35:
426:
rather than the Israel supporting round robin, it's an AI based "study", "We have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on AI to analyse impartiality, and its interpretation of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. We don’t think coverage can be assessed
324:
Though this doesn't seem like it gives much more credibility to the report, if one of their main complaints is that the BBC has more news reports specifically about war crimes and breaching international law regarding Israel than Hamas. Wouldn't that be true of most news organizations covering the
150:
tell us that those guidelines and the publishing of corrections are signals of a reputable org that can be trusted for reporting of facts and considered generally reliable. I haven't previously seen a lot of discussion that BBC may be not following its own guidelines, so that seems like a relevant
722:
I notice at the very end of the Daily
Telegraph article it has that a survey found 17% thought the BBC was biased towards Israel and 15$ towards the Palestinians. Which leaves a lot not thinking it is biased one way or the other, or perhaps not caring. I guess now thay can say it is therefore a
285:
The
Asserson report looked at BBC output across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media during a four-month period beginning October 7 last year. The research was carried out by a team of 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists who used artificial intelligence to analyse nine million
301:
The report read: 'The findings reveal a deeply worrying pattern of bias and multiple breaches by the BBC of its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, fairness and establishing the truth.' The BBC's Arabic
Channel was singled out in the report as one of the 'most-biased' media outlets in its
241:
leads me to another
Telegraph article that doesn't mention any such research (I'm looking at an archive version so it could be a bug). The first thought I had was whether this is BBC News or the whole BBC, the two tend to get conflated on Knowledge (XXG) (and elsewhere). The BBC makes a lot of
541:
I've read a good chunk of it by now. The "sympathy report" is a massive amount of it, where they used ChatGPT to determine whether articles were "sympathetic" to Israel or
Palestine. It's an incredibly vague criteria. The rest of the report is mostly whining about wording and things, such as
123:
notes that there's some consensus that it may be politically biased, and the accuracy of the BBC (or lack thereof) is definitely a political issue in the UK. Indeed, the report discussed but not linked to from the article appears to be heavily supported by pro-Israel and conservative groups.
276:
I've looked around a bit and I'm not seeing any actual links to the claimed report. Since it's not actual research done by a credited group, but by a bunch of people specifically getting together to make it, I don't think they've published it anywhere. As for the contents, funny enough, the
586:
In a random sample of 253 interviews conducted by the BBC’s Arabic service, the report also found that over a quarter “were connected to Hamas or another terrorist group or had posted extreme antisemitic views online.” However these facts were not disclosed to the audience alongside the
389:. It includes every instance where the BBC called the lands occupied by Israel in 1967 the 'occupied Palestinian territories', and every time Israel settlements in those territories where called 'illegal'. I have a feeling Asserson is not the most neutral on the issues involved. --
317:
It also raised concerns about the number of journalists at the corporation who have previously shown sympathy with the terrorist organisation. The report found 11 cases where the coverage was done by reporters who allegedly had made public statements in support of
101:
It may factor into considerations of NPOV and due weight and balance, though I'm not proposing any specific action, just wanted to bring this up to folks' attention. Consensus is AFAIK that both BBC and
Telegraph are generally reliable for everything.
834:
It's not that i think that the site is unreliable, it's just that i feel like this information is not that "hot" to be implemented immediately into some article, but can wait a few days. As far as i see, nobody else reported on this, not even Czech
542:
complaining that the BBC didn't use the word "terrorist" in every article that mentioned Hamas or that they used war crimes to describe the ICC and ICJ investigations, but look at all this terrible stuff Hamas did. In short, a lot of the report is
96:
Offering this for everyone's edification. Just one datapoint, and unlikely to affect the BBC's reliability, but goes toward bias, and we should consider the impact of this and keep an eye on this report if it is corroborated or criticized:
838:
So while BNE has been cited by some other reputable and more famous agencies, even if they are reliable, you should wait a few days maybe, and then decide on whether it can be used as a source for this information or not.
509:*facepalm* Thanks for finding that, but it's even worse than I thought. They not only used ChatGPT for their analysis, but they even used it to determine the bias claims itself by having ChatGPT make a "sympathy report".
819:
I digged a bit deeper and found that despite being cited by some 250 articles here, this site hadn't undergone any discussion on its reliability, at least when I was searching for it. So I'd like to ask for opinions.
302:
coverage of the war. In total, it was found that the broadcaster's output associated Israel with war crimes four times more than Hamas, with genocide 14 times more and with breaching international law six times more.
681:
a former Labour MP, but that somewhat misses that he is now an independent member of the house of lords who was given that position by a
Conservative Prime Minister for working with a Conservative government. --
242:
content and not all of it is equally reliable. Travel docutainment for an example tends to contains information that makes a fun story but that maybe isn't be the academic majority view. --
325:
war in the past year? There's been more to talk about with Israel than Hamas in many cases, particularly with the ICC and ICJ investigations. None of this sounds particularly noteworthy.
853:
Most sources will never be discussed as no-one ever questions their use, so that a source that has been used so infrequently hasn't had a discussion about it's reliability is the norm.
