Mr. Jonathan, the BBC political editor apologised for not revealing the scale of the Blair-Brown feuding 10 years after he knew about it. That's hardly speaking truth to power.
Which BBC political editor was that? Surely not the Conservative Nick Robinson? That his critics called him Toenails for being too close to Labour surely tells you that much of the BBC-bashing is politically motivated (and most of the rest is commercially motivated).
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
Goodness me! Journalism's job is to speak truth to power. Sometmes they will annoy them.
I guess you would have preferred Panorama not to have exposed corruption in Fifa, which if I recall really annoyed Cameron at the time.
Well.. "if we win the election" CF J Naughtie esq is hardly balanced is it... people have long memories.
Pretty much all The BBC's output on austerity has been to show how cuts affect people negatively.
Have they done any programmes on how people are now in work contributing to the economy.. If they have please tell me, I cant recall any programmes of that ilk and even if there have been, did they get the same prominence as those nasty Tories type programmes we have seen in the last 5 yrs.
A small part of me does think, given everything, what effect did those programmes actually have?
The effect is to make people think the BBC are anti Tory.
The BBC s output has been pretty dire of late. Apart from the often great history programs, what are we really paying for that I couldn't choose to get via sky , Netflix , Amazon , etc? Coupled with it loss of key sporting events, the license fee is becoming harder and harder to justify. I used to think adverts were a great hindrance, but with catch up you can simply skip these now- what's to stop it reverting to an advertising model?
As viewers increasing skip adverts, the value of those adverts to advertisers, and hence the money they are prepared to pay for them is going to drop. I can't see advertising being a viable way to fund broadcasting in the medium term for this reason.
You must of missed Martin Sorrell's desperate pleas earlier this year to get Netflix to start including adverts in their streams...
From memory the response could be reduced down to 7 letters including 3 f's
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
Goodness me! Journalism's job is to speak truth to power. Sometmes they will annoy them.
I guess you would have preferred Panorama not to have exposed corruption in Fifa, which if I recall really annoyed Cameron at the time.
Well.. "if we win the election" CF J Naughtie esq is hardly balanced is it... people have long memories.
Pretty much all The BBC's output on austerity has been to show how cuts affect people negatively.
Have they done any programmes on how people are now in work contributing to the economy.. If they have please tell me, I cant recall any programmes of that ilk and even if there have been, did they get the same prominence as those nasty Tories type programmes we have seen in the last 5 yrs.
A small part of me does think, given everything, what effect did those programmes actually have?
They reinforced the BBC Groupthink of "How could anybody in their right mind vote Tory?"
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
Or possibly holding "secret" meetings between BBC Directors and the Leader of the Opposition in which the election strategy was discussed, something to do with "weaponizing" as I recall it. As coincidence would have it the BBC then spent the whole Christmas period covering the alleged crisis in our hospitals, which for some reason no other channel was the slightest bit interested in, and which for some equally unfathomable reason didn't mention hospitals in Wales even once.
Mr. Jonathan, the BBC political editor apologised for not revealing the scale of the Blair-Brown feuding 10 years after he knew about it. That's hardly speaking truth to power.
Which BBC political editor was that? Surely not the Conservative Nick Robinson? That his critics called him Toenails for being too close to Labour surely tells you that much of the BBC-bashing is politically motivated (and most of the rest is commercially motivated).
Remind me how many local & national radio stations are run by The BBC. Look at the number of magazines and other brands it owns and promotes as toys downloads. Then consider the TV and web operations with the cross media plugs on radio for Glastonbury etc. It is the dominant presence in news media in the UK. Its power to impact on local and national news coverage is significant.
Mr. L, that's the chap, the one who criticised Cameron's speech (when in opposition) about immigration as meaning most of those denied entry would have 'black and brown faces', and didn't mention the day afterwards that Trevor Phillips praised the speech for deracialising the immigration debate.
Another example of politically poor reporting would be that the price freeze wasn't torn to shreds by a numerate media. It was clearly bonkers, as many of us here commented.
