Scrutinizing BBC Verify: A Record of Errors and Omissions

[Social Media]

 

BBC Verify, an investigative unit launched to combat disinformation, has faced increasing scrutiny due to high-profile missteps in its reporting. Promoted as the "frontline of the fight for truth," the unit's commitment to accuracy has been questioned following a series of corrections and controversies.  

 

A notable example arose during the riots following the Southport murders, when BBC Verify reported a violent racist attack in Humberside. The team identified two alleged attackers using open-source intelligence (OSINT) and facial recognition, claiming they targeted a car of men "of Asian heritage."

 

However, Humberside Police later clarified that the victims were Eastern European, making the event unrelated to racial tensions as originally reported. Despite having multiple writers on the story, Verify failed to identify this critical detail before publication.  

 

Another instance involved allegations of systemic racism in the motor insurance industry. Maryam Ahmed, a BBC Verify journalist, reported that drivers in racially diverse areas paid 33% higher premiums, suggesting an "ethnicity penalty." Months later, the article was quietly retracted. The BBC admitted its analysis was flawed, stating it had failed to account for the limitations of its data.  

 

In October 2022, BBC Verify’s reporting on an explosion at Al Ahli hospital in Gaza sparked further controversy. Initially attributing the blast to an Israeli airstrike, the BBC echoed Hamas' claim of 500 deaths. Subsequent investigations by independent experts and Western governments pointed to a misfired Palestinian rocket, significantly reducing the death toll. While many revised their assessments, Verify maintained the event’s origins were "contested," relying heavily on analysis from Forensic Architecture, an organization with strong ties to pro-Palestinian activism. Critics argued this affiliation should have been disclosed to provide context for the claim.  

 

Another Gaza-related report from Verify relied on a questionable source. Mahmoud Awadeyah alleged that Israeli soldiers deliberately attacked civilians during an aid distribution in March 2023. However, Awadeyah’s ties to Tasnim, a media outlet controlled by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and his history of celebrating anti-Israeli violence raised serious doubts about his credibility. Despite these associations, BBC Verify presented his account without disclosing these affiliations, leading former BBC Television Director Danny Cohen to criticize the omission as "misleading audiences."  

 

Since its inception in May 2023, Verify has published more than 200 stories, of which approximately 5% have been corrected, clarified, or withdrawn. Cohen highlighted this as a troubling statistic, emphasizing the BBC’s responsibility to uphold the highest journalistic standards.  

 

These controversies underline deeper concerns about Verify's approach, which some argue prioritizes quick, shareable content over rigorous fact-checking. As the unit continues to dominate BBC News output with over 60 dedicated journalists, its effectiveness in combating disinformation will depend on its ability to address these systemic flaws and rebuild trust with its audience.  

 

Based on a report by UnHerd 2024-01-02

 

Related:

Former BBC News Chief Voices Concerns Over Verify Unit’s Impact on Journalism Credibility

 

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

The BBC is the state funded propaganda wing of the socialist government.

 

Claiming to be arbiters of truth is a bit rich. They are the opposite. 

[The Old Bull]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The BBC is the state funded propaganda wing of the socialist government.

 

Claiming to be arbiters  of truth is a bit rich. They are the opposite. 

The BBC the CBC and the ABC are state supported so we can expect them to toe the line on issues like the Ukraine . That means you take what they say with a grain of salt. It's the corporate news outlets that pretend to be independent we have to be wary off.

[mikeymike100]

The BBC have a Royal Charter to be unbiased, or impartial, which is a total joke, the BBC continually publish left wing propaganda! They won't even call Hamas a terrorist organization!

 

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/2016/charter.pdf

 

"5. The BBC’s Mission
The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through
the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which
inform, educate and entertain."

 

 

[JonnyF]

Even the "Verify" correspondent lied on her CV.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/08/marianna-spring-bbc-journalist-disinformation-lied-on-cv/

 

Not unlike Rachel "from accounts" Reeves. 

