Talk:Criticism of the BBC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mast at Alexandra Palace
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC:
Archive
Archives
/Archive1 (previous incarnations)
/Archive2


Contents

[edit] BBC has made many edits on this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=139215058 from a BBC url. Bigglove 02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=93600334

SHAME ON YOU BBC!!!!! Bigglove 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you tell it is the BBC? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
By the URL. The editor who made those changes is editing from a URL registered to the BBC. Check it out:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
They are editing many BBC pages, but usually with information. These are examples where they are actually removing actual criticism. Wikipedia should discipline the BBC for this. Bigglove 03:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
AFAICT Wikipedia has no power to discipline the whole of the BBC, and a quick check of other contributions shows that blocking BBC IP addresses en-masse would certainly harm Wikipedia more. Where, good content is removed, the editor concerned, should be subject to the same disciplinary procedure as any other editor.
However, the point good content should be noted. There is a fair bit of rubbish that gets put into this article sourced from sources with hidden agendas - and often put in by editors with hidden agendas. Your Evening Standard example above is a case in point - the original editor credited it as a report from The Times(given the use of "of London" I guess the person came from outside the UK) and quoted from the article, what the article what appeared to be quotes from the BBC's report - go to the actual report and this "quote" is not contained in the report. The quote that was put in here appears to be merely the opinion of the Evening Standard - a right wing and rabidly anti-BBC tabloid. This being the case and numerous other examples from DMGT tabloids makes me suspicous of a number of the other tales which use such sources - at that point I would like to see at the least a more reliable source for the tale.
Pit-yacker 09:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Evening standard is a prominent source, and regardless of how ridiculous you perceive the Standard's views, its criticism deserves to be included. The BBC has had plenty of accusations of bias over the years, and extremely few seem to be included here. I've put this article on my watchlist and will be making sure genuine criticism from prominent sources is not removed. The Enlightened 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That is isnt the point. I didnt say the Evening Standard's comments should be removed. The point I was making was the Standard article was misleading, it implied something was included in the report when it was actually just the Evening Standard's opinion. This opinion was more or less copied across to this article (and initially attributed to the more reliable and better known The Times). Consequently, I have made clear that this is the opinion of the Standard and not something that the BBC itself said. It isnt the job of Wikipedia to perpetuate myths made up by either side.
As for opinions of media outlets perhaps we should go back to having a section on opinions of other news outlets. Rather than the rather farcical the BBC was the most pro-Iraq war and anti-Iraq war broadcaster at exactly the same time. However, just lumping opinions out of papers on every conceivable doesnt make for a NPOV article, and that is why I maintain that contrary to what some people believe this is actually one of the hardest articles to right well (and IMO currently one of the worst articles on the entire project). A pile of axe grindings on various issues doesnt reflect that there are a great number of people who probably recognise that whilst the BBC may exhibit bias, it is far from the worst offender. Unfortunately, praise does not sell newspapers and books so you dont tend to get many articles saying "Actually I think the BBC is quite even handed on this issue." - and thats what makes this article so hard to write properly.
As it is, if someone who had no prior knowledge of the UK media came to Wikipedia, they would leave thinking that the BBC was the most biased and DMGT was a bastion of truth. Now whilst the BBC is far from perfect, even the most deluded person in Britain recognise that is far from reality.
What really doesnt help with this article, and I know I'm probably assuming bad faith, is the number of people who go out of their way to twist stories even further. For example, taking quotes in articles completely out of context.
Pit-yacker 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think claiming that a particular paper's view of BBC bias is "axe-grinding" is POV itself. If the Standard has written pieces arguing the BBC is biased they should be included. If the BBC truly is nonpartisan I'm sure you'll find respected sources that argue thus. This is especially the case considering how many argue the BBC IS biased, as you'd expect people who believe in fairness would respond. I don't have time now but I will look back over past edits in this article to see if anything has been unnecessarily removed, and I also plan to include other criticism. 195.137.85.173 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Bangs head against wall! I have never said that the opinion of the Standard should be removed. I was merely pointing out that the actual Standard article was misleading and that the misleading nature of this article was more or less carbon copied to this article - this seems to happen all to often in this article. The term axe-grinding refers to the ludicrous ends that some editors with hidden agendas to "prove" the BBC is biased on a particular topic will go to. In the relatively short time I have been on Wikipedia I have seen cases where parts of sentences are quoted to make the BBC look biased. In at least one case I can think of off the top of my head, when a statement is put back into the correct context it has the opposite meaning. Equally, I have seen stories coming from outlets that can hardly be described as reliable sources which are used for sources where they are really in no position to preach on being unbiased on their topic of interest (believe me the Daily Mail, Sun and Standard really are at the good end of the spectrum).
Unfortunately, whilst there is praise for the BBC (I quote from the article by Martin Walker which is used as evidence the BBC is biased "It’s amazing that the coverage is as decent as it is, and that most of us in the business concede privately that, for all its flaws, the BBC still does a better job that any other news organisation on Earth.") the nature of the issue is that saying that the BBC does quite a good job isnt really controversial. It isnt going to sell newspapers or books - it is like that on most topics.
I think the Martin Walker article actually does say quite a lot on this issue. The point is no the BBC isnt perfect - and at that point who is going to write a leader saying they are when they can go for the more controversial pointing out of all of the BBC's mistakes. Infact its healthy for the BBC that they do point out mistakes. However, that means it is extremely hard to find positive sources about the BBC's output, especially when the tabloids regard Beeb-bashing as somewhat of a national sport, and we have something here on every conceivable issue.
The result is at the end of the day, as I said before in my opinion, this article is so unbalanced, someone who has no knowledge of UK media coming to read Wikipedia, would come away with the impression that the spectrum of bias of the UK media is the opposite way around to what it really is.
Pit-yacker 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the BBC people who has edited this page. When I first came across it, it seemed to be largely quotes from newspapers who have an anti BBC agenda. I have not removed most of these quotes (except when they were wildly inaccurate). Instead I have added text and links to other press and BBC sources which give the BBC response to some of the criticisms. All I am trying to do is give a fuller, more accurate picture. I try and obey Wikipedia's house rules - I am trying to put more facts in the article rather than just inaccurate opinion.

