This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of the BBC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

Barbara PlettBarbara Plett was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 25 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

BBC (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC 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 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 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 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. England Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: John Bingham (2011-07-14). "Official BBC Twitter rules tell staff: 'Don't do anything stupid'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2011-07-15. BBC staff have been told: "Don't surreptitiously sanitise Wikipedia pages about the BBC", in an article which also says "It follows the disclosure that employees had made anonymous edits to a Wikipedia article entitled 'Criticism of the BBC' removing references to an internal report which found the corporation was seen as 'out of touch with large swathes of the population'."

Aside from the old and well-worn issues of perceived bias etc, etc, in recent years the quality of the journalism on the BBC News Website has degraded significantly. From typos to tabloid themes, and from inappropriate ads to increased advertorials, the BBC site is now awash with click bait slop.

Does anyone want to do a section on this? Reddit is good source for examples on this theme. 202.138.32.160 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TardBBC was murdered in the mid-80s. The regime stooge posing as the BBC is better called CommericalPrivateEquitybbc, a simulacrum. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had a lot of material removed (diff) which was (apparently) sourced to critical commentary. Where the criticism comes from notable people such sourcing might be acceptable and the extent of the removal seemed overaggressive to me. When I see a lot of content being removed then I tend to revert pending discussion but when I tried to verify the "Stateless Person's Broadcasting Corporation" quote I came up blank which made me think again. Probably at least some, maybe most, of the removals are valid and I won't revert. Nonetheless, it is quite a lot so I invite people to look at what was removed and see if any of it should be brought back, possibly with better sourcing. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]