Talk:BBC/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

BBC in India

BBC was very popular in India till recently when cable T.V. revolution snatched a major chunk of audience and BBc too was reluctant to play an agressive role here.Mark Tully (BBC correspondent for India)is a household name here.However BBc gave up the territory after allegation of propagandism .It was charged with creating false news in indian context.The News story of Kashmir was concocted with many false video clippings which were actually footage of azarbaizan and Afghanistan,for which they apologised too.However people still refer to BBC in india for international news items.Holywarrior 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? A source on this would be great. I am interested to read about this. Seragenn 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing the BBC channel in India when I went last time in 2001, well anyways do you want that to be added to the article or what? --Elven6 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The channel you saw was likely the south Asian opt-out of BBC World. As such, it already has a mention and an article. Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Classification of public sector television

I think this needs a Mention: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cpst0106.pdf

The Office for National Statistics has today (20 jan 2006) announced three classification decisions, following a review of the National Accounts treatment of public sector television: • the television licence fee, previously classified as a service charge, is being reclassified as a tax; • the BBC remains in the public sector, but is being reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sector to central government; http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cpst0106.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardLangford (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Main direction of bias from BBC coverage of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

It seems that there are quite a few people on this discussion page who seem somewhat "unclear" as to the direction of the BBC's suppossed bias. The bias does not in most cases come from both sides: it is almost exclusively pro-Palestine, anti-Israel.

Thank you for settling that.--Daduzi ^talk 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that it seems so to you, 84.67.25.50, is probably that you are so heavily anti-Palestine biased that any source striving to be neutral, seems to be biased in the opposite direction. PerDaniel 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why won't the BBC release the Balen report? What is it trying to hide? The Beeb is a Palestinian mouthpiece, everyone in the Middle East knows this. Why deny it?68.5.64.178 22:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBC lets itself down badly, broadcasting more from Israelis - and choosing much more skilled presenters from the Israeli side. Many/most? Palestinian spokesmen sound as if they were dragged in off the street to speak to the microphone. There are fluent English-speakers capable of speaking from a Palestinian point of view, they're rarely called (and as best I can tell, face more aggressive questioning than do Israeli spokesmen). The BBC also concentrates much more on cases where Israelis are killed than on cases where Palestinians are killed. The concealing of the Balen report is a mystery ..... but there's been a report published on this subject, and they're aware of this imbalance. And they're well aware of failing to cover some of the wider issues, such as the ethnic cleansing going on (which they never describe in those words!). PalestineRemembered 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I've nominated this article for peer review in the hope that we can get it up to Featured Article status. --Daduzi ^talk 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Following comments reveieved here I've made a number of changes to the article, mostly minor. The major changes are the placing of a number of {{fact}} tags which, though unsightly, should help us to get the references sorted out. I'll try and do as many references as I can myself, though the help of those who originally made the comments would be greatly appreciated. The other major changes are removal of the conditions for license fees in the introduction (as it made for a very difficult to follow sentence and wasn't really necessary information for an introductory sentence) and the deletion of the introductory paragraph to the services section which was mostly just repetition of information listed elsewhere. What wasn't redundant was moved to a miscellaneous sub-section, which now looks a little light and could do with some additions (I'm sure there must be other eclectic services the BBC provides). As things stand I'm also leaning towards removing the unions section, given that union coverage and membership is seldom mentioned in similar articles, though if I'm missing something let me know. It'd also be a great help if others could have a look at the comments listed above and set about correcting anything they can. Oh, and finally, would anyone object to me changing the current inline links to footnotes? --Daduzi ^talk 05:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Redvers has done some excellent work on adding references where they were needed and reformatting them where they were already there. I've contributed in my own small way towards sourcing statements but one comment is eluding me: I am having great difficulty finding a source to support the statement "The BBC has the largest budget of any UK broadcaster", even though everything I have found suggests that this is almost certainly true. I've found a comparison of total UK TV advertising revenue (£3.4 billion) to BBC TV expenditure (£2.3 billion) [1], which leads me to suspect the the BBC must have the largest TV budget, plus confirmation that the BBC has the largest budget in radio [2] and online services [3] but I've been unable to find anything that brings them all together. I'd really appreciate any help. --Daduzi ^talk 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've sourced the statement in a round-about way (by comparing the BBC's operating expenditure with the main commercial broadcasters) but if anyone can find a more simple citation feel free to change it. --Daduzi ^talk 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference Question

How does one change references? '^ BBC Worldwide Annual Review 2001. Retrieved on 2006-07-06' is a dead link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thingiemajig (talk • contribs) 14:48 14 July 2006 (UTC).

