Yes - it's got loads of structural biases, and having been defunded, it cuts loads of corners. But it's ownership doesn't have as many conflicts of interest, and almost every other news org is worse by a considerable margin.

The BBC is two things:
1) a cultural-incubator-cum-industrial-strategy-in-a-box that's not really seen as competition (often a partner) by v competitive film/TV players
2) a news org that is a political football & dangerous competition to every grifter, disinfo merchant & press baron in the world.

She was the first one to make a big deal out of it I think?

I think it was an editorial failing of the BBC. But it wasn't the end of a thousand years of history either. It *wasn't* 'sack the DG' standard stuff unless I'm missing something?

It means that lots of unchallenged liberal assumptions have to be reopened and redefined because of recent technology. “Freedom of expression” and copyright are both formerly benign mechanisms that (it turns out) may not continue to be benign.

Wayne O'Rourke got 16 months in August 2024: incited violenceon X inc against Muslims & those protecting mosques

He told police X paid him £1400 per month tweets.

Called Musk a hero: "we wouldn't know what was going on"

Unlawful tweets for which he went to jail remain on X platform today

The BBC as a public service agency has been defunded. Reverse that and your problem goes away.

It is, yes. And it won't.

To be honest, it's a very long list...

A lot of things that are almost certainly not true, but lots of people seem to have somehow conspired to collaborate in believing in them. This is what a meme stock is, right?

There are also a lot of people seemingly coordinated to believe the same *combination* of nonsense. This can't end well...