of charter. The BBC, like the ABC in australia and a few others have charters to remain politically independant. The theory is that with a non advertising quasi-autonomous organisation the news reporting can remain unbiased without fear or favor. Whether that succeeds is another matter. It *usually* works well, as long as governments try not to interfere ,as happened in australia when the former conservative government tried to take it over by appointing ultra-conservatives to its board claiming some sort of vast left wing conspiracy. Its not really a wikipedia topic. Duckmonster (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's privately owned, then it more easily becomes a mouthpiece for the owners. Being owned by the government, there's more of a tendency for it to become a mouthpiece for the government, but its charter and the laws surrounding it make that slightly harder for the government to do; and you can at least vote for a change in government, it's harder to vote for a change in a private companies ownership; believe it or not, governments actually start to sweat when they try to make even very slight changes to the BBC, it's really quite popular, and any meddling would be very likely to be a major vote loser...- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC Pakistan Correspondents

I would like to bring to attention of the wiki community that BBC correspondents in Pakistan like Mr. Ahmed Rashid are doing selective journalism. How did BBC determine in chosing them that they are no bias?

[Your point would have no strength, but very little if ou wrote grammatically]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs)

What is BBC's selection criterion? As a citizen of Pakistan, it is so obvious to me that these correspondents are like political activists who write or talk with a bias for their political view/motive. Is this a policy of BBC to have such personal located in Pakistan or it is just their incompetent selection. If it is the former, then I would request and plea for BBC to support true journalism in our country. If it is the latter, then I will request a review of their reporting in Pakistan. Junaidullah 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia to attempt to defend the BBC against any accusations; to make a complaint about any of the BBC's services or specific people, visit bbc.co.uk/complaints. Thank you. Wikiwoohoo 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have complaint to the BBC a number of times when I see flaws in reporting and/or I see that BBC correspondents show their personal prejudice. I have also observed that the content controllers in BBC also heavily sensor complaints or certain views which might be out of the obvious when allowed to have our say. My comments here are not a complaint now but a reflection of my mind which could certainly trigger a talk. Junaidullah 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're complaint is with the BBC, we can't help you. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This isnt a place for discussing opinions on BBC output. It is for discussing the Wikipedia article about the BBC. If you wish to discuss the BBC I recommend an Internet forum (such as Digital Spy) or usenet group. Pit-yacker 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a complaint, I repeat. It is a talk to establish if it is true that BBC choses correspondents who have personal prejudice or have dictated or already established bias opinions. Whether this should be included in the main article is the talk here. I am particularly concerned about the behavior of BBC content editors and correspondents in Pakistan but this talk may include other third world countries and if it is established from reliable sources, then it can be included in the main article. Junaidullah 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Most complaints about BBC bias claim bias in more than one direction and tend to cancel out. --jmb 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC can be bias or not, my discussion point is the selection or hiring of correspondents. Does BBC realize that most journalists in Pakistan have personal prejudices and even at times report exclusively for certain political parties or even communities. What selection process has BBC adopted to ensure they don't place personal who always report a single view point. Take Mr. Ahmed Rashid as an example. He is obviously very sound in his academics but I rarely see an honest article from him which covers all shades of a story. Maybe my discussion is part of a greater discussion of editorial preferences and contradictions in one's editorial choices when reporting in local press or foreign press because BBC certainly is a British based international news channel. Taking Mr. Ahmed Rashid as an example again, even when reporting deeply internal matters of Pakistan, I have observed him to dissect (negative press) some sections of Pakistan society while being distant from other regardless of how much could be reported there. Does BBC have enough knowledge and understanding of the culture, history and lifestyle of Pakistan society to identify a suitable candidate or atleast keep the selected journalist honest? I don't think so. The question is to include BBC's wrong or incompetent choice of journalists in the main article. Junaidullah 09:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source which talks about this claimed problem with BBC Pakistani journalists it does not belong to the article. If you have any questions about the BBC journalist selection process, try asking them not us. BTW from what I can tell Ahmed Rashid is not a BBC journalist. He is an independent journalist sometimes used by the BBC. BTW, there is no such thing as a journalist who doesn't have any bias. Any journalist who claims that he or she is IMHO should be ignored. I highly doubt Ahmed Rashid claims to be free of bias Nil Einne 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody with any long term knowledge (say 50 years) of BBC output knows it is always contended by some on grounds of bias, whether of a right-wing, left wing, socialist, fascist, nationalist, internationalist or any other point. Don't gripe. If you've got a valid point to make get yourself interviewed on the Beeb.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs)

GA Review?

The article history box says that this article is a GA, and yet I cant find any mention of a GA review in any of the archives. I have left the current status as a GA for now, but if nobody can find proof that this article was actually promoted to GA through the correct procedures, then it will be reverted to B-class until it is nominated again - • The Giant Puffin • 11:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the errors introduced to ArticleHistory; see the instructions at {{ArticleHistory}}. You may be misunderstanding the GA process; reviews weren't routinely done in the past to confer GA, and still aren't necessary. GAR is not GAN. The article is a GA, is listed at WP:GA, and the articlehistory shows the correct date when GA was conferred. You can review the talk page diffs for the history, or initiate a GA review if you feel the article doesn't meet current standsrds (but please note that current processes are not added to articlehistory). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

General Electric

"The original British Broadcasting Company was founded in 1922 by a group of telecommunications companies (including subsidiaries of General Electric and AT&T)" Really? should this not be GEC, the British company, not General Electric, the American one, two totally different companies?

Almost certainly. But the British GE company was properly called GE in the UK. The American company marketed under the Monogram brand—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs)

CEEFAX

""In 1974, the BBC's teletext service, CEEFAX, was introduced but was not finally transmitted in vision as such until April 1980."

I don't understand the relevance of "was not finally transmitted in vision as such until April 1980". CEEFAX is a teletext service which was never intended to be used in vision just the BBC discovered that it was a useful way of getting a source of pictures to use outside programme hours. The writer seems to think that this was the purpose of CEEFAX. It is a bit like saying that Wikipedia was started in one year but not finally printed out on paper until some later date. --jmb 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, didn't understand this myself. Maybe what the statement is intended to convey is that while teletext is totally ubiquitous these days, early adopters had to pay a big markup for the new-fangled teletext capable TV's. Not unlike HDTV, NICAM, DVD's etc.. except that the rate of take-up was slower. So when they started broadcasting CEEFAX pages as a visual image, it actually was the first time many people got to see the service. It's how I first got to see it, on a black&white TV (starts mumbling about how 'everything was better when I were a lad, we used to live in a cardboard box on the..') EasyTarget 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC

When I removed the criticism of O'Reilly it was put back with the complaint that such criticism is common and deserves mention. I happen to agree, though I don't understand the reason for O'Reilly's mention. That's why I wrote a new paragraph. It has two sources and I could provide at least another three, though they aren't necessary. This information also appears in Criticism of the BBC. Antony Jay is speaking of a liberal bias that allegedly occurred 20 years ago. Talking Politics, a BBC radio programme broadcast two weeks ago, spoke of 30 years, nevertheless I've replaced "long" with "often". I don't believe that what is written is at all vague and it's certainly not unsourced.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

One more source was added and the paragraph now reads exactly as it did when originally added. I used good sources the first time so read them before reverting next time.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, hebrew is none of the 33 languages used by the BBC but arabic is. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.11.222 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At a guess, because most Israelis also speak either English or Russian, so the BBC don't figure it's cost-effective. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

15 million Hebrew speakers in the world, versus at least 186 million Arabic speakers. Priorities. Nick Cooper 08:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

General Electric

As someone else mentioned above, two companies are mentioned as being instrumental in the founding of the BBC. General Electric and AT&T. Is the first of these meant to be the US company General Electric or the UK company The General Electric Company plc? If no one can provide a definitive answer or source for this I'll take it out. Miremare 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Significance & BBC PCs

Although undoubtedly necessary within the article, the whole Cultural significance section reads like someone just cobbled down a brief analysis. I'm sure there are detailed analyses of the Beeb's impact by sociologists and so on. If anyone's got time it might be good to get a few references in for the valid statements and edit the remainder which seem like broad generalisations and suppositions.

The BBC PC's section has no relevance to the BBCi service so I added it into the Miscellanious category. (195.188.208.251 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Monopoly?

Was there ever any criticism of the BBC's monopoly of British television broadcasts? It just seems odd to me—coming from America where we've long had at very least ABC, NBC, and CBS competing with one another—to see the Brits having originally only one and later primarily one source of all television programming (to say nothing of radio). RobertM525 09:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes resulting in the Television Act 1955 which inflicted commercial television on us. And to what many see as a decline in standards.

The issue of the quality of output not its quantity has always been an issue here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs)

As far as television is concerned not that I am aware. It perhaps reveals a slightly different culture around broadcasting in Europe as whole to the US. Over here broadcasting has traditionally been very heavily regulated. The whole television landscape is very much a creation of government legislation. The lack of television channels has a lot more to do with the control the government, exercised over broadcast licensing than being the fault of the BBC.

Its also worth note that although the BBC started television broadcasts in 1932 prior to the outbreak of World War 2 in 1939, television broadcasts were suspended during the war, and didnt resume until 1946. Even then television was very much a minority audience and didnt really (AFAICT) come of age until the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953. The first commercial channel, ITV, took to the air a couple of years later in 1955. Its worth note at this point that the creation of commercial TV was opposed by some, the Labour Party for one, others viewed the idea of commercial tv as vulgar (and the anti-Beebies would never let me get away without mentioning the BBC itself opposed commercial TV). Even today, ITV and the licensing process that surrounds it is still a complete creation of government - it really isnt a "free market" of any description. ITV licence holders are perhaps better described as contractors - the government decides to create a regional TV service and a number of companies bid for the 10 year "licence" to broadcast that service. The said licence typically comes with quite a number of obligations (although rapidly shrinking) regarding the number of hours of different types of progmramming that should be broadcast.

Nor in reality is there freedomin the US The FCC exercises an inhibiting an nannyish control.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs)

reply to what 213.78.145.81 said above: The FCC is not the equivalent of the BBC. The FCC's equivalent in Britain would be, I think it is OFCOM "office of communications". Our equivalent of the BBC is CPB, "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting", which came about under Nixon in the 1970s. The FCC is a regulatory agency NOT a content provider. Their original mission was to ensure that broadcast stations did not interfere with each other (and that remains their primary mission). Also, the FCC did not exist until about 30 years after commercial radio broadcast began in the Great Nation of the United States of America. That's right, for the first 30 years there was no regulation of radio broadcast in the USA (tv did not exist at the time). You see, in the USA, a man is assumed to be free to do a given thing until We the People, as represented in the Congress, decide to make a law to regulate said action. 213.78.145.81 is definitely correct that this is a completely different political paradigm than what one finds in Europe, where the belief is "the King will take care of us". In America, the attitude is "we will take care of ourselves". We don't have TV licenses in the great USA because the Constitution states that the government cannot conduct searches and seizures without a warrant, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as an individual right to privacy. In other words, if you have a device in your own home, which does not transmit, and therefore cannot affect the rights of others, the government has no right to tell you that you cannot operate said device. Therefore, no tv licenses in the USA. Our equivalent of the BBC is funded by a VERY small part of the federal budget; they have a budget of 400 million USA dollars (about 204 million uk pounds). That's all they get. Britain could get rid of the ridiculous TV license if they would limit the BBC budget to this amount, and just take it from the general fund. Also, since Great Britain can only use 5 terrestrial broadcast tv channels for the whole country, as to avoid interference with Europe, the BBC actually should not get a TV channel, only radio. Because We the People should take priority over the Queen in terms of getting a voice in broadcast. But again, that would get back to fundamental differences between the USA paradigm and the European paradigm. As long as America has existed as in independent nation (since 1776), we have never had a monarch, and will never have a monarch: the American people will never give up our sovereignty to a monarch. The Brits would do well to learn from us. LONG LIVE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!!!!! :-)71.116.65.232 (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The UK didnt see a third channel (BBC Two) until 1964 (in truth it actually took ITV almost that long to get nationwide coverage - AFAICT partly government releasing licences coupled with the lack of commercial incentive to broadcast to hills of sheep.).

Channel 4 (contrary to popular belief from the start and still state-owned) didnt come along until 1982. It was created as a "commerical" alternative to the BBC. However at creation, came with lots of complicated regulatory cross-subsidisation from ITV (i.e. If C4 didnt raise enough advertising revenue, the government raided ITV's advertising revenues) to prop up its advertising revenues. These were abolished at the insistance of C4 in the 90s. Perhaps rather foolishly, as C4 is now whinging that it is going to have a £100m pa funding gap by digital switchover in 2012.

If so why are there channels like More which C4 owns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs)

More4, E4, and Film4 are about propping up advertising revenue to try and minimise the above mentioned gap. You might notice that most programmes are typically recycled several times around at least two out of the 4 channels in the C4 family - quite simply it is a method of generating more money from exactly the same programming (i.e minimal extra outlay). IIRC C4 and ITV plc also share a doctrine of the more channels you have the more likely viewers are to be watching your channel (thus again propping up audience share and revenues). The purpose of the timeshifts (+1) channels is exactly the same but moreso (i.e. next to zero additional cost). Some might suggest that More4 serves a further purpose - with E4 being unashamedly entertainment based (and at the time FilmFour being a premium channel and (the at the time C4 owned) QuizCall being well... the less said the better) it helps make sure that C4 manages to continue to pin itself to the public service mast. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Although satellite started in 1989 and cable had been around much earlier (although cable has very limited coverage in the UK), most of the UK didnt (many still dont) get another channel until the government released a licence for channel 5, which took to the air in 1997.

Although the advent of digital TV has weakened the strangle hold of the "traditional" broadcasters. They are still very dominant through their government granted ability to reach every single television set in the UK. Contrary to cleverly spun government figures on access to digital television more than half the television sets in the UK still only pick up analogue terrestrial (i.e. at most BBC 1 to Channel 5). Even as far as digital TV goes - the dominance doesnt really look to be slipping very much - Freeview - the largest digital TV platform in the UK is dominated by BBC (UKTV is part owned by the BBC's commercial division), ITV, C4, and Five owned channels. Pit-yacker 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Freeview unlike On-digital is a startling success —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs)

Wow. Isn't there an article talking about this anywhere on Wikipedia--contrasting the American model (and Canadian, unless I'm mistaken) for television compared to the British one? I mean, are you saying that most Brits don't have cable/satellite TV and rely on over-the-air broadcasts in the form of about 5 channels? Either the UK isn't very diverse in their TV watching habits, Brits don't watch much in the way of TV, or TV watching in the UK must stink. :) Because it sounds like there's not much variety there. (Of course, this coming from someone who hasn't really watched TV in any real sense in two years... :D ). RobertM525 09:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pay TV didnt really exist at all in the UK until about 1989. It is possibly better to distinguish between TV sets and homes:

• The current figures suggest that about 40% of homes have access to pay tv of some form, and that around 80% have access to digital TV (i.e many only access Free to air channels).
• However this disguises the reality that most people only have pay-tv on one television in the house. There are 26m homes in the UK and 60m television sets. Of these around 12m sets have access to pay-tv and around 30m in total have digital TV.