I've changed the link but for future reference the references in this article (though other articles may use different systems) are formatted to use <ref> tags and the cite web (or cite book) template. This means that the references will look something like this:

<ref>{{cite web | title=page title | url=page location | accessdate= when the site was accessed}}</ref>

To change the reference to point to a new page, just change the url= value to the new page's location. It's also a good idea to change the accessdate= value to the date you added the new page, and if the title of the page is different change the title= value. The pages for the cite web and cite book templates have more information on the different values. I hope I managed to explain that well enough, but if not ask any more questions you might have. Oh, and be sure to sign your messages by adding --~~~~ to the end. --Daduzi ^talk 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Represetative of Palestinian terrorists

By presenting only the Palestinian justification for terrorist activities and war crimes, and providing a propagandistic, selective version of events, the BBC is acting less like a news organization and more like a representative of Palestinian terrorists. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1139 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SoCalJustice (talk • contribs) .

Within the programmes made on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there is an overwhelming bias against Israel. This is particularly worrying because it has been such a long running bias. The BBC cannot argue that it is a temporary discrepancy, which will be remedied over time. What has occurred amounts to a campaign of vilification of Israel, which has persisted for some three and half years. http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/july04.html SoCalJustice 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How interesting. Perhaps the editors at BBC News would welcome your insights. --Daduzi ^talk 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That is very interesting considering that a report recently came out saying that the BBC gave more coverage to attacks on Israel and less on attacks made by the Israeli military, so you are really quite wrong in your assumption. Arniep 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How interesting that you have absolutely no sources for what you're saying--FurnaceOfMonkl 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Independent Review Commissioned by the BBC Governors: http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews/israelipalestiniangovernors_statement.pdf (FYI it is the duty of the BBC Governors to make sure that the BBC remains impartial. Part of their job is to regulate the BBC) User:Pit-yacker 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Critcism of the BBC: (Merged)

I think the criticism section should be moved to the relevant page Criticism of the BBC which can then be expanded to include other criticisms. Your opinions please Damson88 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the criticism section should be moved to a subsection of the BBC News page as all the criticism is about BBC News. I have considered moving however there seems to be some editors with strong opinions that this one specific criticism of BBC News should appear on this article.

That said, IMHO the same is true for all of the "Critism of the BBC" article, which IMHO should be deleted. The article is untidy, repeats the same themes over and over (i.e. Side A says the BBC is biased towards side B; Side B says that the BBC is biased towards side A.), and generally just seems to be a place for ill conceived beeb bashing based on one news report or comment from particular groups with their own agenda. User:Pit-yacker 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything it is even more true of the "Criticism of the BBC" article which appears to be nothing more than an argument over The situation in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the War on Terror with propaganda masquerading as information, why just criticism?--Lord of the Isles 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the critcism to BBC News, given that I have also nominated the messy and incoherent Criticism of the BBC for deletion. IMHO Leaving this one item of cricitism on the main BBC page in a section, implicitly suggests that this is the only criticism of the BBC, which is obviously rubbish. User:Pit-yacker 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There many things for which the BBC could be criticised Damson88 14:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Every time I see a "Criticisms" section in an article, I reach for my gun. They're never NPOV, they're always about grinding axes, they just don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Mike 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it really depends on the context. When describing an academic theory (or the academic who came up with it), for example, it would seem remiss not to include criticism of the theory (along with any relevant rejoinders from supporters of the theory). There doesn't have to be a separate section, of course, but it's generally easier to follow if it's done that way. When describing entities, like the BBC, it's more difficult to justify, however. I think a good rule of thumb is to leave criticism for concepts and have controversy for things and people. So we could have a criticism section under BBC news coverage or the license fee, but it doesn't really make sense to have a criticism section for the BBC as a whole. Generally people aren't criticising the BBC, they're criticising aspects of the BBC. --Daduzi ^talk 06:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a fairly substantial body of criticism of the BBC, largely accusations of political or cultural bias. It's not unreasonable to note, in an appropriate article if not in the main article, the main points critics make. Clearly a number of these points are not NPOV, but reporting that such criticisms exist _is_ NPOV. For comparison, an article on Hitler may state that he was anti-semitic: he had a POV that was clearly not neutral, but reporting that he and other people held such views is entirely NPOV. Wikipedia must be NPOV, but reporting others' POVs is quite consistent with this. A reasonable approach is surely to note in the main article that people have criticised the BBC, and give them a link to the relevant article, should they wish to click it. ( I don't feel that it's enough to include the link in the "BBC-related articles" list, because (1) as I noted above, a more-than-sporadic corpus of such criticisms exists, and (2) we don't do this in other articles where the subject has been criticised, and should be consistent. ) WMMartin 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I note the "criticism of the BBC" section has returned. I left it last night as I was unsure what to do. IMHO, it definitely didnt warrant the position it took in the article above basic information about the BBC, however, as the whole section was pretty poor, I wasnt sure whether just to revert. After comments from Redvers on his edit, I have moved it down the article for now.

