BBC mouthpiece for government

Chrysalis · 25-05-2012, 18:04

I have noticed the sheer amount of stories on the bbc website which are sourced from ministers.

So I looked for a bbc phone number how a member of the public would either submit a story or comment on one, perhaps to report inaccurate information (very common on bbc stories now days). No phone number I could find on the bbc website at all, I did find a switchboard number for the bbc of another site however so rang it.

Asked to speak to someone on the news editoral team. Was asked why, I gave reason, was asked for more clarification, I pointed out I pay the licence fee and why is it so hard to speak to someone in the news team, the majority of newspapers let you speak to their journalists. The best deal I got was transferred to the bbc services team haha. When I got to them I was told the public can only report news to local bbc news teams and they would determine if its worth national interest. I then asked 4 questions.

1 - how do I provide a complaint about a new story.

answer was using form on website - which I pointed out rarely even gets a response and if it does its always a fob off.

2 - why are the vast majority of stories not backed up with any evidence other than minister's hearsay.

no answer

3 - why are the authors of news articles not revealed. Unless its one of the big names doing a blog.

no answer

4 - do ministers and co have to jump through the same loops as the amount of stories with them as the source its as if they have a direct hotline.

I did get an answer, and believe it or not he told me the government do have direct access to the bbc news team for press releases, and not only that the bbc are obliged to publish them.

The reason for all these questions and my urge to ring them up is the amount of stories the bbc publish that seem to copy and paste minister press releases, eg. if a minister says a tree is made of metal then thats what the bbc prints. There has been notably some bias reports because the bbc havent bothered to try and find a counter to what ministers have said and also some blatantly inaccurate stories (mostly about welfare) but also some other topics like the prisoner voting story. There is also stories which go against the government which conveniantly get no bbc coverage such as the BMA deciding the current ESA assessments arent fit for purpose and recent housing repossessions.

Now of course all other press groups are not angels, they are also guilty of printing inaccurate stories and also in some cases like the daily mail and sun biased stories but they do at least publish their reporter's names and allow you to contact them directly. They also dont seem to have such a big % of their news reports coming directly from parliament.

**Maggy J** · 25-05-2012, 18:14

You do do realise that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a public service.It is part of their charter that they MUST broadcast public announcements from the government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/...and_agreement/

**Graham M** · 25-05-2012, 18:28

Next you'll be telling me the license fee is a form of taxation!

**Maggy J** · 25-05-2012, 19:23

If you think the BBC are bad you want to look into all the tabloids and a few of the broadsheets as well.

martyh · 25-05-2012, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

You do do realise that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a public service.It is part of their charter that they MUST broadcast public announcements from the government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/...and_agreement/

True but they are supposed to be neutral and factual as well .Announcing government announcements is one thing but being the mouthpiece of the government another

**Maggy J** · 25-05-2012, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

True but they are supposed to be neutral and factual as well .Announcing government announcements is one thing but being the mouthpiece of the government another

To be honest I've not seen anything like Chrysalis seems to have.I frankly find the BBC far better than Sky because they usually wait for proper confirmation of a story before reporting.

Osem · 25-05-2012, 19:48

I wonder if the OP was quite as concerned about what he perceives as bias in BBC reporting when the last lot were in power?

martyh · 25-05-2012, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

To be honest I've not seen anything like Chrysalis seems to have.I frankly find the BBC far better than Sky because they usually wait for proper confirmation of a story before reporting.

I do find that annoying about Sky .As soon as there is a glimmer of a story it is plastered all over the tv as "breaking news" with no facts and no confirmation.As far as the BBC goes i think their reporters have gotten lazy and just repeat what other news outlets are saying

Osem · 25-05-2012, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

I do find that annoying about Sky .As soon as there is a glimmer of a story it is plastered all over the tv as "breaking news" with no facts and no confirmation.As far as the BBC goes i think their reporters have gotten lazy and just repeat what other news outlets are saying

Yes, it's been going on ever since rolling news started. They can't have 24 hours devoted to the facts of some cat being run over or something equally non-newsworthy so they put their own spin and speculation into the reporting mix to sex it all up. It's great for them because they can then report all the speculation as well as the subsequent reaction and denial.

Chrysalis · 25-05-2012, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham M

Next you'll be telling me the license fee is a form of taxation!

thats another debate

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:31 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

To be honest I've not seen anything like Chrysalis seems to have.I frankly find the BBC far better than Sky because they usually wait for proper confirmation of a story before reporting.

What do you mean by confirmation?

carlwaring · 25-05-2012, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

What do you mean by confirmation?

They don't just broadcast something without independent verification from (IIRC) two reputable sources. Like two different news agencies for example; or similar.

Also, yes, it is written into their Royal Charter that they have to be an un-biased (though I'm not sure of the exact wording) as possible. Therefore the only possible bias is in the eye of the viewer.

danielf · 25-05-2012, 21:37

The BBC is accused of being biased by both the left and right. In my book this means they are doing things right...

**Hugh** · 25-05-2012, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

The BBC is accused of being biased by both the left and right. In my book this means they are doing things right...

qft

**Damien** · 25-05-2012, 22:31

BBC News 24 and Sky News are much the same. Just noise in the background, unless there is a real breaking story of real consequence then they fill that need for information although that's now been taken over by Live blogs and Twitter.

Newsnight and Panorama are still good however. Actual in-depth reporting and analysis. I have the same problem with the BBC News website. Everything is a really superficial reporting of a story.

**Maggy J** · 26-05-2012, 07:14

I quite enjoy R4 in the early hours of the morning when I can't sleep.

---------- Post added at 08:14 ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

I do find that annoying about Sky .As soon as there is a glimmer of a story it is plastered all over the tv as "breaking news" with no facts and no confirmation.As far as the BBC goes i think their reporters have gotten lazy and just repeat what other news outlets are saying

Well I see Sky as the broadcast version of the Sun..and if there weren't stricter broadcasting rules I'm sure we would have a page 3 equivalent.