Perhaps part of the difference in the numbers of subscribers is related to the levels of regulation in the UK (and Europe) compared to the US. Compared to the US, even the commercial terrestrial channels (C4, Five and ITV) are obliged to meet quite stringent public service obligations. At least traditionally this meant that even ITV (for example) would produce a huge variety of specialised programming (even then an ITV broadcast licence has traditionally been regard as a licence to print money)- the type that AFAICT the US only gets on subscription TV.

At the same time there (AFAICT) is huge difference in US pay-tv to UK pay-tv. On the whole in the UK, pay-tv consists almost exclusively of US imports and recycling in some cases ancient programming produced by the BBC/ITV and C4 (i.e. subscription TV is cheap to produce. BBC One and ITV1 have an annual programming budget of about £1b each (give or take the odd hundred million), the flagship pay-tv channel Sky One has a budget of £100m). Where as, in the US pay channels tend to commission a lot more programming of their own. IMHO, I have long held the opinion that most of these UK channels could survive as free-to-air (many people would dispute this) but choose to charge because there is a significant body of people who are prepared (perhaps stupid enough) to stump up the cash to watch the likes of the Simpsons on a 3-month rotation or an episode of a programme which was broadcast on a Free channel last week or will be next week.

Whilst, in my opinion pay-tv benefited in the early days of digital-tv because there was effectively no choice but to pay for digital TV (all platforms were primarily pay - that is primarily were we got to the current number of pay users - throughout the 90s the number of pay-tv subscribers was pretty static at around 3m), the collapse of ITV Digital and the rise of Freeview (and more recently Freesat) has given the population a way into digital TV without subscribing - this has caused the numbers going into pay-tv to all but dry up to a trickle. Indeed the dominant cable operator Virgin Media, props up (read "props up" as "stops from dropping") its subscriber numbers by giving a basic package away when you subscribe to its Internet and telephone service. Even Sky suffers quite badly from churn these days, argubly keeping a neglible subscriber growth (There are around 10 Freeview boxes/TVs sold for every Sky sub), by giving cheap telephone packages and free Internet access with to its TV subscribers. Both seem quite fond of splashing out on retention deals, especially when targets that trigger directors bonuses come around ;).

At the same time the influx of users of FTA digital TV has attracted channels that were originally subscription only to drop encrpytion and broadcast to any (something which I feel proves my earlier point about sub channels being able to survive FTA). However space on Freeview is very limited. There is room for a maximum of about 30 channels, what's worse (for some) is that the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five are "gifted space" (they get a certain amount of space for free whereas purely commercial channels must pay around £10m a year for it - the BBC alone has one third of the space on Freeview, ITV directly controls about 25%, etc) due to their status as "public service broadcasters". This means that the Freeview is effectrively dominated by those companies, with only a hnadful of others being present Sky, and Virgin Media Television being the primary ones (the other two dominant players in the UK). The only others who really have a look in are Emap (rumoured to be selling to C4) and MTV Networks who run TMF which is more or less a free version of MTV (basically if you sub to MTV you get to watch the programmes sooner).

Despite all that, we are regulatly told by Brits and non-Brits alike that apparently the UK has the best television in the world. Pit-yacker 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RobertM525 - "Brits don't watch much in the way of TV, or TV watching in the UK must stink." Like in a good restaurant having a greater choice does not mean greater quality, and in fact often the opposite. Brits watch a lot of TV. In the 1970s programmes like Morecambe and Wise and The Two Ronnies at Christmas used to get huge audiences and they were seen as almost national institutions. The splurge of channels has watered down the quality, but the BBC is still regarded by many as being among, if not the finest broadcasting service in the world. Its factual content programming in particular (like that produced by the BBC Natural History Unit and BBC News) has few rivals in terms of quality. Jooler 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC officials altered BBC article

See this article. Badagnani (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Officials" is a loaded and - without identifying the persons responsible - unsubstatiated term. The whole article seems predicated on bulk satistics (i.e. "34 million... changes") that show - surprise, surprise - that people in or employed by certain institutions edit Wikipedia, and homes in obvious "damning" examples. There is no quantifying of how many of the claimed 34 million changes were to pages even remotely related to their claimed point of origin. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on same site showed that "officials" of The Independent (source of the article) have also edited Wikipedia pages from computers at their work. All it proves is that employees of many organisations use the Internet from their work. --jmb (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias Concerns Mentioned Under 'Criticism' should include recent Commission Findings

The fairly recent government commission finding that BBC reporting often does have a Left-wing bias which often undermines the neutrality and professionalism of it's reporting should be added to the criticism section.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Which one would that be? Have I missed something here? The last report that I have heard about being published is the BBC Trust's Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century which was published in June 2007 and is indeed covered in the much more indepth Criticisms of the BBC. There is also the infamous impartiality seminar, which took place in September 2006, which is also covered in the sub-article. Various papers made various claims about biases the BBC had/had not admitted when reporting both. A little bit of research (such as reading the reports) reveals, that some of these claims were true whilst others were not. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

How do you do it? Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. HTH, Stephenb (Talk) 12:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

University Radio York

A recent edit claimed this service as the "legal radio broadcaster" other than the BBC. On closer inspectiong, this claim seems a bit dubious, not least because it worked on an induction loop system, rather than what would in most terms be accepted as "real broadcasting". I think we should have some more authorative sourcing on this - especially the legal status - before this can be included. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh are not the only ones barely covered

That article section needs more work using more potential sources. There's a view predominately by English and North American populations that BBC is "impartial" and "all encompassing". Few statements could be less ridiculous. The whole BBC coverage can be easily seen by any non-North American or English observer that is around the following areas: UK (predominately england), USA, Middle East, and a few pieces here and there. For example, Europe, and god forbid, the EU are only mentioned when Britain is involved. This is the point someone ignores the fact I'm talking about improving the article and says that wikipedia is not a forum but please don't. --Leladax (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC Interference?

Today I have attempted to add two distinct edits to the BBC page. The first is a balancing argument to the POV statement under Finance of

"As the state controls BBC's funding, it is sometimes referred to as a "state" broadcaster,{considered as a calumny by many because of the checks and balances which ensure its editorial independence.}"

with the addition directly afterwards of

"Others however consider it further evidence, in addition to it's government department style organisation, of a state bias."

This latter statement is being removed - fairly instantaneously - by other Editors. I would be willing to withdraw the statement if the corresponding prior statement (between {} ) is also withdrawn.

The other statement I make is in reference to the television licence under "Criticisms" and have added a paragraph stating the current practice of the BBC using Capita to enfore it's licence collection and the manner it operates. I have cited the journalist Jonathon Miller and his grass roots campaign based upon his experiences with capita / the BBC, which also references Capita stationary,policy and their sponsoring BBC and government policy and actions. While other editors may not like this the fact that the way the BBC collects it's licence fee is just that, a fact, and I am drawing reference to it (and the thousands of affected disgruntled non licence payers who are affected) as such. If further citations or references are required from more mainstream media outlets - then I shall do so on request, rather than other editors simply delete the whole thing.

The amount of self referencing to BBC sources on this site and the speed of removal of any criticism leads me to strongly believe that a large element of corporate vanity drives these reverts.

Supcom (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using this talk page to discuss your edits. However before accusing others of a conflict of interest I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. There are hundreds of thousands of editors here and at least a few of them watch this article to ensure any changes meet Wikipedia guidelines. One of our core policies is that any controversial/disputable addition should be accompanied by references to reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc). If you can provide those then I would have no objection to adding that info in in some form. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally many people object to the enforced payment of a TV licence, regarded as anachronistic in the days of multi stream multi content communications. This is further inflamed by the draconian way the BBC tries to enforce payment of the licence fee, using an outside agency (Capita) to send aggressively worded letters to every premises in the UK not showing as licenced on their database. Many people have responded to this by joining one of the several pressure groups against the licence fee

This needs a cite from a mainstream source and the words in bold need to be backed up by a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN. Instead of saying "Other say such and such" with no citation, use "According Dr. Soandso . . ." (or whatever the case may be), with a citation listed afterwards. If Jonathan Miller has primary sources, you could cite those directly. Also I think using words like draconian or anachronistic should be avoided. Since there is no way to prove that something is or is not draconian, it should just be left out entirely. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will remove draconian and anachronistic, and will change the reference to UK mainstream media.

I do not see a reason to change the Finance line cited above, as it's a balacing statement to the "calumny" one, so I would rather either they both go or it stays the same to keep it's balance.

I'm going to change the refs now - it may take me a few edits as I can't get the refs to appear properly...bear with me

Supcom (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed both lines as both statements were unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried 3 times to get the references to display properly - failed. Can someone tidy please, I can't see where i've got it wrong.

^^ Supcom (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Homes Reached

the bbc world website states that they reach over 288 homes, rather than the value on the article of 270. This should be changed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an exact link to the page? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pie Charts

There are some rather ugly pie charts on the article. One could debate the usefulness of pie charts, but it would be far easier to suggest they are reaplaced with 2D pie charts because 3D pie charts are harder to interpret and offer no advantages other than being flashy. Does anyone else agree with this and should they be changed?--91.84.84.234 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this'll be sorted next week. --Static sprinter (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm removing the line that says "In September 2007 the BBC caused controversy when it sent an email to staff in the current affairs department asking if they had ever had a homosexual experience. Those who responded in the negative were called in front of a committee and asked to explain themselves". Putting {{fact}} after it doesn't mean you can put anything into the article. Plus it is obviously complete rubbish. 82.20.28.62 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article should be moved to British Broadcasting Corporation because (if not too long) Wikipedia prefers unabbreviated names e.g. Internet Movie Database.

ajmint 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd second that. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions which states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity", and #Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations allows abbreviations if "the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form". The BBC is known the world over as the BBC in almost all languages, it very widely used in this form when referring to the corporation, and the BBC themselves hardly ever use British Broadcasting Corporation. There are also many other pages which have abbreviated names, including ITV, CNN, NBC, HBO, RTL, NASA, FIFA, UEFA, and so on. mattbr 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Mattbr. A quick Google shows that "BBC" outnumbers "British Broadcasting Corporation" by a factor of over 200. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.  Frank  |  talk  19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. BBC is the common name. Andrewa (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The corporation is almost exclusively known by its acronym. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and move IMDB too. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all the above. Most definatly the common name is BBC. Narson (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Nowadays, the company is almost always known by its abbreviation and I think that it can claim primary usage over this initialism. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A definite candidate for WP:SNOWBALL if ever I saw one. - X201 (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even the BBC refers to itself almost exclusively as BBC. Canterbury Tail talk 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Similar move requests (but in reverse) are being made at Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation and Talk:Central Intelligence Agency. — AjaxSmack 01:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The

I see no evidence that the definite is part of its title the link in archive 5 is dead and the continuaiton of the royal charter seems to suggest otherwise [1] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant portion of the original charter is quoted in Archive 5, whether the external link is available or not.  Frank  |  talk  15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did some more research; that original link was a previous charter and it's not clear to me what the "official" name is at this point. However, most references at its site seem not to include "the" as part of the name. I've undone my previous revert. :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Largest broadcasting corporation in the world?

From a BBC article about Stalin: He had the blood of millions on his hands, yet Joseph Stalin has escaped Hitler-style demonisation, and even become a trendy pin-up. Why has history been so kind to this murderous leader, asks Laurence Rees. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7719633.stm)

I see it is quite ok for the BBC to use the word ‘Murder’ when the Chinese are involved in shooting people. The IDF have killed so many Palestinians and others like Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie in front of eyewitnesses and with film footage but you’ll never find a tv programme or news report called “Murder in the Occupied Territories”. Hell, they can’t even bring themselves to use the word ‘abuse’ without putting it in inverted commas when the Israelis are involved!

This is standard stuff. When it’s an official enemy, the gloves come off and journalists know they wont get into trouble for using terms like murder. You see it time and time again, particularly with Russia. We can invade any country we like, but as soon as Russia responds to the shelling of Russian civilians, they are demonised.

The BBC is far more balanced than alot of other media broadcasters in the west when it comes to the issue of Palestine. There was a great documentary which focused on Americas media bias in favour of the Israelis, and as a comparison it included the BBC which to anyones eyes was far more accurate than the American ones. The BBC covers when there are troubles in the west bank, and they have covered when children have been killed by Israeli soldiers. They do not gloss over the fact Israeli continues to build illegal settlements despite promosing not to. I agree on the issue of Russia though, BBC like all western media was biased against Russia, but atleast now they have accepted that Georgia was not just an innocent victim in the conflict and even the British government has moved to that position. Russias media coverage of the events were hardly balanced either :). BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessarily true - Wouldn't that be News Corporation and not the BBC? — Wackymacs (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