 

These are the type of people trying to tell us what to believe. 😆 

[jippytum]

 The BBC has long since lost its reputation as as an honest and unbiased reporter of world news. 

Internal scandels and woke reporting have made the BBC  a medium many people now  choose to ignore 

 

[blaze master]

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Even the "Verify" correspondent lied on her CV.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/08/marianna-spring-bbc-journalist-disinformation-lied-on-cv/

 

Not unlike Rachel "from accounts" Reeves. 

 

These are the type of people trying to tell us what to believe. 😆 

 

Your buddy will be along soon to blow hot smoke all over. Telling you how wrong you are and demanding a link.

[WorriedNoodle]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The BBC is the state funded propaganda wing of the socialist government.

 

Claiming to be arbiters of truth is a bit rich. They are the opposite. 

This is a bit extreme and absurd to think like this. While the BBC does receive public funding through the license fee, and it has faced criticism for bias or lack of impartiality from various sides of the political spectrum, it would be unfair to paint it as solely a propaganda tool of any one ideology or political party as you are doing. The BBC has been in operation for nearly a century and has weathered many changes in government, socialist and capitalist. During that time, it has produced a vast array of content, some of which may have been perceived as more favorable to certain political viewpoints than others.

[WorriedNoodle]

28 minutes ago, jippytum said:

The BBC has long since lost its reputation as as an honest and unbiased reporter of world news. 

Internal scandels and woke reporting have made the BBC  a medium many people now  choose to ignore 

This says a lot about the perspective of you, rather than necessarily offering an objective assessment of the BBC's performance.

"Woke" is a term that can mean different things to different people, but it is often used as a pejorative term by those who feel that progressive social media have gone too far and labeling something as "woke" can be a way of dismissing any content that challenges traditional values or perspectives of your own conservative demographic more than a modern day majority.

[roquefort]

16 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

This says a lot about the perspective of you, rather than necessarily offering an objective assessment of the BBC's performance.

"Woke" is a term that can mean different things to different people, but it is often used as a pejorative term by those who feel that progressive social media have gone too far and labeling something as "woke" can be a way of dismissing any content that challenges traditional values or perspectives of your own conservative demographic more than a modern day majority.

Most people have a very clear idea of what 'woke' means. It is rapidly being abandoned in the corporate world, with the end of DEI and net zero orthodoxy. It is still to be eradicated in academia, which continues to churn out bright, young indoctrinated graduates with an inability to think critically about any narrative fed to them by the establishment.

 

It is from this cohort that BBC staff mostly originate, so the statement that "The BBC has long since lost its reputation as as an honest and unbiased reporter of world news" is perfectly valid. As for BBC Verify, who checks the fact checkers?

[Eloquent pilgrim]

 

 

Not sure where the BBC’s Verify were when their number 2 antisemite, Jon Donnison, stood in Gaza and reported that the blast at the Al-Ahli Arab hospital was caused by an Israeli airstrike, and not, as it actually was, by a misfired rocket from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) from within Gaza.

 

And not sure where they were when the same correspondent, posted a photo of a young girl lying on a hospital bed with bloodied clothes, with the caption “Heartbreaking, Pain in #Gaza” …. when it transpired that the photo of the young girl was actually taken in Syria.

 

Verify; left wing propaganda for the gullible and incurious.

 

 

 

[jippytum]

24 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

This says a lot about the perspective of you, rather than necessarily offering an objective assessment of the BBC's performance.

"Woke" is a term that can mean different things to different people, but it is often used as a pejorative term by those who feel that progressive social media have gone too far and labeling something as "woke" can be a way of dismissing any content that challenges traditional values or perspectives of your own conservative demographic more than a modern day majority.

Your definition of woke is interesting. 

The BBC is on a downward spiral of 'woke ' opinion from its presenters and poor quality vidio links. 

[mokwit]

I very quickly ignored BBC verify and also Reuters "factcheck". Both sides of the political spectrum/conflicts are lying on any given day, but they only ever went after the one sides lies and not the other (their home team).

