[AaronTV]

I think thanks to the propaganda that comes with war we can't really say we even know now the actual facts around that case and we have a situation where governments are keen to follow the Israeli narrative whilst journalists jobs is to find the truth - although sometimes journalists work towards finding a pre-conceived idea of the truth that reaches the desired conclusion.   And of course us as news consumers will often sway towards the reports which back our own point of view too.

The BBC get criticised whatever they do and so far the complaint count sees to be 50/50 which suggests there is a balance there.

I would probably be inclined to agree with you in terms of accusations of bias more generally, but given that an apology has been made by BBC News regarding this particular case and it was described as a ‘mistake’ by a senior BBC executive, I don’t think you can really suggest there was balance present in this instance. It’s quite the position to defend something which the BBC are unable to defend themselves.

When the news channel ran the caption ‘Health officials: At least 500 killed in strike on Gaza hospital’, what they really meant was that Hamas, a terrorist organisation, had claimed that 500 people had been killed in a ‘strike’ which at that time had not been independently verified. The term ‘health officials’ was entirely misleading, as was the caption suggesting it had been proven. 

Sky News got it right, why couldn’t the BBC? Whatever your politics are there is no denying that this particular case involved fundamentally misleading reporting.

[TV Insider]

When you’ve got ‘Reports: At least 500 killed in strike on Gaza hospital’ on the flipper, with the journalist on the ground describing how this could only be a Israeli strike, I do think there is a serious issue there when you look at what later transpired and what actually turned out to be the case.

It is still unclear "what actually turned out to be the case" and it may be some time before we know exactly what happened. Channel 4 News and Al Jazeera have both disputed Israel's claims in the past 24 hours but BBC News say that they have not seen enough evidence to verify either claim.

The BBC are being extremely careful in what they report and were very clear during their initial reporting that the source of their reporting was "according to Palestinian officials." While the BBC apologised for the reporter's wording, it is important to also note this: “At no stage did he actually say it was caused by the Israelis."

Either way, this forum is made for the discussions of the 2008 globe and not for discussing politics.

[ginnyfan]

I think BBC has been very balanced so far and has tried really hard to achieve that. The hospital reports of 300, 500 and even 800 dead were all over the news channels, not just BBC.

BBC and Sky have been a welcome heaven for balanced reporting that look at both sides and their perspectives, not just one, which has dominated American media.

[interestednovice]

I’ve always trusted without question that BBC News as an organisation is fundamentally impartial, even if the majority of those working there probably have a similar view on the world as a whole.

The reporting of this conflict, however, has involved a lot of serious missteps that the likes of ITV News or Sky News have not found themselves making.

There could be an argument to suggest that the merged news channel simply isn’t working and the operation does not have resources it needs, which has resulted in these issues, but the resources available to the BBC still dwarfs every other British news organisation, so I’m not sure that point holds up if I’m honest.

I know we have to avoid political discussion to stay within the remit of this site, and I respect that, so I will be careful that I’m not making a comment that goes over the line.

However, you make an interesting point. Politically, the BBC always comes in for criticism for domestic coverage from one side or the other (it simply always has done) but it’s best defence to that has always been to say that it is genuinely impartial in coverage and to demonstrate that on an ongoing basis through it’s output. Then nobody can really claim, genuinely, that its coverage is unfair.

As soon as you lose that objective high ground, either deliberately or “by accident” through poor editorial judgement, then the ability to make the impartiality argument goes away. This immediately then becomes a crisis because objectivity is the foundation of BBC News.

The merged channel should work, as you say. They have fewer people, and certainly fewer experienced people, but compared to other media outlets they have “enough” not to be making careless errors. So why these errors are mounting up is, really, inexcusable. It has got to the point where poor quality lower third captions, sloppy opt-outs and so on are impacting output quality so consistently that “the brand” (the level of viewer trust) of BBC News is being seriously eroded.

A BBC Manager out there somewhere really ought to do something about this, and fast.

But to finish on a positive note: still, despite all the issues, as others have said the BBC still thrives on reporting on a genuinely breaking international story. Their top quality reporters are excellent, and something of the DNA of old BBC World News and BBC NC is still there in the organisation. They can, when they pull out the stops, still cover rolling news exceptionally well. It’s a reminder of how valuable the service is.

