Talk:BBC World Service

Is BBC politically independent?

The current Wikipedia article on BBC World Service says: "It is politically independent, as specifically expressed in the BBC Charter agreement". The source is BBC's own charter statement. And this is not true. It is "claimed" by the BBC Trust as politically independent, but this does not mean that it can be stated as a fact on Wikipedia. I am removing this unproven claim. Rishabh Singla (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBC is politically independent - although there are plenty of people with grievances who will claim otherwise. The BBC Trust charter states it is politically idependent - which makes it a valid source. I am going to revert the edit and if you wish we can discuss further here. Uvghifds (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if a source itself claims that it is politically independent, we cannot trust it. Your own statement "The BBC is politically independent" has zero value as far as keeping/removing in Wikipedia is concerned. Rishabh Singla (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In the absence that anyone here produces evidence that the BBC can be called politically independent (despite widespread allegations of the BBC misreporting whenever US/NATO/Western/UK interests are involved), I am going to remove this "claim" from the article. Also, please head to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC, and see for yourself how "independent" BBC is. Rishabh Singla (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what type of source you are after to show the BBC is independent. The charter says it is independent - and the government cannot intefere in BBC programming. Are we looking for a statement from the DG saying 'we are independent?' Or a case where the BBC has published something the government didn't want them too - there are plenty to choose from, just take a look at the politics page on BBC News. I view the BBC Trust Charter as a reliable source which we can reference on wikipedia. It's down to you Rishabh to explain why it's not, and what would be a reliable source for this. Uvghifds (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Before I answer you, I want to ask you this question. Are you willing to declare Korean Central News Agency politically independent, if KCNA itself declares that it is politically independent? I find it a bit unusual that you're using "the subject as the source". BBC declares that it is politically independent, and we use that as a source to make this sweeping statement that BBC is politically independent? It is a "claim", not a "fact". This especially applies to a news organization such as the BBC, which has a lengthy list of criticism and controversies. Rishabh Singla (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the charter should be seen as an independent source - it is not by the BBC. The charter is granted by the crown, the BBC Trust is just publishing it so the general public can view it for themselves. The charter states the six things the BBC must be, one of these is independent, otherwise the BBC is subject to scrutiny. Coincidently the reason that the BBC have a royal charter that is renewed frequently is so that they can be established without parliamentary influence and so can operate without parliamentary influence. You can see this on the About the BBC website here, here, at the BBC Trust site here and should you want a source for the charter outside the BBC, look at this source from the Department for Culture Media and Sport when the Charter was renewed. Rafmarham (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If the claim of independence comes from the subject surely that shows an inherent conflict of interest? Doesn't wiki have a policy on conflict of interest? At least there should be a comment that the claim exists and then a list of evidence to substantiate it plus counter-examples. The fact that the BBC is wholly dependent on government goodwill and has a history of covert subordination (MI5 personnel vetting for example) is surely germane?Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim of the BBC's independence comes from the Royal Charter, granted to the BBC by Queen Elizabeth II in 2007. It states that the BBC should be independent, if it isn't then it has broken the charter and is liable to scrutiny. Also, the reason the BBC is granted a royal charter every 10 years is because it is an alternative to an act of parliament - this would have established the corporation but would have made it subject to government influence. Rafmarham (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't buy your point. A sentence such as "BBC is politically independent" on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia means that Wikipedia is stating "as a fact" that the BBC is politically independent. A media organization isn't politically independent merely by its ownership structure or organizational structure. It is politically independent if its stories are politically independent. Conversely, a media organization can be deemed politically independent if its reporting is such, even if its organizational structure doesn't qualify it as such. In the case of BBC the reporting has been, sadly, biased. I strongly advocate removing this claim from this article. Rishabh Singla (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"The claim of the BBC's independence comes from the Royal Charter, granted to the BBC by Queen Elizabeth II in 2007.", do you agree that this is a polite fiction and that it is a euphemistic description of the activity of the government? Parliament is sovereign and E. Windsor is a glorified Civil Servant. Surely any claim has to be accounted for? A claim from any other source whch contradicts the claim of independence deserves mention if not equal prominence. If the World Service is taking money from the State Department http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/20/bbc-world-service-us-funding at the least there'sa potential conflict of interest.Keith-264 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any convincing reason why BBC can be accepted as politically independent, I recommend that this claim be removed from this article. Rishabh Singla (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking into account concerns here, I have solved your problems with the addition of the word "aims". It aims to be policially independent. It does this, the charter says it should strive towards this ideal at all costs and many agree to BBC World Service and the BBC in general would be very different if it did not aim to give an independent impartial news service that reports all news fairly. I sincerely hope that this will solve the problem of absolution over the claim. Rafmarham (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a gesture not a matter of fact, although appreciated. Appealing to the Charter and claiming its contents amount to facts is wrong, as is assuming the sincerity of a claim that the BBC is striving to do anything. Does the commitment to "Strive" have criteria of success and a time limit? Provision for rulings by the taxpayers or another external source?Keith-264 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Keith-264. Even mentioning "aims to" is incorrect. Should we say in the Philip Morris article that this cigarette-selling company "aims to reduce the harm caused by tobacco products", just because this statement is stated as an official "aim" by this tobacco-selling company [1]? Most media organizations "claim" that they "aim to" be politically independent, but "they claim that they aim to" is not the same as "they aim to". We cannot say that BBC "aims to". We can only say that it "claims that it aims to". Rishabh Singla (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I still feel that the basic point is being missed. The charter is the single foundation stone and legislation of the BBC's existence. If they break the charter then they can be scrutinized, they can be sanctioned and an argument can be raised for their abolition so it is in their interests that they adhere to this as closely as the can. The addition of the aim reflects this - they may be off the mark on occasions but by and large they are generally close, otherwise they would not be a trusted and respected news organisation across the world. Rafmarham (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Those points are assumptions and if they are to be accepted, they can only have the same status as other assumptions, such as the Charter being a dead letter and that "aims" are a bureaucratic form of words to evade scrutiny of behaviour. As for trusted and respected, ask the Palestinians or the people who have a poll tax extorted from them.