The bias towards the Left has been obvious on the BBC for decades, when I voted Labour 97 onwards, I was rather pleased that the bias favoured my political stance, but knew it came with a price.
I find the complacency/Oh Tories Are Too Sensitive meme very irritating. Claiming Lefties don't like the BBC is laughable. If they really felt like this - we wouldn't have droves of them saying the Tories are imagining things and so keen to support it.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
The BBC s output has been pretty dire of late. Apart from the often great history programs, what are we really paying for that I couldn't choose to get via sky , Netflix , Amazon , etc? Coupled with it loss of key sporting events, the license fee is becoming harder and harder to justify. I used to think adverts were a great hindrance, but with catch up you can simply skip these now- what's to stop it reverting to an advertising model?
As viewers increasing skip adverts, the value of those adverts to advertisers, and hence the money they are prepared to pay for them is going to drop. I can't see advertising being a viable way to fund broadcasting in the medium term for this reason.
As I said product placement is the way forward.
In reply to Nick, the BBC are outrageously biased in regard to the EU (who have donated to them) and climate change. If I am wrong please point me to a programme that seriously questioned either.
Massive dominant state broadcaster funded by a compulsory poll tax backed by the threat of criminalisation that relentlessly propagandises for one particular political party and world view, no I can see no issue with that.
The bias towards the Left has been obvious on the BBC for decades, when I voted Labour 97 onwards, I was rather pleased that the bias favoured my political stance, but knew it came with a price.
I find the complacency/Oh Tories Are Too Sensitive meme very irritating. Claiming Lefties don't like the BBC is laughable. If they really felt like this - we wouldn't have droves of them saying the Tories are imagining things and so keen to support it.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
There is a lefty, liberal slant at the BBC, it's just not as all encompassing or unsubtle as the right insists, and the right has a tendency to pretend, to use your word, that there is no evidence that the left also criticise the BBC, or suggest it is irrelevant. While it does not rise to the level of rightish criticism of the BBC, nor can be ignored, so while it does not mean the BBC is perfectly balanced, it is reasonable to suggest it shows it does get politically focused attacks from both sides - the overreaction, once again, from the right, is insisting because lefties like it more that it is always, overtly lefty as if the argument is over. The BBC makes the effort to be neutral, not always successfully, but it clearly, on most issues, agonises about it and spends an inordinate amount of time justifying it.
As a socially lefty, economic righty sort of person who wanted Cameron to win in 2010 and 2015 (though I wanted a coalition both times), I'm pretty sure I'm not committed enough to be fully 'the left' or 'the right', and to me it seems obvious the BBC does have issues of bias, but it is nowhere near as prevalent as critics pretend.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
This. I'd hate TV News to become like FOX news.
It already is, except Fox is more balanced than the BBC, less dominant and isn't funded by taxpayers.
The bias towards the Left has been obvious on the BBC for decades, when I voted Labour 97 onwards, I was rather pleased that the bias favoured my political stance, but knew it came with a price.
I find the complacency/Oh Tories Are Too Sensitive meme very irritating. Claiming Lefties don't like the BBC is laughable. If they really felt like this - we wouldn't have droves of them saying the Tories are imagining things and so keen to support it.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
If BBC journalists have a primary bias, it's the lack of regard they have for politicians. Humphreys, Neil, Paxman, Dimbleby set a tone of general disdain that percolates through to others.
I think they also have a secondary bias towards big news and interesting personalities. So they can get excited by coverage of big events like 1997 or 2015 and also give compelling personalities like Boris or Blair a different treatment.
Mr. L, that's the chap, the one who criticised Cameron's speech (when in opposition) about immigration as meaning most of those denied entry would have 'black and brown faces', and didn't mention the day afterwards that Trevor Phillips praised the speech for deracialising the immigration debate.
Another example of politically poor reporting would be that the price freeze wasn't torn to shreds by a numerate media. It was clearly bonkers, as many of us here commented.
The chap who so upset Cameron that the Prime Minister tried to recruit him.
