Jump to content

How can the BBC consider itself neutral?


Casual Bystander

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28863806

An independence "Yes" vote would break up the BBC with "devastating" consequences for Scottish broadcasting, pro-Union figures have claimed.

I have said on many occasion I have no problems with the BBC being bias. After all a publicly funded body that receives it's funding from a Westminster government which is staunchly pro-Union has to be seen to have a conflict of interest in the matter. Yet time and time again the BBC claim to be neutral in the debate and to represent both sides equally. Depending on your viewpoint they have either been guilty of the occasional lapse or are continually in violation of their own guidelines on the matter.

Private media outlets are allowed to push any political agenda they wish. It's a shame so many are pro-Union, it certainly doesn't represent the split within the population itself, but that is their right. However, as we all know, it is public money; yours and mine, that go towards paying for the BBC. It's essentially a blanket tax.

So why do the BBC feel they cannot publicly admit they have a huge conflict of interest when to everyone it is blatantly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said quite a few times that I think BBC's coverage of the referendum has been pretty disgraceful. People expect our broadcast media to be as impartial as possible in this country, and the BBC have often fallen well short of that. It's quite damaging when for many it will be there only source of political news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB seems to be initiating a real project fear all on his own.

His daily scaremonger is becoming a highlight of my day.

The NDD of the independence forums.

Once more this person would prefer to attack the poster rather than actually address the post. A poster, it should be noted, who claimed to have me on ignore.

Why such obloquy? Who knows, perhaps they are incapable assessing a subject and replying on it without demonstrating superciliousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once more this person would prefer to attack the poster rather than actually address the post. A poster, it should be noted, who claimed to have me on ignore.

Why such obloquy? Who knows, perhaps they are incapable assessing a subject and replying on it without demonstrating superciliousness.

Of course I've responded - "the real project fear" is a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The better together twitter account posted today that in an indy scotland you would have to pay for the bbc :lol:

The BBC can get fucked. I'll cough up for the SBC! Alba fitba matches and repeat showings of Braveheart!

Yaldy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The better together twitter account posted today that in an indy scotland you would have to pay for the bbc :lol:

I'd turn it into a subscription Channel.

If the BBC are so confident of their programme quality and standards of impartiality, surely there would still be droves of viewers wanting to sign up if the licence fee was scrapped???

The present cosy tax-funded set up (£3.65billion from households alone) is a joke, they are accountable to no-one, I'd make them compete just like everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The present cosy tax-funded set up (£3.65billion from households alone) is a joke, they are accountable to no-one, I'd make them compete just like everyone else.

Personally I think that there is a place for a public broadcaster, but then being a pinko bed-wetting commie I am you'd expect that. ;)

Seriously though, I do believe that public broadcasting devoid of commercial bias benefits society if done from a non-partisan basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to feel sorry for the BBC, really.

Practically every single roaster in the country with a bee in his bonnet about some issue or other is perpetually fizzing at it and accusing it of "bias", and it's always because the BBC let somebody say something the roasters don't like.

Really, what's the difference between SNP types marching on BBC HQ and Rangers supporters doing the same? Neither of them have any strong reason to do it and they're both seething about fvck all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to feel sorry for the BBC, really.

Practically every single roaster in the country with a bee in his bonnet about some issue or other is perpetually fizzing at it and accusing it of "bias", and it's always because the BBC let somebody say something the roasters don't like.

Really, what's the difference between SNP types marching on BBC HQ and Rangers supporters doing the same? Neither of them have any strong reason to do it and they're both seething about fvck all.

The difference is that those Rangers fans you speak of are all fuckwits :) and if you believe that the BBC have not been biased in this referendum then you should be lumped into the same category.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to feel sorry for the BBC, really.

Practically every single roaster in the country with a bee in his bonnet about some issue or other is perpetually fizzing at it and accusing it of "bias", and it's always because the BBC let somebody say something the roasters don't like.

Really, what's the difference between SNP types marching on BBC HQ and Rangers supporters doing the same? Neither of them have any strong reason to do it and they're both seething about fvck all.

Errr... well people probably resent having to pay to be brainwashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...