BBC bias

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

There will be nothing else if you have your way. If the BBC is so shite why are you recommending that people should watch or listen to their programmes without paying?

I'm sorry mate that's badger baiting of the highest order, you need to apply the three legged donkey doctrine to your thinking in order to bring about a hairless iguana

[welshbairn]

Just now, NotThePars said:

 

Pretty sure he's saying that the left and right might be united in hating the BBC but the left hate it because the BBC spent so long cosying up to the right against the left.

Whereas the right have said the opposite for decades, and are acting on it.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Whereas the right have said the opposite for decades, and are acting on it.

And? How do you see the BBC being saved by the left given we're out of power and largely irrelevant partially because of the Beeb? Flinging money at it isn't going to help given it's staffed by ideological conservatives and is at the mercy of a majority Conservative government that hate it. I'm not willing to fling money at a ship that's nearly fully submerged and decided to start launching broadsides at prospective supporters when it was already taking water.

I hope you like my metaphor. 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

And? How do you see the BBC being saved by the left given we're out of power and largely irrelevant partially because of the Beeb? Flinging money at it isn't going to help given it's staffed by ideological conservatives and is at the mercy of a majority Conservative government that hate it. I'm not willing to fling money at a ship that's nearly fully submerged and decided to start launching broadsides at prospective supporters when it was already taking water.

I hope you like my metaphor. 

Its decent but I prefer them a little more crude and openly hostile and with a couple of expletives

[Erih Shtrep]

I like the BBC but especially BBC Scotland on the radio and BBC6 Music.   

As a fully paid up member of 'Yes till I drop' I'm quite happy paying 120 quid or whatever the licence costs.    Recently I've watched and enjoyed MOTD, Would I Lie to you, Fishing with Bob and Paul, First Ministers QT.    By contrast I rarely watch Netflix.   My TV package is expensive because I've got it all (BT, SKY, Netflicts, Prime)  but it's not a massive amount of money per month at around £130 a month including landline and Internet. 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

And? How do you see the BBC being saved by the left given we're out of power and largely irrelevant partially because of the Beeb? Flinging money at it isn't going to help given it's staffed by ideological conservatives and is at the mercy of a majority Conservative government that hate it. I'm not willing to fling money at a ship that's nearly fully submerged and decided to start launching broadsides at prospective supporters when it was already taking water.

I hope you like my metaphor. 

I just hope that I'll still be able to listen to knowledgeable people talking about South American football at 3am on radio 5 when I can't sleep, More or Less on radio 4 when I don't understand the Covid stats, World Service for sheds of informative insights,  numerous documentaries and music programmes on BBC Four and the entire archive of Montalbano. There have been loads of decent drama series and popular stuff too, but they could probably be copied by Murdoch's lads. It's the stuff that would disappear that I'd miss, and would be near impossible to replace when a more hands off regime comes to power. It was Tony Blair who first emasculated it, now it's having its soul ripped out and there's nobody to defend it. 

P.S. PB just reminded me, who else would have commissioned Fishing with Bob and Paul or the Detectorists? It'll end up non stop American shite about rich c***s getting into a pickle because they were hysterically misunderstood by a waiter.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

I just hope that I'll still be able to listen to knowledgeable people talking about South American football at 3am on radio 5 when I can't sleep, More or Less on radio 4 when I don't understand the Covid stats, World Service for sheds of informative insights,  numerous documentaries and music programmes on BBC Four and the entire archive of Montalbano. There have been loads of decent drama series and popular stuff too, but they could probably be copied by Murdoch's lads. It's the stuff that would disappear that I'd miss, and would be near impossible to replace when a more hands off regime comes to power. It was Tony Blair who first emasculated it, now it's having its soul ripped out and there's nobody to defend it. 

P.S. PB just reminded me, who else would have commissioned Fishing with Bob and Paul or the Detectorists? It'll end up non stop American shite about rich c***s getting into a pickle because they were hysterically misunderstood by a waiter.