723:
researched story rather than a hit piece. In opinion and editorial articles the Daily
Telegraph leans very heavily towards Israel and promotes Israeli misinformation. For instance
76:
71:
63:
350:. Is there a big difference between the output of the different language version? I couldn't say, I doubt it's ever been discussed or looked into given it's so rarely used. --
525:
I'd disregard anything ChatGPT-related, but I'm interested to see any fact checks or any substantive claims of bias or selective reportage, etc. I haven't looked at it yet.
726:
is them promoting a story about the Gaza Health
Ministry that didn't get off the starting blocks with reputable newspapers even ones that leaned towards Israel.
286:
words of BBC coverage. A total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC's guidelines were identified, including impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.
239:
Researchers identified a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which included impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.
880:
705:
634:
412:
373:
265:
582:
21:
170:
guidelines would probably suggest that we wait for comment from further sources before proclaiming the BBC biased on the say-so of a single report.
813:
811:
423:
593:
98:
214:
724:
677:
It is rather silly to be honest, as is the practice of UK news outlets to frame information in the most slanted way possible. Austin
142:
I agree, but I'm interested to know whether the BBC actually breached its own guidelines 1500 times (or even more than a few times).
807:
Sorry for failing to provide any context. I had drafted an explanation yesterday, but the server prevented me from publishing it.
893:
Thanks for everyone. So to conclude, we know too little about the source and the story it covers. And even if the story is true,
611:
Just to note Austin isn't an MP anymore, he was made a life peer by Boris
Johnson for his work for Theresa May's government. --
876:
701:
630:
546:, just as was expected before you found a copy of it. The coverage of the report in the news media, as I quoted above with the
456:
408:
369:
261:
221:
a neutral source on the subject matter. So I don't see how much, if any, weight should be given to the claims in his report.
51:
17:
133:
740:
430:
862:
687:
616:
394:
355:
247:
42:
906:
886:
848:
829:
814:
https://www.intellinews.com/czechia-invites-israeli-minister-on-international-arrest-warrant-for-a-visit-342863/
800:
786:
771:
751:
735:
711:
672:
656:
640:
606:
575:
561:
536:
520:
503:
480:
460:
447:
I honestly think this specific Telegraph article says more about the reliability of the Telegraph than the BBC.
442:
418:
379:
336:
271:
232:
195:
179:
162:
137:
113:
151:
fact if it turns out to be true. Not much purpose in having such guidelines if they aren't actually followed.
556:
515:
331:
227:
175:
902:
825:
767:
816:, which, at that time, hadn't been covered by other media outlets according to the Google search result.
747:
668:
438:
898:
894:
854:
821:
763:
147:
844:
796:
782:
452:
731:
652:
602:
532:
499:
476:
191:
158:
109:
645:
As a dumb American I don't know what a life peer is, but it sounds kinda silly and Britishy :-)
491:
571:
A report by an well-known pro-Israel activist finds bias against Israel! Who'd have thunk it?
551:
510:
326:
222:
171:
344:
this goes to my point about the scale of BBC output. Search shows 207 uses of BBC Arabic news
743:
664:
434:
129:
143:
840:
792:
778:
448:
727:
647:
597:
572:
527:
494:
472:
186:
153:
104:
543:
468:
550:, is pretty accurate toward how petty and inconsequential much of the report is.
386:
There appears to have been prior Asserson reports one from 2002 can be found here
125:
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
590:
387:
661:
99:
Telegraph: "BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times"
467:"by counting particular words divorced from context." In other words,
237:
Does anyone have a link to the research? The link in the sentence
184:
Indeed, that's why I said I wasn't proposing any specific action.
857:
gives guidance on how to handle news organisation in general. --
29:
427:
solely by counting particular words divorced from context."
777:
For what specific claim in what context in which article?
584:, who found this the most noteworthy part of the report:
347:
in comparison to 50,000+ use of the English news channel
348:
345:
741:"BBC, Bias and Gaza: A Partial Study of Impartiality"
433:, don't think we need to rush to judgement here.
92:informational report: BBC according to Telegraph
581:The story has now been picked up by Variety,
8:
206:It should be noted that this isn't a report
589:There's also an editorial from Labour MP
431:Here's an argument in the other direction
810:The article that rouse my attention was
342:The BBC's Arabic Channel was singled out
213:, this is them reporting on a report by
585:
341:
316:
300:
284:
238:
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
791:Yes, and he should give us citation.
7:
28:
33:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources
907:16:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
897:applies in this circumstance.
887:13:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
849:12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
830:12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
801:07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
787:06:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
772:03:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
752:14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
736:10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
712:13:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
673:10:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
657:09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
641:09:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
607:08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
576:07:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
562:06:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
537:06:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
521:05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
504:05:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
490:The actual pdf report is here
1:
481:00:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
461:14:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
443:16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
419:23:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
380:00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
337:23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
272:23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
233:22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
196:22:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
180:22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
163:22:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
138:22:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
114:22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
762:Is this a reliable source?
