I'm trying to work out what the ratio would be. 

How much squeaky clean, beyond doubt, rock solid truth would the BBC need to deliver to offset the one gargantuan cock up that has seen the Director General and Head of News quit? 

Or in this day and age, where doubt and mistrust is so high, is it a futile exercise and the damage is permanent? 

Like all these stories you can dilute its seriousness – the Panorama programme wasn’t actually made by the BBC, it was a contract company, so was the bias external not internal? Obviously I am clutching at straws. 

Does a resignation mean the organisation is no longer biased, or perceived as biased? I would have thought not. 

How do you prove inherent bias? Which is an ongoing charge not just at the BBC but a number of public broadcasters all over the world. 

I cited the Radio New Zealand example yesterday, out of the boot camp report, their headline read the conclusion was of a ‘rushed’ exercise. 

That wasn’t the conclusion. It was an observation, not a conclusion. But even if you argued the observation was a conclusion, that would mean there were many conclusions. Why pick that one when there were positive ones to choose from as well? And is that inherent bias or just a busy journo looking to publish a story? 

Are we the punter inherently biased and therefore whatever we see and we don’t like must be biased? 

The BBC bit is of course indisputable. It's not about inference or emphasis, it is about making something seem real which factually wasn’t – they made it up. 

Why would you do that unless you had an agenda? Why would the BBC not spot it? Too busy or too biased? 

The Culture Secretary said now more than ever the need for trusted news is essential to our cultural and democratic life. Which is what they say when they have carnage to deal with using taxpayers' money.  

The BBC were already booked in this week, ironically, for a parliamentary inquiry into their coverage of trans rights and Gaza, cementing in many people's minds what they already suspected. 

My summation is basically: it's over. The jury is in, the verdict is guilty, and the people are always right. Whatever the media might once have had by way of respect and trust is largely, if not completely, gone.  

And two resignations cemented any remaining doubt. 

I'm trying to work out what the ratio would be.&nbsp;
How much squeaky clean, beyond doubt, rock solid truth would the BBC need to deliver to offset the one gargantuan cock up that has seen the Director General and Head of News quit?&nbsp;
Or in this day and age, where doubt and mistrust is so high, is it a futile exercise and the damage is permanent?&nbsp;
Like all these stories you can dilute its seriousness – the Panorama programme wasn’t actually made by the BBC, it was a contract company, so was the bias external not internal? Obviously I am clutching at straws.&nbsp;
Does a resignation mean the organisation is no longer biased, or perceived as biased? I would have thought not.&nbsp;
How do you prove inherent bias? Which is an ongoing charge not just at the BBC but a number of public broadcasters all over the world.&nbsp;
I cited the Radio New Zealand example yesterday, out of the boot camp report, their headline read the conclusion was of a ‘rushed’ exercise.&nbsp;
That wasn’t the conclusion. It was an observation, not a conclusion. But even if you argued the observation was a conclusion, that would mean there were many conclusions. Why pick that one when there were positive ones to choose from as well? And is that inherent bias or just a busy journo looking to publish a story?&nbsp;
Are we the punter inherently biased and therefore whatever we see and we don’t like must be biased?&nbsp;
The BBC bit is of course indisputable. It's not about inference or emphasis, it is about making something seem real which factually wasn’t – they made it up.&nbsp;
Why would you do that unless you had an agenda? Why would the BBC not spot it? Too busy or too biased?&nbsp;
The Culture Secretary said now more than ever the need for trusted news is essential to our cultural and democratic life. Which is what they say when they have carnage to deal with using taxpayers' money. &nbsp;
The BBC were already booked in this week, ironically, for a parliamentary inquiry into their coverage of trans rights and Gaza, cementing in many people's minds what they already suspected.&nbsp;
My summation is basically: it's over. The jury is in, the verdict is guilty, and the people are always right. Whatever the media might once have had by way of respect and trust is largely, if not completely, gone. &nbsp;
And two resignations cemented any remaining doubt.&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Mike's Minute: The BBC scandal shakes the roots of journalism

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/62782a88-b897-4fa7-9611-b3910168d5b0/transcript

Advertisement