My personal biases are pretty strongly in favour of the BBC, but what they did here was really bad. It's appropriate that heads roll. I wish more orgs would have the same level of accountability.
https://cfmm.org.uk/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-double-stan...
It’s quite a fun game to match every accusation of BBC bias with its exact opposite. That’s not to say that BBC reporting is perfect and that no individual criticisms are valid. But the BBC simply could not report on Israel/Palestine at all without being accused of bias in all directions. Show me the media organization whose reporting on this issue is agreed to be unbiased by all relevant parties.
(Also little ironic to link to a Telegraph article, of all things, while complaining about media bias. On anyone’s analysis, the Telegraph is a vastly more partisan media organization than the BBC.)
Meanwhile, the President who is a stickler for news accuracy and wants to sue the BBC for a billion dollars is busy broadcasting libelous nonsense to his Twitter followers on a daily basis (e.g. the absurd claim that Barack Obama has been receiving millions in Obamacare “royalties”).
The hypocrisy would be astounding if we weren’t already so used to it.
This is a politically motivated attack on the BBC by people who, as referenced above, don't care a jot for accuracy in news reporting. By combing through the BBC's enormous output they have, unsurprisingly enough, managed to find one or two legitimate grievances.
Excuse.
> Show me the media organization whose reporting on this issue is agreed to be unbiased by all relevant parties.
Excuse.
> it’s being blown out of all proportion
Excuse.
> the President […] is busy broadcasting libelous nonsense to his Twitter followers
Excuse.
> managed to find one or two legitimate grievances.
Wow, ok. Maybe you didn’t actually read the report?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating...
The BBC has been pushing specific viewpoints for years, and burying any story or article that might contradict it or offer a competing viewpoint. A quote:
As virtually all shows had lost their own reporters, programme editors had to make requests to News if they wanted a correspondent to cover a story. I was told that time and time again the LGBTQ desk staffers would decline to cover any story raising difficult questions about the trans-debate.
The allegation made to me was stark: that the desk had been captured by a small group of people promoting the Stonewall view of the debate and keeping other perspectives off-air. Individual programmes had come to lack their own reporters as a counterweight.
What I was told chimed with what I saw for myself on BBC Online - that stories raising difficult questions about the ‘trans agenda’ were ignored even if they had been widely taken up and discussed across other media outlets.
There was also a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories, usually news features, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity.
If the people who have resigned could point to even one action that they’ve taken to fix the BBC’s culture of unethical behavior then they would not have had to resign.
In fact the BBC, following the general transphobic climate in the UK, has given a lot of airtime to people trying to create a moral panic around trans people. They’re using virtually identical tactics to those used to stir up panic about gays in the 80s. This won’t look good with hindsight any more than the 80s and 90s “debate” about homosexuality does now. (Will the Telegraph demand that the BBC give airtime to homophobes in the interests of fairness and balance? No, they have quietly forgotten about that issue, and moved on to the next vulnerable minority group.)
In short, you’re holding the BBC to a standard that you don’t apply to any comparable broadcaster.
This is indefensible and has nothing to do with right or left wing. It is about TRUTH
> The inciters gave their fiery provocations, then Trump told his recruits, "We're going to the Capitol, and I'll be right there with you."
I don't know anything about what footage was or wasn't edited, but if you think he didn't instigate, we're not going to agree on much about that day. I didn't just read this right now. I searched for it because I remember seeing him say it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/letter-testimony-jan-6th-hearings...
And you also “misquoted” Trump, because what he actually said was “… and we’re going to go down to the capital and cheer on our brave Senators and Congressmen and women…”. The “…and I’ll be right there with you…” was from a completely different part of the two hour speech.
Also, the article you quote repeats quite a few other lies from the testimony at the hearings, such as the tall tale of Trump grabbing the wheel of the car and assaulting a secret service agent. The commission never actually interviewed the driver of that car until after the 2020 election, months after the testimony in question. Why? Because he refutes the entire story. It never happened. Cassidy Hutchinson wasn’t even in the car at the time and her testimony was at best hearsay, if it wasn’t simply a lie.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/trumps-secret-se...
Sort of. It started before the speech finished, but about 50 minutes after it started. Here's the relevant timeline from the Wikipedia article.
>At noon, Trump began an over one-hour speech at the Ellipse, encouraging protesters to march to the U.S. Capitol. At 12:49 p.m., Capitol Police responded to reports of an explosive device, later identified as a pipe bomb. At 12:53 p.m., eighteen minutes before Trump's speech ended, rioters overran police on the west perimeter of restricted Capitol grounds.
The founder of NewsMax says that lawsuit is going nowhere.
But this does get the latest Epstein fallout off the front page. Epstein is a worse story for Trump than Jan 6.