Musk Spreading Russian Propaganda

@meJess Really? Or reporting what you'd rather not reported?

@ArishMell I would like the news not an opinion on it. The BBC used to be good at that, now it is just like all the rest.

@meJess Really?

Is that why it seeks to give us both sides or disputes and wars, to explain backgrounds?

Fields long-running investigative series such as those into Qanon, people-smugglers and the 'Horizon' scandal?
The last was well before the ITV drama; nearly as much a Public Inquiry as the official one; and named the Directors responsible.

Is that why it still has a Moscow correspondent as well as ones in Ukraine?
Though he has to be careful how he interviews people in Russia. If he describes the invasion as that he could be expelled at best, jailed at worst, but would certainly frighten his interviewees away, so has to use the "special military operation" nonsense in public in Russia.

Why the BBC does it best to interview both Palestinians and Jews, to report from Palestine and Israel ?

Tries to explain calmly and in a balanced way, the USA's baffling politics?
Though I do wish it would not give so much air-time to America generally, and instead bring us much more from the Commonwealth and from Europe. At least the BBC is an active member of the EBU it founded in the 1950s, though mainly for live music.

Very clearly separates fact from opinion?

Does its best to verify claims from dubious sources - warns us if a quoted claim cannot be verified?
The BBC has an office devoted to verifying reports: for example, dodgy images sometimes show by the wrong background for the claimed location.

Gives the UK's umpteen political parties chance to expound their views?
(That the interviewees often fail to do so convincingly, without merely cliches criticising the other lot, either way, is hardly the BBC's fault.)

Investigates government agency or commercial-company failings in programmes like You And Yours and Woman's Hour?
These can be biased by the guilty party invited to give its point of view, being strangely "unavailable for comment", issuing a communique as useless as a corporate "mission-statement" - or simply refusing, even ignoring, the invitation. This official or corporate cowardice is a common and very frustrating difficulty faced by investigative journalists everywhere, not only in the BBC.

Is that why the BBC frightens tyrannies of all flavours, more than most other news services combined?


Anyway, which "the rest"?

@ArishMell I hadn't got the patience to go through it all. Thanks for that. No-one has come up with a better alternative broadcaster.

They also can't tell the difference between 'impartial' (which the BBC has to be by its Licence to Broadcast) and unbiased. They are definitely biased in favour of a parliamentary democracy and generally supportive of a Constitutional Monarchy, but they also report impartially on those opposite opinions when they arise.

@FreddieUK Patience? It's not a novel!

I don't see that bias in favour of, essentially, the British constitution; but since it works within the country it is hardly going to oppose it. Though clearly it would tacitly support such democracy for allowing the freedom to be an impartial public-service broadcaster.

@ArishMell Sorry, I have re-read my post and realise I was ambiguous. It was not patience to read your post that I lacked, it was patience to write such a detailed response. I read it all and am pleased you went to that trouble.

@FreddieUK OK_ Thankyou! No offence taken!