http://www.newsunspun.org/article/whitewashing-an-assault-bbc-coverage-of-the-israelgaza-ceasefire

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/bbc-vomit/

Clearly trust is subjective so we really ought to try to agree a criterion based on behaviour (as recorded in credible sources a la Wiki).Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Rafmarham, I am starting to find your political-sounding defense of the BBC a little funny now. I do understand that you are a member of the BBC project and that you have an inherent interest in projecting the BBC positively, even to the point of making strong, unverified claims such as "the BBC is politically independent". However, let's remember that this is Wikipedia. Opinions do not have place here. Things such as "aims to" have zero place on Wikipedia. Let's face it, charters are just that - charters. Charters are not a "proof" that an organization is acting in a way that is laid out in the charter. I am recommending speedy deletion of the biased claim from this article. Rishabh Singla (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any convincing reply/update, should I assume that there are no counter viewpoints and take off the unproven claim?Rishabh Singla (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I vote yes.Keith-264 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the response and the maintained civility of tone. I don't really agree with biased claims but I'm not going to challenge it. If the overwhelming response is it should be removed because of a lack of an agreeable source then fine. I was merely arguing that, contrary to statements, the Charter was granted so the BBC would be independent of Government. If this source is felt to be too weak then that too is fine. Rafmarham (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I owe you one concession;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing. It's good to see this issue resolved peacefully. Rishabh Singla (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

" ... If the claim of independence comes from the subject surely that shows an inherent conflict of interest? Doesn't wiki have a policy on conflict of interest? ..." - the BBC Charter is a legal document having the force of law. Failure to adhere to the Charter's terms would cause the organisation to be operating unlawfully as regards it's operating licence, which could lead to its closing down.

The law forbids the robbing of banks. Does that prove that no bank is ever robbed? 31.52.253.172 (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of setting up the BBC under it's (the Charter's) legal rules was to ensure that whatever political party was in power that party could not use the BBC to influence the public in that party's own interests to the exclusion of everyone else's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.183 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that, regardless of what BBC World Service (not to be confused with the domestic BBC) states in its own charter, that it isn't independent from the government, at least not as laid out by the Broadcasting Agreement between the Foreign Ministry and the BBCWS: If you read the fine print, you'll see text that contradicts any notion of editorial independence (at least, where it clashes with the Foreign Secretary's objectives):

i. the FCO will define the external broadcasting services it requires clearly through robust objectives and performance measurements; "iii. the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the services".

So very clearly right there, it lays out that the FCO is in direct control of the BBC's agenda and what they publish, and that the BBC only has editorial independence within the framework of what the FCO "requires clearly through robust objectives and performance measurements". The BBC World Service is clearly not independent, prima facie. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

bbc is a scam like eastindia company, it's not on field and write against only those who is working on ground, they neither knows the truth and wants to know it , these bbc people already knows what to show. 223.130.31.20 (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"State Media" category removed

Al Jazeera‎, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, et. al. are have their articles with the category as 'state media'. The BBC World Service received and continues to receive [funding] from the Foreign Office. Ergo, it is literally state media (though it is also publicly funded as well, hence why I added that category as well).