However I still feel unsure whether it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Given the nature of the issues raised, I think it would be equally applicable to call the section "This Week in the Points of View Post Bag". User:Pit-yacker 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree that the current section is a bit, well, not very good and reads like somewhat of a stream of conciousness. That being said I do think it may well be wortwhile to try to colaborate to produce an actually decent criticism section. A few paragraphs going over the license fee issue, perceived biases (but please god don't let it turn into another Isreal/Palestine nightmare, there's much more to the BBC's new reporting than just Israel), criticisms of content (here we could incorporate some of the new addition, albeit properly sourced, as well as older controversies (going back to Monty Python and perhaps further) and other various criticisms of BBC programming) and possibly criticisms of the organisation and beaurocracy of the Beeb (off the top of my head John Birt drew a lot of flack for his managerial style). The whole David Kelly fiasco should probably also be included somewhere. All criticisms should be carefully sourced, of course, and directly attributed to individuals or groups as far as possible so as to avoid weasel words, but there'll probably be enough articles in the major UK press to cover it. The recent Royal Charter review would also be a valuable resource, since a large number of outside parties gave testimony which is recorded on government websites.

I'd be happy to do a lot of the legwork, but would really appreciate assistance in deciding on what to include and digging up sources.--Daduzi ^talk 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO:

• The licence fee issue really belongs on the television licence page (i.e the main one) most of the criticisms of the licence fee are applicable to all countries that have a licence fee. Both the main one and the UK TV Licence article are very weak on dicussing the pros and cons of the licence fee and the alternatives. I may get around to that, as i have been doing quite a bit on the rest of the page.
• I think that some of the issues raised in the current section might be better discussed in articles about the thing they are criticisied. E.g. Jermey Vine Show. Although even then I think it is necessary to avoid articles turning into a one sided Points of View post bag. e.g. Although there were several tens of thousands of complaints about Jerry Springer the Opera, these over-whelmingly came from a well organised campaign that made the complaints before they even saw the show. On the other side, IIRC, there was a good number that were pleased that the BBC had dared to show something so controversial.

• The Hutton enquiry is best dicussed on BBC News where it currently is.

However:

• I think this article should address things such as concerns of over-bureaucracy, the content the BBC should or shouldn't be producing, money wasting, regulation of the BBC, and what many see as an expansionist tendency.

User:Pit-yacker 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily stuck the section inside comment brackets (<!-- -->) as it was rapidly descending into a "some say... others say..." back and forth with precisely zero sources showing anyone saying anything. I suggest we keep it there until a properly sourced version can be developed which would hopefully discourage other editors from putting any old weaselly statements in.

pit-yacker, regarding your comments above I can't say I disagree with any of them, with the slight caveat that certain high profile controversial shows may warrant a brief mention (though this could come under the "content the BBC should or shouldn't be producing" clause). I think, then, we've got a good framework to operate under: criticism of the organisation and management structure (bureaucracy, money wasting), criticism of attitude and role (expansionism, some license fee criticisms (as they relate to the BBC's market position) would also be relevant here) and criticsm of content (what should or shouldn't be produced and how well the BBC lives up to its ideals). For the first part, ex-employees and industry media would be the best sources, for the second the charter review documentation should contain most of the criticisms of competitors and for the third I guess the mainstream press would be the best source. If you're in agreement we can go ahead and start digging. --Daduzi ^talk 02:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is outrageous that there is no mention of criticism or allegations of bias on the main BBC page. Even if the allegations are usually about one particular outlet they still deserve a *mention*, or at the very least a *link* to any controversy. The allegations aren't just about BBC News anyway, they stretch into documentary programs like Panorama and the general multicultural tone of the whole institution. In light of the recent leak I am adding in a new section. Child of Albion 22:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have delibrately avoided doing anything on this topic as (besides being a lot of very hard work to do it properly), is, if not done correctly, a poison challice that causes the article to spin out of control into personal axe grindings. AFAICT, the latest attempt, although much better in that it doesnt resemble the Points of View Mailbag or a pile of unsourced "some say..., others say...." suffers from many of the same issues as previous attempts. AFAICT it broadly divides into two sections.

• "Accusations of Political Correctness", which debatebly should be included in criticisms on the main page. IMHO probably in the context of a wider discussion of how well the BBC serves different sections of the population. No doubt there may need to be a discussion that the BBC doesnt serve some minorities well enough ;).
• "Criticsms of BBC News": A very one sided and (right wing) point of view commentary. All we need now is the arrival of the Palestine/Israel section (rolls-eyes). I proposed that criticsms of BBC News was kept in a strongly regulated section in BBC News for a good reason. The reason being that the back and forth "reports of bias" from either side on every conceivable issue from the colour of Tony Blair's tie to "Anti-Americanism" and back again very quickly take over the article. They make it look like that is the only criticism of the BBC is a pile of ramblings from either side of each argument both accusing the BBC of bias in the opposite direction. I still maintain that the main article should discuss issues such as how well the BBC serves the population, allegations of waste, etc. AFAICT the likes of Panorama are BBC News productions, so it still stands these belong in BBC News.Pit-yacker 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree to both your points. The first is that just because a lot of people post unsourced "mailbag" type views in here, doesn't mean the whole section should be deleted. It is quite right for editors to remove unsourced arguments, but to ignore genuine sourced complaints from acceptable sources would amount to censorship.