Attacking (or not) the price freeze may have been poor reporting but might also perhaps have been seen as neutral. "Labour says this: Tories (not BBC but reported by BBC) claim this is barmy."
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
This. I'd hate TV News to become like FOX news.
It already is, except Fox is more balanced than the BBC.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
This. I'd hate TV News to become like FOX news.
It already is, except Fox is more balanced than the BBC.
Wow. We clearly perceive things in a completely different way, then. I think kle4 has a real point about the way the right see and criticise the BBC.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage... It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
This is not an argument for the BBC. All broadcasters are required by law, and as a condition of their broadcasting licence, to provide neutral coverage (Communications Act 2003, s. 320). This requirement is in fact unjustifiable, since there is no reason why supporters of the Conservative Party, or the Labour Party, as the case may be, should be prohibited from watching a broadcaster supportive of their views. Furthermore, repealing these authoritarian provisions would not prevent a company offering "neutral" coverage, provided sufficient persons were prepared to pay for it. The mere fact you dislike coverage in the newspapers is no reason for banning by law individuals from being able to choose the nature of the content they watch on television.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
The trouble with testing the BBC with a commercial test and opening up to subscription only is that programmes would be made that solely focused on being popular and attracting viewers. Many, if not most, would be copy-cat versions of other successful programmes that the beeb has already made or are on other channels. Choice and innovation would be hammered IMHO.
No one would force you to watch a channel with content akin to Fox News, were such broadcasting legal in this jurisdiction, if you didn't want to. The question is whether you should be able to prevent others watching such a channel.
Mr. Jonathan, the BBC political editor apologised for not revealing the scale of the Blair-Brown feuding 10 years after he knew about it. That's hardly speaking truth to power.
Which BBC political editor was that? Surely not the Conservative Nick Robinson? That his critics called him Toenails for being too close to Labour surely tells you that much of the BBC-bashing is politically motivated (and most of the rest is commercially motivated).
But he cant be a Tory, Robinson says he isn't.
Firstly, I believe Robinson was a former leader of the Young Conservatives, so unless he's changed in middle age, he's hardly a marxist. Secondly, professional journalists are quite capable of reporting the news without their own personal biases coming to play.
Mr. Borough, maybe they wouldn't've let go their most successful sports coverage if they didn't have guaranteed income, and spent £20-30m on the concept of The Voice at the same time.
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
The trouble with testing the BBC with a commercial test and opening up to subscription only is that programmes would be made that solely focused on being popular and attracting viewers. Many, if not most, would be copy-cat versions of other successful programmes that the beeb has already made or are on other channels. Choice and innovation would be hammered IMHO.
That has already happened, which is why a lot of people who are not politics fanatics are dissatisfied with the BBC. Much BBC programming now comes from independent production companies whose first response to any mildly popular programme is to pitch its own "me too" variant: so Masterchef begets Bakeoff and so on, and we end up with wall-to-wall cooking and antiques game shows, lots of panel games, and so on.
Mr. Borough, maybe they wouldn't've let go their most successful sports coverage if they didn't have guaranteed income, and spent £20-30m on the concept of The Voice at the same time.
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
The BBC s output has been pretty dire of late. Apart from the often great history programs, what are we really paying for that I couldn't choose to get via sky , Netflix , Amazon , etc? Coupled with it loss of key sporting events, the license fee is becoming harder and harder to justify. I used to think adverts were a great hindrance, but with catch up you can simply skip these now- what's to stop it reverting to an advertising model?
Dire? Hardly. OK, so not every program on Beebs 1 through 3 are gold-standard, but there have been plenty of top quality shows produced.
My problem with the BBC is that they continue to make populist eye-candy type stuff that is already catered for on other commercial channels.
The BBC new website is also very disappointing. There are lots of good news sources and stories hidden in there, but you have to dig to find them and far too many video pieces! I just want the text damn it! Guardian and Telegraph sites are better. Used to like the Times site but wasn't using it enough to justify the subs.
Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.
Watching Australian, NZ or US TV is pretty mind numbing.
