Jump to content

Talk:BBC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBBC was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 20, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 16, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 22, 2004.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 18, 2004.
Current status: Delisted good article

6.9 BritBox & 'Project Kangaroo'

[edit]

'Project Kangaroo' was set up in 2006 !!!

Not in 2016 as claimed in 6.9 BritBox - "In 2016, the BBC, in partnership with fellow UK Broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 (who later withdrew from the project), set up 'project kangaroo'"

RfC on sectioning of the Charter

[edit]

I've been thinking about moving the section on the 'charter and agreement' up right below the lead, as the lead itself is very technical - almost a prosified list - and doesn't really get into what makes the BBC the institution it is. Expanding, or even changing, the lead doesn't seem like the right move to me, and an expanded section on the charter provides a structured way of underlining the stature of the BBC.

I am seeking consensus, because it's a bit bigger of a change to the article, and I've expanded the section already and might be biased towards it. The proposed sectioning would be:

  • Lead
  • Charter and Agreement
  • History
  • ...

JackTheSecond (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbc gaza and tasnim

[edit]

BBC uses account of journalist working for Iran-backed news agency in Palestine deaths article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/04/bbc-journalist-working-iran-backed-news-palestine-article/

https://m.maariv.co.il/news/world/Article-1081271 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:B03C:9581:6FC4:EBDA (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A State-Funded Media Outlet

[edit]

Since BBC is funded with public money, does not this make it state-funded? Is not this a point that this acticle could highlight? 2.27.2.54 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence reads 'public service broadcaster', implying government funding. Also, 'state-media' carries a different implication regarding independence from the funding government than the large degree of independence the BBC enjoys. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024

[edit]

Last section.
"In 2023, the BBC's offices in New Delhi were searched by officials from the Income Tax Department. The move came after the BBC released a documentary on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The documentary investigated Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in more than 1,000 casualties."

to

"In 2023, the BBC's offices in New Delhi were searched by officials from the Income Tax Department. The move came after the BBC released a documentary on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The documentary investigated Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in more than 1,000 deaths." 121.98.30.202 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 121.98.30.202 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done : And confirmed in source. ("killed") JackTheSecond (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media bias regarding the Israel-Hamas war

[edit]

This middle east conflict is obviously a contentious issue. This proposed edit asserting "Anti-Israel bias and antisemitism" of the BBC is contentious in itself. John Simpson, the World Affairs editor for the BBC, commented on the BBC's approach to conflict, "We don't take sides. We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy. But the BBC gets particular attention, partly because we've got strong critics in politics and in the press, and partly because we're rightly held to an especially high standard. But part of keeping to that high standard is to be as objective as it's possible to be." The proposed edit and its loaded accusation is non neutral, and also overlooks complaints from the other side that for the BBC, and western media, "Israeli life is deemed to be worth more than a Palestinian life". Inserting material that furthers the agenda of either side or discredits a news source, and the BBC is one of the more reliable news sources on the conflict, is a breach of neutrality. It is also a subject that belongs on the talk page of the conflict article itself, rather than singling out just one media source (BBC in the case here), in how the media is critiqued on its reporting. Gabriella MNT (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive external sources have singled out BBC for antisemitism. It is misleading to censure the referenced claims. Certainly, one can add other referenced claims that disagree, but our job is to work with sources. Minden500 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've broadend this discussion out to the Israel-Hamas war talk page. Gabriella MNT (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_451#informational_report:_BBC_according_to_Telegraph Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]