Secondly, unless the sourced criticism is criticising BBC News specifically, then it should remain on the main BBC page. Most of the allegations I've read complain about what they see as a cultural, institutional bias throughout the BBC that leads to bias. In that case the criticism deserves to be in the article about the institution. Also, many people wanting to read about allegations of bias will goto the BBC article and look for a criticism or bias section - I know that's what I do when I read about most newspapers, journalists, historians, media companies etc. Finally, at current, yes, the only inclusions have been from what are generally considered right-wing sources but if people wish to include criticism from left-wing sources then they are quite welcome to, as long as it is properly cited. It would be unfair to remove sourced criticism just because one perceives it is "right wing" and there is not enough "left wing" to balance it. Besides, the right-wing/left-wing thing is not even considered to be a very good description of the political spectrum by many, so it isn't fair to use this as a concept to "balance both sides." Child of Albion 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Israel/Palestine section arrives! For now (until a few days time when this all needs seriously pruning) I have put all criticisms in a "Criticisms of the BBC" section.I have also tried to reorganise it slightly, as IMHO allegations of being overly "political correct" (a much abused term IMHO) are different to allegations of bias.

I have also added important context about the "Room 101 meeting". I think it is important that the discussion was hypothetical and the controversial (Jewish) comedian discussed (who is most famous for a character (Ali G) that parodies asian youths who like to think they are "black gangsters") (a) included articles from his own religion (Its also telling that Alan Yentob (Jewish), was at the meeting and agreed to articles of the Jewish religion to go in) (b) It was a jew including muslim articles - I'm guessing that the symbology of a Jewish man destroying an article that is sacred to muslims would also be high in the minds of BBC Managers, as something, with no exageration, might aggrevate the current situation in the UK and around the world. Putting everything in context, at this point, I think a bit of "licence" has been used by the author (that even the Mail didnt use - even the introduction is subtly different) when saying the BBC was more concerned about offending muslims than Christians. There is a very big difference about being "concerned about offending Muslims" than being "more concerned about offending Muslims than Christians", the former saying that the context presented lead to a situation were muslims were likely to be offended, and that muslims are more easily offended than Christians (or Jews), which AFAICT is generally the perceived wisdom. The latter, IMHO, tries to isolate the BBC as being anti-Christian, as it ignores the Jewish element of the story.Pit-yacker 10:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Article title

It seems Wikipedia seems to err on the side or formality when it comes to naming articles. Shouldn't this article be titled British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC being the redirect? (If this has been discussed earlier, please excuse me - if you could indicate which Archive has the discussion that would be great). 23skidoo 01:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The brief discussion is at Talk:BBC/Archive4 (prior to that the article was indeed called British Broadcasting Corporation), but to answer your comment it's erroneous to state that Wikipedia errs on the side of formality, the key criteria for article names is what is the most common name of the subject (see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). In this respect BBC is the obvious choice for the article name (see also CNN, CBS, NBC, NATO and so on). --Daduzi ^talk 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Initials of BBC TV (Humour)

On the BBC comedy series The Two Ronnies, Ronnie Barker once explained that on-screen warnings would now appear on broadcasts in Britain.

Using a magnetic board and letters as a visual aid, Barker said that from now on a "V" would appear for violence, a "BB" for big bosoms, and "CT" for curvaceous thighs.

Barker further stated that while these warnings would appear singularly from time-to-time, they of course would NEVER all be used simultaneously. While saying this, he was looking at the audience while inattentively attempting to clear the letters to the sides of the magnetic board, but accidently moving the letters into an arrangement that spelt out BBCTV.

72.82.208.18 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Classic! Gotta love them Ronnie Barker monologues. ~~ Peteb16 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

BBCi

The BBCi Page 159 regarding Staff information contains info on emergency advise etc. I found it accidently, and have wondered if it ever changes etc. So was wondering if anyone from the BBC could tell me about this as it is 'hidden' because if you type 159 on BBCi it shows up, but put 101 and scroll up to 159 it is not there anyone know about BBCi --Oliver Davison 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't work for the BBC, although I have some really good mates that do/have. 159 is not secret or 'hidden', it's just denied the oxygen of publicity. The information is available on Ceefax, on LEfax, on BBCi, on bbc.co.uk, in Ariel and on Gateway. But, since the information is meant for staff, there is no need to advertise it to the public. The information is rarely updated because the general threat to the BBC is low anyway (although news of fires and floods have appeared there, I think). The general threat to the BBC is low because it makes no sense for a terrorist group to silence a news provider - thus silencing an outlet for themselves. 159 stems from the 'Real' IRA attack on Television Centre - considered by many to have been completely counterproductive. A good article on that is on the site Newsdesk. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Replacing shocking grammar with absurd vocabulary

I've just swapped the following ...