After taking into account the world service, unlikely also what measure or size are you going on? Coverage, company size, number of channels? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a similar debate over this claim in the article has happened before. One point made by another editor that is worth re-highlighting is that News Corp's tentacles stretch into other areas such as film production and print media (whereas ignoring a relatively miniscule magazine business owned by BBC Worldwide, the BBC is purely a broadcaster). Once these are stripped out, of the equation News Corp's size is greatly reduced. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, News Corporation has over $60 billion revenue compared to BBC's approx. $8 billion budget. Even News Corp's revenue from broadcasting alone is more than $8 billion. The source used at the moment is simply a press release by Verisign - there's no proof provided to show that BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world based on revenue. — Wackymacs (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I must also note, there is the TimeWarner company - although again it does more than just broadcasting, it is large - CNN is influential in many countries. But it might just be worth looking into these more closely to ensure the claims made on the BBC page are valid - especially since this claim is in the first sentence of the lead. — Wackymacs (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Going into this further, CNN's International service and its related networks reach more than 1.5 billion people - In comparison, BBC World reaches 281 million worldwide. So it can certainly, as far as I'm concerned, be argued that BBC is *not* the biggest broadcaster in terms of revenue, number of channels and worldwide coverage. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm 1.5b? Sounds suspicous. That means a quarter of the worlds population watch it. That's before you consider the billions in Africa, South America, and Asia that dont have electricity never mind satellite or cable TV. Nor those who live in nations where either CNN or all satellite TV is banned. That begs the question: Over what time scale? A year would certainly be believeable especially if you use the traditional broadcasting definition of "reach" (i.e. something like more than 3 mins - that potentially means that if I quickly watch for a few mins once a year in a hotel on holiday I have been "reached"). Hoewever, as an example, according to the article on Wikipedia, 180m listen to the BBC World Service per week. I find it hard to believe that 1.5b individual people tune into CNN International alone every single week (at the very least this sounds like one of those suspicious double (treble,quadruple or more) counting statistics such as 10billion people tuning into the Olympics when there are only 6billion on the planet. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All very true - but since the 1.5 billion figure was from Wikipedia (the CNN International page), it is probably false as well - I also found it hard to believe. Looks like someone (not you, but someone) has let people add false information to these kinds of pages on Wikipedia. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would admit the BBC is the biggest is also suspect. Especially with lack of detail in what regard. For example, I could believe the BBC was the World's largest public broadcaster and, although I believe no longer true, between around 1997 and a few years ago it was the world's largest news gathering organisation in terms of the number of reporters that it directly employed, as opposed to (I guess) freelancers and those working possibly in different subsiduaries of other companies in the same group. Perhaps it would be better if we could find a referenced source as in what regard the BBC is the largest? Pit-yacker (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a difficult question. I doubt the criterion of revenue or net profit is useful; as you have stated above, media conglomerates like News Corporation and Time Warner spread their tentacles in many areas beyond broadcasting. However, I find it hard to dispute the fact that no broadcasting system has a wider reach than BBC. CNN does not say it has 1.5b viewers, it says that it is available to 1.5b people, should they bother to buy a satellite aerial or subscribe to a cable service. The number has more to do with the reach of its electromagnetic waves than with the number of people that actually watch it. Probably, if we estimated the number of people that could in theory watch the BBC if so they wanted, the number would probably be similar or perhaps even larger. The number of households that actually receive broadcasting regularly is a much better measure, even more so because one cannot really count how many people are watching, but an estimate of how many TV sets are switched on a given channel can be made. If the data are accurate, then the numbers are indisputable: BBC has 281 million to CNN's 200 million. But I agree it is difficult to compare. Let us try to make some inferences by taking the broadcasting branches of the three combined. News Corporation has FoxNews, which is available in 40+ countries and essentially focuses on the US market, to the extent that the international programming is essentially the same as for the US. It has no radio service. It has enterntainment channels in the US, UK and Australia, but one viewer counts as one, regardless whether they watch one or five channels of the same broadcaster's. So, we may conclude that News Corporation is a feeble dwarf compared to the other two in terms of broadcasting. At its prime in the US, it reached 3.3 million households weekly. Compare with the 75+ million of BBC's wordlwide weekly coverage. In the UK, BSkyB is no competitor to the BBC even when it comes to entertaining.

Time Warner is headquartered in the US. It has several cable broadcasters there, and also has its international service, CNNi, available to 200+ countries. It has no radio service.

BBC, conversely, has an international service that reaches 50% more households than CNNi. And it has a radio, BBC WorldService, operating all over the world in short wavelength. It is surpassed in number of hours only by China's national radio and the Voice of America umbrella. So, it seems to me that the BBC is unsurpassed in terms of coverage of the Earth Surface and of the human population. It is believed that the World Service is the only source of news in certain places of the Earth where there are curbs on freedom of expression. As for revenue, I do not think one can compare private and public broadcasters. BBC is so big precisely because it is not so much interested in profit. And it is open in the UK, which means that all people that have a license (virtually everybody) can watch it, making it more comparable to ABC and NBC in the US than with CNN. It also reaches more than 200 countries.

One can, of course, try and compare other aspects. BBC still claims to be largest news-gatherer of the world. I assume it bases this claim on the number of regional offices, agreements with news outlets and number of foreign correspondents. It boasts more than 200 of the latter. It broadcasts in more than 30 languages.

I think CNN is big, but I doubt there can be a claim that BBC is not the largest broadcasting - not publishing, film-making, and not only TV - corporation in the world as far as the number of viewers is concerned. If another broadcasting system can have a claim to be so distributed and globalized as BBC, perhaps it will be Al-Jazeera in a few years.

I hope I have helped to settle the subject. If no one offers new arguments, I shall revert the statement in the article in a few weeks. Sincerely yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.41.100.244 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to point out that you seem to have focused on TV, Broadcasting includes radio. No idea on exact figures but you can get radio signals over a huge area. It is possible to have a larger media organization & and for the BBC still to be the largest broadcaster, but 'Largest broadcaster needs defining first. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also say that a financial measure is the worst ,as the BBC isn't primarily a commercial company and that TV costs far more than radio, coverage (area/potentials) and actual listeners/viewers would seem the most appropriate for a measure of broadcasting. Either way it needs an explanatory note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re this diff, I don't see the point of removing a cited reference in favor of a "citation needed" tag. I understand the cite is from the corporation itself, and I understand a neutral third-party cite would be nice. But how about WP:AGF on the part of the subject here? We have a cite from a source that is generally considered reliable. Is it right to assume that all reason goes out the window when the BBC is describing itself?  Frank  |  talk  20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I truly believe this just proves that the statement isn't entirely correct when you can't find another source but the BBC page. Are you basically saying that the only thing on the web that says the BBC is the largest is the BBC themselves? Surely if it was so true there would be many other reliable sources that could be used. Also, it would help to clarify by what measure - largest by employees, budget, reach, ...? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise; how about saying that "it describes itself as the world's largest..."? That would at least match the current citation Stephenb (Talk) 08:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Regarding Wackymacs' point, I'm not sure how or where one would find such a list. I am not saying it's true because the "only" source available (BBC itself) claims it is true. Heck, I don't even know if it is true. It just seems to me it's not a stretch to assume good faith on this point - even if they are a large (or very large) international corporation. (I know, good faith doesn't necessarily apply, but that isn't good faith, now, is it?)  :-)  Frank  |  talk  12:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really that important is it? Say it is the third largest, is it less significant culturally? (The right answer: "No") Cagedcalcium (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC Pro Christian Pro God Bias

The UK is supposed to be a secular country and yet the state funded broadcaster is highly pro-christian. I’ve yet to see or hear any Atheism biased broadcasting from the BBC. A good part of Radio 2 and 4 output seems to be pro Christian and pro Christian broadcasters like Simon Mayo seem to be given a free reign to promote their insanity on any channel. The implied logic that its OK to run down Harry Potter but not God when neither actually exist is not conducive to educating and informing an intelligent free thinking well balanced secular society. Respect for all religions, a strong bias towards Christianity, don’t allow the Atheists any time at all is ingrained in the BBC charter. Channel 4 seems to be the only station willing to touch "God doesn’t exist what might be the implications of that on humanity" programming. mikecsmith 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for our point of view. Taking each point in turn:

1. "The UK is supposed to be a secular country" - no, the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, so I believe the UK is actually notionally Christian
2. "the state funded broadcaster is highly pro-christian" - you need evidence to say this: like all good science, just asserting something is not the right way to achieve things.
3. "I’ve yet to see or hear any Atheism biased broadcasting from the BBC." - Do you watch/listen to the whole of the BBC output? I'm afraid a single personal viewpoint is not actually a valid argument on Wikipedia.
4. "A good part of Radio 2 and 4 output seems to be pro Christian" - another assertion with nothing backing it
5. "pro Christian broadcasters like Simon Mayo seem to be given a free reign to promote their insanity on any channel" - I don't know whetherMayo is Christian or not, but you provide no evidence that he has been given "free reign" anywhere, and "insanity" is rather insulting.
6. "The implied logic that its OK to run down Harry Potter" - I don't see any logic, implied or otherwise, that includes Harry Potter and anyone "running down" the fictional character - have I missed something?
7. "Respect for all religions, a strong bias towards Christianity, don’t allow the Atheists any time at all is ingrained in the BBC charter." - is it? Where?
8. "Channel 4 seems to be..." - "seems to be" is not backed up by any evidence.

So, your arguments seem to boil down to an individual belief rather than any evidence - rather the opposite of a scientific approach :) Stephenb (Talk) 08:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (Agnostic)

I have to say I was puzzled to read this, Thought for the day regularly has non-Christian and humanist contributors, and while it dose show Songs of Praise this does not seem to be evidence of a systemic bias. The showing of Jerry Springer: The Opera despite protests would seem to be an apropreate counter balance. --Nate1481 10:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Thought for the Day is purely religious, and does not allow humanist contributors (though there have been many protests about this over the years, none have succeeded). Stephenb (Talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I'm sure I heard one a week or two before I wrote that --Nate1481 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the BBC is expected to reflect all sections of society: a large section of society do possess religious beliefs so should be catered for. As an atheist I do not see 5-10 minutes a week excessive to cater for such people. Plenty of freedom is given to people like Stephen Fry and Prof. Dawkins and a small army of others who regularly pour scorn on religious belief so the Beeb's remit to be balanced is not in danger as far as I can see on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.234.129 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the BBC as with all service providers in the UK are Mandated to provide a minimum amount of programming of a religious programming. The content that is raised there is often questioned. This point came up on the POV show a couple of years back. It was then said that the BBC tend to leave alternative faith programming to the other networks. There is a document about this at the Governor's Archive which may be relevant to this question. 82.27.133.228 (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC has been anti Christian, in the form of Jerry Springer the Opera, also allowing blasphemy in many programmes. It however refrains from 'insulting' the Muslim religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettybutt (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Charter

Following recent edits by AdamFourplay (in particular, moving a sentence but incorrectly so - supposed became suppose), I looked at the Charter. The article reads: The BBC is a quasi-autonomous public corporation as a public service broadcaster and is run by the BBC Trust; it is, per its charter, suppose to "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners". but I cannot find this wording anywhere within the charter or the referenced link. Have I missed something, or should we remove this apparently unsourced quote? Stephenb (Talk) 08:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Updates Needed

There are a couple of updates needed to this article.

1. BBC Alba, the Scottish Gaelic service has now started so the tense of the verb is incorrect. It is available throughout the UK via satellite.

Done. Gammondog (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

2. The article suggests that BBC HD was a now ceased experiment. That is incorrect and it is being broadcast by satellite and cable. It has a selection of programmes from all BBC channels. Terrestrial broadcasting of BBC HD is dependent on the switch-off of the analog service in a region. This will release more bandwidth and enable BBC HD to be broadcast using DVB-T2.

Londonbear (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The BBC World Ethos

I was trying to pin down the general collective philisophy of the BBC by categorising it. I wanted to insert as a sub section to the BBC section.

BBC World Ethos The philosophy of the liberal centre left developed by upper middle class city dwellers who are

anti - Realpolitik and support an illogical pseudo intellectual politically correct philosophy.

As a rider to this I wanted to insert: Beebman A stereotypical male who supports the BBC World Ethos. A descriptive title for someone who is; upper middle class, politically correct, liberal centre left, Sainsbuy's shopper, human rights supporter, academic, bureaucratic office worker, city dweller, pseudo intellectual, university graduate.

Its quite difficult in news articles to keep describing liberal left or liberal centre left people. I think Beebman fits the bill. Am I mad, bad or sad?

I am a wiki virgin, day 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximusAridimus (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very much to be a combination fo Original research flavored with a strong negative Point Of View, trying to generalise on an organistion that has differnat parts critiking its self is difficult even so. --Nate1481 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're all three of them mate to be honest. I had a look at your website...typical small-minded Daily Mail readers like you can rant all you like. Just keep it within yourselves. 86.141.219.85 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hutton Report

The article states that: "the subsequent Report raised questions about the BBC's journalistic standards and its impartiality". This is not accurate. The Report only reported into one thing: the "Dodgy Dossier" Intelligence Report and the subsequent BBC allegations of deliberate misrepresentation of that report's conclusions to the public by Tony Blair's Government. The conclusions that the BBC's reporting did not meet its Charter requirements of journalistic integrity was made only in respect to this matter. There was no implication of wider impartiality on behalf of the BBC. Such a conclusion would be outside the Terms Of Reference of the Hutton Report.

In fairness, the article should also point out that many people thought the Hutton Report's conclusions to be a Government whitewash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.234.129 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the objection above relates to the paragraph on the Hutton report in the History section of the article. The other mention of the Hutton Report in the News Coverage section is more accurate and contains references which the History section does not. This first paragraph really should be removed or substantially amended to remove the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.234.129 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC Bias

I feel the article is far to hollier than thou about the BBC. The left/liberal bias should be explored and explained. It is not impatial and has its own agenda. I could list things it is in favour of ie EU. The UN. The Democrates in the US. The Labour Party in the UK etc.

It is against. The republican party the Conservative party.any critisisam of climate change etc.

Every time I have tried to edit to bring in balance it is changed within moements back to as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.148.246 (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because Wikipedia editors make at least some attempt to stick to publishing verifiable facts. Wikipedia is not intended as a soapbox for the political beliefs of individuals and their ideological fixations; left-wing or right-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.234.129 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} make United Kingdom in infobox a Wikilink

Done! Thanks! --DA Skunk - (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the topic starter, this issue has already been addressed throughout the article if you happen to look closely, as well as a whole article dedicated to Criticism of the BBC. What you stated is your opinion, and cannot be backed up by hard facts. Gammondog (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

TVCatchup

Should TVCatchup be added to "See Also" all of BBC Television channels are streamed live online on this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.115.195 (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no point, BBC TV will be available online at bbc.co.uk soon, plus it's not reliable and nothing to do with the BBC. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 13:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just looked at this page and noticed the COUNTRY (on the right hand side) had been changed to "cunt cruncher" ... by the time I logged in to fix it the change had been made back to United Kingdom. Is there any way of stopping this??Lanzarotemaps (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism, though for specific articles, it would only get protected/semi-protected if there was a high level of vandalism, not for a single incident; if you feel strongly enough, you could join Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. Stephenb (Talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please change "Cunt Cruncher" to "United Kingdom"!!!! (I'm not a user, just a reader).

Err, yes, that was done very soon afterwards... as the original poster said Stephenb (Talk) 11:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC cannot see the difference between a criminal and a terrorist

The BBC was criticized for calling the "terrorists" who carried out the November 2008 Mumbai attacks as mere "gunman"[2][3]. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new there, as I recall the BBC has avoided the use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" through 7/7, the Iraq and Afghanistan war, 9/11 and the IRA and loyalist campaigns in Northern Ireland. There was a section discussing this (and the BBC's justification) somewhere, however, it appears the section has been lost. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The entry seems too much "fact based"?

Whilst we all love wikipedia's striving for objectivity and neutrality, I think the article about the BBC neglects it GREAT cultural achievement.

I am the only one concerned about this?

What other cultural organisation has its breadth and depth? It has made so many wonderful contributions to the culture of the C20th, and, most significantly, done largely without commercial input or support.

The BBC might have reputation outside the UK for being "high-bow", but it is not. For example:

1. BBC radio 1 has been at the center of popular music in the UK since its inception. It is simply fun.

2. Sport: the BBC has a great tradition of broadcasting ALL sport, not just commercially important sports. Even though programmes such as the long-running "Match of the Day" are about the most popular sport in the UK (and the World), the BBC will also support many other minor sports with some programmes. Example: darts!