For example, the entry on the Balen report was out of date. It did not include the final judgment (in the BBC's favour) of the High Court. So I added this fact and a link to the relevant BBC press release.

I watched (most of) the Impartiality Seminar last year as it was streamed live on the web for anyone to see. Some of the newspaper reporting of it was inaccurate (for example it was hardly "secret" if it was streamed live on the web). I have added relevant material when I saw it first hand with my own eyes.

I try and obey Wikipedia's House Rules. I am doing this to make the entries more accurate.

If I am doing anything that breaks the House Rules, please let me know.

132.185.240.123 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds (BBC)

NB not sure if I have signed this correctly please do bear with me.

Thank you for trying to improve WP, but before you go on, please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This incident would not look as bad if you'd put some notice on a talk page beforehand. Thanks and see WP:SIG. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Be aware that "132.185" ip addresses are from the BBC. For example, somebody at the BBC renamed George W Bush changing the "W" to "wanker" , which is a term of abuse in the UK.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.218.224.81 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-15

Yes which should be treated as vandalism as per Wikipedia policy. The fact that the person edited from a BBC IP is irrelevant to the fact. Whilst vandaling Wikipedia is childish and I would expect more from an adult, FWIW BBC employees arent as far as I am aware banned from holding personal opinions, and the notion that George Bush is a Wanker is something that 80% of the UK population would probably personally agree with. On a final note could editors sign there comments using ~~~~ please? Pit-yacker 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As a PS to 213.218.224.81, if your issue is with BBC employees wasting time when they should be working, as [1] suggests, I suggest you take this issue up directly with the BBC rather than dirupting talk pages with off topic posts. Pit-yacker 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will read. Bear with me as I am still learning how to do this.
Incidentally, would the Bush edit be against the House Rules? It's a childish thing for anyone at the BBC to do.
132.185.240.123 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds (BBC)
I'm not sure whether you use the same IP all the time, but (esp if you dont) it might make things easier for yourself if you register. I guess you could also then put a note on your user page that you work for the BBC. The opinions of registered users also tend to get more respect than those of anonymous IP users - if only because it is easy to hop IP addresses and make the same opinions from one user on multiple addresses and there also isnt any record of an anon user's previous record - meaning you also get tarred by vandalism that comes from your IP. Pit-yacker 12:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do.

132.185.240.123 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds (BBC)
I don't think the bush "wanker" edit violates house rules except as vandalism(and I actually thought it was kind of funny but not expecially mature or productive), nor the one that some BBC employee did calling a group using violence against civilians to make a political point "freedom fighters". The only problem is that someone from BBC should not edit negative stuff about BBC out of an article because that is WP:COI. (I understand that you thought it was bad info, but still...). Bigglove 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If the info is inaccurate can I edit it even if I have a COI? The particular point is about the Evenming Standard's report about the Impartiality report, which was worded as though their interpretation of the report was a quote from the report, which it wasn't.

132.185.240.123 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds (BBC)
So long as you can cite sources that back you up - if it's blatently untrue, and it's unlikely anyone will disagree (ie. vandalism), then that's not a problem. It's when edits are made that are possibly contraversial, or that not everyone would agree with, that it becomes a problem. Basically, reliable sources will be your friend ;) TheIslander 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I really hope the BBC doesn't have to be reminded that reliable sources are important --Lucid 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, very good point... TheIslander 14:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you (or someone from an anon IP) completely 1) removed a ref from the article and 2) removed something that said that BBC editors said they would would be more sensitive about insulting muslims than about insulting jews or christians and 3) inserted an unreferenced statement saying that publications about the bbc were biased. Please see the diffs below. Are you really correctly characterizing this as removing "inaccurate" information, or is it just stuff you don't like? I think that what you are actually doing is censoring wikipedia. I think you are doing this out of good faith and helpfulness, but as a BBC employee you should probably realize the COI and desist. [2] and [3]. Bigglove 14:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take these examples in turn. 1. Both those quotes are inaccurate. It's their interpretation of the report and you won't find those statement anywhere in the actual report itself. Which is why I removed them. 2. This reference is I think to the impartiality seminar. I watched the seminar live on the web, in particular the section about Room 101 and I did not hear any editor saying this. 3. I said the seminar was "misreported". Many of the papers who reported it were not there and simply rehashed articles by some of the people who were. The reports in many of the papers did not match up with what I actually saw with my own eyes. Perhaps "reported inaccurately" would be better.

A full transcript of the seminar is now available as part of the impartiality report. I will check it whenever I have time, but I bet the transcript will not support most of the things the papers said happened and are now in Wikipedia.

Is the best way for me to provide text like "this assertion is unsupported by the transcript of the impartiality seminar in the Bridcut Report" plus a link?

132.185.240.123 10:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds (BBC)

I also work at the BBC and have made many edits to Wikipedia sadly mostly to C86, Indie Pop and er, The Likely Lads which may or may not have been a conflict of interest ;) I think Nick is genuinely trying to engage with the community here and should be respected as such. Correcting errors and directing users to new sources and transcripts that could improve and verify some of the assertions. My issue about the article is just how so non notable some of it is. If this really is supposed to be an article about BBC criticisms then whole paragraphs on wikipedia entries and something as trivial as the John Redwood report (in the context of 2007) and several other incidents in the last few months, year are hardly reflective of its 80(ish) year history of the corporation. What about Falklands ? Libya, Miners Strike, Churchill during world war two, the general strike, radio vs commercial radio, bbc.co.uk (not just iPlayer but its entire funding/existence), the work of the Glasgow Media group in the 80s (BBC bias but from the left), dumbing down criticisms go back for decades (thorn birds in the 80s). Its not exactly comprehensive at the moment. So someone in the BBC has added the word wanker to george bush' article briefly in a internet encyclopaedia. Embarrassing as it is (for the BBC ) then hardly notable. As for BBC related entries then yep. clearly its a conflict of interest to edit them (although i've corrected errors to a few in the past. i added, for example the names of the existing Exec Board in BBC ). Best practice is to leave or suggest changes here (with sources) and see/hope if someone picks them up in the actual article.

