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 was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
The following Wikipedia contributorhas declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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).
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)Reply
I kinda agree - but see Fox NewsIt 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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
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.[1] The BBC pledged to overhaul its procedures and drop confidentiality clauses that discouraged staff from speaking out.[2]
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.[3][4] Over the same period the corporation removed several presenters after complaints were investigated and upheld.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
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. You are currently posting on the talk page. meamemg (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)