Once again the Tories are going to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.
It's always been a mystery to me how people can sit still long enough to watch TV. Can't they hear the clock ticking? But the Beeb's library of (often live) radio sound recording, especially music, is stupendous and unique. I would happily pay for a radio licence, at least as long as the decent fidelity of VHF FM continues.
I don't watch much telly, but BBC Radio is often on. I tend to watch Newsnight or Channel 4 news as they do issues in depth, and a few documentaries, but wouldn't miss it much.
It is going to be obselete soon in anycase, license fee or not, as view on demand is getting so easy and widespread.
Mr. Borough, maybe they wouldn't've let go their most successful sports coverage if they didn't have guaranteed income, and spent £20-30m on the concept of The Voice at the same time.
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
You shouldn't be neutral over everything. Some things such as evolution and climate change.are pretty much proven.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage (2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
This. I'd hate TV News to become like FOX news.
But it's not as black and white as that on Fox. Just about all the *news* shows are influenced by the subject choices in the opinion shows, see Megan Kelly's obsession with the new black panther party and wall to wall Benghazi coverage. Shepard Smith being a notable exception.
MSNBC is largely left wing, apart from its morning show which is presented by a former GOP congressman.
CNN is only left wing if you believe Fox is 'Fair and Balanced'.
The BBC needs to shrink back into about 3 TV channels and 3 radio programmes. It could put children's programmes back into one of these channels and broadcast at the right times and so get rid of the day-time repeats. It can run a news/parliament channel during the day.
Why not go back to being excellent at a few rather than spreading the effort over many, then it would not lose national sporting events to the PTV networks.
This is not an argument for the BBC. All broadcasters are required by law, and as a condition of their broadcasting licence, to provide neutral coverage (Communications Act 2003, s. 320). This requirement is in fact unjustifiable, since there is no reason why supporters of the Conservative Party, or the Labour Party, as the case may be, should be prohibited from watching a broadcaster supportive of their views. Furthermore, repealing these authoritarian provisions would not prevent a company offering "neutral" coverage, provided sufficient persons were prepared to pay for it. The mere fact you dislike coverage in the newspapers is no reason for banning by law individuals from being able to choose the nature of the content they watch on television.
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most. I disagree with the second point. It seems to me clearly in the public interest that broadcasters are required to attempt to be neutral. Otherwise, as with the press, we get a bias to (a) owners with so much money that they're willing to buy influence at a loss and (b) channels appealing to wealthier people (because they produce more adverts). (b) is why the Times flourished while the Herald folded (into the Sun), even though the Herald easily outsold the Times.
I've up to now (today) deliberately avoided getting into the argument about whether the BBC are in fact biased. My personal view is like Jonathan's - they are anti-politician and needlessly cynical, as well as having a bias to big events (and to "big stories", even if the facts don't altogether support them). They're a bit crap at giving a hearing to grass-roots dissidents, especially uncomfortable ones (e.g. we don't see many programmes on why some people are rscists, or why some like ISIS, but both would be illuminating), and conversely I think they don't give a fair run to politicians who are making genuine efforts to solve difficult issues (e.g. a neutral analysis of the pros and cons of Universal Credit would be helpful). But all these things are questions of policy application rather than policy - the policy should remain that all broadcasters should be required to attempt to be neutral.
Mr. Song, evolution has a mountain of evidence. Climate change does too, but the man-made aspect is something that's wide open to doubt (especially as the true believers have had their medium term forecasts shown to be a crock time and again. Snow a rarity, shortly before the two worst winters in a century, and the IPCC getting its forecasts entirely wrong then increasing their confidence in their own predictions to 95% stand out as false prophets).
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
Or possibly holding "secret" meetings between BBC Directors and the Leader of the Opposition in which the election strategy was discussed, something to do with "weaponizing" as I recall it. As coincidence would have it the BBC then spent the whole Christmas period covering the alleged crisis in our hospitals, which for some reason no other channel was the slightest bit interested in, and which for some equally unfathomable reason didn't mention hospitals in Wales even once.