I think the main thrust of the criticism here is that there is somehow a conspiracy or active work to change articles using 'anonymous' IP addresses, instructed from above. clearly thats ridiculous. There are 24,000 people (and many freelancers) working at the BBC at any one time. All (well nearly all) of whom have access to the internet and a PC on their desk. Now have some users innocently corrected or stupidly vandalised some of the 1.5m articles. Have some (as I have) tweaked C81 or something else that they care about in office hours ? Has Jimmy Wales gone in and edited his own entry to change dates, remove paragraphs, alter words. er, yes.

I think the BBC needs to clean up its approach to editing wikipedia and I'd hope that future edit(ors) all register, clearly (as our guidance currently states) state on their biography page that they work for the BBC and they avoid editing article pages for articles related to the BBC or their work. But this is evolving stuff. Our response so far. contributing to talk pages, blog articles and links showing how we've responded , admitting that we've made mistakes here is at least attempting to be transparent and open about our approach. (Jem Stone) Jem 08:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway.

I was the first one to post in this section, and for the record, I don't think that the BBC OFFICIALLY removed crit of tbe BBC from the BBC page or that there is any evil conspiracy going on. Neverless, the edits removing critical information were highly unfortunate. I am sure this was the work of a well intentioned BBC employee who well, feels good about the BBC and edited accordingly. I looked through the anon BBC entries on wikipedia when the software achieved prominence on the blogsphere becasue I could (and also because many of the orgs I REALLY wanted to check up on DON'T make their IP ranges public and BBC does). For the record, it looks like the BBC made many helpful informational edits to many pages, fixing BBC links, etc. I think the net effect is a positive one, but on the pages of crit to the BBC one really needs to avoid COI if one works for the BBC. Bigglove 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The Beeb staff mag., Ariel, has an article about Wikipedia this week, which may be of interest - I've reproduced it here - and with their permission. Zir 15:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (who has never edited the Criticism of the BBC article!)