3. The Open University. The BBC was the pioneer in bringing education to those who did not fit into the normal educational (O-level/A-level) system. Allowing "mature students" from ALL walks of life access to Higher Ed. Cagedcalcium (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an advertising site. This article should and must have a neutral point of view. 86.138.241.195 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a section on the BBC's cultural significance, although it could use a few more citations. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions

First, I can't find a wiki rule that clarifies the order of links in the "See Also" category. Is it Alphabetical? Order of importance? Random?

Second, I think we've understated the criticism section. Articles such as Fox News Channel,CNN and MSNBC have far more organized criticism section compared to the rather random BBC section. Maybe we could section out criticism according to topic, and if necessary, merge more content from the Criticisms of the BBC to ensure fairness/viewpoint between each subject. But, I think the most important part is simply sectioning off content according to topic. Not only will that make navigation easier, but also more comparable to the articles mentioned before.

From what I've researched, the most voiced criticism seems to revolve around the Middle East, so perhaps the criticism should reflect that in a more overt way? I don't know, just want the article to appear balanced.

Anyways, let me know before I start editing! I know, Be Bold, but reverts without discussion is unbearably annoying. So now they have no excuse. Haha! Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the "see also" section I think it could do with thinning down. A lot of these articles are linked within this article and on the various templates. It is also in no way representative of the plethora of BBC articles.

On the criticisms section, I recognise this is a more difficult issue. Part of the problem (IMHO) is that criticisms are duplcated across BBC, BBC News, Criticisms of the BBC, and BBC controversies. My personal rule is that duplication on Wikipedia is always a bad thing (as errors are inevitably only edited on one article, and so we end up with articles contradicting each other) and should be avoided at all costs. This is especially so on politicial issues where some "sources" bare little resemblence to the truth or being reliable sources on the issue.

IIRC, Criticisms of the BBC was created primarily as an attempt to prevent the constant disruption to BBC (once considered a WP:GA) and BBC News caused by various editors with a POV to push coming and adding the topic of the day. I think at various times the criticsms section has been as long as the rest of the BBC article put together.

Bare in mind at this point that the BBC is not just an international news broadcaster but (primarily) the national PSB of the UK, and there is a great deal of scope for various criticisms from people with different (often contradicting) political beliefs, and it also leaves someone not knowing anything about the UK media with the impression that the BBC is more biased than far more partisan UK outlets (ironically often used as sources in these articles) which dont register international attention. A lot of these people (righlty or wrongly) believe their issue is one of importance great enough to be duplicated across BBC, BBC News (for news related articles), Criticisms of the BBC and BBC controversies.

The current uneasy truce has come about, as a compromise for the need to prevent disruption to the main articles desired by some editors versus the prominence that other editors wish criticisms to have.

That said, I recognise the status-quo is a mess, and welcome suggestions for improvement. Criticisms of the BBC is quite probably the worst article I know of on the entire project. But that isnt really a supirse, adding criticisms based on your own POV is easy (and thats all 99% of editors do), adding objective, balanced and well sourced criticisms is an entirely different matter - and even then getting consensus on how NPOV an article's commentary on a controversial political issue is nigh on impossible. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of statement on BBC propaganda

I have removed the claim that the BBC was involved in the Iranian revolution. This is an exceptional claim which should require exceptional sources. The source is simply 1 documentary which made the claim, the BBC has never officially commented on this matter according to...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/21/iran.bbc.persian/

Not all documentaries by the BBC or any other broadcaster are accurate there for 1 report should not be taken as historic fact. For that reason i have removed this section, which suggested it was fact rather than a claim by a program (even if it was by the BBC itself). BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat reassuring that the BBC would be willing to do an expose on itself (even if it is 50 years later). Back on topic, I think this might better belong in the controversy article, and be phrased as a report rather than fact. --Nate1481 11:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt object to a mention of it in the controversy section if there are some other sources besides that one documentary (even if it is the BBC itself, they produce some wacky things at times) . It should also be clear it is just a claim and that the BBC have officially never commented on the matter. I removed the entire statement before because it stated it as fact that it had happened, which we do not know for sure. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with BrittishWatcher on this; this "fact" should remain in the controversy section at least. This is because this source is used in the article Operation_Ajax with much more certainity. Also, I find that on Wikipedia, documentaries and reports from numerous new agencies are frequently used as source for claims. Therefore, we should at least say "the BBC has produced at least one documentary/audio confirming that the BBC was used in Operation Ajax".

Furthermore, obviously the BBC would not make a formal announcement of its own history, if such history is seen as distasteful. I doubt you'll be able to find a formal announcement anywhere. It's already very fortunate that there's at least this one source regarding the role of the BBC in Operation Ajax.

I have therefore created a section called "controversy", and have incorporated the removed information regarding Operation Ajax there. We can discuss this topic further if you guys want. Children of the dragon (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, per WP:RELIABLE, I have removed it. Find something else to source it with. The source you're using is way too close (even if it can be confirmed that they're independent) to the BBC. Such a serious claim, as BritishWatcher testifies, would need to be backed up with a range of stainless steel sources. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

O...k...a...y..., since it's "such a serious" claim. Somehow I find it funny that "claims" made against FOX, CNN, etc are easily fitted inside their respective articles even if it's just a simple reference from some obscure news paper, but a video/radio broadcast is not evidence enough? Please clarify the logic for me here. Not trying to start up an argument, but I think if you want to be fair, then be fair for all such articles, not just the one regarding the BBC. Children of the dragon (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Even better, we should simply say that "it was claimed by XXX" that the BBC was involved in broadcasting the code for executing operation ajax. This is much more fair and less NPOV. If you look at the sources for a lot of "claims" regarding politicians, political groups, etc, there are usually just one source provided to back up the claim. Children of the dragon (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I have received no nay's, I will go ahead and include this topic once again, except re-worded.Children of the dragon (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Structure out-of-date

When the article is unlocked from semi-protection, it might be an idea to update the Executive corporate structure - e.g. most of Professional Services is now in a "group" called Operations Group (just BBC People and BBC Finance sit outside of it). Jenny Abramsky left the Corporation in the middle of last year and has been replaced by Tim Davie; Tim Davie's replacement has not yet been announced. And the Exec Producer of CBBC currently listed isn't a member of the Exec Board. Wibble2 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A Cool Kid's site

[]Dande Mat typingis a program for children ages 1st grade to 9 years of age. It's SO much fun-Julia Weber . It has funny charecters to teach young children how to type!! It is a BBC website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.223.159 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:BBC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Result: Delisted. The article has too many issues to be considered a Good Article at this time. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is filled with unsourced information, as evidenced by the citation needed templates. The Finance section is out-of-date. The layout is bloated and difficult to navigate. The prose needs serious attention and there are many single-sentence paragraphs and external links (within the article itself). The lead is huge, even for such a big article. There's an excessive amount of images. Several sections, like Radio, Corporation, and Finance, are full of lists that could be better expressed as prose. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Delist: It is with a slightly heavy heart that I have to agree that this article is no longer a good article. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that such articles with such important ramifications to various political groups can never be good. Criteria:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: I have repeatedly raised serious concerns about referencing on the BBC articles. On this article. As stated by User talk:Vantine84 there are a number of sections that are out of date and/or with citations needed. However, of equal concern are the number of references that I would not really consider to "reliable". Whilst, before I get comments, tabloids such as the Mail, Evening Standard et al are entitled to their opinions and might be used as comment solely about their opinions about the BBC, some of the articles that have used often bare little resemblance to reality. It is important to remember that here in the UK, Beeb-bashing is somewhat of a national sport, and that some newspaper outlets (Doesn't really apply to Mail and ES -they just want the BBC to return to a 1950s England that IMHO never existed) have a vested interest in kicking the BBC. Of even more concern is the references that come from sources allied to what I would term extremist opinion, where distorted UK tabloid articles are often taken and then distorted even further.

5. Stability: The article is not stable. Particularly sections relating to controversy and bias. There is a large issue with people (often anon users or single issue editors) coming and adding their 2 pence/cents on their personal hobby-horse (see also GA criteria #4) to this article, BBC News, Criticisms of the BBC, BBC Controversies and any other debatedly half way relevant articles such as those about employees and programmes. I don't think a lot of the stuff that appears on criticisms is particularly relevant to the main BBC page, particularly when you consider some of the real issues in the past (see also GA Criteria #3). Pit-yacker (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Delist: No way this article could qualify for a GA in this year (I wonder how the GA criteria was enforced back before 2006...) looking at all the unsourced info/"citation needed" etc. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Philcha (talk)

NB all these are off the top, without any research. My only only qualification is that as a Brit I've lived with the BBC for decades.

Even if there are no disagreemnts that would delay improving the article, I think there's too much work to complete in a month. Hence I would delist the article. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

• Too much on "internals", including organisation structure, financing, office locations, etc.
• Not enough on what makes the BBC notable in the real-world sense, i.e. interesting to readers - its programmes and related products such as DVDs. I'd be looking for awards and for cases where it pioneered topics, genres, methods of presentation, etc. I'd also look for more on its world-wide reputation historically and at present. Comments by non-British sources would be particularly valuable, although the article would have to watch out for the sources' POVs.
• The "Controversies" & "Allegations of bias" sections cover several issues, but I'm unable to assess their completeness without research.
• I've noticed nothing in the article about allegations of political pressure on the BCC or of self-censorship.
• The BBC as a topic is so huge that a lot of thought is needed about whether each sub-topic should be covered in detail here or in subordinate articles which this one summarises - see WP:SUMMARY. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure

• I'd be inclined to start with an overview of its current products and services, as these are what makes the BBC notable in the real-world sense. It may be appropriate to include brief notes on the origin of each.
• I think the sections "Allegations of bias" and "Controversies" should be combined under the top-level heading "Controversies". I can't suggest sub-sections as I don't know what research will find.
• I know this is heretical, but I'd place the history later - my principle is first show why the BBC is notable and then readers will be more interested in how its reached this position.

References

• There are a lot of statements that need refs. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Prose

• No point in commenting on this now, as my previous comment simply major changes. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• Does not go anywhere near summarising the main content.
• Over 1/3 of it is about the BBC's nicknames, which are not covered in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. I agreee with almost all of the comments above; this article needs a lot of work to meet the GA criteria in my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Liberal vs Left vs Right

I Recently changed the criticisms section, because left wing bias and liberal bias, are the same thing, there is no point in redundancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.162.133 (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Only according to the spin-meisters of the US Republican party who created the connection to blacken the term liberal. The real meaning of liberal is about giving people the freedom to do what they want as long as they arent harming others. In the UK a good number of Conservative politicans class themselves as liberal, and someone who is economically liberal is usually anything but left-wing. Equally a good number of left-wing policies are very illiberal. For example, it is liberal to allow two consenting adults two do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home, but not necessarily a left-wing policy. Indeed parties of the far-left often restrict rights to things such as religion and speech. Alternatively, it is also liberal not to unnecesarily restrict the activities of a private company. This however, is more at home with parties of the right than the left. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The use of the word "liberal" is not the same in Europe (including the UK) as in the US. Americans give "liberal" a meaning that is different to the meaning it holds in Europe, Australia and (unless I'm mistaken) Canada. In Australia, as in France "liberal" is often used as a synonym for "conservative" (or at least economically right-wing), whereas in the US the terms are opposites. Aridd (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, "liberal" is often confused with "Liberal", meaning what used to be the third major Political Party, an at-times centre-left and occasionally centre-right party, now transformed into the Liberal Democrat Party or LibDems.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Beeb"?

The introduction states that "Domestic UK audiences often refer to the BBC as 'the Beeb'". I live in London, and I have never heard anyone call it that. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorkdork777 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

quite common. see www.beeb.com or www.beeb.net, there is also BEEB. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't ever recall hearing anyone use the term except employees of the BBC, who use it all the time. I'm not saying a search on Google wouldn't turn up lots of exceptions but if I don't believe it's used in conversation. The term does exist though so it should probably be in the article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not hugely common, but the term is definitely heard outside the BBC in conversation. Stephenb (Talk) 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very common at the beeb and outside it. See also At the Beeb, Bowie at the Beeb Live at the Beeb. Jooler (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm quite certain most of the people I know, including several who work for the BBC, would feel a little embarrassed about using the term in ordinary conversation. Of course if you Google a phrase it brings up results but that doesn't make it common, does it? It's undoubtedly a very well known term but I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually calls the BBC the Beeb. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Me. I use it. But like any other similar word or phrase it's used now and again and in an context. I might refer to "a cup of tea" frequently during the day but now and again I might say "I'm dying for a cuppa!". Honestly I think it's more common than you may realise. Unlike most phrases you might Google "at the beeb" is pretty much only used in reference to the BBC and you get hits ranging from personal blogs of BBC Employees and TV watchers, to articles in The Sun, The Telegraph, Variety Magazine and Time Magazine. Jooler (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard many people call it the Beeb, though normally when they're mocking it. Either way, I have heard the term 80.7.186.169 (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've heard the "Beeb" too. Although, I might add, I was not sure if it was meant to be taken in an endearing or derogatory way. That is up for debate. Dj (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Why is it "BBC" and not "British Broadcasting Corporation", as with USA, LSD etc.? It Is Me Here (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not the USA or LSD, it's the BBC. No-one calls it by its full name in common speech and writing. Same with other broadcasters/TV networks such as CBS. And yes, before any smart alec brings it up, the article on the American Broadcasting Company should be changed to 'ABC' because no-one uses its full name either. Strayan (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I second this argument. Many abbreviations have become ingrained into colloquial usage, and it is foolhardy to argue them. Dj (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Largest broadcasting corporation

Picking up on the discussion above, which resulted in the agreement of changing the quote to "[BBC] described itself as the world's largest broadcasting corporation", I would like to know why a change did not happen? I think the article is biased because of this statement, since the source is taken from the company itself. It is not proven by any statistics and thus should thus not be used, in my opinion. --217.5.199.242 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ive changed it from the worlds largest to one of the worlds largest which is certainly the case, until further sources are found to prove it is the largest or what position it actually holds. Theres no real explanation on what the "largest" means, if its by employees, budget etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as cultural influence goes, it can be hard to argue against the prominence of BBC in the British psyche. I fail to recall any such broadcaster that has become such a national cultural influence. Similar arguments can also be made about Doordarshan in India as well. Well, I guess all national one-time-monopoly-broadcasters have had this sort of sway before cable television swooped in. Dj (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

pbma

what is your evidence that pbma is a cult?for your info it is the world largest missionaries association someday you know that your wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.8.19 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Finance

I'm about to update the finance section for the accounts of 08/09 directly from the BBC Trust website. When thats done I'll get another pie chart. How does this sound to everyone? Any other ideas? --Super wiki editor (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Err... I've got the right information and have made a pie chart on Excel. From what wikipedia says I cant put it in the article does it have to be off the internet? Please help!--Super wiki editor (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of bias

