Too right they are experts in "misinformation"
Heres 10 examples of the nations least trusted broadcaster's (BBC) "Misinformation"

1. Question Time audience composition
Audience makeup on Question Time has drawn complaints from both directions for years — Conservative and Brexit-supporting critics say audiences skew liberal-left, even hiring actors to pose as members of the public to present a false narrative.

2. Diane Abbott / Fiona Bruce polling exchange (2019)
Abbott was corrected on-air over polling figures; the BBC later admitted its review found she'd been right to say other polls suggested Labour was either ahead or tied, and conceded it should have made that clear at the time.

3. Newsnight's Corbyn/Kremlin graphic (2018)
Newsnight placed Corbyn's image against Moscow's skyline during Salisbury poisoning coverage - his hat had been digitally altered to look more "Russian."

4. Laura Kuenssberg's "grim reading" postal vote claim (2019)
On the eve of the 2019 election, Kuenssberg's claim that postal votes looked bad for Labour drew roughly 15,000 complaints from viewers since in order to make such a statement regarding postal votes sugesting she must have had access to that data prior to the result.

5. 2019 general election coverage overall
The BBC reportedly received over 60,000 complaints about its election coverage, a sharp jump from 5,000 in 2015 and 7,000 in 2017, with complaints about anti-Corbyn bias.

6. Boris Johnson Question Time audience-laughter edit (2019)
The BBC edited a daytime news clip to remove audience laughter that followed a question to Johnson about honesty, prompting accusations of favorable editing.

7. Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone (2025)
An internal BBC review found the documentary breached editorial guidelines on accuracy by failing to disclose the child narrator was the son of a senior Hamas official. Ofcom went further, ruling the film was "materially misleading" and breached the Broadcasting Code.

8. Gaza: Doctors Under Attack ( 2025)
Running the other direction: the BBC declined to broadcast this Gaza documentary after members of the (separate, independent) production team made public comments accusing Israel of war crimes. BBC suppressed coverage rather telling the truth.

9. Iraq War coverage (2002–2003)
BBC facilitated government WMD claims (including the "45 minutes" assertion) with insufficient scrutiny in the run-up to war. Further more the government's dossier had been "sexed up," which triggered the Hutton Inquiry, the death of David Kelly, and the resignation of the Director-General and Chairman after Hutton found against the BBC's editorial processes. So the BBC was too credulous toward the government.

10. "False balance" on economic/austerity coverage
A frequently cited academic critique (Cardiff University media research, among others) argues BBC economics coverage in the early 2010s tended to frame deficit reduction as consensus common sense rather than a contested policy choice, disproportionately featuring City/financial-sector voices over dissenting economists.

Wait, what do you mean that's wrong?

Sorry you feel that way, but it's a reasonable take on reality. There are two types of situations: Situations where you want to learn about X and situations where you need to know the answer to some very specific, but narrow question about X. For the second question, giant, ad-laden websites where the answer is buried in a pile of unrelated information are basically a disservice. You're paying for the information not just by watching their ads, but by wading through all the other crap.

In an ideal universe, there would be some sort of micropayment system, where websites earned money just from people visiting, and it came out of a fund paid into by ISPs, and the amount paid would be proportional to how many sites the Internet users of the world hit that day, and it would have some way of avoiding payment to link farms and other similar garbage content. And this would be an international system, and it would be designed in a way that somehow perfectly preserved privacy while maintaining auditability. I have no idea what that would look like, of course.

In the absence of such a scheme, though, there will always be a tug of war for power between content creators and browser/search companies, because the latter are trying to do what is best for the user in the short term, and the former are trying to get paid to protect what is best for the user in the long term. And I'm really not sure how to solve that problematic power dynamic, except by suggesting that perhaps that tug of war might actually be the solution, because it means neither side has too much power and control.

Apparently not, or at least the web version refused when I asked.

In fact it would be great if you could control all that information and provide it to apps and websites on a need-to-know basis. Provided its really under your control rather than handing it to the largest advertising company in the world who can thus prof with your data by choosing with whom and when to share it.

Unfortunately developers seem uninterested in the open, distributed protocols that exist to provide this same feature, so it will be adopted by the masses only when big platforms include them in their vertical stacks.

This "AI" seems to be severely lacking in training, in that no superior/invincible force (e.g. a party simulating law enforcement) showed up and demonstrated the downside to taking certain actions.

Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.

Is it ok if I show up in regular glasses, but where an always-on LED is attached to the one of the corners? (I understand pervs are falling out of popularity, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon the whole aesthetic!)

Every story about a wrong conviction is a story about the death penalty

The kind of 'forest management' you're describing is great when practiced around your settlement location, but nobody has ever practiced anything even approaching the concept of 'forest management' to the entirety of the Boreal Forests of Canada.

Is gaslighting Germany. In that it fails to report on the same crackdown on free speech in the UK.
The Telegraph AKA Torygraph is therefore not a trusted source.

Do we really have to reinvent the wheel every damn time?! It used to be that you just got Voight-Kampff tested, and the administrator of the test would sign your PGP key. WTF was wrong with that?!

Wait, uneducated people can't get high now? Things sure have changed since I was young. Back then, it was mostly the uneducated kids getting high. :-)

My first reaction is that if one company is selling at half the price, that company will go bankrupt at twice the speed since every transaction was already a money-loser. Customers are absolutely the worst thing for these "businesses."

But is revenue really significant? I can see how neither reducing the price to $0 or increasing their price to 10x what it was, might not really have much of a different impact on the bottom line, compared to all the debt.

And that was before they started burning through AI Tokens.

Let it be known that our future is bleak - mitigation is not enough and world leaders are doing the opposite of what is needed.

That said we can always spaff a few million on a new report that tells us nothing we dont already know and results in no action being taken.