[edit] Blogs

They are not reliable sources. That simple. Do not treat blogs as sources, or links. Some guy that has very obvious reasons to attack the BBC is not a reliable source. Neither is a random blogspot account set up to insult the company. An actual newspaper article is reliable. A reporter ranting in his free time is not. --Lucid 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A blog is simply a method for publishing content. The policy re blogs is to prevent personal websites from being used as sources. It needs to be interpreted with a bit of common sense. May I remind you of WP:3RR, which you have already exceeded. Iceage77 15:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conf) Might I remind you that 3RR is content disputes, not vandalism reversions. Read WP:RS. Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. -- A journalist is NOT trustworthy or authoritative, even if the company he works for is. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. which a blog CLEARLY will not have, as it is a place for the person's PERSONAL opinions, interests, and etc. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. this is not an article about him, so his questionable reliability should NOT be used. Also see things questionable sources may not be, it is not contentious;-this clearly is- it is not unduly self-serving; I'd have to say that insulting a competitor is pretty self serving- it does not involve claims about third parties; it VERY CLEARLY involves claims about the BBC, a third party. Interpreting with common sense shows that they should not be used BECAUSE THEY ARE UNRELIABLE, the entire point of the RELIABLE SOURCES policy, not that people who only write for reliable publications are reliable by proxy. --Lucid 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There are clearly editors here who are trying to write this to a pro-BBC perspective. The example of the George Bush "walker" being changed to "wanker" was in the Times article but this keeps on getting removed. Equally, you can not argue a Telegraph blog as unreliable and then include a BBC blog defending the BBC. Blogs from official websites of a company are perfectly acceptable to use as first-hand sources of the blog-writers views. I would agree that they can not be used as basements for facts, but for opinions of the guy that writes the blog it can be.The Enlightened 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
( edit conf)The BBC blog is used to show their defense against multiple claims, and does not make potentially libelous comments against third parties. In addition, it explains their addition of text to their article. It also reflects the view of more than one person. List goes on like this. The reason I removed the comment about George Bush was because it's pretty much irrelevant, and does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. There are lots of examples of vandalism and the like from the BBC, and nobody is denying that. I would like to hear why I would write this to a 'pro-BBC perspective', though, it should be amusing. I care about one thing, and that's making the internet not suck, and if the only things being added are anti-bbc, of course removing them is going to look pro-bbc. I'd remove a poorly sourced rebuttal just as quickly --Lucid 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If the "wanker" edit is important enough to be included in the article in the Times, it is important enough to be included on an article specifically on BBC criticism. It is notable because it shows that there were edits being made that were not in good faith. It is secondly important because most claims of BBC bias in the mainstream media in the UK are that the BBC is liberal-left and anti-American. The fact that this slur on the American President was edited by a BBC member is notable as it fits with this alleged bias. Secondly, from the wikipedia policy page you mentioned is this line "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which the Telegraph 'blog' cleary is, written professionally on the website by a major correspondent. The Telegraph's view of the BBC is no more libellous than the Guardian's criticism of David Cameron, which IS included on wikipedia. The Enlightened 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(deinfent) Not really, although I wouldn't object to a comment saying "including insults and obscenities" or something to that effect, which covers a much more broad range of edits without being too US-centric. And anyway, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse to libel someone, and I see nothing on the page that suggests the post was written professionally, and certainly nothing to say it was by a major correspondent. If we did quote it, we would have to identify it as the Telegraph, which would be inaccurate as it is not a proper article, and certainly not written by a professional, as there are no professionals for Wikipedia Studies --Lucid 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This is outrageous. You're claming that accusing the BBC of being biased is libellous, thus we can't ever include accusations of bias. How convenient! You're being deliberately obfuscating here. You don't need to be a professional for wikipedia studies, just a professional journalist. The blog article was in the "UK Correspondent blog", which is contributed to by numerous Telegraph journalists. Damian Thompson regularly writes for the Telegraph. If you're going to keep doing this obstinacy I want to take this to an admin. The Enlightened 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that a single person who is also in extremely obvious competition with the BBC is potentially libelous, but more so just plain biased themselves and unreliable. Working in journalism does not reliability make. Our options here are cite the source as the Telegraph (wrong, as it is not edit/fact checked and cleared for publication), or cite the source as the author of the blog (correct, but almost certainly unreliable using selfpub/questionable sources guidelines, not to mention probably not notable) --Lucid 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper. The BBC is a broadcast company. They are not in direct competition and even if they were thats not a reason for ignoring it. It's not up to wikipedia editors to assume others motives and not include criticism on that basis. You're really on the dregs of your argument now aren't you? Libelous? Criticism of another organisation is perfectly fine and not libellous in the slightest. You clearly don't know anything about UK libel law if you think otherwise. The Enlightened 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Normally it's the person who has to start insulting the argument instead of actually arguing that's wearing thin. That is the case here --Lucid 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought that this Daily Telegraph blogpost would be a good ref link regarding the BBC editing of Wikipedia, even if it is in competition with the BBC. I would have thought that both sides of the argument should be referred to in order to comply with Wikipedias NPOV policy? Joflaitheamhain 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not how NPOV works. From the policy, representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)-- a single blog post from a source of questionable reliability at best is not a significant view. NPOV is not giving "every side of the story" either, in most cases it is "give the facts and don't distort them". Very rarely are interpretations of fact important. --Lucid 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes it would be. We should include the criticism, including precisely what was said and a reference, and then the BBC response, how they defended it, with a refernce. Thats NPOV. Not just containing the BBC response and not a single item of the criticism! The Enlightened 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. I highly recommend you read WP:NPOV, as you are grossly misinterpreting it. As I said above, NPOV is representing the facts without distortion, and then fairly representing all significant views-- a single person, writing in a blog, from a competing company (and yes, they are competitors in news media) is NOT a significant reliable source that meets NPOV. All that needs to be said is that there's criticism, which the BBC states themselves, we don't need to go around listing every little person with an axe to grind against the BBC to establish a fact we already have, and we don't need to show their opinion as it is already obvious, and most of the time would break WP:UNDUE in showing their personal opinions -Lucid 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the view in that article IS a significant view, as is proven by the fact the BBC felt they had to respond to it. The guy regularly writes for the Telegraph. The blog is NOT a personal blog, but a general Telegraph UK "Correspondents" blog. It is NOT of questionable reliability outside of your mind. It is an online column from one of the largest newspapers in the UK. There is NOTHING ok wikipedia policy that says competitors criticism of each other should not be included, and besides, the two organisations fufill entirely different sections of the media market. 195.137.85.173 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry , but you are participating in what amounts to blatant censorship in favour of the BBC. That this is occuring on the "Criticism of the BBC" page is laughable and brings the reputation of Wikipedia into disrepute. You dismiss a reputable journalist with a major UK national newspaper as having a "axe to grind" - therefore you yourself are showing a point of view and a bias. I was merely trying to be even handed. Joflaitheamhain 17:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Again, why would I be censoring anything in the BBC's favor? If you haven't got a very good rational for making a serious accusation, you should avoid it in the future-- I could very well say you're setting out to discredit the BBC, but it doesn't mean crap. I would like to know how recognizing a person's bias when it slaps you across the face is 'bias'-- and again, I'd like to ask for a reason I would be acting in favor of either party in this discussion. If I did have an opinion here, it would be anti-BBC if anything for wasting tax payer money, but that isn't the case, and if I wanted to have an opinion about things I'd get a blag. If you cannot provide evidence that this is a significant and reliable source of criticism, it should not be mentioned. In addition, it accomplishes NO encyclopedic value whatsoever, unless you'd like to give a very good rationale for that. There's no need to show sides of the story here, we already have all the fact we need from the sources we've got -- someone notices the BBC is inappropriately editing their content, and some people are vandalizing, the BBC publishes a story about it and doesn't mention their own activities, people criticize the BBC for it, the BBC apologizes. That's all there is to it, for now anyway, and linking to the criticism is unencyclopedic, unreliable, and just plain unneeded --Lucid 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There is new information in that blog not covered by your edits, as there are two pieces of criticism here. The first is that the BBC was criticised for BBC employees editing wikipedia, including this page. That is covered by your edits. The second is that the BBC was criticised for failing to report on its role in the story. The BBC reaction to this criticism is included but the original criticism has not been. It needs to be added. 195.137.85.173 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Since it appears that you take Wikipedia's integrity very seriously, and do appear to have good intentions, I do apologise for accusing you of bias, and I wholeheartedly take back my comments if they have offended you. The point is , is that Damian Thompson was criticising the BBC for not mentioning it's own wiki edits in the original news story about CIA edits that it ran. It was after Thompson's article appeared that we then saw corrections to the CIA edit news story (belatedly mentioning BBC edits) and later, we saw the mea culpa article on the BBC Editor's blog, so it is a important part of the narrative of the "wiki edit" section on this page. He's the only journalist (to the best of my knowledge) in a major newspaper to have picked up on the story and to have published on it. To leave it out is, in itself unencyclopedic and unreliable. Joflaitheamhain 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) and now we're getting somewhere. Now it's really a debate on if it's an important event or not. Personally, I'd say that his specific criticism isn't, especially given the rather unprofessional nature of it and rudeness make it somewhat inappropriate. I suppose a sentence like "After criticisms from it's own readers(BBCSOURCE) and outspoken journalist Damian Thompson(BLOGSOURCE), the BBC did etc." would be alright, although not perfect, it's a compromise --Lucid 18:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's the Telegraph's blog, not Damian Thompson's! And what he has done to qualify as "outspoken" now? That's an opinion and is unnecessarily trying to discredit him. Besides, the phrasing should directly refer to the criticism and what was said, not as passing "After da da da, the BBC said this..." 195.137.85.173 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
now i really am confused. Are you reading the same article as me? How is Thompson's article "unprofessional" and also contain "rudeness"? Sure , it has a POV, but rude? I just don't see it. Please enlighten me if you can. Joflaitheamhain 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Lu is right. Bigglove 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK people, I seriously think that both sides need to calm down. Lu, though I personally agree with your opinion, your previous edit comment was unecessarily caustic. Iceage, check out the policies that have been cited. My suggestion: neither side edits this article any more today, as both are heading for 3RR violations. TheIslander 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit inconsistent that a link to the BBC Editors blog is allowed, but a ref link to a blogpost critical of the BBC's wikipedia editing is not allowed. Joflaitheamhain 15:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is used to show that the BBC did recognize the complaints and repaired it thusly, it can be considered at least reliable enough for this purpose if not others because it does not make contentious claims about third parties, or personal attacks, and has a direct effect on the article which is definitely a reliable source. If it was just someone from the BBC going "Well screw him, he's competition, whadda he know! Look at the telegraph talk about vandalizing the page at the end of tehir own article!" (which is actually probably the case here) it would be just as inappropriate. --Lucid 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes , I see what you are on about. The blogpost critical of the BBC Wiki editing does indeed use personal attack language (quote: "Of course the real joke is that we telly-taxpayers are paying these morons to sit on their backsides..") , whereas the BBC editors blogpost is is more polite in tone. However, the Daily Telegraph blogpost might be worth considering to counterbalance the ref link to that editors blog perhaps? Joflaitheamhain 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is not 'a balancing act', it's not showing an opinion either way. There is no need for the insults, we are better off without them. It's not about rudeness or politeness, it's about not hosting personal attacks and unreliable comment. Seeing as this comment was reflected in the BBC's article, it's highly likely that it's the opinion of more than just the one editor, and as they seem to speak on behalf of the BBC it's safe to say that it is a company statement (or that he is on the way to being fired!) and that is a reliable enough source to give their defenses as a primary source --Lucid 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You've lost me there. Damian Thompson of the Telegraph is trading personal insults in this article?? Joflaitheamhain 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