[ViridianFan]

I know we have to avoid political discussion to stay within the remit of this site, and I respect that, so I will be careful that I’m not making a comment that goes over the line.

However, you make an interesting point. Politically, the BBC always comes in for criticism for domestic coverage from one side or the other (it simply always has done) but it’s best defence to that has always been to say that it is genuinely impartial in coverage and to demonstrate that on an ongoing basis through it’s output. Then nobody can really claim, genuinely, that its coverage is unfair.

As soon as you lose that objective high ground, either deliberately or “by accident” through poor editorial judgement, then the ability to make the impartiality argument goes away. This immediately then becomes a crisis because objectivity is the foundation of BBC News.

The merged channel should work, as you say. They have fewer people, and certainly fewer experienced people, but compared to other media outlets they have “enough” not to be making careless errors. So why these errors are mounting up is, really, inexcusable. It has got to the point where poor quality lower third captions, sloppy opt-outs and so on are impacting output quality so consistently that “the brand” (the level of viewer trust) of BBC News is being seriously eroded.

A BBC Manager out there somewhere really ought to do something about this, and fast.

But to finish on a positive note: still, despite all the issues, as others have said the BBC still thrives on reporting on a genuinely breaking international story. Their top quality reporters are excellent, and something of the DNA of old BBC World News and BBC NC is still there in the organisation. They can, when they pull out the stops, still cover rolling news exceptionally well. It’s a reminder of how valuable the service is.

Despite the mounting criticism that it’s received I am pleased they’re not giving in. It’s been more important than ever for news which is factual and impartial especially with the what seems constant flow of fake news and conspiracies. 

Without being political, I think many politicians and media groups going back at least the last 15/20 years have called into question the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC often for their own gain or to cover up own mistakes. In a world where conspiracy theories can cross the globe within minutes, having those in power publicly question the accuracy of the BBC has fuelled the voices who call out against it. 

In remember years back that there was a report which criticised how slow the bbc was at reporting breaking news to which the bbc explain it was due to the verification process. Has this been reduced? Is this why things like this slip through? 

I’ve alway felt that changing the ticket to a flipper was a bad move. The flipper has a limited space whilst the ticker had the flexibility to include more detail. Likewise the move to a single line lower third has removed the ability to add more context and has resulted in complicated events trying to be summarised in one line. 

I do think these cuts will have had a big impact on the reason we are seeing these careless mistakes slipping through. Whilst they may have enough staff when compared to others they will inevitably be taking on more roles and tasks which they’re not used to doing which could lead to them dropping the ball much more. Having said that some of the mistakes just aren’t good enough. 

In relation to the channel working. I agree, it should in principle work but I don’t think it ever well. If it was sky who had done this i think people would have been much more accepting. The problem is that people have a much higher level of expectation when it comes to the bbc. 

UK viewers expect a news channel which focuses on stories and events with a more UK focus. With the storm this week, people would have been tuning in to the BBC normally to get a constant rolling news update. With the cuts to local radios people have lost both of these important sources. People find reassurance from them. World viewers expect that high standard of BBC reporting on events from  across the world.  With expert analysis but also providing them with an unbiased overview. 

The problem is the available budgets don’t allow this to happen but that’s not going to change people’s expectations however much people might tell them that’s how its got to be. Ultimately because of how the bbc is funded and because of what people have gotten used to it feels like the channel is doomed to fail trying to please both audiences because as we’ve proved in this thread it’s never going to be able to. 

On a positive note to finish I still believe in the bbc and as interestednovice said when its at its best it’s untouchable

[interestednovice]

Despite the mounting criticism that it’s received I am pleased they’re not giving in. It’s been more important than ever for news which is factual and impartial especially with the what seems constant flow of fake news and conspiracies. 

Without being political, I think many politicians and media groups going back at least the last 15/20 years have called into question the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC often for their own gain or to cover up own mistakes. In a world where conspiracy theories can cross the globe within minutes, having those in power publicly question the accuracy of the BBC has fuelled the voices who call out against it. 

In remember years back that there was a report which criticised how slow the bbc was at reporting breaking news to which the bbc explain it was due to the verification process. Has this been reduced? Is this why things like this slip through? 