At the moment the "Allegations of bias" comes under the BBC News section as a sub heading. Is this really the correct location for such a section, wouldnt it be better on its own? For example the BBCs refusal to air the DEC appeal, whilst that was related to their concerns about bias to their broadacasting it was a decission for the whole of the BBC not just the "BBC News". I also do not see why so much detail is gone into of bias by the BBC when there is an entire article on Criticism of the BBC. Ofcourse it should be mentioned and that article actually linked in the correct section but it currently goes into huge detail about the problems when it should give basic points. Its also worth nothing i have not seen any other Broadcaster have such a large "bias" section on their main article. PBS like the BBC is a Public Broadcasting Service in the USA and has a good section in my opinion which covers controversy and peoples concerns rather than a few of the big issues over the past decade like this article currently has. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This was how the article used to look just before the Criticisms section was removed, I think it would be diffifult to entirely delete such a section from the article as people would just add one anyway to add their little snippet of information. Lazyduckling (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bumping up an old discussion here, but I notice that a "Criticisms" section has once again reappeared. The reason this was removed in the first place, and the relevant information reorganised into the rest of the article, is because it often becomes a troll magnet section of random criticisms. Such a dedicated section is not needed in this article, as the criticisms which have often been made are related to another topic and can therefore be integrated into another more neutral section. The name "Criticism" in itself suggests that only one viewpoint will be presented to the reader, rather than both sides of the argument. As the BBC is such a large organisation, there will always be some sort of controversy; if every single one is added to this section, over time, it will outweigh the rest of the article without putting across an alternative point of view. It is far better to present each controversy within the context of the topic, rather than in a standalone section. (And I notice that there is already disagreement over the subject of Israel outweighing everything else, i.e. not NPOV.) Gammondog (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of bias

At the moment the "Allegations of bias" comes under the BBC News section as a sub heading. Is this really the correct location for such a section, wouldnt it be better on its own? For example the BBCs refusal to air the DEC appeal, whilst that was related to their concerns about bias to their broadacasting it was a decission for the whole of the BBC not just the "BBC News". I also do not see why so much detail is gone into of bias by the BBC when there is an entire article on Criticism of the BBC. Ofcourse it should be mentioned and that article actually linked in the correct section but it currently goes into huge detail about the problems when it should give basic points. Its also worth nothing i have not seen any other Broadcaster have such a large "bias" section on their main article. PBS like the BBC is a Public Broadcasting Service in the USA and has a good section in my opinion which covers controversy and peoples concerns rather than a few of the big issues over the past decade like this article currently has. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This was how the article used to look just before the Criticisms section was removed, I think it would be diffifult to entirely delete such a section from the article as people would just add one anyway to add their little snippet of information. Lazyduckling (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bumping up an old discussion here, but I notice that a "Criticisms" section has once again reappeared. The reason this was removed in the first place, and the relevant information reorganised into the rest of the article, is because it often becomes a troll magnet section of random criticisms. Such a dedicated section is not needed in this article, as the criticisms which have often been made are related to another topic and can therefore be integrated into another more neutral section. The name "Criticism" in itself suggests that only one viewpoint will be presented to the reader, rather than both sides of the argument. As the BBC is such a large organisation, there will always be some sort of controversy; if every single one is added to this section, over time, it will outweigh the rest of the article without putting across an alternative point of view. It is far better to present each controversy within the context of the topic, rather than in a standalone section. (And I notice (see below) that there is already disagreement over the subject of Israel outweighing everything else, i.e. not NPOV.) Gammondog (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

India

This two-sentance section needs to go; notwithstanding that it is now supported by only one source, it it one-sided nonsense anyway. ninety:one 17:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sex Crimes and the Vatican

I have read claims that BBC has a liberal bias on religion (needs research) ; notably because it aired the episode Sex Crimes and the Vatican on the Panorama series. ADM (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Many things are claimed about the BBC, it is probably covered on the Criticism of the BBC article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Airing a documentary called Sex Crimes and the Vatican is not the BBC exhibiting liberal bias, but impartiality.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

is it true that the BBC used to, once upon a time, show soft-core pornography during late nights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj thegreat (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you - our your source's - definition of "soft core pornography" is, but by mine it's not. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Israel section

The Israel section that Wikifan12345 is attempting to insert is far, far too long; it's longer than just about any other section -- a clear case of undue weight. A naive reader might think that most of the BBC's programming was related to Israel. Factsontheground (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it undue? 3 well-cited paragraphs of popular events is not undue. According to most sources Israel is the principal target of alleged-bias so it seems reasonable to see the section outsize others. If you could specificate exactly what is undue that would be helpful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is undue to mention every single complaint anyone makes about the BBC, especially when several of them aren't actually about the BBC. I've removed, as has count Iblis, the section about the alleged Hamas member because the source cited does not criticise the BBC at all. you said it was aginst BBC guidelines, but that's your own opinion and therefore OR. I've also removed the section about the forum comment. That wasn't the BBC or their reporting, that was someone managing their website deciding it wasn't worth removing. If every criticism of every EMPLOYEE of the BBC is going to get added, we're in serious trouble. As for the other things mentioned by Factsonthegrounds, I agree with him - the section is way too large given the size and nature of the BBC.GDallimore (Talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I also dispute the suggestion that the section (or at least the recent additions to it) has been well sourced. Relying solely on Israeli newspapers for all the criticism of the BBC over Israel is asking for POV problems.

Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. The same could be said for relying on British newspapers to cite positives. There are plenty of criticisms and 100s more than could be added, but for weight purposes I've only added the most relevant and one's BBC has explicitly apologized/recognized/responded. Prominent Jewish-rights groups and newspapers lodging complaints against the company is most certainly relevant, and a reasoning like "remove another paragraph, which isn't really about the BBC but the person who ran this particular forum" simply does not make sense. The person running the forum is an employee of BBC, and when critics communicated with BBC they officially stated "we don't care." How this has "isn't really" about BBC is beyond dubious. I'm reverting for now until this is resolved, "per talk" without allowing response is not exactly kosher if you catch my drift. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

(Reset indent) FWIW, I agree with Factsontheground and GDallimore. The paragraphs removed were giving the criticism section undue weight - for this article, not removing a user-posted comment from a forum is hardly a major event in the BBC history, and there are more appropriate articles where this information could be added if it was felt significant enough (such as Criticism of the BBC. Stephenb (Talk) 20:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice you agree with FOTG and GD. Whether or not these are "majorly" events in BBC history is irrelevant. Criticism is not that majorly to begin with, and most of the criticism in the article is simply one-liners from professors or academics. Majorly? No. Relevant? Yes. Undue claim is dubious, the paragraphs are supported by reliable sources and are very concise. I like to limit criticisms to events recognized by the BBC itself and explicitly referred to by notable organizations - Jewish agencies, human rights, notable journalists, etc..etc...so a simply complaint of "undue" is a tough sell. Please self-revert, your summary of "consensus" was not consistent with Wikipedia:consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns raised by Factsontheground, GDallimore and Stephenb. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the whole "Criticism and Controversies" section should be probably be merged into the separate Criticisms of the BBC article, unless some part of it refers to something which is very well known, or which had a significant impact on the history of the BBC... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and ofcourse there is also BBC controversies BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms of the BBC has become a fork. The goal has been to move as much information from that article to this one. Also agreeing with FOTG and GD is of little relevance - consensus is not by vote, but by substance. Clearly some users are not familiar with the article or policy. I highly suggest restoring the paragraphs instead of warring them out with unreasoned summaries. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC controversies is for majorly important events that have gained intensive coverage. The paragraphs would not qualify for inclusion in that article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as im concerned only " majorly important events that have gained intensive coverage" should be mentioned on this article.. It is the main article about the BBC, we dont need an endless list of criticisms here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well fortunately "as far your concerned" is not the measuring stick for inclusion. The paragraphs are sourced by highly-reputable media and have gained responses from the BBC themselves, and notable 3rd party organizations. This is not a slope of endless criticism, but valid events that are being denied a voice. If anything, the one-liner criticisms should be removed - they are much less notable then the paragraphs that were warred out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan -- I'm sympathetic to the idea that this issue deserves inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia, but the idea that only the most important criticisms should be included in Criticisms of the BBC, while less important ones can be left in this article (or that "as much information from that article" should be moved to this article) is completely wrong. By its nature, this more general article covers all aspects of the BBC, and so can only devote a limited amount of space to criticisms without the criticisms section becoming completely disproportionate in length. By contrast, the "Criticisms of the BBC" is free to go into detail at length without such difficulties... AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon - I know what you are saying, but it does not reflect policy. The paragraphs are thoroughly cited, pertinent, recognized by BBC, and certainly more important than most of the criticism that is currently in the main article. I'd argue the insistent that this information be denied is not for its irrelevance but perhaps too much relevance, i.e..offensive to some editors. Just a hypothesis. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Something can be perfectly sourced and notable, and yet not be appropriate for inclusion into every article. Examining the revelant scope of each article would tend to suggest that most items in the "Criticism and Controversies" section should be moved to a separate article specifically devoted to such issues -- unless a controversy is very well known, or had a significant impact on the history of the BBC. AnonMoos (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

again, you are avoiding the core of my argument. What you consider to be important milestone in BBC history is not the measuring stick for inclusion, and your reasoning is not endorsed by policy. Much of the current criticism could be removed, but the paragraphs that were deleted had much relevance. BBC rarely responds to criticism and that is why it was important, I do plan on restoring it in the next few days per policy and then we can have further discussion about its inclusion. But warring out RS-cited info indefinitely is a bad start to what could otherwise be a constructive content dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Formally, this is because the BBC was founded by, and is operating under, a Royal Charter granted by the British monarch.

Should read:

Formerly,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.190.100 (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you cite policy, but ignore everyone else's arguments on different policies which appear, to me, to be more relevant. While this is not a vote, if everyone except you agrees that the edits you are making are contrary to policies such as WP:UNDUE, then the substance of the arguments being made that such policies are applicable would suggest that consensus is against you. Introduing the material again would therefore be against that consensus unless you can persuade people, by reasoned argument, that this material should be included. I have yet to see an argument except "it's reliably sourced", which is an argument that it can be kept, not an argument that it should be kept. GDallimore (Talk) 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a debate. "Persuading" people is not how wikipedia works - or else everything would be edited via mob-rule. The reasoning behind inclusion is not sufficient, and just saying "undue" is not particularly persuasive. I've responded to every dispute rather meticulously and editors seem to just add more reasons why it should be gone. The BBC recognized the allegation, notable 3rd party organizations were involved, and all of this was covered by reliable sources. How this is undue...I do not know. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard/read. You clearly have absolutely no idea about what it means to build consensus - go read Wikipedia:Consensus#Process. I never actually said it was a debate, but of course it is, and debate is how you avoid mob rule, by debating the reasons for doing or not doing something so that it isn't only the person with the loudest voice or the biggest drum to bang that gets heard. Why should we listen to you unless you give solid reasons as to why the edits you are trying to make are appropriate? As far as I can see you've given only one reason, that "it's sourced". In response to your single reason for inclusion, people have given numerous counter reasons: too much for this article, POV due to one-sided sourcing, undue weight to minor criticisms.

I also see no evidence at all to back up your claims that you've responded meticulously to every dispute. For example, you response to the "undue" objection was that you don't see why it's undue (and then you mention again that it's reliably sourced; yes, we know!). That's not a reason, and many reasons have been given as to why the inclusion of is undue. By these non-arguments, you are failing to do anything constructive to build consensus in your favour. The fact that there are lots of reasons why people disagree with you and have many reasons for disagreeing with you is also not a point in your favour, as you appear to be trying to make out. Nor does the fact that lots of people agree with each other mean that you are losing due to a "vote". GDallimore (Talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I really wish you would help to improve the Criticisms of the BBC article (which you seem reasonably well-qualified to do) instead of banging your head against the wall here... AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also echo the misgiving about this section, which has mushroomed ridiculously in the last two months. Out of hundred of hours of TV and radio oytput each day, only a tiny fraction of the BBC's output has any connection or relevence to Israel, so to give it this much coverage in the general article is grossly disproportionate. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is strong support for something to be done about the section, it is clearly far too big and has just had another paragraph added. All this stuff does not belong on the main BBC article, it seems crazy when you consider theres just a few lines on Iraq, which had far bigger political implications in the run up to the war / death of Dr Kelly etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

is there any place for this?

diff?

The 1 link has been in the article for months, though we know that isn't important. It's somewhat of a phenomena to have so many special-interest organizations dedicating time to construe, "expose" or whatever certain alleged ethical violations within BBC. Most media hasn't attracted this much attention.

While the source miserably fails RS, it might meet the criteria listed here.

We should probably link BBCwatch since it is the most notable and has been cited by the mainstream. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The first link was a blog, pure and simple, and therefore not an appropriate source.

Judging from its own description, "BBC Watch" seems to be nothing more than a single British expatriate individual, now resident in Israel. That person's focus is too narrow to be appropriate to the page on the BBC in general. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post and the Daily Kos are blogs, by virtue of being a blog specifically does not nullify relevance completely. But like I said, I'm not disputing RS. BBCwatch is not run by a single person as you claim. BBCwatch analysis have been cited in a series of journals, including the National Review here. External links have their own policy for inclusion which I rationalized above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Nick. As an aside, it also says that it is studying and producing statistical reports about BBC News, not the BBC as a whole. That article has it's own, more neutrally-named ("Opinions") section about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would argue that that article and Criticism of the BBC are the best places for most of the criticisms currently in this article, since very few are aimed at the BBC as a whole but (effectively) at BBC News. The section in this article should cover criticisms of the BBC itself, not restricted to its News division. Stephenb (Talk) 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay so I'll just move it to the pertinent article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant, and I suspect you know it. I agreed with Nick entirely. Stephenb (Talk) 12:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine notable sites referenced in popular media that are dedicating to "criticizing BBC" would be acceptable in the pertinent article. Right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to demonstrate notability, you need to demonstrate a reputation for accuracy. Do these mainstream discussions of the site support that? If not, then I think what is essentially a blog is and should be presumed unreliable. GDallimore (Talk) 13:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

External links have a different criteria for inclusion. A special-interest groups devoted to critiquing BBC-coverage mostly certainly qualifies as a partisan and most likely unreliable source. But that doesn't mean it can't be listed in the E.L. As I said, BBCwatch (not a blog) has been mentioned by several news media and its documents are rather meticulous. BiasedBBC is a website but also has a blog, neither is a qualifier for inclusion according to the criteria. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of date?