i've gone ahead and added a ref link to Damian Thompson. His article is a good summary of BBC Wiki editing and counterbalances the BBC Editors blog link. Even though it is a "blogpost" he is an accredited journalist with a major national UK newspaper and it is hosted by the Telegraph - so i would assume that it's been approved by the Telegraph's editorial board, rather than being merely an random individual's blogpost. Joflaitheamhain 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One difficulty with excluding blogs from a narrative is that the BBC "Wiki Edit" story actually broke on a blog - specifically this blog post on an anti-BBC blog. On August 15th. Later that day (at 17.45) the BBC ran with their CIA Wiki Edit story. If you click through on the comments on the blogpost you'll see that the FIRST two comments are by a BBC employees - David Gregory and Nick Reynolds. Now assuming that they are BBC employees, then that means that someone at the BBC was aware of this before the CIA edit story was run, but they still decided to run with it. Only later did an addition to the CIA edit story appear : "BBC News website users contacted the corporation to point out that the tool also revealed that people inside the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia pages" - which is possibly a fabrication, as both Nick Reynolds and David Gregory were already aware of the "BBC Wiki Edit" story. The question to ask, in terms of charges of biased reporting, is why did the BBC run with the CIA angle when it was also equally guilty of wiki vandalism. Joflaitheamhain 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

May I add that the BBC "wiki edit" story then spread to the high traffic American blog Little Green Footballs , and thence to the EU Referendum blog, and onto the front page of Reddit.com and then 2307 diggs on digg.com Of course wikipedia's strict "no blogs" rule is perfectly applicable to blogs setup last Tuesday, but when we are dealing with a blog that has been going for 5 years non-stop, then i'm not sure if the rule should still apply. Maybe the rules should be adjusted to cater for the age of a blog. For in years to come, should a blog with a 10 year archive be treated the same as a blog set up yesterday? I'm not so sure on that one. In the past the "letters page" of newspapers was a valuable historical document on the attitudes of people regarding various subject areas - today we have the blogs. At the very least, the issue needs some discussion and consideration. Joflaitheamhain 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the place to discuss this is at WP:RS talk page rather than here. The current policy is no blogs and we need to stick to that. Bigglove 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
you make a fair enough point. come to think of it, the narrative i described above is actually more suited to a historical or wikinews type of entry rather than a pure wikipedia entry. maybe it should be placed in a "history of the bbc" or "news about the bbc" page perhaps. this of course would then cover the controversies such as the hutton inquiry , the balen report and such like, rather than just having a specific "criticism" page. by its nature, a "criticism" page is always a very difficult one to have a NPOV on because of the differing viewpoints. Joflaitheamhain 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I've posted some comments on here as Bigglove has suggested. Please do add your comments and opinions on this, as I think this is becoming a weakness in Wikipedia's coverage - especially in light of , for example, the rise of blogs in the U.S. in the political sphere, and how blogs are now breaking stories which the "reliable source" MSM are then afterwards picking up on. Then again, maybe this is not suited to wikipedia itself - maybe a historical record wikipedia is required? Joflaitheamhain 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that "someone at the BBC knew about this" so therefore everyone knew is a little naive. Neither David Gregory or I work anywhere near the particular correspondent who wrote the CIA story and I have no idea if he reads biased bbc.

09:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds


That's fair enough, but it leaves the BBC looking ridiculous. Running a story about CIA people making edits to Wiki when hundreds of BBC employees were doing the same thing. FWIW I think some POV is essential in an article like this. It's about controversy. detailing others opinions on BBC bias. There's an ongoing problem here with members of organisations or the subjects of articles themselves making edits. It undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, how can I regard you as unbiased? When BBC people claim their edits were only to remove POV and inaccuracies how can I trust you're telling the truth? A voluntary rule asking people with a vested interest not to edit? Impossible to enforce, hopefully the embarrassment this has caused your employer will make you think next time, I doubt it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsabil (talk • contribs) 15:44, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

You can regard me as unbiased because I will obey Wikipedia's own rules. The values of the BBC include impartiality and accuracy and I will also abide by those values when editing. As for how you trust me I suggest you look at the changes I have made to this section and judge whether they have make Wikipedia more accurate, inparticular by looking at the sources I have linked to. The changes I made to the section about the Impartiality Seminar would be a good place to start.

Nick Reynolds (BBC) 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Nick Reynolds.

[edit] Effect on private sector

This needs to be discussed. For example, ITN News closed down because they simply couldn't compete against the telly-tax funded News 24. I believe Sky News also operates at a loss. Iceage77 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable omissions

This article doesn't even mention some of the most prominent controversies of recent years, such as Barbara Plett's tears, and the airing of the Jerry Springer Opera -- which firmly established in the mind of many that the BBC has a clear policy of singling Christianity out for defamation which it would not permit in the case of any other religion. AnonMoos 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite it with reliable submissions, go ahead and include it. TheIslander 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not an "it", it was several distinct incidents -- and they were covered on the BBC site itself. However, if it's left up to me to add them, then it might not get done soon... AnonMoos 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not our fault. If it's broke, fix it --Lucid 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Should this page be called something else?