The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content:

• high quality
• challenging
• original
• innovative
• engaging.

for this.

The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content.

• high quality
• challengingness
• originality
• innovation
• engagingness

I'm not so fond of these ~ness words but I don't know whether I could be bothered recasting this most-likely-biased stuff into normal English. Nor am I sure that I could do it well being that I'm none too familiar with the topic. Jimp 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How about:

BBC content must be at least one of the following:

• high quality
• challenging
• original
• innovative
• engaging.

--Daduzi ^talk 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In my defence, the original version is a direct quote. Whilst it reflects Birtian language - much beloved of this government, natch - it is what the semi-automated Ms Jowell (or her sub-droids) wrote. And the current version, without even bullet points, has drifted so far from English as to be so unreadable (at least my version didn't have made-up words in it) as to now require deletion from the article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

BBC canteen

I'm quite surprised BBC canteen is a redlink. Isn't it something of a regular, easy target in comedy and associated nationally with bad food? An article on the history of the canteen and the humour surrounding it might be quite nice. --kingboyk 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

External links section

I have removed the "Essay examining the reasons for and against the licence fee" link from the external links section of the article, as I feel that Wikipedia should not be linking to essays written by students. However, some of the references in the essay may be useful, so I've decided to place a link to the essay here: [4]. In addition, I've also removed the link to the Media Guardian article "Tories go to war over 'leftie' BBC", which now looks rather out of place. Maybe someone could find a new home for it? :-) --Marknew 11:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC survey of alleged bias for Palestine or Israel

I am RV'ing vandalism of this section. It is quite clear that the survey found a (slight) pro-Israeli bias (although only a slight one) in the report. Citations:

Times online coverage EJ Press story [5] MarkThomas 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually sorry, the above is not quite right. I've now had chance to both read the original report and check out the (different) version of this at the BBC News page. The truth is the governor's did a typical hand-wringing exercize and decided there was no bias either way; regardless of our own views on it, that is what we should say on Wikipedia. If the people vandalising this whole page would desist long enough to allow proper editing, we will correct it! Please check out the BBC News version as well which is much better written on the whole controversy. I have now removed the biased ant-BBC pro-Israeli stuff as well. MarkThomas 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the whole report.

It says that there is no intentional bias, but in practise there is quite a bit of it, all pro-Israel.

Here are the relevant portions:

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews/panel_report_final.txt

4.7 Among the findings from the quantitative content analysis which the researchers judge to be most important for the Panel are these:

............................

- that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in the amount of talk time given to non-party political Israelis and Palestinians;

- that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in the amount of talk time given to Israelis and Palestinians;

- that there was a broad parity in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of Israeli and Palestinian party political actors;

- that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of non-party political Israeli and Palestinian actors;

- that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of Israeli and Palestinian actors;

............................

- that some important themes were relatively overlooked in the coverage of the conflict, most notably in the recent period, the annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;

- that BBC journalists generally did not provide historical context in their reporting of the conflict;

- that BBC broadcast news reported Israeli and Palestinian fatalities differently in that Israeli fatalities generally receive greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities (see paragraph 4.9 below).

............................

4.9 The research also included an analysis of the coverage of the fatalities in the conflict. In the research period, it appears from the most commonly used data (provided by the Israeli Government and by the human rights group B'Tselem) that the death of an Israeli killed by the Palestinian side was more likely to be reported by the BBC than the death of a Palestinian killed by the Israeli side. In the relevant period, the researchers found that there were some 20/23 Israeli fatalities and 98 Palestinian fatalities. PalestineRemembered 23:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Costs

Would it be relevant if the article mentioned that the BBC spend well over £10,000,000 in hotel costs per year? Cєlαя∂σяє^Talk 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BBC Micro

I notice the article currently doesn't link BBC micro directly. I think it would be good if we could cover that somewhere. Am pondering having it in the 'internet' section (which would rename), so that the BBC micro and the BBC NC would be right next to each other. Does this seem sensible? 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would add it the 'See also' section, it's one of countless bits of technology the BBC has developed over the years. The main article should stick to explaining the complex nature/structure/funding and so on of the BBC. Escaper7 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

November 2006 re-organisation

The corporate structure section is out of date, the new structure: BBC Vision, BBC Audio etc came into force on 20 November 2006, although some of the management roles are listed in the new format, in the article. I do know the changes, but I'm waiting until I've got a source or chart to help better explain this. Escaper7 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC Radio service in India

The Radio service of BBC is so popular in Indian remote areas. There are lots of Road Show organised by BBC India in last five years. Now a days BBC India Team is roaming in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajeshroshan (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

BBC Radio service in India

The Radio service of BBC is so popular in Indian remote areas. There are lots of Road Show organised by BBC India in last five years. Now a days BBC India Team is roaming in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand. Guddu 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Largest?