Having read Mill's book on the BBC I think it's a case yet again of reforms made under Thatcher that were continued under Blair although I think there's something in the cultural dynamic under Blairism that accelerated the trend of replacing 'serious' TV with wall-to-wall reality TV and judgmental poverty porn etc as the former was 'uncool' or whatever. I think even Charlie Brooker had a go at the shift in his Screenwipe days.

Channel 4 is another one that's rapidly declined. Read something the other day from Fisher that concluded with "It’s a mark of how bad Channel 4’s programming now is that Benefits Street would probably count as one of its more serious recent attempts at documentary. If you want to measure the catastrophic impact of neoliberalism on British culture, then there’s no better example than Channel 4. A channel that began with programming that included European art films, serious philosophy discussion programmes and politically sophisticated documentaries has now degenerated into depths so embarrassingly hucksterish and craven that they are beyond parody. This is a channel which still allows Tory toffs like Kirstie Allsopp to front programmes that act as if it is normal for house-buyers to have budgets of a million pounds; a channel that cries crocodile tears over mental illness and other forms of extreme misfortune as a thin pretext for ruthlessly exploiting them. I’d like to think this decline isn’t irreversible, but there aren’t many reasons for hope at the moment."

Although at the same time I know Mark Fisher has a Gramscian position on this and would definitely slag off people who felt the best option was to withdraw from the fight over the BBC but eh who cares what's he gonna do about it?

[Guest TheJTS98]

The BBC debate seems to be a classic example of everyone's need these days to see everything in absolute black and white.

In reality, there are both good and bad things about the BBC. It produces a whole range of services that would disappear, become more expensive, or become more vulnerable to some media billionaire. If you want the same stuff, you'll end up having to pay about ten different companies to get it, and the poorest in society will be locked out.

Also, there are lots of things we pay for as taxpayers for the general good. What's the issue with everyone chucking in a hundred and odd quid a year to make sure people who can't afford the things other people make a big play of preferring to the BBC have access to sport, entertainment, education tools, radio, etc? It's not an option for everyone to have Netflix, Sky and BT Sports, with Amazon Prime on the side.

Removing the license fee is a terrible idea driven by people who do not have the best interests of society at heart. It's a dangerous thing to buy into.

Edited January 21, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

15 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

The BBC debate seems to be a classic example of everyone's need these days to see everything in absolute black and white.

In reality, there are both good and bad things about the BBC. It produces a whole range of services that would disappear, become more expensive, or become more vulnerable to some media billionaire. If you want the same stuff, you'll end up having to pay about ten different companies to get it, and the poorest in society will be locked out.

Also, there are lots of things we pay for as taxpayers for the general good. What's the issue with everyone chucking in a hundred and odd quid a year to make sure people who can't afford the things other people make a big play of preferring to the BBC have access to sport, entertainment, education tools, radio, etc? It's not an option for everyone to have Netflix, Sky and BT Sports, with Amazon Prime on the side.

Removing the license fee is a terrible idea driven by people who do not have the best interests of society at heart. It's a dangerous thing to buy into.

Nah that's shite.  The BBC is a propaganda outlet. That's what it is. That's what it was designed to be, intended to be, and that's what its used as.  The drama, wildlife whatever personally I think its all shite and you couldn't get me to watch Dr Who with a gun but it has no place in the news market as it is incapable of being independent and objective. 

Its literally in the BBC charter it must enhance the social cohesion of the UK, what would you guess its editorial position on Scottish and Welsh independence would be then?  It is now to be headed by a guy who personally donated half a million to the Tory party. What sort of treatment would you expect Labour to get from them with that in mind?  Balanced, fair and objective?

Its an anachronism not fit for the 21st century and its obscene people are forced to pay for it under threat of imprisonment. Get in the sea after setting fire to it.  If people want what is has to offer they will pay for it voluntarily. It is an enemy of Scotland and democracy.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

All day every day

 

 

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Nah that's shite.  1. The BBC is a propaganda outlet. That's what it is. That's what it was designed to be, intended to be, and that's what its used as.  2. The drama, wildlife whatever personally I think its all shite and you couldn't get me to watch Dr Who with a gun but it has no place in the news market as it is incapable of being independent and objective. 

