BBC News is Shit

The BBC in general actually, but specifically the news. I've been informed of some ancient days of past where the BBC was the most ubiquitous and highly-regarded source of news around much of the world.
I can barely see how, considering the state it is in today. I wouldn't even call it credible, but then - what is, today?
Looking at the website it's 50% clickbait, 25% 'right-think' propaganda - maybe 25% actual news.

Today it's slightly better than usual. The 'Full Story' section is good:
- 'I thought that I was fat nobody could see I was evil.' Good title, don't bother with that comma. It's a decent, perhaps slightly sexist article, "After decades of being sexually abused by my father and other men ..." had to highlight the 'men' part, because of course all of women's problems are due to men. Obviously it's supposed to bring up your emotions, I'm rather too heartless for that - yet you will notice that you rarely see these kind of articles dealing in men's issues.

-'Do light-skinned black celebs have it easier?' A nice racist and sexist article about women and privilege, something the BBC only talks about incessantly. Poorly researched, as usual, under the council of obviously biased 'authorities'.

-'Could a 'concrete floor' get more women into power?' It's an incredibly sexist entirely unresearched article, applying nought for reasoning and referencing debunked concepts like the ‘gender pay gap’ to ease the author's autocunnilingus.

Also in important world news: lots of clickbait, celebs, and of course - sport.

What a shitshow. To think we're paying for this.

Not surprised. It's no surprise New Who is in the state it's in either; the entire organization is a PC loony laughing stock today.

'Why you can trust BBC News' never fails to make me laugh.

I occasionally visit now (mainly from social media), but I tend to use Reuters when I need to read the actual news.

The BBC site has nearly reached full Buzzfeed in it's millennial-focussed pomo retardation. I have an aversion to middle-class bespectacled women with sour faces and blue hair telling me how hard their lives are because they can't get free jam missiles, or because a random dude socially raped them by approaching them in the street.

Reuters is pretty good. I would also say that the Telegraph is generally quite good and impartial - in the latter that it often offers actual differing opinions on controversial issues: something unknown to the BBC.
You have to love the classic BBC 'discussions' - get five people in the room together with exactly the same opinion and listen to them agreeing for half an hour. Celebrity interviewers that feel compelled to ask about Trump or Brexit or Feminism every single interview, with whomever - only, of course, because they know they're from the same political homogeny and will invariably give them the answer they want.

You still pay for other channels, whenever you buy anything a % of the profits will go to advertising.

I constantly hear left and right wing complaing about the lack of impartiallity in the BBC

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

The link above is based on an aggregate of public perception and indicates only a slight left bias, hardly scientific but I think it has relevance. If everybody is complaining about them then they must be doing it right.

The BBC news site is a populus news outlet and more akin to a tabloid than a broadsheet, due to it's public funded nature, I think that's right.

The BBC aren't beyond reproach but I tend to give them a bit of a break because they get a kicking from most governments. I remember them being simultaneously chastised in a single report in the '90s for being too profitable and yet not profitable enough.

We don't choose to pay our license fee, we are obliged by law. Further, there is no expectation of the other channels to be impartial. This argument doesn't work.

You're missing that fact that the BBC is the leading media outlet in the UK, and as such has a significant influence over public opinion. The BBC tells the public it's impartial and most people just agree with it, especially considering that an appreciation of the BBC appeals to the same 'British pride' that has a third of the population tuning into the Royal Wedding. Further, public perception is not exactly a measure of what is true.

I don't think it's right considering that it's part of the BBC's duty to inform the public and to provide quality in news and entertainment. Its public funded nature means it ought to represent public interests, something it consistently fails to do - consider its explicit pro-EU bias where over 50% of the population voted to leave. Consider its inability to give credence to multiple view points on controversial issues. Moreover, do you not think it's in the public's best interest to be properly informed with impartial and high-quality journalism? Because the BBC consistently fails in that.

The BBC doesn't get criticized enough for the right reasons.

I hate the fact the videos now fucking autoplay. In the FAQ section it tells you how to turn it off, but then says it resets when you leave the fucking page.

Seriously! It makes it impossible to browse at work or in public now.