[mokwit]

58 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Your buddy will be along soon to blow hot smoke all over. Telling you how wrong you are and demanding a link.

The 'Gang of Four' link brigade.

[mokwit]

57 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

This says a lot about the perspective of you, rather than necessarily offering an objective assessment of the BBC's performance.

"Woke" is a term that can mean different things to different people, but it is often used as a pejorative term by those who feel that progressive social media have gone too far and labeling something as "woke" can be a way of dismissing any content that challenges traditional values or perspectives of your own conservative demographic more than a modern day majority.

The BBC like media everywhere seems to have gone woke starting around 2010 and this seems to be supported by the measured increase in the usage of woke politics associated words from then till the present in the media.

 

I would question that it is a majority, on Social Media it seems to be a small minority very good at creating an impression that they are the majority. How is Bluesky doing? Likewise MSM are good at creating the impression that the minority view is the majority view and you must be The Far Right if you are not onboard with the "majority".

 

Look at how the dam broke with that perception with the Brexit vote and then Trump being elected 2016. Actual voting.

 

I would argue the real acid test is if a business "goes woke" it suffers a backlash. People voting with the pound in their pocket i.e.  money not empty words. 'Go woke, go broke' is the phase, but in fairness large companies don't actually go broke for one woke misstep. I was a Gillette customer for fourty years until they came out with their anti white male boys will be boys advert. For the record they also did an ad showing a man teaching his trans son to shave. I actually thought that one was touching and not in any way offensive.

 

Lets see how Jaguar do with their woke rebrand. I would sell their shares if I owned them, not because they are trying to make a niche theirs as a marketing strategy for survival, but because they have selected a niche that is smaller and with less spending power than they think (IMO).

 

That said, you do have a point about changing Demographics, but does that represent a current section of the voter base and all that come behind them, or is it just a standalone cohort, with different views on woke being held by following cohorts.

[Nick Carter icp]

15 minutes ago, mokwit said:

 

 

I would question that it is a majority, on Social Media it seems to be a small minority very good at creating an impression that they are the majority.

 

   A good example is Wikipedia .

About ten of the moderators there grouped together and got non left wing media sources classified as being unreliable .

   Right wing media sources have been classified as being unreliable and its only reliable if the Guardian publish it , then the small group of Guardian readers keep posting links to their news stories on forums  and before you know it, the Guardian is popular and before you know it Jonny  F has been invited to the Afghan refugees annual reunion party at the Labour parties headquarters invited by host Siddique Khan because of his extensive Guardian link clicking throughout the year 

[roquefort]

Wkipedia is actually an even better example of woke bias than the BBC, despite its grandiose claims to have a "neutral point of view".

 

I happened to look at the Wikipedia entry for a political commentator I'd come across called Carl Benjamin. It has almost nothing about his actual views, pretty much limited to one line describing him as an anti-feminist, advocate of Brexit, and critic of Islamic immigration to the UK (all quite reasonable opinions to hold in my view).  However, there is page after page of criticism of him from left-wing media such as the Guardian, the Independent and the New York Times, with numerous quotes labelling him as far-right, alt-right, anti-progressive and a conspiracy theorist. All the usual slurs used by the wokerati against people whose opinions they don't like.

 

[loong]

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

The team identified two alleged attackers using open-source intelligence (OSINT) and facial recognition, claiming they targeted a car of men "of Asian heritage."

It is funny how these news media outlets choose to describe people as 'Asian' where they would once have used 'Middle Eastern'. I can only imagine that it is because 'Middle Eastern' suggests Muslim to most people'

 

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

In October 2022, BBC Verify’s reporting on an explosion at Al Ahli hospital in Gaza sparked further controversy. Initially attributing the blast to an Israeli airstrike

 

It is ironic that a report about errors contains errors. The event occurred in October 2023, not 2022!

 

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

Mahmoud Awadeyah alleged that Israeli soldiers deliberately attacked civilians during an aid distribution in March 2023.

 

There were no Israeli soldiers in Gaza in March 2023, so this must have been March 2024.