The reference given for the statement that the BBC is the "largest broadcasting corporation in the world" "with a budget of £4 billion" is from a book published in 1996.

Even as soon as the following year, in 1997, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) published a comparison of media companies, titled, "The Global Media Giants: We are the world". The comparison showed the BBC as a "second-tier" media company behind such mega-companies as Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

If I'm reading the financial statements correctly, the 2004–2005 Financial Review referenced in the article lists the BBC's income as about £4.4 billion (US$8.6 billion) for the year ended March 2005, with an operating loss of £188 million (US$368 million). (See BBC Financial Review.)

Disney, owner of the American Broadcasting Company, lists revenues as of September 2006 of US$34 billion (£17.4 billion) with a gross profit of US$5.5 billion (£2.8 billion) and net income of US$3.4 billion (£1.7 billion). (See Walt Disney Co. Income Statement at Yahoo! Finance.)

Another example is NBC (National Broadcasting Company), part of a media company that is a unit of General Electric (GE). GE's Income Statement shows a gross profit of US$83 billion (£42 billion), with net income of US$16 billion (£8 billion).

Disney and GE, unlike the BBC, are publicly-traded for-profit companies; the BBC never aims to make a profit. While the BBC has an extensive worldwide presence with several operating companies and divisions, it just can't compare with the mega-media corporations.Chidom ^talk, 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the BBC cannot compete with these "mega-media co-ops" is sheer nonsense. The BBC world service, alone, has- by far- more listeners than the largest media company in America.

Two key things that you've left out: we are talking about TV & radio broadcasting here not all the kinds of media that media conglomerates operate or create (e.g. music publishing, book publishing, newspapers, cinema, outdoor advertising, advertising agencies, cable systems, video games etc etc in addition to non-media assets such as theme parks, hotels, residential housing, cruise ships (or many more in the case of GE, which is not primarily a media company). Also, "largest broadcaster" is not necessarily measured by revenue or profit - to measure influence / popularity, its better to measure by audience or audience reach; you may also want to measure broadcasting output or broadcasting staff numbers. I agree with you that the current statement in the article is questionable and likely out of date, but the sources you provide haven't disproven the statement Bwithh 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The existing reference is measuring broadcasting company size by staff numbers:[6] Bwithh 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried pulling broadcasting expenditure numbers (as BBC is a public service operator and also derives its revenues from what is essentially government taxation which presets the bulk of BBC income over a multi-year period (the level of which is a major political issue in the UK), revenues/profit figures aren't good comparisons) for some commercial companies as comparisons to the BBC operating budget - employee figures for commercial companies tend to be harder to find

Expenditures

(Approximate 2005 figures using current exchange rates for rough dollar conversion - yes, slightly dodgy I know)

• BBC ~$8bn (total operating budget (predominantly tv + radio + online) less pension expenses ); about 25,370 employees in 2005[7]
• Disney $9.6bn ("Media Networks" includes internet + tv/cable networks (may include non-broadcasting pay tv elements) and $6.6bn in film, television and broadcast programming spending)
• Time Warner $6.6bn ($4.7bn in "Networks division" Cost of Revenues + $1.9bn SG&A overheads;this includes non-broadcasting pay tv operations such as Video On Demand/Pay Per View)[8]
• NBC (General Electric) - does not break out expenditures for broadcasting subsegment (2005 revenues = ~$14.6bn; includes theme parks)[9]
• RTL (Bertelsmann tv/radio; claims to be "largest broadcaster in Europe") - does not break out expenditures for broadcasting segment (2005 revenues = ~$6.7bn); about 8,970 employees[10]