I wonder if "Criticism of the BBC" is the right title for it - seems a bit wooly, and implies that it will only show the criticism. Would "recent controversies about the BBC" be better?

18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds (BBC)

I think it is the right title. "Controversies" would not cover general criticism of the BBC that occurs outside of particular incidents. This has previously existed on this page but has been deleted at some point in the last year. It must be added back in again at some point. The Enlightened 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you thinking of BBC controversies? Pit-yacker 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I don't know whether the notorious recent incidents of Barbara Plett's tears, and the airing of the Jerry Springer Opera would belong on this page or that one... AnonMoos 10:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a difficult line to draw. Would a merger be on the cards? Perhaps the dividing line for what should go in each article is that criticism of a particular action should go in the controversies, and criticism alleging that a particular action shows a more endemic problem should go here. Just a suggestion. The Enlightened 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Balen Report seems to be in three different places in Wikipedia. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be in just one? The BBC controversies section seems to be more historical and focus on significant controversies, wheras this one is more recent and mix of significant and less important ones. I don't understand the Enlightened's distinction between the two.

Nick Reynolds (BBC) 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Nick Reynolds

I would personally suggest a merger. I've been thinking of doing so for quite a while, but was just never 100% sure that it was the best course of action. I see no harm in suggesting it, though, so I'll tag the two articles and guage people's responses. TheIslander 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beebwatch

Some years ago Charles Moore started up a column called Beebwatch in the Telegraph, documenting what the paper regarded as BBC bias. It didn't last long, but it was pretty prominent criticism for a while from a major paper. I believe there was some stuff on this page a year or so back, but I don't have time right now to find it. Could anyone retrieve what was missing or find other research on it. I think it shuold be included. The Enlightened 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merger between this article and BBC controversies

This has been mentioned above a bit, but here's a proper section for this proposal. It seems to me that, though these two articles cover slightly different areas, the differences are too subtle to warrent separate articles. I would suggest a merger: something along the lines of creating an article with a 'Previous Controversies' section, and a 'Current controversies/Critisism' section. Thoughts? If the concencus is 'yes', then I'm happy to try and battle through doing it myself, though if someone knowledgeable in this subject could volunteer, that'd be great ;) TheIslander 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me.

Nick Reynolds (BBC) 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Nick Reynolds

Support There's no reason to delineate between the articles. You need to have this section on the controversies talk page though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Enlightened (talk • contribs) 16:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Support The two articles do cover similar things, and currently there cound be some confusion about where things belong, as shown by this comment by AnonMoos. I think it's best overall if the articles are merged. Boy1jhn 08:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge under the title BBC controversies (which is the older article - see Talk:BBC controversies) with a redirect from Criticism of the BBC please.Zir 08:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Against A very strong against! I question the motives of those who would support such a name change. The word "controversy" does not have the same meaning as "criticism". Criticism of the BBC could include long-standing arguments against, or for, the whole concept of the BBC, or important aspects of its setup, such as the arguments for or aginst the license fee. These are not "controversies"! Meowy 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support merge - though the two things aren't exactly the same, they are similar enough to cause confusion. EvilRedEye 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - I agree with the comments above (especially TheIslander's comment), though there are still controversies that haven't been addressed. (For example, I put in a link in the BBC controversies article to a BBC page on some of the controversies they've been in, and some haven't been included. (Of course, since the one off the top of my head involved Oswald Mosely...) And I'm suprised why Michael Grade's treatment of Doctor Who isn't in here...) And someone posted a comment earlier that certain criticisms don't have anything to do with specific controversies, such as some peoples' dislike for the license fee and with Public/Government run broadcasting. Just my two (US) cents. Orville Eastland 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Having read talk pages on a number of issues, they tend to get bogged down in minutiae. I don't think the difference between the two topics merits two pages. Icabelieveitmei 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Support With the caveot that the page denote controversy or criticsm. Drachenfyre (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose What are you talking about when you say 'subtle' differences. Its because of the lack of the appropriateness of content, that what should be a self evident and substantive differentiation remains hidden to a casual or uninformed reader. The article currently lists and details many particular instances and therefore reads like a set of associated fashionable news items or almanac entries. Contrast this with an approach of analysing policy and its implementation such as impartiality, objectivity, independence or deflating the BBCs self serving myths of quality and balance. Many of the controversies listed in this article should be moved to the controversies article not because of duplication but because they are appropriate there, but not here, where the focus should be on criticism from a standpoint of systemic analysis rather than the current flavour of the week/ month / year. However, examples of particular instances that illustrate a point about a topic, such as impartiality, should remain but with a reduced amount of detail.

--Theo Pardilla 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Support The two overlap to such an extent that they could easily be condensed into a single article. It is unclear where anything new should be added. In addition, this article is somewhat over-long, and is occasionally repetitive. Brilliantine (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of the license fee in this article?

I think it should be included. Jeremy Paxman recently said that the license fee was something that belonged in the 1950s, and certainly not the 21st century...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A transcript of Paxman's MacTaggart lecture can be found at [4] but bear in mind that what he said about the licence fee was only a small part of it [5] Zir 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