3) Its literally in the BBC charter it must enhance the social cohesion of the UK, what would you guess its editorial position on Scottish and Welsh independence would be then?  It is now to be headed by a guy who personally donated half a million to the Tory party. What sort of treatment would you expect Labour to get from them with that in mind?  Balanced, fair and objective?

Its an anachronism not fit for the 21st century and its obscene people are forced to pay for it under threat of imprisonment. Get in the sea after setting fire to it.  If people want what is has to offer they will pay for it voluntarily. It is an enemy of Scotland and democracy.

1. I don't think any adults are not aware of this. What do you expect a state broadcaster to be? What do you think organisations like the Goethe Institut and the Alliance Francaise exist for? This is perfectly common. However, that doesn't mean it is all the BBC is. It clearly does lots of useful things.

2. Not much different to a millionaire with private healthcare asking why they should fund the NHS with their taxes. Nobody cares whether you watch it or not. You're paying to support a public service.

3. As I said. There are negatives to the BBC, but the answer is not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

4. No. That's what the billionaires who want to pick it apart for huge profit say. But it's absolutely wrong. As we'll probably realise as a society about five years after abolishing it.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Nobody is forced to pay for these things under threat of imprisonment.  The BBC can enter the free marketplace if it wants to and compete with everyone else on a level playing field. 

Its not a public service, it only serves certain sections of the public and acts actively against the interests of other sections of the public. That's not a public service. Does the NHS only treat certain people or everybody?

In your opinion, not in mine.

Again I don't agree.  Its a stain on a modern democratic society. Its just Pravda on TV.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

No comment about it now being headed by a guy who put half a million of his own money into the Conservative party?  How can Labour expect fair treatment from them given that?  And bearing in mind it is legally duty bound to be impartial, how could it be?  Its not possible.

 

Nick Robinson was BBC political editor for over a decade.  He's a lifelong Tory activist.  How can he possibly be 'impartial'?  How can the other parties possibly get fair treatment from the BBC when this is their political editor?  How can it be fair to force people who (the Tories haven't won a plurality of the vote this side of WWII) mostly are not Conservative voters to pay for the BBC under threat of imprisonment when this is what they get for their money?

Robinson was a founder-member of Macclesfield Young Conservatives (YC) and rose through the ranks, becoming Cheshire YC Chairman from 1982 to 1984 and became a key activist in the moderate-controlled North West Area organisation. Philip Pedley, as National YC Chairman, co-opted Robinson onto the YC National Advisory Committee in 1983 and appointed him National Campaign Director of Youth for Multilateral Disarmament. Robinson was elected National Vice Chairman from 1985 to 1987 and succeeded a fellow moderate, Richard Fuller, when Robinson was elected Chairman of the National Young Conservatives on the moderate ticket against strong right-wing opposition (1987–1988).^[7]

At university he was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association in 1985.^[8][9]

[Guest TheJTS98]

8 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Nobody is forced to pay for these things under threat of imprisonment.  The BBC can enter the free marketplace if it wants to and compete with everyone else on a level playing field. 

Its not a public service, it only serves certain sections of the public and acts actively against the interests of other sections of the public. That's not a public service. Does the NHS only treat certain people or everybody?

In your opinion, not in mine.

Again I don't agree.  Its a stain on a modern democratic society. Its just Pravda on TV.

Yes it is. The rest of that is irrelevant.

2 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

No comment about it now being headed by a guy who put half a million of his own money into the Conservative party?  How can Labour expect fair treatment from them given that?  And bearing in mind it is legally duty bound to be impartial, how could it be?  Its not possible.

Again, you're focussing on one area of a huge organisation and advocating putting the whole thing in the bin. This is deeply unwise.

I've never said the BBC's political output is good. But lots of other things it does are very good.

Removing it would damage society, disadvantage the poorest, and empower nobody but media billionaires who want more influence over the public discourse and to charge more money for their services.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Just now, TheJTS98 said:

Yes it is. The rest of that is irrelevant.

Again, you're focussing on one area of a huge organisation and advocating putting the whole thing in the bin. This is deeply unwise.