These are the staffing figures we would ideally have, but the BBC is clearly in the class of Disney and Time Warner and RTL (NBC figures are too unclear) as broadcasting spender Bwithh 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this claim that the BBC is 'largest broadcasting corporation in the world' to be a bit questionable, especially since it's very difficult, if not unfair, to compare it to comercial broadcasting organisations. Also, different broadcasting companies can be constructed in very different ways. Networks in the USA are based on local 'affiliates' that broadcast a mix of national feeds and local programming/news, but all under the main network (i.e. NBC) name. So one would also need to consider all of that additional expense and employees operating under the NBC (or other network) name to compare it to the BBC. There are >200 different 'NBC' TV stations around the US almost all of which will feature locally produced programs (at the very least morning, noon, evening and night local news broadcasts). Many of those local affiliates are owned by third parties, but NBC Universal also owns a portfolio of about ~25 such stations. Also, don't forget about subsidiary operations too since the same 'company' that owns NBC also owns Universal Studios and all the film/broadcast productions that go with it. The BBC is fantastic, but I don't know that one could realistically proove this statement (nor does it really matter anyway?) --Nhartman 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If we took it by audiences, and include radio, which is after all part of broadcasting, the BBC would come out biggest - for example, BBC World Service alone claims 163 million regular listeners, far in advance of even the largest US networks. The other groups mentioned like CBS, Disney, etc, all make most of their money from movies and other enterprises and Bertlesman the European conglomerate is primarily a publishing empire. MarkThomas 11:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Moved from top of page I would like to suggest making a link to the name MARCONI.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.70.41 (talk • contribs).

Where would you like this link to go and why? Let us know! Or you could do it yourself - we like that. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Marr on BBC bias

The Andrew Marr quote about BBC bias comes from an article in the Daily Mail about an alleged "impartiality summit" at the corporation which no one but the Mail seems to believe actually took place. Until someone can find another source backing this up I think we should leave it out. MFlet1 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Originally there was a reference to the Mail article (a slighlty more reliable source, but not much). At some stage this appears to have been replaced with an even more right-wing site. Unfortunately, for the BBC the story has spread like Chinese Whispers and the story being reported in the right-wing/Christian fundamentalist press now bares no resemblence to even the story reported by the Mail. The key point as I have pointed out in Talk:Criticism of the BBC, is taking a closer look at what Marr says, I'm guessing a lot of people missed the real meaning because it was placed in the context of the rest of the article. He says the BBC is a socially liberal organisation (meaning that its employee base is very diverse and it doesnt have a problem with employees who are gay, single mums, foreigners, etc.) being socially liberal is completely different to being politically liberal or Liberal. It is also entirely different to the BBC projecting such a bias over the air-ways. IMHO the passage about Marr shouldnt be included because the truth is it essentially meaningless in the correct context. Pit-yacker 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although having said that I was wrong to suggest that the impartiality summit was fictional. It did take place, but the way it was reported on the LifeSite website and the inclusion of ludicrous statements such as "BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals" made it sound as if the whole thing was either the product of a Daily Mail reporter's diseased mind or something that Chris Morris had made up. MFlet1 17:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page seems to be getting vandalised on a daily basis. Is there anything we can do about this? Like make it only editable by registered users? --Eamonnca1 02:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The level of vandalism is far too low - it would probably need in the tens of edits per day to be protected - when lots of people watch a page (as you can tell I do :P) there isnt a particular need for protection as long as revertion is manageable. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural significance of the BBC

In writing a Wikipedia article about the BBC, it is easy to find ample material for an article on criticism but it is harder to find 'referenceable' positive aspects to illustrate its immense cultural significance. The BBC television and radio are a fundamental part of the fabric of the nation and the cause of much that is good in British society.(We can imagine what British broadcasting would be like without it by watching Sky One.) I hope someone can find some acceptable material to include in the section on cultural signifance. As it is, this section is awful. JMcC 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What's awful about it? Seems fine to me, apart from a lack of citations.

--Eamonnca1 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The section says three things: the BBC has changed to include more regional and fewer plummy accents (irrelevant), two sentences about cultural impact and then goes on to say that other counties get to see our news. In other words only two sentences describe the immense effect that the BBC has had and continues to have. For example comparison with the BBC used to keep ITV up to the mark. Without the BBC we would have missed not only I Claudius but also Brideshead Revisited. Now think about Attenborough, Radio 4, Newsnight, Python, Dennis Potter, Horizon (before it lost its way), Timewatch..... Just count the BBC's entries in 100 Greatest British Television Programmes. JMcC 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The accent thing is not irrelevant. Regional accents used to be considered almost taboo by some people, the BBC's use of more down-to-earth accents and reporters from the regions on the national network has helped to make them more acceptable - and understandable. As for the other things you mention, if you're upset about them being missing then be bold and add them in. It's not like I wrote this section as if it was going to be complete right from the start, this is a wiki after all and nobody's stopping you from improving the section. --Eamonnca1 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

Shouldn't the fact that the BBC's domestic services are entirely advertising-free be emphasized more, possibly in the lead? The article does state that the BBC's charter requires the BBC to be free from "commercial influence," but readers may not realize that the charter prohibits the BBC's UK services (both radio and television) from showing any commercials or sponsorship messages. Mentioning this is particularly important because the vast majority of similar public service broadcasters in other countries, even those that are funded by license fees, do air advertising to supplement their incomes. WorldWide Update 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 88.106.50.56 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Rich

Other areas unexplored

There should be a section on its role in the arts - The proms, the Orchestras it funds and the BBC foreign film awards it does.