BBC television channels 3 and 4 exist, and should be mentioned here, also short articles on each channel. There should also be a detailed discussion of the effect of such a huge system with compulsory licensing on the viability of commercial channels (in radio as well as tv). Another important topic is the method and history of ensuring balance in programming (I am ignoring the bias section here, just advocating an account of their legal obligations, and their practical methods to meet those obligations). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm imagining that you have entirely skipped over the paragraph that starts: In the UK, BBC One and BBC Two are the BBC's flagship television channels. Several digital only stations are also broadcast: BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News Channel, BBC Parliament, and two children's channels, CBBC and CBeebies. (my bold) :) Stephenb (Talk) 11:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

TV Licensing

I have amended the opening section on when a TV license is required, as the previous text was quite incorrect. Fortnum (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

In the beginning the statement is made, that BBC is the world's oldest and biggest broadcasting company with a footnote leading to content provided by the BBC itself. I think it is not proper and good use to prove a statement about an organization originating from the same organization itself. We rather need an objective source, that has got nothing to do with the BBC, to prove the statement's truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.37.209 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

India Section

I re-checked the source as the IP suggested and still can't see how:

"He was picked up by the BBC and vested with the respectability of authorship. His work on the Cold War in the Himalayas is a tendentious India-baiting excursion. The Maoist-Mullah Bangladeshi chattering classes love to project India as a catspaw of the U S. Mr Ali was brought out from the BBC closet to pronounce darkly on the Russian President, Mr Vladimir Putin's visit to India last October.

As for the recent Bangladeshi atrocity against soldiers of India's Border Security Force, the BBC paraded one Mr Alistair Lawson from its Dhaka Bureau to extol the virtues of the Bangladesh Defence Rifles. It was as witless a performance as any from a Be rtie Wooster and wickedly insensitive, but in keeping with BBC policy of projecting India through a glass, darkly.

The most formidable missile in India's armoury is the civil servant. It does not work and it cannot be fired. Otherwise, there would be closer engagement in the information war of which India is currently a victim."

equals

"In addition, Addy alludes to discrimination against Indian desk staff in favor of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ones."

As the IP hasn't responded to my query, I'm taking out that sentence. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Siemens

New user User:Janeyjo has made repeated attempts to include mention a supposed contract between the BBC and Siemens, but has so far failed to supply a valid source (e.g. the most recent URL was incomplete). No explanation of what this contract is, or why it is significant enough to mention when other contracts between the BBC and other externals are not, has been given. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The television/Coronation myth

A recent edit included the old myth that the 1953 Coronation "boosted" the number of TV sets/viewers in the UK. This is based on a mis-reading of the fact that on 1 April 1953 (before the Coronation) there were 2,142,452 TV linceces on issue, while on 1 April 1954 (after the Coronation) there were 3,248,892. This is often expressed in terms of "a million more sets) or similar. However, refering to Television licensing in the United Kingdom (historical), the number of licences on issue at 1 April each year were:

1947 = 14,560

1948 = 45,564 (+213%)

1949 = 126,567 (+178%)

1950 = 343,882 (+172%)

1951 = 763,941 (+122%)

1952 = 1,449,260 (+90%)

1953 = 2,142,452 (+48%)

1954 = 3,248,892 (+52%)

1955 = 4,503,766 (+39%)

1956 = 5,739,593 (+27%)

1957 = 6,966,256 (+21%)

1958 = 8,090,003 (+16%)

1959 = 9,255,422 (+14%)

It is clear that during the time period in question the number of licences was increasing, but the yearly percentage change was steadily decreasing. Clearly there was a change in 1953-1953, as the percentage change increased, but only slightly. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

arms

The picture is surely a greyscale rendition of the arms, the original of which would include colour (Unsigned Post)

I agree, anyone got a image with better quality? Earth_Worm_Eater (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Basic factual problems with this article

This site contains basic factual errors that require correction. I will make the changes and state in the edit line why the changes have been made. Fk27jh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Overlinking vs underlinking

I made a pass at cleaning up the BBC article in respect of what I perceived to be an example of "overlinking" in the sense defined in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_to_consider/Make_links_relevant#Overlinking_and_underlinking

The MOS says,

"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement,[3] and dates"

See also the essay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis and let me know if you agree/disagree, or would like to contribute.

I don't believe that I necessarily got the balance right, as I think the MOS could do with being filled out a bit more, in this respect. What do others think?CecilWard (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarified the BBC's Status as Britain's Semi-Official State Broadcaster

In the opening paragraph I clarified the BBC's status as the semi-official state broadcaster of the UK. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information from? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The terms “state-backed” and “official” or “semi-official” are often used interchangeably with the latter terms seeming to be the Wikipedia preference based on a casual review of similar articles. I elected to use the term “semi-official” as “state-backed” seems harsher and implicative of an absence of editorial independence, which the BBC enjoys. However, I’m happy to change the edit from “semi-official broadcaster” to “state-backed broadcaster” if you prefer. (Change made and cited with three references.) Thank you, I appreciate your contributions. (Initially I didn’t add a source citation because it seemed obvious and unlikely to be challenged per Wikipedia:CITE#CHALLENGED, however, have done so since it’s been requested.) Nothughthomas (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A more precise description of the BBC is a public service broadcaster supported by licence fees and empowered by Royal Charter. The term "state-backed" is ambiguous and, although such loose terminology may be suitable for journalism, is not the best we could do (q.v.). --TS 10:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony is correct. I've replaced this inexact description with a more precise one sourced to a work by the BBC's former Head of Public Affairs. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided three citations, two of which with neutral (non-BBC). I'm concerned that Fars_News_Agency gets tagged as "semi-official" on the basis of a BBC description and the BBC gets tagged "public service", again, on the basis of a BBC description. The BBC certainly can't be the trump card on wikipedia, even in descriptions of itself, can it? (Also, can we work on facilitating discussion and consensus-building before reverting edits, particularly ones where the contributor went to some time and trouble to cull three academically acceptable sources? Thanks.) Nothughthomas (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the BBC reference from the Fars News Agency (FNA) article because I could find no reference to the agency in the source. I think the FNA article could be improved, but making the BBC article more like the FNA article wouldn't achieve that object. Unlike FNA, the BBC is well understood and we don't need to resort to obscure references to establish the nature of its funding, editorial control and broadcasting standards. --TS 11:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A google of "Semi-Official" and "BBC" will produce pages of results referencing FNA. Obviously this is not an argument I'm going to win since it's appearing the issue here is less with interest in article BBC and more with interest in user Nothughthomas. In interest of community harmony I am volunteering to terminate my participation in this entry moving forward. Nothughthomas (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony and ChrisO, "state-backed" is not a very good term. What is there at the moment is not only sufficient, but quite accurate. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about terms we like or dislike. It is about terms that are used in academically citeable material. I provided three source citations for my addition. In the future would appreciate a fuller opportunity to discuss edits being made when I take the time and effort to go do this as it involved a trip to the library for one of them. As it is, the point, apparently, is moot. (in the interest of community harmony - I'm attempting, with marginal results, to disentangle myself from the many entries I've been participating in regularly in which User talk:Tbsdy lives is suddenly materializing, given the good faith communication issues we've encountered lately) Nothughthomas (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not even necessary, as the next line makes it clear what sort of organization it is. "The BBC is a publicly owned corporation that operates under a Royal Charter issued by the British Crown and its operations are overseen by twelve Governors who are appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Government." - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "Royal Charter" is not widely known outside Commonwealth nations. Nothughthomas (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's wikilinked. Anyone who wants to find out what the term means can click on it. This article isn't the place to explain what a Royal Charter is. Also, note that the source is a former head of the BBC's Public Affairs section. He doesn't work for or speak for the BBC now but he is in an excellent position to explain how it works. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a wikilink to Royal Charter. Perhaps if the term is not understood then they could click on the link? What is ironic about this is that the term you want to replace it with is less precise and has a certain amount of ambiguity. Some people could see "state-backed" as "state-controlled", which it is not. Your change is not warranted, and there is no consensus for the change. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was consensus. I wanted to have a discussion about the issue ut obviously emotions are getting a little heated here, the reasons why I don't quite understand, so I'll attempt - once again - to terminate defense of my position without prejudice. Please see my note to you here - Talk:Václav_Klaus#I_Ask_Consensus_for_a_Substantial_Rewrite_of_this_Article_by_a_Native_English_Speaker - for further clarification. Nothughthomas (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind a totally unrelated article, we are not here to discuss that. Please explain why you believe that "state-backed" is better or more precise than what is written here. Without a better reason for this change, the terms "state-backed" will not be made to this article. As this is a change you have proposed, it is up to you to explain why this is necessary to the clarity of this article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said, I am making the choice not to defend this edit for reasons stated many times above; clearly it would have larger scale ramifications for the wikipeace. User talk:Tbsdy lives - I'm not going to engage you in a confrontation. Following me from entry to entry won't change that. I'm here to contribute to wikipedia, not have a gladitorial bout. Please email me directly if you have any questions, however, I can't respond to you on discussion boards any further. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we will just have to do without the terms "state-backed" in this article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote needs a reference... (!)

The following footnote has no reference:

the motto: "Nation shall speak peace unto Nation" was thought to have been first proposed by J C Stobart the BBC's first Director of Education.

In what I think must be a first, I just added {{fact}} to that ref tag. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed that tag and put in the official version of events. There is an alternative here [[4]], which is OR, but must be where the J C Stobart proposal came from. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Require update confirmation on this article to prevent vandalism?

This article appears to be the target of repeated attacks, it makes the accuracy of the content less trustworthy regrettably.

Should it be necessary to semi-protect it?Sir Stupidity (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC's Grotesque and Rampant Left-Bias is Cite-able

Should really get more attention and the commission findings on this should be cited.

69.171.160.32 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The organisation that cancelled one of its biggest shows because the country's largest right of centre party felt it would interfere with the election? WFCforLife (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

The majority of the information in this section was a direct duplication of contemporary detailed material from the two seperate pages Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies. Any material that wasn't I have added to it's respective page. By clearing it out I hope we can replace it with a more sensible focussed section rather than a blow by blow account of new developments in this area. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks like something is missing now. This section should present a summary of the two subset articles. __meco (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag icon in infobox?

Is there any rationale for adding the tiny Union Jack in the infobox? WP:ICONDECORATION discourages the practice; I think it oversimplifies and overemphasizes national origin, but am reluctant to edit war with the anonymous editor who has added it twice. Does the flag add anything? If so, what? --John (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It has no useful purpose. Flag icons are best used on lists or tables, as an aid for the reader to find items by their association with the respective nations (e.g. in a list of Olympic athletes on a results page). But a singular flag icon, as in this infobox, has zero navigational value. It also draws undue weight to that infobox field, for no good reason. And lastly, as implemented on this page, would be rendered by a screen reader as "United Kingdom United Kingdom" (i.e. twice) which is clearly a violation of WP:Accessibility. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. We must come up with a way to scan for flags within infoboxes. I say this because infobox flag usage (and existance) is inconsistent. I'm sure a bot could be configured to apply the MoS, if it knew where it was looking. WFCforLife (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

unacceptable wholesale removal of criticism/controversies

User Might Antar continues to revert the controversy section claiming it does not belong. Example: Fox Company.

Considering the sheer size and scale of BBC I'd say it is rather odd to not include at least a partial, or brief list of criticisms rather than having an empty section. Just put "News" for News-related criticism as a head-line. I could scale it down for the most widely-covered criticism.Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above when I merged what was in this section with the two forks which were already established. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, you should read what I wrote. It is unacceptable to just have a blank criticism sections. Your claims that criticism about BBC news were inappropriate is moot. I can create a brief section outlining the most common criticism (like Fox), but it is bizarre to just have an empty section. Really. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think it does not belong. The subject, even summarized, would easily dwarf the rest of the BBC article. This dwarfing would be unacceptable, because the sheer amount of information regarding the criticisms would not reflect their importance with respect to the BBC article. Of course if there comes a time where the controversies and criticism articles can be summarized in a few short paragraphs, be accurate, and not be POV, this may change. But that is doubtful. Int21h (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversies and Criticism section

There are currently two "spin-off" articles of this section: BBC controversies and Criticism of the BBC. Wikpedia policy on this (Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles) states:

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

There are obviously many, many criticism and controversies that the BBC has been involved in in its many years of existence. Picking out a few topics from those articles and including them here (e.g. Israel or Iraq) would be POV-forking. What is necessary is an NPOV summary of all the controversies/criticisms that have involved the BBC, not just a few. Factsontheground (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The original controversy section did not simply include Israel and Iraq. Iraq was very brief, and I greatly reduced Israel's sub-section. FOTG I would appreciate you cease following me around to articles I edit/ Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. The section need to summarize the entire spinoff article not just parts of it.

As for "following you around", I've been watching and contributing to this article since at least July last year (proof). Not everyone is out to get you, Wikifan12345. You should quit being so paranoid. Factsontheground (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm sure your presence here is just a coincidence and you didn't click on my contribs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The section did not even list the controversies and fake news published by BBC. There are so many of them. Why they are not listed? The latest being this one.BBC crisis over 'fake' sweatshop scene in Primark documentaryMediacrime (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wikifan, there should be some sort of mention in the main BBC article, after all the controversies are to do with them. It doesn't have to be a big mention so as to ensure no undue weight. If people come on to Wikipedia and want to read about the controversies I'm quite sure the BBC page would be their first port of call where they'd at least expect to get a brief synopsis of the controversies.

How about at the top of the section we have a link to the BBC Controversies article and then a brief section discussing the most important controversies?

Or how about we look into dispute resolution maybe for content dispute?--5 albert square (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

any organisation of the BBC's size, and nature, will have criticisms, and controversies. To bog down the main article, (where article size is already a problem) with individual references of the nearly 90 years of its existance, would not do anyone any favour. Ths spinoff/out articles are the best way to address the problem, with a non committal general comment on the subject in the main body. Restricting (by omission) to the recent past (quoting events of the last few days) would be POV to a major extent. --Keith 11:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Keith. The problem is how do you classify what are the most important issues - i.e. the ones to be mentioned in this article? What is important to one person isn't to someone else. In addition to big controversies in the less recent past, remember when considering this that British and International perspectives dont necessarily pull in the same direction. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Impact of Ross scandal on public plausibility of the BBC

There is nothing in the article referring to the public disgust and also the implausibility of the BBC as a broadcaster after the broadcasting of Ross and Brand in scandal recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.36.100 (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fleeting controversies have no place in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many wikipedia articles are grossly now-centric. Luwilt (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC or British Broadcasting Corporation?

I'm just talking about the title, is the BBC title is suitable enough or we'll make it British Broadcasting Corporation?

"BBC" advantages:

• it is not very long
• it matches to the current representation of the corporation (like "BBC One")

"British Broadcasting Corporation" advantages:

• it reduces confusion (because there are several BBCs).
  

Thank you!

TheSaxons (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is fine as it is.

When I did a Google search I could only come up with BBC=British Broadcasting Corporation, therefore suggesting that is the most popular search. That is why the article should stay with the name BBC.

