Talk:2025 BBC editorial bias allegations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2025 BBC editorial bias allegations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below

You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}} You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page:

.ECR-edit-request-warning {
	display: none;
}

Stop: Parts of this page are restricted

Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction.

You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article.

Parts of this article relate to the following contentious topics:

Gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
The Arab–Israeli conflict
Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances)

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2025 BBC editorial bias allegations. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2025 BBC editorial bias allegations at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

BBC Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (British TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy ProjectBBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

2025 BBC editorial bias "allegations"

Given the plethora of examples of BBC editorial bias (the Trump Panorama episode being one of the most glaring ones) are we really going to be as naive as to call these "allegations"?

Wouldn't "scandal" or "controversy" be more adequate? The editing on the Trump video alone required some effort to make it seem seamless, matching the audio and video in order to convey a false message. This is everything but journalism. these so called allegations can be backed with multiple examples (like BBC Arabic using the son of a Hamas official as narrator) and with the chairman of the BBC even coming out and apologizing for it.

Calling obvious facts "allegations" is a bit too dishonest ~2025-33081-41 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The memo this issue relates to made a wide-ranging series of claims elating to systemic editorial bias, of which no evidence or corroboration has been provided and the BBC have strongly denied. As a result they are accurately and neutrally still mere allegations while a title of "editorial bias controversy" contains an implication they are true. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. The well proven bias so far is in and of itself enough to call this at least a controversy. also the definition of controversy does not imply truth. ~2025-33081-41 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "well proven" bias, that's why they're "allegations"...

So a title that says "editorial bias controversy" is non-neutral in that it fails to acknowledge that it's a series of allegations as the article itself makes clear. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trump video was maliciously edited. attempting to argue against that would be childish. this a tax payer funded and supposedly reputable news outlet which engages in blatant falsehoods.

The chairman of the BBC personally apologized for this and other "mistakes", this is a case that has been making the news lately with many well known individuals chiming in. the discussion has caused a heated argument in the uK (and not only).

It seems I'm flogging a dead horse here. ~2025-33081-41 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that dead horse being the actually provably false claim that the Chair of the BBC apologised across the board when as reliably sourced in the article they've explicitly denied wider claims of systemic bias. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That bad edit is one case. If Trump actually sues, which is likely, an article about it will be created here, and in that article this particular issue will no doubt be covered as a proven example of bias and a controversy or scandal. There is no rush. Let's see how this works out. We do not want to get ahead of the curve here. We must always lag behind.

I'm not sure how this would work in England, but Trump lost a lawsuit over the Steele dossier in England and owes a whole lot of money there, which he refuses to pay. The amount has increased astronomically because of his refusal. Would a judge use that against him and make him pay up before allowing another lawsuit? See Litigation involving Steele dossier#Trump v. Orbis Business Intelligence -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean it can't be tried in the English courts as defamation has a 12 month limit.[1] Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

whatever you see in your crystal ball plays no role in the current assessment of the facts.talking about the steele dossier as if it were related to this doesnt change anything. Nobody waited before calling the Elon Musk salute controversy a controversy, even though the man himself denied it.

Calling this a controversy is the most neutral way of reference to the circumstances as they are.

But hey, this is wikipedia isn't it. There is no systemic bias here either. ~2025-33111-19 (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]