Any "criticisms of..." article must tread a fine line. It's important to report significant criticisms, and there are many significant criticisms of the BBC. However it's also important to avoid becoming a washing line for the hanging out of grievances. In particular I suspect that the complaints about reporting of the Middle East, which in the context of UK politics, barely register as a blip on the radar, may be overemphasized by virtue of having had disproportionate attention from people with a pro-Israeli bias. This is not an issue for me to address, since I generally avoid involving myself in Middle East affairs, but I suggest that it would be worth someone's while to examine the writing in this article to address what seems to be a very strong (and quite surprising emphasis on what is in UK terms almost a non-issue. --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The BBC is an organization with international reach, so that what has the most resonance in UK-internal politics is not the only criterion for this article. I remember reading in 2005 or 2006 a BBC reporter's account of stopping random Israelis on the street to ask them questions -- and as soon as he identified himself as a BBC reporter, then almost every single individual wanted to talk with him about bias in BBC coverage of the middle east, rather than answer his questions... AnonMoos 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, your concerns actually would appear to be with Disproportionate Emphasis, rather than Neutral Point of View, so that it's somewhat unfortunate that you added an "NPOV" tag to this article. AnonMoos 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with disproportionate emphasis (or "undue weight"), is a crucial part of our neutral point of view policy. See Wikipedia:neutral point of view#Undue_weight, a part of the policy which is considered important enough to have no less than four shortcuts dedicated to it (WP:WEIGHT is the most common).
I agree with your comment on Israeli criticisms of the BBC in principle. They're important and they should be reported. However Israel's issues with international opinion clearly extend far beyond the reach of the BBC. I'm obviously biased which is why I tend not to edit articles related to the Middle East, but the large amount of attention paid in this article does seem disproportionate. --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been on the page for almost two weeks, and there has been no further discussion -- and I regard the claim that international issues are given greater prominence than they might deserve in terms of strictly UK-internal politics to be a very weak reason for adding an NPOV tag to an article about an organization with international reach. Therefore I will be removing the NPOV tag from the article in a day or two, unless other substantive concerns are expressed by other people. AnonMoos 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The Article is heavily biased, and makes no mention that many countries past and present have called the BBC Biased often dictators and murderers, everyone from the USSR to Zimbabwe, and that being called biased by such people is a badge of honour especially when its both side calling you biased, but most of the criticism come down to people and nations being unhappy with stories that make them look bad being covered. ultimately the BBC is the most trusted news service in the world and that has to say something about its strident efforts for neutrality and Accuracy. The article itself is my its very nature biased, and criticism articles should be avoided, but i agree with the undue weight comment, as it comes across written by a right wing Israel supporting westerner, since there are no mention any places in Asia Major or Africa with equal weight or of countries like Zimbabwe or Burma both of whom accuse the BBC of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.99.176 (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, your comments would be much easier to read if you would use conventional punctuation and capitalization. Second, this article only deals with criticisms with some degree of credibility. If a large number of ordinary citizens in Israel think that that the BBC is biased against them, then whether or not you agree or disagree with such a criticism, it's still on a very different level from a Mugabe spokesman complaining about BBC bias against the government of Zimbabwe. Third, the BBC is an organization with international reach, so devoting appropriate space to those international controversies which have arisen is not "disproportionate weight". Fourth, the term "Asia Major" does not appear to have been commonly used in English-language geographical terminology during the 20th and 21st centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
first off well thats rude, i'm Dyspraxic so thanks for being a nice person, why not get wiki to include a spag checker? but please point the specific thing you find difficult and i'll do my best to explain the point. second you shouldn't remove a dispute tag unilaterial ever, perhaps learns some basic manners Third where does it say a large number of ordinary citizens in Israel, wheres your source for that? you have the government and media of Israel complaining and the government and media of Zimbabwe or do black people protests count less? Fourth but the countroversies from countries that aren't white majority don't matter? Fifth is that your argument you don't think its a common term? if i had simple said asia you could of pointed out that Israel is in asia, so i used a term that excludes the middle east, its a perfectly cromulent phrase! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.99.176 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude, I'm sorry that you have problems, but your failure to use ordinary conventions of English-language writing makes your remarks extremely difficult to parse and understand. The burden is really on you to place your comments in a comprehensible form. And I didn't intend to remove any "dispute tags" -- as part of the reversions, I removed an extremely pointless sentence which seemed to attempt to confuse and obscure the distinction between credible and non-credible criticism (in addition to not even beginning with a capital letter!), as well a rather meaningless and unhelpful citation tag (please give me one good reason why we need a formal citation for the excruciatingly obvious fact that many millions consider Arafat to be a sleazy slimeball??). However, on further examining the diffs, I see that you did add a POV tag (which I didn't notice previously). I'll leave that in (for now), in order to allow for the possibility that you might be able to state your apparent objections in a more coherent form in the near future... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And i sorry about yours, yet you have yet to say what exactly you failed to understand. credible and non credible is merely your opinion, "excruciatingly obvious fact that many millions consider Arafat to be a sleazy slimeball" Again your opinion if you want to include such a pov statement in wikipedia you need a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.99.176 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my opinion of Arafat (or with your opinion of Arafat, for that matter), but with the indisputable fact that he has been a despised hate-figure to millions (by no means all of whom live in Israel). It's really not worth debating, and your addition of a fact tag is pointless and unhelpful to the improvement of this article. AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Individuals or groups who receive negative coverage (no matter how factual or true), such as the government of Zimbabwe, are of course going to complain about the BBC. But that isn't the same as a truly controversial issue, where there are complaints from many ordinary listeners/viewers, and from groups other than those being reported on. Complaints about BBC middle east coverage form a convoluted and highly contentious issue of many years standing, which involves many groups, many individuals, and a number of semi-distinct sub-controversies, some of which have given rise to legal disputes. By contrast, complaints about BBC coverage of Zimbabwe pretty much emanate only from spokesmen close to Mugabe. So I really fail to see what the point of conflating complaints about Zimbabwe coverage with complaints about middle-east coverage is. This article is not really for isolated self-interested complaints such as those by Mugabe spokesmen, but only for real controversies. AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Individuals or groups who receive negative coverage (no matter how factual or true) so why is the complaints of an African government? any different to those voiced by Israel or Russia? As for one man just because you only know one man in the Zimbabwe government doesn't mean the situation is not complex, your showing clear POV and you're ignorance is only compounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.96.152 (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you even bother to read what I wrote directly above? Where I explained in detail that controversies over BBC mid-east coverage are most definitely NOT merely a matter of complaints by Israeli government spokesmen?? So far you have raised absolutely no issues above which are worthy of serious consideration with respect to improving this article. Maybe you should adjust your approach so that you are able to meaningfully discuss improvements to this article, or you should confine your efforts to areas of Wikipedia where you are able to contribute in a constructive and productive manner (but unfortunately for you, usefully comparing controversies over BBC Zimbabwe coverage vs. BBC mid-east coverage does not seem to be one of those areas). Why not start by registering for a Wikipeda account and logging in. AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish

Not only is disproportionate weight given to modern claims, But there is even a single section on the any of the accusations leveled by Irish Republicans of bias, which has to be the BBC's longest running allegation.

