Hacker News Reader

Comment by pasabagi | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch.

That said, it is a bit awkward, given the UK's own undercounting.

View on HN

The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites; but a deeper independent investigation would be needed. Also, the BBC has News Watch which is an independent group within the BBC that responds to and tracks criticisms of its output.

> The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites

Does it refer to that as a "British government cover-up"?

Right, there is always a use of "mistakes" and "cover up".

It's like they always believe authoritarian leaders are much competent than democratic leaders, any mistakes in authoritarian nations must be cover-up.

Meanwhile, they also believe authoritarian nations are bound to collapse, because their leaders capabilities are eventually not a match to the complexity of managing the state.

Then, why isn't this the moment where the authoritarian leaders over reached their capabilities?

Well the ONS (which is a part of the UK govt) has been detailing the all cause mortality rate and detailing how and why those numbers differ from the official PHE numbers. The ONS releases its findings to the press, and the BBC is just one of many that report on these figures.

As far as I am aware there is no such thing happening in Iran.

So in the case of the UK the BBC is saying that UK govt response has been poor, and in the case of Iran that there is a "cover up". I would have thought that was bordering on a reasonable job of reporting the facts.

I'm struggling to see how this article is awkward for the BBC. It's not as though the BBC has not reported the situation in the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 .

> To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch.

Absolutely not true. From propagating the idea that life-long advocate of equality, Jeremy Corbyn, is antisemitic, to sending well-fed journos out on boats to chase migrants (never people, migrants) around asking them what they want, the BBC is a Conservative mouth-piece.

Not to mention _literally_ portraying the chancellor as Superman. [1]

[1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portr...

And Corbyn was Lenin. I think that tells you all you need to know about the BBC.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corby...

BBC seems to get about as many accusations of left-wing and right-wing bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

...which in my book means they must be doing something right. Their reporting certainly seems less rabidly partisan than pretty much anything in the US.

Fence sitting does not automatically make you right. Half way between two falsehoods is still wrong.

For the BBC they HAVE to keep the government happy to continue to exist, or they will be legislated away. Same as any other state owned broadcaster.

Although the threats from the current government against the BBC seem empty. Why would they destroy the most successful government controlled media operation in the world?

The right controls the non-government media organizations just as well, what's the difference? The BBC is harder to control because it legally is supposed to be impartial.

Find me one instance of the BBC directly calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite.

Why would anyone do it directly when you can just insinuate? "Critics say..."

So you can't.

Correct. You have slain the strawman! Congratulations.

I dislike the BBC as much as anyone, but I think the fact is, they are neither anybody's mouthpiece, nor do they have any particular agenda. Simply, it is staffed by well connected, wealthy people who live in and around London, and as such, represents their views - warts and all.

I find it comforting that both the left and the right in the UK is convinced the BBC is hopelessly biased against them. They must be doing something right.

(I'm being slightly flippant - I am aware how it's possible to be wrong on both counts. However I do think calling the BBC a "Conservative mouth-piece" when many on the right of the Tory part think the BBC is left-wing and beyond repair is a little unfair)

The BBC are biased towards the status quo - left-leaning social policies, right-leaning economic policies and a (currently) Conservative government.

The right-wingers get upset about social pieces, the left-wingers get upset about economic and political pieces. But it's not even possible or desirable to be utterly unbiased, so one of our broadcasters being "the voice of the Establishment" doesn't seem like that bad a thing to me. It's not like other broadcasters aren't avaiable.

The right wing in the UK has been inserting their own people into top BBC positions for years. The BBC has a history of working with the security services to deny employment to anyone 'too left wing'. Some of the most well known faces on the BBC are Conservative supporters - Nick Robinson was chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association, Andrew Neil was the editor-in-chief of the Conservative supporting fascist rag The Spectator and remains chairman of its publisher. Its function over the last 10 years of government has been increasingly, and highly visibly, to propagandize for the Conservatives and smear the left.

I'm aware of this, which is why I said 'about as independent', rather than 'independent'. I think the point is, the BBC is representative of a certain group of people, many of whom are from the same milieu as parts of the conservative party, and parts of the labour party.

However, that could be said of most (all?) large media organizations in the UK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com