923:
424:more detailed BBC response
281:lays it out more clearly.
119:The RSPS entry for the
46:of past discussions.
217:, who very much is
885:
870:
866:
860:
710:
695:
691:
685:
639:
624:
620:
614:
417:
402:
398:
392:
378:
363:
359:
353:
270:
255:
251:
245:
168:Knowledge (XXG)'s
89:
88:
58:
57:
52:current main page
914:
873:
868:
864:
858:
698:
693:
689:
683:
655:
627:
622:
618:
612:
605:
559:
554:
535:
518:
513:
502:
405:
400:
396:
390:
366:
361:
357:
351:
334:
329:
258:
253:
249:
243:
230:
225:
194:
161:
112:
85:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
922:
921:
917:
916:
915:
913:
912:
911:
760:
758:bne IntelliNews
651:
601:
557:
552:
531:
516:
511:
498:
332:
327:
228:
223:
190:
157:
108:
94:
81:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
920:
918:
910:
909:
891:
890:
889:
851:
836:
817:
808:
805:
804:
803:
759:
756:
755:
754:
738:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
675:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
465:
464:
463:
428:
384:
383:
382:
322:
321:
320:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
235:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
93:
90:
87:
86:
79:
74:
69:
66:
56:
55:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
919:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
882:
878:
872:
871:
856:
852:
850:
846:
842:
837:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
818:
815:
812:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
757:
753:
749:
745:
742:
739:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
713:
709:
707:
703:
697:
696:
680:
676:
674:
670:
666:
663:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
649:
644:
643:
642:
638:
636:
632:
626:
625:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
599:
594:
592:
588:
583:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
563:
560:
555:
549:
545:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
529:
524:
523:
522:
519:
514:
508:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
496:
492:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
425:
422:
421:
420:
416:
414:
410:
404:
403:
388:
385:
381:
377:
375:
371:
365:
364:
349:
346:
343:
340:
339:
338:
335:
330:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
303:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
287:
283:
282:
280:
275:
274:
273:
269:
267:
263:
257:
256:
240:
236:
234:
231:
226:
220:
216:
215:Michael Ellis
212:
211:The Telegraph
209:
205:
197:
193:
189:
188:
183:
182:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
155:
149:
145:
141:
140:
139:
135:
134:contributions
131:
127:
122:
118:
117:
116:
115:
111:
107:
106:
100:
91:
84:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
65:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
19:
874:
869:isinterested
861:
761:
699:
694:isinterested
686:
678:
646:
628:
623:isinterested
615:
596:
570:
547:
544:whataboutism
526:
493:
489:
469:quote mining
406:
401:isinterested
393:
367:
362:isinterested
354:
278:
259:
254:isinterested
246:
218:
210:
207:
185:
172:AndyTheGrump
167:
152:
120:
103:
95:
82:
47:
41:
744:Selfstudier
665:Selfstudier
587:interviews.
435:Selfstudier
83:Archive 451
77:Archive 450
72:Archive 449
64:Archive 445
40:This is an
22:Noticeboard
895:WP:NOTNEWS
855:WP:NEWSORG
591:Ian Austin
548:Daily Mail
279:Daily Mail
148:WP:NEWSORG
899:Mist1et03
841:Setxkbmap
822:Mist1et03
793:Setxkbmap
779:Cullen328
764:Mist1et03
662:Life peer
449:Alpha3031
121:Telegraph
728:NadVolum
473:Dimadick
20: |
865:ctively
690:ctively
619:ctively
397:ctively
358:ctively
250:ctively
43:archive
835:media.
553:Silver
512:Silver
328:Silver
318:Hamas.
224:Silver
126:voorts
648:Andre
598:Andre
595:now.
558:seren
528:Andre
517:seren
495:Andre
333:seren
229:seren
187:Andre
154:Andre
144:WP:RS
105:Andre
16:<
903:talk
845:talk
826:talk
797:talk
783:talk
768:talk
748:talk
732:talk
669:talk
573:Zero
477:talk
439:talk
176:talk
146:and
130:talk
879:» °
859:LCU
704:» °
684:LCU
633:» °
613:LCU
411:» °
391:LCU
372:» °
352:LCU
264:» °
244:LCU
219:not
905:)
881:∆t
847:)
828:)
799:)
785:)
770:)
750:)
734:)
706:∆t
679:is
671:)
653:🚐
635:∆t
603:🚐
533:🚐
500:🚐
479:)
471:.
459:)
455:•
441:)
413:∆t
374:∆t
266:∆t
208:by
192:🚐
178:)
159:🚐
136:)
110:🚐
68:←
901:(
883:°
877:@
875:«
867:D
863:A
843:(
824:(
795:(
781:(
766:(
746:(
730:(
708:°
702:@
700:«
692:D
688:A
667:(
637:°
631:@
629:«
621:D
617:A
475:(
457:c
453:t
451:(
437:(
415:°
409:@
407:«
399:D
395:A
376:°
370:@
368:«
360:D
356:A
268:°
262:@
260:«
252:D
248:A
174:(
132:/
128:(
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.