The BBC is openly Anti-Semitic

Compare these two statements: "On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet, and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people – with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial – forgave those 15. This pardon is a gift to the British people."

From the BBC: "On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the great prophet of Islam, and on the occasion of Easter and Passover, I would like to announce that the great nation of Iran, while it is entitled to put the British military personnel on trial, has pardoned these 15 sailors and gives their release to the people of Britain as a gift."

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6526615.stm">See for yourself here. You will not find any other report that includes the word PASSOVER.</a>

The BBC is explicitly lying for Ahmadinejad - barefaced lying to cover up his genocidal anti-semitism. If Wikipedia values freedom and civilisation it ought to cover this. Maybe not on the BBC page as such but at least somewhere public.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.21.204.162 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-10.

Ignoring

1. that it probably verges on original research

2. differing translations producing slightly different variations

3.Accusing the BBC of lying would probably be libellous, unless you can also prove they delibratly lied.

have you got a source for where the first version came from? Having checked a number of different outlets (The Guardian, Independent, The Telegraph, Sky News, CNN (appears to be AP coverage), and Reuters). The only other one which carries the full statement is the Independent which also mentions the passover (see [11]). Sky News have video footage (with "live" translation) where the translator doesnt mention the passover. However, the translation has a huge gap in the middle and misses a large section of other detail in your first source Pit-yacker 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So firstly, for not mentioning Passover, Ahmadinejad is an anti-semitist... and secondly for mentioning it the BBC are too... come off it. I'll agree that the BBC have a mis-quote here (I wasn't able to find any other source that did it), but it hardly amounts to anti-semitism, heck they're including them for crying out loud! The Guardian had his quote:

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet [Muhammad] ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people, with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial, forgave those 15. This pardon is a gift to the British people." [12]

but still, what the BBC did only amounts to bad journalism and being overly Politically Correct in wanting to mention everyone. DevAnubis 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is just nonsense. The BBC is accused of being pro-Palestinian by pro-Israelis and pro-Israeli by pro-Palestinians. It is also accused of being liberal by conservatives and of being conservative by liberals. So I guess that means it is somewhere in the middle. --ukexpat 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Advent of commercial radio

I just corrected this to 1973 (from 1967); both these years are memorable to me, because 1967 was the year I started secondary school, and 1973 was the year before I left there.

I suspect that whoever put "1967" is confusing the year commercial radio in Britain became legal (1973) with the year commercial radio to Britain from international waters (pirate radio) became illegal. 193.122.47.162 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

With 24 launched, revenues took the 1991-1996 crown away. Is it just me? That sentences does not seem to make a lot of sense. --jmb 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was added today by 70.64.51.3 (talk · contribs), which I've now removed. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistency Between other Channels of equal availability is very poor

There is not much consistency between information about UK television networks. Here on the BBC wikipedia page it displays common slogan used by the channel and, gives the names of heads of network and founder. Where as on the Channel 4 wikipedia page (a station of equal availability for UK public) it displays less information, and gives the % of market share, whilst the BBC page does not do this. I’d quite like to know the audience share BBc vs. C4. Poor old wikipedia, your standards are slipping-you need one of those enforcer types to buckle up on consistency. Otherwise it will substantiate claims you are crap. from BEPOP up your face. 15.34 GMT go home get a job

Beeb

Domestic audiences often affectionately refer to the BBC as "the Beeb", a nickname coined by Kenny Everett.[4]

The use of the name Beeb predates Kenny Everett, the Wiki page on him says it goes back to the 1950s and the OED gives a 1967 date for the first recorded use. --jmb 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"The" BCC

After nothing "The" was bolded in the intro when referring to the BBC, I was about to remove it until I read the note that said to read archive 5. The relevant post can be seen here. I'm not totally convinced by the undated document, however. Companies change their names all the time; for example, the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, almost always known as 3M, changed it's official name to 3M not too long ago. But looking at the BBC's official Web site, I noted they never capitalized "the" as they would if it were part of their official name. (Proper nouns are capitalized, mind you.) We, too, do not capitalized "the." So I'm curious as to why we continue to keep "The" bolded in the intro. (Also note the title is BBC as well, not "The BCC.") ~ UBeR 07:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the BBC is not a "company," but rather a state-owned corperation. The Royal Charter quoted in the archive essentially authorises its existence as such, and so effectively can be regarded as the "final word." However, the convention is to not capitalise "the" most of the time, although the definite article is invariably used. Someone will say, "I was watching the BBC last night," not "I was watching BBC last night" (although "watching BBC1" for the specific channel is the convention).

To be honest, if we were being strictly correct, the page should be titled "The British Broadcasting Corporation" anyway. Nick Cooper 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)