By the way, several older or longstanding issues are in the BBC controversies article. I'm not entirely sure what the intended division of labor is between BBC controversies and Criticism of the BBC (or why there has to be two articles), but this article seems to cover more of the recent or current issues... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Unions

As above no mention is made of the Unions allegations in the 80s

To be honest I have more or less give in trying to get any semblance of balance to this article. Due to the persisant attempts by certain parties to make particular political points, it is IMHO all but unsalvagable. I'm probably making these comments in vain, but perhaps someone might wake up and listen one day.
FWIW, I find this article highly POV, I'll also repeat my point that I think this article is one of the worst written and researched on the entire project. For example, in the Jerry Springer the Opera article describing showing the show as "defamation of Christianity" is a POV. It is perhaps revealing (and typically missing from this article) that the ultimate result of the said private prosecution might be that the laws on blasphemy in the UK are repealed. This isn't a move afoot by a leftie government (on the contrary, Gordon "son of a preacher man" Brown opposes the repeal) its a move which has even garnered the support of a former and quite conservative Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who said in a letter to the Telegraph "...the blasphemy offence serves no useful purpose. Yet it allows partisan organisations or well-funded individuals to try to censor broadcasters or intimidate small theatres, print media or publishers"[6] Sound familiar at all?
Equally, whilst not wanting to get into an Israel/Palestine debate and whilst I do acknowledge Arafat was at one time undoubtly a terrorist, and putting aside the maxim of one man's freedom fighter.., if I take my typical approach of not assuming malice where incompetence will equally suffice, I would be inclined to believe that problems in his latter years were more down to incompetence, weakness, and lack of will to act than outright malice.
In the same breath why not include references to Sinn Fein? Fine Martin McGuiness is a convicted terrorist, IIRC reputed at one time to be one of the bosses of the IRA, but he also happens to be education minister for Northern Ireland. So what's the difference between him and Arafat?
It is even more bizarre that Sinn Fein's (the second largest party - AND - member of the governing administration of Northern Ireland) gripes dont get a mention yet the far-right and extreme minority BNP do? So what is the difference there? (Other than of course Sinn Fein's accusations show a degree of conservativism on the part of the BBC - that would contradict the view that certain editors try to project from this article that the BBC is liberal, left leaning, etc.). FWIW, there have long been allegations (World in Action, ITV, for one IIRC) about links between the BNP and even less "pleasant" far right groups (if the BNP can be described as "pleasant") such as Combat 18 or the National Front. You generally dont have to look far to find the odd BNP councillor (of the handful that exist) being convicted of various thuggery either.
What is more, AFAICT, the sentiments of Sinn Fein probably more accurately reflect the whole of the Republican and wider catholic community in Northern Ireland, many of whom regard the British as occupiers. Whilst you can argue that, given the dis-taste for being part of the UK in some quarters some in Northern Ireland would complain whatever, it is a credible argument that as a public service broadcaster the BBC should serve all - its an argument, whether the perception was real or not that was the ultimate downfall of the RUC, and saw UK soldiers being killed by UK nationals for 3 decades.
Pit-yacker (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

excellent points! and very well put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.96.152 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that this articles page has recently blocked unregistered users from editing (which i think should be applied to all pages by default but that's another matter) as a result of an anonymous contributor's novitiate actions and also repeated posting of the following text

“ "Though many non democratic regimes accuse the BBC of bias around the world, such as Iran, Zimbabwe and China". ”

Though i don't agree or not with the inference if any of the preceding statement it does seem to be a sensible and correct observation and surely it could be included somewhere in the article, preferably in a criticism by governments section rather than attached to a particular specific controversy. Giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith on balance i am inclined to leave content in an article and see how it may develop rather than throwing out possibly promising new directions because they conflict with a temporary stylistic stasis. The arguments against inclusion seem less than generous particularly as this kernel could be developed further and to other associated areas, for instance that most governments or centres of power whether democratic or otherwise object to negative criticism and whether not being criticised by governments shows a reporting culture in favour of traditional power systems.

For instance consider the following quote from John Pilger which is notable not because its an example of a flavour of the week fashionable 'controversy' but because its shows that the article can be developed with a focus on topics such as impartiality, objectivity or the relationship of traditional media to power. Now i don't know whether the following quote shows a left wing bias or a conservative bias or some other bias for that matter but such assertions are often meaningless except for what they say about the claimants beliefs.

“ The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over.

So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.

Take the invasion of Iraq. There are two studies of the BBC's reporting. One shows that the BBC gave just 2 percent of its coverage of Iraq to antiwar dissent—2 percent. That is less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right. We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI-6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. But that's not the point. The point is that the work of MI-6 was unnecessary, because professional journalism on its own would have produced the same result.

 ”

If someone is, after reading this quote, considering placing it within an Iraq war section then you have missed the point. Its an example, somewhat lengthy, about a general pattern or policy such as the myth of impartiality or balance and how real practise varies from a supposed ideal of 'professional journalism'.

This article is about criticism not controversies however fashionable or heated.

--Theo Pardilla 11:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the anonymous IP person seems to be adding the Zimbabwe sentence for the specific purpose of blurring and obfuscating the difference between credible criticism and non-credible criticism. If the anonymous IP person is not adding the Zimbabwe sentence in order to obscure the difference, then he or she has certainly been completely unable to articulate a coherent alternative explanation here on this talk page for his or her motivations. Something could be added about outraged dictators and tyrants in the proper context and the proper place, but that place is not an unelaborated context-free sentence in the paragraph at the very top of the article. Also, many people don't see as clear a difference between "criticism" and "controversies" as you do (as seen from the repeated article merge proposals).AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems fair enough. Is this repeated behaviour sufficient to warrant a request for the article to be semi-protected from anonymous contributors (that is does it meet the criteria) and if it is can someone who knows how to nominate it do so. --Theo Pardilla 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't oppose the article being semi-protected, but in my experience, requesting such a change at WP:RFP is completely and utterly useless unless the article is being flooded with vandalism at the moment the request is being made. AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)