The answers do not look good for the free world's largest political news platform the BBC across the world. Here is the analysis of just one randomly selected article on today's BBC Online platform of its content:

1/. THE ACTUAL NEWS

Hard/new factual news: 18.3%

Essential context: 20.1%

TOTAL NEWS + NECESSARY CONTEXT: 38.4%

The central news is straightforward: Andy Burnham proposes going into the next election offering a free-to-use, universally funded national care system, with funding options unresolved and further details promised.

But that basic news occupies only a fraction of what BBC readers are given.

2/. EVERYTHING BUILT AROUND THE NEWS

Attributed views/reaction: 15.5%

Speculation/reporter interpretation: 22.9%

Old/non-essential background: 15.6%

Framing/rhetorical material: 7.7%

TOTAL SURROUNDING CONTENT: 61.6%

That is the real finding.

Almost two-thirds of the article falls outside the hard news and the context necessary to understand it.

*Most strikingly, at 22.9%, speculation and reporter interpretation occupy more of the article than the 18.3% hard-news content itself*

And readers aren't simply handed facts and left to assess them.

They encounter the BBC reporter's language:

“eye-wateringly expensive”

“politically perilous”

“staggering up front cost”

“political cover”

“grumbling”

“enormous plaudits”

“taking a big swing”

*These are the BBC's words, not ours*

They are in fact the words and responsibility of Jack Fenwick Political correspondent

(BBC quote "Journalists are entitled to decide which stories to cover and the manner in which such stories are covered" Colin Tregear, Senior Complaints Adjudicator, BBC ECU" - AND HE CERTAINLY DID?

Words shape perspective. Speculation shapes perspective. Selecting historical comparisons shapes perspective. Reporter interpretation shapes perspective. AND BBC JOURNALISTS KNOW THAT

None of this automatically makes an individual article improper journalism. But it raises a question BW now intends to measure rather than merely argue:

Are BBC readers being given NEWS, or increasingly being given the journalist's construction surrounding the news?

We are starting prospectively, with this article as Article 1. No retrospective cherry-picking.

Every subsequent BBC article submitted to this analysis will face exactly the same test. If Article 1 proves exceptional, the figures will expose that.

But if 18% hard news surrounded by views, speculation, interpretation, background and rhetorical framing becomes a recurring pattern, then the BBC may have a much bigger question to answer:

When does reporting the news become constructing the reader's view of it? Now let's see whether the BBC repeats it.

IS THIS REALLY WHAT PUBLIC FUNDING IS REALLY PAYING FOR - COMPLETELY UNCHALLENGED

GB2GB original analysis | Research & drafting assisted by AI