It would take a post of (even more) epic proportions to pick up just about everything you've said here but do remember I have and still will provide a balanced position on the BBC - it is a very large organisation which employs many people and operates within ambiguity, an expectation of mistakes should be in existence as well as occasions when it will of course falter, it doesn't speak to a conclusive and binary narrative IMHO. The more dogmatic people are, the more they will find fault with it.

As a suggestion, focus upon that and don't get caught up trying to defend the indefensible, individual instances, such as this 'pants down' situation. It descends beyond nonsense and damages your stance on every point you try and raise here. If you think some are fighting with fire, employing the same methodology in countering it will only expose you to ridicule on occasions. Focus on your point, argue that and don't let the bigger conversation/debate hinder you.

I'm not jumping upon this to attack the BBC as a whole, I did not assert this nor would I, but it is quite ridiculous and does perhaps expose flaws within the organisation or just in this individual instance at the very least.

As for 'poachers making the best gamekeepers', I wonder if you would suggest that the many who have faced persecution, prosecution and consequences for historical actions, such as postings on social media, should be given comfy new jobs within social media and D&I teams? I'm guessing not. That you do little you do often. The woman is a liar, deceitful and untruthful. She should not be allowed anywhere near the determination of 'misinformation' whether that be at the BBC or elsewhere. Unless of course there is an age limit before you can be judged for your actions in the world of employment? I'm guessing I've missed it by some years now though sadly.

Edited by Nicholas91 (12 Dec 2023 3.29pm)

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Advertisers exert pressure and can withdraw support if they don’t like output. It also limits who can be criticised. Just ask Elon Musk to understand how this works.

Are C4 and ITV News impacted? I would have to search for examples but almost certainly yes. They could not avoid it even if they are unaware.

Why should you pay if you don’t watch? Because the BBC is much more than just another broadcaster. It’s part of who and what we are. Seeking to change its position on things is perfectly ok. Not paying isn’t.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think this applies across the board. People gravitate to jobs that suit their personality. If you are a compassionate person who cares about others it's hardly a surprise if you end up in the NHS.

If you are a cold hearted liar you end up a lawyer or in politics.

Interestingly when you compare the work gender breakdown in liberal Scandinavia to the UK it's not that different. just becomes a female Swede can become a coal miner it doesn't mean they want to.

As for the media I think there is a left of centre bias amongst many, so if that is your thing why wouldn't you gravitate to that. Its a lot easier to push at a door that is partially open...

One more point

Orwell, who of course worked at the BBC, said that the BBC was 'something half way between a girl’s school and a lunatic asylum'. Room 101 in 1984 was named after a BBC committee room.

By god, he could be writing about the same institution today.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

That was a year ago. The Tories won't be deciding the policies on anything, let alone the future of the BBC, for a generation if current trends continue. So I think that can be safely filed in the obsolete box.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.