If anyone wants any of the other articles that could fall under BBC then it's easy enough for them to click on the disambiguation link - that's what disambiguation pages are for --5 albert square (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Chances are anyone searching for BBC on Wikipedia will want this page. We shouldn't rename it because of WP:COMMONNAME. AnemoneProjectors 11:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no change needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BBC helicopter?

does BBC have a helicopter like so many channels around the world in rich cities do? I think its worth mentioning it on the page if they dont. A multi-billion pound media organization not having a helicopter. 116.240.160.147 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to suggest that the BBC actually owns its of helicopter/s, rather than simply rent them as and when require, but by the same token there doesn't seem to be any valid source that discusses that, so we can't include it, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reassesment of page

I have been for the past few days been going through the article and attempting to correct some of the issues in the article. My hope was to get this article back up to good status, but if this cant be acheived then at least a reassesment to reflect the changes. Major changes I have done:

• Improved prose and flow of article
• Updated finance section with latest (at time of writing) figures
• Updated page in general (last time someone went through and changed it all appeared to be 2006)

Thanks Rafmarham (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Owner

The article states the owner is the crown but the owner according to the BBC is the Licence fee payer and also it is State-Owned so this needs to be changed C. 22468 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In this sense the Crown means the British state, which is correct. The BBC is not a cooperative owned by licence fee payers.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The original company was founded in 1922[12] by a group of six telecommunications companies—Marconi, Radio Communication Company, Metropolitan-Vickers (MetroVick), General Electric, Western Electric, and British Thomson-Houston (BTH)[13]—to broadcast experimental radio services. The first transmission was on 14 November of that year, from station 2LO, located at Marconi House, London.[14] The British Broadcasting Company Ltd was created by the British General Post Office (GPO) and John Reith applied for a job with the existing company and later became its employee general manager. The company was wound-up and on 1 January 1927[15] a new non-commercial entity called the British Broadcasting Corporation established under a Royal Charter became successor in interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.215 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Auntie Beeb

I have changed the sentence "The nickname of the BBC has long been "Auntie Beeb"" to "The BBC is sometimes referred to as "Auntie Beeb"" in the article lead. Having looked at a citation, I don't dispute the fact of this statement, but as a 20 year old living in Britain who watches BBC television every day and frequently talks about it with friends, I have never heard the BBC referred to as Auntie Beeb, and as such I don't think it's accurate to say that THE nickname of the BBC is Auntie Beeb. Of course, many older people may well use this nickname, which is why this statement is still significant enough to belong in the lead, but I think the old phrasing suggested that this name was more mainstream than it actually is nowadays. Unnachamois (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also never heard 'Auntie Beeb', it is either 'The Beeb' or 'Auntie'. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 13:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many references to 'Auntie Beeb' as any Google (other search engines are available) search will amply demonstrate.90.216.219.230 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Expenditure pie chart

I notice that the top pie chart under the expenditure section has values of 0%. It clearly shouldn't because the table beside gives values for the actual amount of money spent, but I can't edit it myself because it's a picture. Perhaps vaules like 0.1& etc. should be used to make it more accurate - it's not very professional to have 0% on a graph. This is really just to draw this to the attention of the appropriate editor (i.e - the graph's creator). Regards, Bigdon(talk) 16:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted, I will need to chnge the graph when the ;atest expenditure is released, so I will put all values to 1 decimal place at that time. Rafmarham (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

BBC not the largest public broadcaster

The article on public broadcasting states that the German ARD is the largest public broadcaster. In comparison, it is larger by most numbers, i.e. employees, number of stations, budget. Why do most sources still state that the BBC is the largest? The ARD says on their homepage at [5] that they are the largest. The only point I found where the BBC is larger in numbers is the correspondence network. --Beliar (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure that it's wrong. Even in the UK BSkyB actually has a considerably higher turnover, although the BBC has a lot more staff. I see no way that the broadcasting activities of the BBC are bigger than those of NBC Universal, China Central Television, The Walt Disney Company and Time Warner.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That is obviously. But they don't say they are the largest, only the largest public broadcaster. And that is a pretty close competition.--Beliar (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It’s impossible to say who is the “largest public broadcaster” without defining all three words and the result will change depending on the definitions used. To take what might by some to be considered to be the easiest definition first, broadcaster might be defined as an entity primarily engaged in the “classical” radio and TV real time dissemination of programmes, but should on-line viewing be included, or web pages related to content when published by that entity? BBC News on-line for example? If web viewing is to be included then would on-line only count in which case is the YouTube website a broadcaster? That suggestion might cause some amusement. Plainly YouTube is not a broadcaster according to the “classical” view but if web viewing is included YouTube must be. Perhaps the Google Home Page is a broadcaster. Even if the definition is restricted to entities that generate or commission original programme material then the 24 hour movie channels are not broadcasters, but I suspect many would argue that they axiomatically are. YouTube and Google have material specifically created for that website so would still be broadcasters according to some definitions. Public may be taken to mean available to the public in general, in which case should we only include Free To Air which would immediately disqualify some broadcasters as much or all of their content is hidden behind a “pay wall”. Irregardless of whether or not content is paid for at delivery rather than by licence fee, subscription, general taxation, or increased cost of commodities to pay advertising fees, some might argue that the word public refers to ownership of the entity which would disqualify privately owned or for profit broadcasters such as Sky, Universal, Disney etc. but might include the BBC, CCTV and US PBS. Largest may refer to many different measurements of a broadcaster, for example, audience numbers in pure users per week irrespective of duration of use, or audience hours which might favour a smaller number of consumers who watch, listen or whatever many hours a day. What about unwanted exposure, or instead should it just include potential reach, the number of people to whom a broadcast is available, whether or not anyone watches or listens? It might mean number of programme streams but then would that necessarily include different platforms, analogue, digital, terrestrial and satellite of the same programme. Hours per week of programming? Hours per week of original programming? Should we include repeats? Again, should we include on-line? Should we instead define it by the number of staff employed? The revenue from whatever means? The organisation itself where for instance ARD and US PBS are consortia of many broadcasters but the BBC is a single entity. The phrase might itself be problematic. Should it be “largest broadcaster” or “largest public service broadcaster”. Some might feel “largest public broadcaster” is a tautology when considering narrowcasting such as to a nations armed forces or a chain of betting shops. I suspect that the largest public broadcaster cannot be defined by a single measure any more than we could define the biggest person in the world simply by measuring the length of everyone’s feet and picking the longest. It is likely to be more an amalgam of many factors which will be chosen according to prejudices and preferences.90.216.219.230 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See BBC World Service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

NHK of Japan is actually larger by revenues as well, with an income of the equivalent of £5.1 billion last year: http://www.nhk.or.jp/pr/koho-e.htm. At a minimum the reference in the lead of this article needs to clarify by which measurement the BBC is the largest, otherwise the information is meaningless and misleading. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This page will need updating

This page will need updating soon. At the time of typing (March 7 2012), it lists Mark Thompson as the Director General of the BBC - that is correct, but it was announced on The Media Show on March 7 2012 that his successor is already been sought. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenever Mark Thompson leaves, then the page will be updated to reflect the changes. I personally do not doubt that it will go unchanged for a long time. Rafmarham (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it does need changing now - it was announced on news on Radio Four today that some one called "George Entwistle" is going to be the replacement to Mark Thompson. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now updated the section with the sub-heading "Executive Board", and put in how Entwistle is going to be the replacement. However, I shall appreciate it if some one more adept at doing tables on the internet than me could update the box headed "Key people" - any help here will be appreciated. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks - I see that George Entwistle is now in the table, as the person who is soon to be Director-General of the BBC. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

All references to the DG have now been updated following Mark Thompsons departure. Rafmarham (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of the BBC summary

I have noticed that the Criticisms section has no contents except for the two links to the main pages. I think that a suitable summary should be put in place to explain why the BBC is criticised. This is my current effort of which you can comment and edit.

Due to the BBC's high standards of programming, and the corporation's aim to be impartial and unbiased in its reporting, whenever the corporation falls short of these high expectations, or their reporting is viewed as more sympathetic with one side of an argument, criticism is often leveled at the corporation. Another key area of criticism is the mandatory license fee, as competitors argue that this means of financing is unfair and results in an inability to compete with the corporation. Also, any accusations of waste or over-staffing causes significant pressure from viewers, who are paying for this coverage.

In addition, there is uncertainty to what extent the BBC is allowed to compete with other organisations and to what extent they can have a commercial presence in world markets.

I should emphasize that I do not want every new criticism to be placed in this lead, but I do think that an adequate summary as to why the BBC is criticised should be added without having to wade through the criticisms article. Rafmarham (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Probably best to use this work to improve the lead in Criticism of the BBC and then copy the nut of that here to create a summary in this article. --Kvng (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: competitors and the licence (note spelling) fee. Unless you have a source for this, can I suggest that it is approached from the point of view of the BBC using the licence fee to compete with commercially provided services or some public perceptions of fairness to poor people? Whilst there are these and other controverial issues about the licence fee, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of its broadcast competitors publically support the fee in principle (probably because the dont want the BBC directly stealing their income). Pit-yacker (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Unfortunately, due to the nature of those sort of articles, any articles written about the BBC and controversys tend to pick a side, breaking NPOV. I was trying to create a summary that describes why people criticize the BBC. As for spelling, unfortunately it is usually a typo or some software trying to fix something. Rafmarham (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is at the moment is, as I understand, the statement "Another key area of criticism is the mandatory licence fee, as competitors argue that this means of financing is unfair" is factually incorrect - POV doesnt even come into it. The BBC's rivals (on the whole) don't oppose the licence fee, they actually support it in principle. What does wind the BBC's rivals is the use of licence fee income to run services that compete with commercial services. However, this is different to opposing the principle of a licence fee. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, our messages were missing in the middle. I have now amended the paragraph to read Another key area of criticism is the mandatory licence fee, with some viewers arguing that this must be paid regardless of whether BBC services are used or not. which is a valid criticism of the BBC. Sorry for previous confusion. Rafmarham (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed someone else has altered the paragraph so that it is significantly shorter. I personally think it's too brief and doesn't explain why the BBC is criticized. Any thoughts? Rafmarham (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The mention of the Iraq war focuses too much on a single recent event. Mentioning any single news-event is probably an invitation for people to add other recent news-related crticisms. Therefore, it is unlikely to stay shorter for long. Besides that the new summary is also too news focused. The summary has also seen edits at Criticisms of the BBC See here Pit-yacker (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

First, failed to see this discussion before changing. The problem with the paragraph was it was just too much WP:Original research that sounded opinionated and not like a summary of anything. It was just an attempt to make it more inline with the content of the actual articles, and only a first draft. Other specific couple word descriptions of other sections in each article certainly can be added.

As for Iraq war, if you look it is really the biggest issue besides a whole load of "bias" criticisms. Any media helping the government do pro-war propaganda is certainly an issue, especially if it's criticism in a government commission report. CarolMooreDC 22:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion. There are many people who contribute to these articles who will strongly disagree with you. For example, have you seen the length of the Israel-Palestine conflict section at Criticism of the BBC? Incidentally, any reference to impartiality should be verifiable. It is an obligation that I believe is written into the BBC's Royal Charter. That obligation to impartiality certainly has an impact on criticisms of bias (perceived or otherwise).

Pit-yacker (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article is not very well organized with bias being all jumbled together and then whole sections for smaller issues. My point only is that the summary should be very specific about topics covered in the article, not vague and wordy. Just change it as you see fit. CarolMooreDC 23:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC and WWII

If he BBC owned a large building during WWII, would it not be legitimate for Germany to bomb the BBC. I seem to think that they never did. Any ideas on why they never did anything as such? --83.108.29.226 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question the home of the BBC, Broadcasting House, was damaged by bombs three times: on the 15 October 1940 one directly hit BH destroying the music library and some studios - newsreader Bruce Belfrage famously continued reading the news bulletin throughout the blast; another on 8 December 1940 when a landmine exploded in Portland place, causing fire damage above ground and flooding from the fire hoses below, and finally on 17 April 1941 when a bomb fell nearby - this was very minor with windows being the main casualty. (This info can be found here from the BBC Press Office or in books - I used The story of Broadcasting House, home of the BBC.
While the question is interesting, I'm not sure it is the best place to ask it as a Talk page is to talk about improving the article not on the subject of the article. Thanks. Rafmarham (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Child Abuse

The scale of this event is so huge it will require placing in the main article rather than farmed off to some untidy article on BBC 'controversy' as child abuse cannot be defined as a 'disagreement'. Twobells (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree it firmly belongs amongst other controversies and not in its own section. I believe putting it in its own section and justifying it being there by the 'scale of [the] event' is against WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A 'controversy' is defined as a 'disagreement', 'dispute', 'contention' and the child abuse scandal is none of the former. There is no dispute, disagreement or contention. Twobells (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would think it was none of the former. I certainly disagree with it, I certainly dispute it and I've always been contentious against it and I'm sure you are too. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I suggest that this affair is much worse than a mere 'disagreement' or 'dispute', it is colossal in nature and deserves to be placed into context within the main body of the article which is best wiki practice, not farmed off into a separate article or sub-headed. Twobells (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I would definately agree that it needs to be in this article, the fact that it's discribed as the BBC's biggest crisis in 50 years sums up its significance. Looking at it I don't think its current position as a subheading in the article makes it any less important, the fact it's called 'Child abuse' means you can hardly miss it. If it were its own section, then it would seem oddly placed amongst headings like History, Governance and Services... it would almost make it seem that 'Child abuse' is a feature of the BBC. In any case we still can't judge its importance as there are no conclusions published about the investigations that are still ongoing, we just have the media running riot, so to pass our own judgement or use the various negative sources that are available to judge the importance of what is alleged to have happened would still be against WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM. If, when the investigations results are published, we have sources which say the BBC have proven to be beneath contempt, we can then structure the article appropriately without breaking any rules. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be in the article. I'm neutral on whether it should be kept in the Criticisms section or moved to the History section.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

When the case is concluded it probably needs to be in both, abliet much more briefly in History. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have no objections to that. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe that it should be covered in detail in one of the Controversy/Criticism pages with a few sentences about the scandal in the history section when the case is closed. Putting it as a sub section of controversies opens the floodgates for other events to be placed there. If the controversy pages are not good enough for the story then those pages need to be improved. Rafmarham (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also disagree. Plenty of past controversies received as much coverage at the time, e.g. Zircon, Hutton, etc., so it is misleading to give one special treatment here, before the dust has even settled. It certainly seems rather bizarre to have more on Savile here than on the actual controversies page. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well Hutton/David Kelly should be in this article in greater detail. We do need to avoid coverage of Saville become excessive in this article, but it should absolutely be in here. This is not "recentism" because the scale of the crisis for the BBC is already very clear.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the information to the summary on the BBC controversy page where it belongs and should be, as it was not updated. The paragraph on its own made little sense. I have also left a comment to those who will edit this section stating this:

Please do not add criticism of the BBC or controversies involving the BBC here, please do so on the appropriate pages above. If you wish to add a significant criticism, please use the BBC Talk page so that a neutral comment can be prepared through collaboration and then subsequently added to the History section. Comments that are not neutral in their point of view may be removed.

