40% of the UK public think the BBC is biased - but how depends on their own political stance.

Apparently no links to the source poll data, but summary graphs at //datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Qeaul/2/

I don't think you have it too bad with the BBC, seriously. England is class-ridden, and power is wielded unsparingly at times, so there are 'rocks under the water, that broadcasters have to avoid. What BBC head will rock the boat and emerge with his peerage & his pension?

You should have tried Irish media back in the 1960s, '70s & '80s - before all the child abuse came out. This was Holy Catholic Ireland. A bad report on a Government politician or priest would have consequences if the Catholic Church didn't like it. Here's a (wordy) example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme

Our State broadcaster toed the Catholic line - it had to. It blackened any other Church it could.

More importantly, police wouldn't accept complaints about the conduct of Catholic priests without solid evidence. And who gets abused in Public? As a seven year old, I reported the existence of a paedophile priest in a nearby school to my Mother in 1960. She sat me down, told me to shut up about that and say nothing to anyone, and explained the range of powers the Church had, what ugly places Reform schools were, etc. etc. I would be put in one if I didn't keep quiet. It wasn't until the 1990s that such stuff could be really listened to and acted on. Then up to 70 years of it came out together!

I'm in the U.S. but I go to BBC.com for my news. I trust it at least as much a what I read on facebook... which is a sad thing to have to say! For me reading the "news" is entertainment - I don't really believe any of it until it's been tossed around in public for a good long time and sometimes not even then.

Sure, show me video of the latest Boeing rocket blowing up on the launch pad and I'll probably take it at face value. Later to find out they were testing the emergency systems and it was -supposed- to explode.

Show me a short, out-of-context, video of some high profile politician (on either side of the aisle) being accused of (whatever heinous crime is popular today) and I'll wait and see.

Tell me that the Aurora Borealis or some other spectacular celestial thingy will be visible with the naked eye down to my latitude at 01:00 local time and I can use that as a predictor of the weather: it will -always- be overcast/cloudy at 01:00 on that night.

Just do your homework. Just be skeptical. Search for multiple sources and then contrast your "findings" between them. Understanding from the outset that all(!) of these sources are biased.

What is distinct about "the present" is not that "propaganda exists," but that it is now much more "visible."

(So: You can't escape being confronted by it. Anymore ... And, mind you, there is nothing that you can do about it.)

OK. BBC is leading today with the death of Russian General Igor Kirillov, Russia's chemical weapons guy. He was supposedly blown up as he exited his apartment building by a bomb placed in a motor scooter, put there by the Ukrainian Secret Service. Then we got a list of atrocities he supervised in the ongoing war.

How much of that do folks swallow?

Or just not watch tv? That is a bit 'communistic' though as you right wingers love to say. Anything left of one's personal beliefs = communist, but in this case perhaps right if we are to accept the claim that communism lacks choice as I qouted from another user on another forum recently. Is this true?

I know when there are dictatorships it does but that is true of any dictatorship. The question is does communism necessarily lack choice?

I suppose if we are to take marx at his word then yes it does because he would write that it can only be brought about by revolution and violence.

Would then choice make it no longer communism? It would then be socialism would it not?

A tangential question, but more interesting than the subject matter of the op lol.

No, because I am not interested in news any more. Just block it all out and let the really major stuff filter through via others constantly discussing it on forums or via family and such.

I don't care, he was a legitimate target and is now no longer an issue.

Ukraine Kills Senior Russian General
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ex...4df9debe5fbd18
https://metro.co.uk/2024/12/17/high-...oter-22201109/

I'm quite far removed from the 'action,' living approximately 15,000km away from Ukraine. Could you please enlighten me as to what is wrong with that story and, in particular, what is wrong with the BBC's reporting of it?

Don't use FB - i literally told them to F-off many years ago

https://slashdot.org/
https://www.techdirt.com/
https://arstechnica.com/
https://hackerherald.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/us

/. never omits relevant info in their articles to earn a few extra clicks. That is why I'll always respect it.

I don't think there's much, or indeed anything wrong with it. But my post was for those decrying the BBC's Neutrality. Now the UK generally is pro-UK and gives the good news from there more than the bad, and I get that. If/when Putin goes down, they'll spare no expense and omit no detail. But compared with Joseph Goebbels they're pretty straight. The reported the news, but didn't gloat. At the risk of offending some, I don't see the same standard in American media.