I’ve alway felt that changing the ticket to a flipper was a bad move. The flipper has a limited space whilst the ticker had the flexibility to include more detail. Likewise the move to a single line lower third has removed the ability to add more context and has resulted in complicated events trying to be summarised in one line. 

I do think these cuts will have had a big impact on the reason we are seeing these careless mistakes slipping through. Whilst they may have enough staff when compared to others they will inevitably be taking on more roles and tasks which they’re not used to doing which could lead to them dropping the ball much more. Having said that some of the mistakes just aren’t good enough. 

In relation to the channel working. I agree, it should in principle work but I don’t think it ever well. If it was sky who had done this i think people would have been much more accepting. The problem is that people have a much higher level of expectation when it comes to the bbc. 

UK viewers expect a news channel which focuses on stories and events with a more UK focus. With the storm this week, people would have been tuning in to the BBC normally to get a constant rolling news update. With the cuts to local radios people have lost both of these important sources. People find reassurance from them. World viewers expect that high standard of BBC reporting on events from  across the world.  With expert analysis but also providing them with an unbiased overview. 

The problem is the available budgets don’t allow this to happen but that’s not going to change people’s expectations however much people might tell them that’s how its got to be. Ultimately because of how the bbc is funded and because of what people have gotten used to it feels like the channel is doomed to fail trying to please both audiences because as we’ve proved in this thread it’s never going to be able to. 

On a positive note to finish I still believe in the bbc and as interestednovice said when its at its best it’s untouchable

I absolutely agree with your post, and I do also get the point that essentially trying to satisfy everyone, from available budget, given the push-and-pull of what to cover and how on the merged channel especially - but also wider BBC News - is very difficult, if not impossible.

I also want to mention, regarding recent events, that Rushdi Abualouf has been excellent. Drawing on his experience working for the BBC World Service shows how, even now when subject to cuts, the BBC has an unrivalled global reach in coverage and that’s such an asset.

The flipper worked OK at first when properly staffed as it “flicked through” lines often. It doesn’t work now. Also, the single line lower thirds are a real problem. I agree.

I believe the breaking news procedure is/was for a NC presenter to record a video of the news while a VT was playing, then announce it live on the channel at the next available opportunity. Before this, the news would also be confirmed prior to announcement as speculation was not to be aired as per BBC policy. This even applied to events such as election results, when results would never be “confirmed” until it was official.

[Omnipresent]

I'm sure over time there'll be many reports that will be found have been inaccurate, or not quite the whole story.

I remember during the Iraq War the American networks were given footage of the rescue of Jessica Lynch by US special forces just in time for the morning shows, and it wasn't all quite what it seemed:

www.theguardian.com 

The truth about Jessica | Iraq | The Guardian
Her Iraqi guards had long fled, she was being well cared for - and doctors had a…
  Source: www.theguardian.com

I also remember during the Iraq war Carrie Gracie made a quip about America when presenting on BBC News 24 alongside a distinctly unimpressed co-presenter David Eades. Had that happened today, it would have been everywhere on social media in an instant.

[all new phil]

Hear plenty of people here complaining about cuts, budgets, cutbacks…

BBC News remains better resourced than its commercial rivals.

[interestednovice]

Hear plenty of people here complaining about cuts, budgets, cutbacks…

BBC News remains better resourced than its commercial rivals.

It may well be, but it also does much more than most rivals.

Regarding “viral moments”, too, there was also that time Carrie Gracie revealed her salary live on air (at a time before the famous BBC List existed) and I remember that caused quite a stir, even though it was pre the “social media virality” age. It was well covered by the newspapers, especially (again, more people read the papers then).

So there have always been “moments” on the channel. Let’s face it, even the camera bloopers were (in moderation) a bit of fun for similar reasons. Partly, it was the human element of the channel. Presented by real people and not automatons (as presenters are now forced to be with a single locked-off shot).

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

Hear plenty of people here complaining about cuts, budgets, cutbacks…

BBC News remains better resourced than its commercial rivals.

That's why it has a bigger footprint than its commercial rivals. If your income is frozen you can't afford to do everything you were doing before. They're not immune to inflation.