I hope that this will direct the criticism, which should be included, to the right pages. As for historic criticisms, I have also requested, as you can see above, that they be discussed here so that the statement complies with NPOV. Rafmarham (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you are but you don't just come onto an article and delete work without consensus, I have undone your edits and the original section will remain until consensus. The child abuse fiasco is the biggest collapse of trust at the BBC since it received it's royal charter and cannot just be quietly farmed off to separate article which is defined as a 'disagreement', there is no 'criticism' as such but a fundamental break down of trust between the broadcaster and the public. The Saville scandal and now the Newsnight fiasco has lead to the worst crisi in the BBC's history and belongs right here. Twobells (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Nick Cooper, Nick why are you stalking me on Wikipedia? This is the third article I edit that I find you have joined. Twobells (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Twobells, I have a few answers to your reply;

1. I didn't just come into the article, I have made several improvements over the years and have monitored the page when I can
2. I didn't delete the work either, I moved into the BBC Controversy article where there was a section on this. The bot moved was incomplete and relied heavily on a knowledge of the current situation, bad for an external reader. I therefroe moved the information so that one whole clear picture existed rather than two incomplete pictures.
3. I did leave a small post stating, in unbiased terms, that the BBC was currently experienceing criticism and for more information go to the appropriate page. We should not let the page be dominated by every criticism the BBC has every had and so to combat this I have always proposed that we put all criticism in the other article and provide a suitable summary to say why the BBC is criticized.
4. In line with Wikipedia:Recentism, I think that these large scandals should be included in the history section with the benefit of a historical perspective so that we can tell how big this actually is, without getting carried away in the spur-of-the-moment.
5. My actions were the (somewhat delayed) enactment of what had been agreed by consensus above.
6. I would also like to point out that your post was somewhat discourteous and I would like to draw to your attention to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

I will not revert this edit until, as you wish, a full and binding consensus exists on this issue. Rafmarham (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Twobells, wind your neck in. You made a single edit to Gun politics in the United Kingdom on 10/10/10, and then you never touched it again until 07/07/12, whereas I've been editing the page routinely since 18/10/06. You made your first edit to this page only this week, while I've been editing it on and off since 24/05/07. Both pages are in my watchlist, along with 1,680 others. I am not "stalking" you, I am continuing to edit pages that I was editing long before you did. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Newsnight Meltdown

Oh dear, another huge story, does this belong under the BBC 'child abuse' section or a new section entitled 'Newsnight Investigation'? Twobells (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Same section in my opnion, all closely related. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all stories involving a criticism of the BBC, as this one is, should be added as its own section on the Criticism of the BBC page where all of the other stories of this calibre apear. Thank you. Rafmarham (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but the combination of the Saville scandal, the Newsnight fiasco and the resignation of Entwhistle all within two weeks has lead to the biggest crisis in the BBC's history and cannot be farmed off to an article which by its own definition is described as a 'disagreement', dispute' or 'argument'. This crisis described by the BBC themselves is their 'darkest day' and goes to the very heart of the BBCTwobells (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason not to summarise the latest crisis in this article, but please try and edit with some regard to matters of style, due weight, reference formatting, grammar, spelling, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far you editing leaves a lot to be desired, I suggest you take your comments and apply them to yourself. Twobells (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Always happy to learn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that very much. Twobells (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I refer to my post above. WP:PERSONAL Rafmarham (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus- BBC Crisis: Does It Belong In the Article?

• For The recent child abuse scandals, broadcasting false allegations of paedophilia against an innocent man and the sudden resignation of the new BBC director General all within two weeks has lead to the media and the BBC themselves calling it the 'darkest day in the history of the BBC'. The depth of the crisis is so great that it clearly belongs in the main article and not farmed off to an article that by it's own definition covers 'disagreement' and 'argument'. The child abuse scandal which has run unhindered at the BBC for what may be 30 years along with the appalling lack of investigative integrity only a week later in the Newsnight program and Entwhistles sudden resignation has created the biggest crisis in the BBC in it's long history, subsequently I suggest that the facts are laid out neutrally within the main article and not farmed off. When readers visit the BBC article they need to know the good and the bad, Wikipedia has never been a public relations marketing tool. Twobells (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it should be covered in the article. Is there any doubt? BUT it should be taken into account in due course, when we have good reliable secondary sources, and given due weight. There is no rush. We are not a news agency. Let's take a little bit of time over this, just report the basic facts - notably Entwistle's resignation - for now, and address the wider issues when they can be considered in a neutral and balanced manner. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, would you use the word 'For' in bold at the start of your comment please as this is a consensus debate, thanks very much. Twobells (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, because I'm responding to your comment. This is not a vote, whether you would like it to be or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, a consensus section is a place to vote, this section lays out an argument for or against an issue, why are you commenting in this section when you have no intention of voting? All you've done is just made it untidy and then complained when I tried to tidy it up. Twobells (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:PNSD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:PNSD does not apply, that is glaringly obvious by the amount of discussion of the issue contained above (rolls eyes). Twobells (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes with time As stated above, we cannot determine the full scale of a scandal until it has past. It could break WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV if we add it to the article. A brief summary is fine but the blow-by-blow account that is currently there is innapropriate. Rafmarham (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• For - Absolutely belongs in this article, the only question is where. As I said earlier, personally I am neutral as to whether it is included in the History section or the Controversies section. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• For - this event is not recent --it happened over decades, only the revelations are new. The fact that it was suppressed for so long is a central part of the story, and that suppression is not recent. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of hype by self-interested parties about one news story. That the DG should resign for not carefully monitoring the entire BBC output for several days was pathetic enough I see no reason why this political aside needs to be continued here. I sit with Ghmyrtle on this. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are describing the biggest crisis to hit the BBC since its inception 'hype'? I think raising political conspiracy theories here is an obstruction to the facts and the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. Twobells (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... I don't agree with anything Mighty Antar said. Not really sure I want to be sitting with him... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV cover this. After the dust has settled it may probably be worth a small mention, with a link to the Criticism article. But as it stands, not enough is known in order for us to abide by npov. - X201 (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Enough to know that this is the biggest BBC crisis in their history and suggesting it is a minor incident worth a 'small mention' is ludicrous at best and pov at worst. Farming it off to some secondary article just won't cut it I'm afraid. Twobells (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

But, we need to give it due weight, and also edit with care and caution. Edits made now in haste are much less likely to remain relevant to an encyclopaedia than edits made in a week, or month, or year, or ten year's time. There is certainly no need to give quite undue weight now to comments made by one individual, a former BBC reporter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement by Martin Bell is just the first part of a section pertaining to the Newsnight scandal. Twobells (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not needed. WP:NOT#NEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Three bits of Wikipedia policy state that we shouldn't include it here yet. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV all state that we should wait until we can see this clearly without the influence of current events. If you need to amend the details in light of new events, then do so on the Criticisms page where the full detail quite rightly should sit. A full blow-by-blow account is not needed here now. If your qualm is that the Criticisms page is inadequate, then improve it - that's what Wikipedia is for! Rafmarham (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely right that there should be a section on the current crisis in this article, and entirely wrong that it should be bloated by unnecessary unencyclopedic quotes from individual journalists or ex-journalists. There is a middle ground, which is to include a short section here, linking to the more thorough explanation of this issue in other articles. We should be covering the 90 years of the BBC in this article - not giving undue weight to the last few weeks. Hopefully, people will express their views here to get towards a consensus, rather than edit warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"The company was wound-up and on 1 January 1927"

There's a problem with the "1922 to 1939" section. A sentence fragment ("The company was wound-up and on 1 January 1927"), missing a period at then end, seems oddly placed. 2.217.1.213 (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have been a misformatted reference edited a few days ago, which I've now corrected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Praise for how up-to-date Wikipedia is

I thought I would praise how up-to-date Wikipedia is by complimenting this article. I only heard on the BBC news today (November 22 2012) that Tony Hall is going to be Director-General of the BBC - and already it mentions that he is the Director-General of the BBC! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC Broadcasting during WWII

I notice that the current article doesn't cover the BBC during WWII other than by noting that during the period 1939 - 2000, TV broadcasting was suspended. Would anyone object to a section detailing the BBC's wartime efforts perhaps entitled 1939 - 1945 or Auntie goes to war?

This was a period of huge expansion for BBC Radio. For instance the BBC had no foreign language services on the first day of 1938, 2 by mid year, 5 by the beginning of 1939 and 8 by the time war broke out in September 1939. By the time Germany was defeated in 1945, the BBC was broadcasting in 45 languages and was the biggest international broadcasting organisation in the world. Steve157 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. We can't go into too much detail otherwise the article will turn into an essay. The war is actually mentioned in other sections of the article as well as the part you've mentioned above.--5 albert square (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinguishes an article from an essay. Is the former censored and the later not? Even the BBC's own account of its history states that "In many ways the World War 2 made the BBC." I can't see any case for censoring those formative years. Can you? Steve157 (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The quality boxes at the top of the page

Quality boxes have been placed at the top of this page by someone. I vote to remove them as they are being used politically. The "70s and 80s" statement is referring to the Jimmy Saville scandal. The fact that an article doesn't talk about something the contributor wants it to, doesn't make it incomplete. Also there are some mistakes in the info box:

• The typo: "especial form" instead of "especially from"
• The factual error that this article is about a "channel" when it is actually about a corporation

These errors compound my belief that the contributor who put it there is not serious and is merely suffering from a knee jerk reaction to a current event. They also give an unprofessional impression to visitors to the article.

I vote to remove the boxes as they're very prominently displayed and falsely characterise the article as poor when in general it is comprehensive. In the fullness of time the present scandal affecting the BBC will not be considered such a major part of its history that to omit it now renders the whole article "incomplete".

If I get no response to this after a while a will remove it myself. I hope that's within the rules of Wikipedia. If not please let me know. C.harrison1988 (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I looked into the article's history and the edit was made by a user called Crazyseiko. This user hasn't made any other contributions to the article which I feel just adds to my suspicion that it was a fly-by-night edit to make some sort of point. C.harrison1988 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. The explanation for them was inadequate, and the user who added them has not explained them on this page. If they wish to reinstate them, they must explain and justify them here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

BBC is full of it.

BBC is the crowns internal & external sedition & subsidy group, which anyone with a full nueronal set can easily discern solely by watching the BBC channels.

Do you have a full neuronal set, or is there BBC specific autism, ie: jour na él ism (day after him ism) in you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.207.116 (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

censorship of news and illegal surveillance and sex scandal

Sometimes they are censor news, doing illegal surveillance specially on middle east and sex scandal of some of their anchors leaked. I'm waiting for your opinions. share what do you think. Peyman Ghasemi (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Peyman Chasemi, I think to include any information on the articles it is crucial to have not only relevant, but authoritative references. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Severe Left Wing Bias

94.194.155.125 is interested in adding text that indicates that BBC has a severe left wing bias. In order to add this information a citation must be provided that supports added text. Else, it is unfounded and will be removed. I am attempting to redirect the discussion currently occurring on my talk page here.--TRL (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, if reliably sourced and relevant material is to be included it should be at the article on Criticism of the BBC, rather than this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In which case why allow the very section in which the text was inserted to be contained within this page?? Surely it invited a migration of views across into the core article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mention of its so-called "superbrands"?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/tv-radio/article3834207.ece identifies a set of 5 programs (Dr Who, Top Gear, Strictly Come Dancing, BBC Earth/nature history output, Lonely Planet) as BBC Worldwide brands that between them contribute around 27% of sales. Probably worth a mention in the main BBC article under finances? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Profit or non-profit?

Corporations can be profit or non-profit. Which one is BBC? The article doesn't say this (it should). A number of people think BBC is non-profit, which I am pretty sure is wrong, but the article should address this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The BBC is a government-owned statutory corporation, which is not the same as an American-style commercial corporation. Why do you think the BBC is not non-profit? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The BBC is a non-profit organization in that it does not pay dividends or distribute any income as profit outside of the organization. Any profits from commercial subsidiaries, such as BBC Worldwide, are ploughed back into the organization, making the whole non-profit. There are no shareholders (except the government). Stephenb (Talk) 10:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bodies can be non-profit with a profit-making trading arm. Many non-profits and charities are structured this way, for example charities might sell products in shops to raise funds, or have high profile patrons who give paid-for talks to raise money.

It's complicated by the government ownership. But if the corporation is not run for shareholder profit distribution (ie the government expects it's more likely to put cash in, than routinely taking it out) then non-profit sounds right. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 crisis over child abuse scandals

This section should be removed from the main page and only be in the the criticisms and controversies page. It's not important enough to warrant a listing on the main page when nothing else is listed and there is a separate page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, and would also remove it. I'd also elaborate the one sentence under controversies a bit more, perhaps list in a brief sentence some major controversies over the years. There have been many controversies, some very impactful and severe. Highlighting this one alone feels too much like WP:RECENTISM rather than appropriate from encyclopedic style, and giving one line to all controversies and a substantial section to just this one, would also be undue WP:WEIGHT. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. The section should be mostly moved to the controversies/criticisms articles with an outline incorporated into the history section and a general summary written in the criticisms section about why people criticise the BBC - license fee, accusations of perceived bias. I argued this before but at the time the scandal was breaking and the argument was overlooked. Rafmarham (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Antipolonism

Does not mention the bias against Poles and Poland by the BBC. Refer to "German Camps, Polish Victims" by Jan Niechwiadowicz, the proposed broadcasting of the German serial "Generation War" on the BBC2 TV channel, the Panorama "Stadiums of Hate" documentary, on numerous occasions incorrectly implying the the German concentration/death camps were Polish, and continuing to use Giles Coren on the BBC, e.g. Question Time, despite his published racist views, such as his "Two waves of immigration, Poles Apart" article in The Times of London. Suggest some material is added to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.63.73 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If sourced and notable, could go on Criticism of the BBC or BBC controversies... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Of all the things the BBC has been accused of, anti-Polish sentiment - if genuine and not simply cherry-picked cage-rattling - is too far down the list to be included here, and a pretty robust case would have to be made for inclusion on the other two pages. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannot understand the History section of the BBC article

The History section of the BBC article contains a sub heading known as 1922-2040. How can it be? History cannot contain future events.The paragraph under heading also gives no information which can suggests the heading to be right. Further more, the next subheading is 1939-2000. Is the heading wrong?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarojit (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a particular point to push here, but the year ranges in the history section seem rather arbitrary: 1932-1939, 1939-2000, 2000-2011, 2011-Present. I get 1939, but what happened in 2000? What happened in 2011? If the history is to be subdivided into eras, shouldn't it be clearer on what basis those subdivisions were created? Maybe it would be better (if splits are needed) to split it by decade as the Timeline of the BBC article does.

Also it says next-to-nothing about the BBC in World War 2, other than that it put a stop to the television service. I would have thought that there's much more to be said on that subject - radio on the home front, forces broadcasting, broadcasting to resistance movements, etc. Just don't ask me to write it! Chuntuk (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Also the propaganda element in wartime radio. Valetude (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)