Talk:BBC

So bias in polling translates as argument of no bias

The article contains this paragraph: A 2018 opinion poll by BMG Research found that 40% of the British public think that the BBC is politically partisan, with a nearly even split between those that believe it leans to the left or right. which then quotes an Economist article that is behind a paywall that states the same. The problem is that polls have long been controversial, and their interpretation in publications that themselves are biased does not help. I can easily quote this YouGov poll from 2025 and say: "nearly twice believe BBC is left leaning", but I know that would not be fair either. I think the opinion poll paragraph quoted should be removed, it is both dated historically and subject to intrinsic bias. ~2025-39629-81 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

is bbc paid now?

Some articles on https://www.bbc.com/ appear to be behind a paywall, so this should be mentioned in the article. 🐈 Cinaroot  💬 08:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Only for US users. No ads or paywall in the UK - BBC website in US launches paid subscription service. It started in June. - X201 (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s public service broadcaster funded by the UK government as a public service—now they want to charge US readers for access. 🐈 Cinaroot  💬 08:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

As has been said many time before it is NOT funded by the UK Government. The UK public fund it. Additionally: What you just did, adding your own comment and then instantly archiving the thread is not how things work around here. It creates a false record that yours was the last comment on the matter. Threads get archived when the discussion has fully ended.- X201 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I made the last comment out of frustration - i archived it because no further conversation or changes to article is necessary. Its not my intention to create a false record and i don't think it matter's in this case. 🐈 Cinaroot  💬 09:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

When I said the UK government funds the BBC, I meant it in principle and that’s broadly true.

The public doesn’t pay the BBC directly. The licence fee is set by the UK government and collected from households by the government, and it remains the BBC’s main source of funding.

So while the money ultimately comes from the public, it isn’t voluntary and exists only through government authority. In that sense, it’s fair to say the UK government funds the BBC. 🐈 Cinaroot  💬 09:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You can read more about Public finance.

Where do you think the government gets its money? From something called taxes. And who pays them? The public. The public pays taxes because they’re required to—just like the UK government requires its citizens to pay for the BBC.

And your argument - no government doesnt fund it - its the public - its just a nice semantic distinction to avoid acknowledging that the BBC’s primary funding stream exists because of government authority and enforcement. 🐈 Cinaroot  💬 09:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I’d love to keep debating this, but I’m not going to respond further. This is my opinion, and that’s it. 🐈 Cinaroot  💬 09:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

bbc lede - WP:NPOV

BBC has a long history of criticism and controversy, but the lede doesn’t even touch on—or remotely address—any of it.

Lede should include something - like CNN and Fox News 🐈 Cinaroot  💬 08:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know if liberal and left-wing bias is its top criticism. That’s what’s written in the Controversies section. If it’s not - it should be removed from lede.

BBC#Bias_on_transgender_topics - is this WP:DUE ? Maybe there is something that has more weight than this? 🐈Cinaroot  💬 06:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I’d think that playing a crucial role in the rise of 21st century fascism via the careful and systemic demonization of a majorly targeted minority group by that fascist system would qualify as notable enough on the scale of the last few decades; really on the scale of post-1991 western history. I’m not so sure on a 100 year scale, but for the last 35 years, yes. So I’d say it’s enough to put in the lede for the foreseeable future Snokalok (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

OK - I don’t have too much knowledge about BBC history. It has a fair share of controversies and should be accurately and fairly represented in the lead. I made an attempt - but feel free to improve if its not neutral or could be improved. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 06:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

No it shouldn’t, and quite frankly the version you added was poor.

You compare it to CNN but notably that lead distinguishes a view and where it’s coming from (i.e. conservative media claiming it’s liberal).

Here you’re just saying in WikiVoice it faces accusations of being left-wing with an implication it’s true. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body per WP:LEDE. Why did you remove it entirely instead of improving it? Please improve it 🐈Cinaroot  💬 16:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I did improve it, by removing a clearly biased, non-neutral item to lead. Having a line that says "people from all different angles have claimed it's biased against them" is functionally useless as a summary. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I kinda agree - but see Fox News It has been criticized for biased and false reporting in favor of the Republican Party

Above is not WP:VOICE

As i mentioned - i don't have strong opinion on BBC - I summarized what's in the article. If you think - thats not due - can you propose some alternatives ? 🐈Cinaroot  💬 02:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It's fine at Fox News because it's part of a paragraph that's supported by in excess of 10 academic sources.

And you didn't "summarise what's in the article", you chose to highlight only one specific POV claiming it's biased which isn't supported by high-quality sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2026

Can someone replace a number of BBC employees, revenue, operating income, total assets, etc into more recent reports (BBC Group Annual Report 2024/25 released in July 2025). Here's an updated source (https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-annual-report-and-accounts-24-25.pdf). ~2026-24462-27 (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please specify exactly how these numbers should be updated. Day Creature (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request on 29 July 2026, section controversies

Also considered BBC controversies page. However that page is mostly a chronological list of events while this describes a systemic multi-decade controversy, similar to the others on this BBC page.

Bullying and workplace culture

Concerns about bullying at the BBC have recurred for decades and have prompted several internal reviews.

After the Jimmy Savile revelations, the BBC commissioned the 2013 Respect at Work review led by barrister Dinah Rose. More than 930 staff took part. It found sexual harassment to be rare but bullying more common, and described "a strong undercurrent of fear" among staff who raised complaints. The BBC pledged to overhaul its procedures and drop confidentiality clauses that discouraged staff from speaking out.

A workplace culture review published in April 2025, carried out for the BBC by Change Associates, found no "toxic culture" but said a minority whose conduct damaged morale had not been dealt with adequately. Over the same period the corporation removed several presenters after complaints were investigated and upheld.

In June 2026 the BBC dismissed five long-serving journalists at its Hong Kong bureau, citing redundancy. Some had earlier raised bullying concerns. The Hong Kong Journalists Association sought an independent investigation into the bureau's management, and the International Federation of Journalists backed the call, urging the BBC to examine the dismissals and the treatment of staff who had raised concerns. As of late July 2026 no review had been commissioned. (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Will review this tomorrow (if I remember), but in the mean time I have made some minor changes to your request to fix the formatting issues. See the diff of this edit to view what I changed. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

References