I have no idea why this would be controversial. It's not saying that it's propaganda, just that it's merely an apparatus of state media (I know the connotation is controversial in English, but that doesn't change the objective fact of the matter). Ergo, I have re-added the category back in. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceThruPramana26 Why do you keep starting an edit war instead of reading and trying to understand what you're being told? I just don't get it. Renat 07:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

1.) I'm violating no rules, as I haven't violated the 3RR policy, "the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring", so please stop accusing me of violating rules when clearly I have never done such;

2.) As per the page I linked above, "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. " For quite some time now, you've been leaving inappropriate warnings on my page, making baseless accusations of unhelpful edits or edit warring, and now you tell me I simply must "understand what I'm being told"?

You can pardon me if I don't assume that your interactions with me are in good faith. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The "State Media" category is, indeed, somewhat problematic. The German broadcasters ARD and ZDF may be labelled state media because, even though they are public service broadcasters funded by a general license fee, their boards are partly nominated by politicians. Like Deutsche Welle, the BBC World Service is a touch more independent, held at a bit more arm's length, which according to the researchers and historians quoted qualifies it as "independent". == Peter NYC (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceThruPramana26 I will explain it once again:
We have WP:SUBCAT. It says: Except for non-diffusing subcategories, pages for sub-categories should be categorised under the most specific parent categories possible.
Category:State media requires diffusion. Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. BBC World Service is already categorised under Category:BBC World Service. Category:BBC World Service is a subcategory Category:BBC. And Category:BBC is a subcategory of Category:State media.
About your edit summary here - diff:
-->This is not an edit war, since the 3RR has not been violated by anyone - wrong. See WP:EW. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.
-->I disagree with the logic, and have created a discussion on the topic page. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It is an editing guideline. It means it is a generally accepted standard that all editors should attempt to follow.
-->If your logic stands, then a LOT of wiki articles are going to need revamps So what? Go and fix them then.--Renat 07:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Then allow me to clarify: I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines, especially considering you seem to take issue with heeding them yourself as subject to your own interpretation. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a fact: The BBC World Service is not technically editorially independent, since as per the Broadcasting Agreement, while "the World Service has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity" it's also beholden to the foreign secretary setting the agenda for the World Service, as "the FCO will define the external broadcasting service it requires clearly through robust objectives and performance measures", meaning that ultimately that editorial control in this context means "the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the service defined"; In otherwords, the BBC has the editorial independence to decide "the most effective and efficient way" to deliver "the service" that the FCO requires of the BBCWS.

As an interesting aside, the former director, Peter Horrocks, compared the organisation not to Deutsche Welle or say, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but Russian State Media. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note that, as the notice at User talk:PeaceThruPramana26 § February 2022 states, "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made". Per WP:3RR, the three-revert rule "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".

Category:State media is in Category:Categories requiring diffusion, and has the message "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories". WP:SUBCAT states, "Except for non-diffusing subcategories (see below), pages for sub-categories should be categorised under the most specific parent categories possible." Because Category:State media is a category requiring diffusion and Category:BBC World Service is a subcategory of Category:State media (via Category:BBC), this article should not have the Category:State media category when it already has the Category:BBC World Service category.

If you find any other articles with categories that can be simplified this way via WP:SUBCAT, you are of course welcome to adjust those categories, too. — Newslinger talk 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. If true, I'll strongly keep this in mind as a reference. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: This logic would also apply to RT News as well, correct? They have a category which itself is a subcategory of Category:State media via Category:RT_(TV_network). So I assume then there will be no objection should I go along and remove this? Or is the BBC the only state media apparatus on the entire website that has these special rules apply? Genuinely trying to see the difference here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceThruPramana26 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Category:RT (TV network) is indeed a subcategory of Category:State media, so Category:State media can be removed from articles that are already classified under Category:RT (TV network). — Newslinger talk 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I cannot watch BBC World in South Korea, it banned in 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoper11 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Re. reduction in terrestrial delivery under Early History

This article contains a reasonably good comparison of international audiences' radio consumption patterns that could be shown to substantively correlate to national GDP: https://beyondwords.io/knowledge-base/spoken-word-audio-statistics/.

