Talk:BBC Trust

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[BBC#Executive Board|Executive Board]] The anchor (#Executive Board) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

If it's independent of external bodies, who appoints its members? I suspect it is the government, which scarcely makes it independent. The entry is therefore probably, at best, POV, and, at worst, inaccurate. The trust appears to be government-appointed. This is the diametric opposite of independence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.191.123 (talk • contribs).

The appointments are by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. So, in practice, the Prime Minister decides. But The Trust, and the BBC, are required by law, licence and charter to be neutral at all times. So proof that they are biased, and that the passage is POV, needs to come from a

 REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it states in the current charter that the BBC "should continue to be an independent corporation". Regarding the appointments, according to the advert for members for the trust:

Appointments to the BBC are made by the Queen on recommendation of DCMS Ministers through the Prime Minister. The appointment process will follow Nolan principles and is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This involves a number of formal steps including ... the involvement of an Independent Assessor throughout.

Who is this Independent Assessor? According to BBC Trust website:

Candidates (of the Trust) are shortlisted and interviewed by a panel which is chaired by a senior civil servant from DCMS and includes an independent assessor and the BBC Chairman. The panel's recommendations are put forward to the Secretary of State, then to the Prime Minister and finally to Her Majesty the Queen.

Again, it is not exactly clear who are on that panel.

These appointments are then 'made official' by

Order-in-Council (see the charter document linked to in the article). The Nolan principles are mentioned in the Committee on Standards in Public Life article, and from the OCPA website

:

The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) supports the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, a position which is independent of the government. ... The Commissioner's role is to regulate, monitor, report and advise on appointments made by UK Ministers and by members of the National Assembly for Wales to the boards of around 1,100 national and regional public bodies.

I'm sure there is some material there that can be integrated into the article, and I'll see what I can do another time (but anyone else it welcome to add something beforehand). I hope that helps, mattbr 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of sections that require referencing, especially the 'Expenses' and 'Trust Unit' sections. – Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the BBC Trust, not Jeremy Bowen or the work of BBC News or the numerous complaints that the BBC receive about the reporting of Middle East affairs from both Israeli and Palestinian supporters. I have edited this article to discuss the report and the responses to the report that discuss the BBC Trust. The relevant complaints about the BBC have been moved to

This is indeed an article about the BBC Trust- as we discussed on the Jeremy Bowen talk page this material is relevant for the purposes of the BBC Trust as it explains the effect of the BBC Trust report. It is difficult to assume good faith when you continue to repeat the exercise of culling information on the basis that it is more relevant in another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't addressed the issue of Undue weight being given to minority views. Absolutely nobody, whether it be the BBC Trust, the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent or even the JPost expressed agreement with the majority of the attacks made against Bowen and the BBC. These attacks are given their due representation by acknowledging the complaints that were made and the fact that it was decided that they were largely unfounded. It is clearly undue weight to provide a platform for these people to repeat their views. GDallimore (Talk) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "attacks", they are the complainants' responses to the BBC Trust report filed by them. In no way is it undue weight to provide the impetus for the reports, nor is it undue to discuss how they have responded. It provides context for the efficacy of the BBC Trust, and simply provides the factual aftermath of the report. Please explain how space provided to these responses is 'undue weight', while the editorial response of an unrelated third party, Robert Fisk, has repeatedly arisen in edits sanctioned by yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You're just don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies, no matter how many times they're explained to you. As has been repeatedly said, articles should be based on reliable third party sources. That is absoultely fundamental to Wikipedia:Verifiability. The complainants are, by definition, the primary sources. Their original complaints were dealt with by the BBC Trust and this has been reported. Then, third party commentary on those complaints is provided. It is undue weight to then repeat the complainants additional complaints which were not upheld by the BBC Trust and which all of the third party sources say are either just plain wrong or are a minor thing and nothing to get in a fuss over, even though those who want to attack the BBC will try to use it as an excuse to do so.

Basically, you're trying to push the POV that the complainants were pushing when this is demonstrably a minority viewpoint and I am not going to let it happen. That's the end of it. You lost this argument at Jeremy Bowen after your call for a third opinion and I am not going to start arguing the point with you again now it's moved to other articles. GDallimore (Talk) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're essentially stating here is that it the complainants' responses are completely irrelevant? In what way is a third party more relevant than the primary sources in criticizing the efficacy of the Trust's measures in addressing these complaints? I'm not trying to push any POV by publishing facts- stating as much reveals your absolute lack of assumption of good faith. I think your firm commitment to suppressing the statements in response to the Trust's report- first by claiming a lack of reliable sourcing (which was then addressed), then by claiming that the information was not in the relevant section (which was then addressed), and NOW under the completely facile claim that undue weight is being provided to the very material at the core of any encyclopedic entry (the facts) is a firm indicator that you are not a reliable arbiter of what should and should not remain in Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bothering arguing any more since you're intransigent. Just providing links to confirm consensus is against you in the event that anyone else joins this argument half way through. [1][2]. And please sign your messages if you're going to continute posting them using ~~~~. GDallimore (Talk) 09:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The consensus was on the particular Jeremy Bowen article, and you know it. Now you are merely forgoing any attempt to explain your actions (such as upholding the third party Robert Fisk views at the expense of the complainants' own words) and pointing to a debate from a different context. If anyone joins the argument halfway through, I hope they will take due consideration of GDallimore's repeated display of assumptions of bad faith, as well as his repeated shifting of goal posts in holding certain facts to be irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up the argument: there is a continuing dispute between GDallimore and myself regarding information provided on the BBC Trust's ESC Report on Jeremy Bowen. He holds that, because the information (i.e. the response of the complainants to the outcome of the report) was voluntarily excised from the Jeremy Bowen page, it must also be excised from the article on the BBC Trust. I submit that this is illogical on the basis that this information is directly relevant to the activities of the BBC Trust (it is a response by those who caused the ESC Report to be made in the first place) and that his argument is flawed as the argument was extraneous to the personal information regarding Jeremy Bowen rather than the entirety of Wikipedia. It is also apparent that his secondary argument is that the sources are not reliable, or that they are not cited reliably. He has not provided any evidence for this claim, and checking the citations provided will show that they are a reliable representation of the information provided. If there is any strength to either argument, I would appreciate the input of a third party. I would favour a cessation of this edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: Actually, I agree with GDallimore on this one. These edits are certainly trying to add

Thank you. I would add that I have never "shifted the goal posts". Merely, because there were a significant number of things wrong with the content that was trying to be added, it seemed simplest just to bring up the most obvious problems at each stage. GDallimore (Talk) 09:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the BBC Trust considers these things worthy of note (and they are corrupted by the financial sector and other vested interests) then these and other board memberships should be noted.

• " held a variety of senior positions in financial and global businesses"
• "She is currently on the Board of HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Northern America Holdings Inc and PepsiCo Inc."

Both from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/rona_fairhead.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.41.69 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue with including a short note of Fairhead's other positions, if length remains proportionate and wording satisfies

WP:NPOV. — Zcbeaton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618065450/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/bbctrust/news/press_releases/05_04_2007.html to http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/05_04_2007.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—