Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
The BBC absolutely should not bow down to political pressure, we all agree on that. I'm not sure this is quite what the guardian thinks it is though. Govts will always put pressure on the media in terms of language. If it wasn't called a lockdown, then when it's a public health message is it right to call it such? I dunno.

The second point appears more damning but it is pretty routine for media editors etc to suggest more focus on different things, the question is how much that was steered by downing st. A good BBC wouldnt need advising that Labour were changing their position daily anyway.

The last point appears to be nonsense but every guardian has to get a dig about Brexit in to drive up advertising revenue.

It's a useful article in the wider debate about BBC impartiality but I'm not sure it's killer evidence.

My issue is more the editorial decisions and news values on what they report on. I don't think there is a party political bias and we can see that with BBC Wales that does a decent job of holding the (Labour) Welsh Govt to account
"it is pretty routine for media editors etc to suggest more focus on different things".

That part is correct but media editors don't have to remain impartial at other news outlets/broadcasters.

The message read:

"D St complaining that we’re not reflecting Labour’s mess of plan b online. ie Ashworth said it earlier this week, then reversed. Can we turn up the scepticism a bit on this?”

'Downing Street' complained about a lack of focus of negativity on Labour from the BBC so a senior editor kowtowed to them and told his staff to be more critical.

For what it's worth, I've always felt that the BBC were pretty balanced in terms of news coverage.

The left & right equally complain that it's biased - which, on the balance of probability, shows that they generally do a good job - but how much more damning testimony do you personally need to see that this incarnation of the BBC is in cahoots with the Tory government?