Further support for the assertion made in the Wikipedia article: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/03/19/1-communications-technology-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/, AND https://ourworldindata.org/internet, AND https://www.worlddab.org/countries, AND https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/backgrounders/Pages/digital-inclusion-of-all.aspx, AND https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx, AND https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17427665211073868, AND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_using_DAB/DMB, AND https://www.radiosurvivor.com/2013/12/the-state-of-global-dab-and-dab-radio/, AND https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5781234/tv-radio-broadcasting-global-market-report?utm_source=GNOM&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_code=flknlc&utm_campaign=1574893+-+Worldwide+TV+and+Radio+Broadcasting+Industry+to+2030+-+Featuring+Comcast%2c+DISH+Network+and+Viacom+Among+Others&utm_exec=jamu273prd.

This short UNESCO article cites multiple authoritative sources that, themselves, contain facts in support of the Wikipedia article's assertion: https://www.unesco.org/en/days/world-radio/resources-radio-peace.

There are paid sources that suggest support for the above: https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/media/music-radio-podcasts/traditional-radio/worldwide#key-market-indicators, AND https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/radio-station-global-market-report.

This Pew Research article might be worth using as a citation: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/audio-and-podcasting/.

Additionally, there's also this: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1840&context=honorstheses, AND https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0109/0109046.pdf (somewhat dated).

There are additionally interesting data contained in these citations: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-radio-and-audio-review/digital-radio-and-audio-review https://getdigitalradio.com/online-listening-surges-to-new-record/ https://www.adtonos.com/rajar-research-confirms-the-popularity-of-digital-radio-is-on-the-rise/ https://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/news/RAJAR_DataRelease_InfographicQ42015.pdf https://www.worlddab.org/countries/united-kingdom?page=32

Furthermore, there is tremendous pressure on radio frequency spectrum allocation as cited in, for example, https://www.itu.int/en/itunews/Documents/2019/2019-04/2019_ITUNews04-en.pdf, which can potentially lead to more formal regulatory pressure to deliver consumer content over transmission media other than terrestrial radio delivery. However, this is my opinion based on my experience as an Air Force Communications Officer, and thus not an objectively established fact. Smiley jrk (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

bbc world service funded by government!

why dont they get labelled as state funded media? we know the government pay the bbc at least £370m via the World2020 - here is the press release they published https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2021/world-service-funding Noroots22 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The infobox currently includes "state media" as part of its description. If this comment is about other websites' policies, that's not our problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is not in the first paragaph like the other channels that are funded by their government? Noroots22 (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO it's pretty clearly implied by the statement that BBC World Service is owned and operated by the BBC, arguably the most well-known government-backed broadcaster in the world. You could try to draft an improvement if you think the current wording is insufficient (WP:SOFIXIT). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

this is my improvement : BBC World Service, the international radio, tv and online broadcasting arm of the BBC, is funded by the UK government and operates as a state-owned media organization. Noroots22 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that in the other BBC articles we stick to the phrase "public broadcaster" rather than "state media" and have separate articles for those two concepts. Based on my own knowledge of the BBC, I think the case could be made that it is a state media company, rather than a truly independent public broadcaster, but we can't take my or your word for it, we need a citation to reliable secondary source to back it up. I would search on Google Scholar for phrases like "BBC" "independence" to find peer-reviewed sources that decisively analyze and state the company's character. If the balance of academic sources supports the state media perspective, I'd support your proposed edit. That having been said, this is probably a discussion more appropriate for a page like Talk:BBC rather than this subsidiary (unless something about this subsidiary gives it a different character than the rest of the BBC, in which case we'd want a source for that), and I'd bet that there have likely been prior discussions on this topic in that page's archives. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

how can bbc remain independent from the government when they were collabrating with mi5?- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-43754737 Noroots22 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I follow your argument, the issue is that this argument is original research--the epistemic foundation that Wikipedia is based upon is that we need to be able to verify everything with citations to sources that directly state the claims we are making, not merely ones that provide substantive evidence that point to that conclusion. I would suggest you start by seeing if you can find anything pertinent in these sources, which came up in the search I suggested above: [2], [3] [4] _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I wrote on how the World Service gets treated differently on BBC independence#World Service. I, or someone else, might introduce that here somewhere... JackTheSecond (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

Raja Singh 54321 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a British company. I am telling this because it ruled on India 🇮🇳 😑 😒 for 200 years. But this India 🇮🇳 😍 is now best space agency named isro.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

Director General should be Director-General 86.191.233.190 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

533274 ravulapalem madal gopalapuram vellge

hi bbc one war is going on please cover the new mla warses sc people 2001:4490:488:7E43:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Spending: (2010/cuts) - (2016/raise)

@Rwendland Sorry about the overly ambitious removal. If you have the time, maybe you, or someone else so inclined, could put the cuts of 2010 in context with the re-expansion of 2016? I must admit, I'm a little lost as far as the modern history is concerned. JackTheSecond (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)