I've never said the BBC's political output is good. But lots of other things it does are very good.

Removing it would damage society, disadvantage the poorest, and empower nobody but media billionaires who want more influence over the public discourse and to charge more money for their services.

No it isn't. A public service serves the public equally. The BBC does not. It presents itself as a public service but does not function as one.

Again, in your opinion, with no supporting evidence. I think its very wise and a mature, sensible decision. No modern democracy should have a public service broadcaster.

I already said if it wants to do drama and wildlife whatever I don't care but I'm not paying for it.

Removing it would improve society, laughable to think the BBC does anything for the poorest, and it already is a vessel for billionaires and corporations to influence public discourse as they control our government who control the BBC.  Its just more insidious than the likes of Sky cause it pretends this is not the case.

[Guest TheJTS98]

36 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

No it isn't. A public service serves the public equally. The BBC does not. It presents itself as a public service but does not function as one.

Again, in your opinion, with no supporting evidence. I think its very wise and a mature, sensible decision. No modern democracy should have a public service broadcaster.

I already said if it wants to do drama and wildlife whatever I don't care but I'm not paying for it.

Removing it would improve society, laughable to think the BBC does anything for the poorest, and it already is a vessel for billionaires and corporations to influence public discourse as they control our government who control the BBC.  Its just more insidious than the likes of Sky cause it pretends this is not the case.

It is. The BBC provides access to tv series, documentaries, films, live sport and sport highlights to people who cannot afford Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sky, or BT.

It provides educational resources for kids, which are a good option for kids whose parents can't afford to buy expensive books or hire tutors.

It provides free access to language learning materials online (Spanish, Italian, German, and French) as well as English-learning online and audio materials that are among industry leaders in the free-to-access market. It provides cooking resources and tips on healthy eating. It produces programming and online content that supports new music and art in the UK that has not become commercially successful yet. It produces materials to encourage foreign students to come and study in the UK to boost the economy. It produces content for expecting parents. It produces programming in minority languages which no commercial outfit would replace. It provides regional radio content for the whole country devoid of commercial interests.

If you want to call that an organisation that is not a public service, then you knock yourself out.

Removing the BBC's funding would see many of these services disappear or become harder for many people to access. People arguing for the BBC to lose public funding are letting politics infect every area of life. That's not healthy.

I don't want the BBC to stop producing or commissioning comedy or language materials or music shows because Nick Robinson is a p***k.

Edited January 21, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Steve_Wilkos]

If nobody pays for it we'll lose it. Hullo Talk Radio! Hullo Farage TV!

Hullo Laura K!

Oh

[strichener]

The BBC world service is where you expect the BBC to be putting out pro-West, pro-UK sentiment and propaganda and yet when citizens of countries are undergoing regime change, oppression etc. it is often the place that they turn to.

As for the hypocrisy of claiming something is shite and therefore not worth paying for whilst actually using the service - simply stop using it for live TV or iPlayer if it isn't worth the money.  The people who think they are being smart or on-trend by not paying the licence fee whilst actually using the services that you are supposed to pay for is just wrong.  Equivalent to a millionaire not paying taxes because he has his own security detail and goes private for healthcare and dental treatment and sends his kids to private school.  When you start choosing with public services you want fund the society is on a very slippy slope.

Edited January 21, 2021 by strichener

[Caledonian1]

9 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Does Netflix really cost fourteen quid a month?

I pay £8.99 per month - what do you get for £11.99 that I am currently missing out on.

Really torn on whether or not I should formally advise the BBC I do not need a licence or just carry on not paying and getting letters every couple of weeks.....

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

I agree there's a lot of stuff that's worthwhile on the bbc and personally I just don't take their politics coverage seriously, but I understand the myriad of reasons people are done with it. The thing is it's gone anyway, between the Tories and the rise of streaming services it'll be a rump before too long and there's almost no chance of making it better. We'll have a few years of streaming service price wars before Disney owns everything and ten years from now the news at 10 will be Minnie Mouse and Chris Hemsworth. 

I would back a public service broadcaster in an independent Scotland but don't think the bbc/license fee would be the model I'd choose for it