The BBC solution is easy. Privatise BBC 1 and Radio 1. Neither of these channels needs to be owned publicly so get them into the private sector. Shrink the TV licence.
Mr. Jonathan, the BBC political editor apologised for not revealing the scale of the Blair-Brown feuding 10 years after he knew about it. That's hardly speaking truth to power.
Which BBC political editor was that? Surely not the Conservative Nick Robinson? That his critics called him Toenails for being too close to Labour surely tells you that much of the BBC-bashing is politically motivated (and most of the rest is commercially motivated).
But he cant be a Tory, Robinson says he isn't.
Firstly, I believe Robinson was a former leader of the Young Conservatives, so unless he's changed in middle age, he's hardly a marxist. Secondly, professional journalists are quite capable of reporting the news without their own personal biases coming to play.
Ed Balls was a Conservative in his youth. Hardly a Marxist, admittedly - but evidence that leopards do change their spots. He has managed to convey with some constancy that he is no longer a Tory.
The bias towards the Left has been obvious on the BBC for decades, when I voted Labour 97 onwards, I was rather pleased that the bias favoured my political stance, but knew it came with a price.
I find the complacency/Oh Tories Are Too Sensitive meme very irritating. Claiming Lefties don't like the BBC is laughable. If they really felt like this - we wouldn't have droves of them saying the Tories are imagining things and so keen to support it.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
Given you do not watch the BBC or listen to its radio programmes, how can you possibly know whether it is biased or not?
The BBC solution is easy. Privatise BBC 1 and Radio 1. Neither of these channels needs to be owned publicly so get them into the private sector. Shrink the TV licence.
BBC1's audience share is significantly higher than ITV, because of the quality of the programmes and the freedom from endless adverts/sponsorship ect. BBC1 is popular because it isn't privatized.
Mr. Borough, maybe they wouldn't've let go their most successful sports coverage if they didn't have guaranteed income, and spent £20-30m on the concept of The Voice at the same time.
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
You shouldn't be neutral over everything. Some things such as evolution and climate change.are pretty much proven.
You are going to get yourself in trouble with creationists
Climate change might (arguably) be proven, that man makes is significant difference to it, much less so, that man can do anything about it, even less so, that doing any about it compared to mitigating the effects is the right choice, even less so still.... And yet the BBC has only one unquestioning view on all of this, and the key word here is "unquestioning".
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
My view is that the BBC should not have to report the news in the way that the Tories approve for it to be considered unbiased. We will just have to disagree on that.
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most. I disagree with the second point. It seems to me clearly in the public interest that broadcasters are required to attempt to be neutral. Otherwise, as with the press, we get a bias to (a) owners with so much money that they're willing to buy influence at a loss and (b) channels appealing to wealthier people (because they produce more adverts). (b) is why the Times flourished while the Herald folded (into the Sun), even though the Herald easily outsold the Times.
I've up to now (today) deliberately avoided getting into the argument about whether the BBC are in fact biased. My personal view is like Jonathan's - they are anti-politician and needlessly cynical, as well as having a bias to big events (and to "big stories", even if the facts don't altogether support them). They're a bit crap at giving a hearing to grass-roots dissidents, especially uncomfortable ones (e.g. we don't see many programmes on why some people are rscists, or why some like ISIS, but both would be illuminating), and conversely I think they don't give a fair run to politicians who are making genuine efforts to solve difficult issues (e.g. a neutral analysis of the pros and cons of Universal Credit would be helpful). But all these things are questions of policy application rather than policy - the policy should remain that all broadcasters should be required to attempt to be neutral.
Broadcasters are not merely required to attempt to be impartial. They are required to be impartial. One only need to state the requirement to see how bizarre it is, since there is no way one can formulate objective standards of impartiality, or judge whether a broadcaster complies with them. The result is that broadcasters' agenda are disguised or hidden, rather than being expressly stated, and that regulation necessarily assumes a political character. Interestingly, the principle is not absolute, since broadcasters are not required to be impartial about broadcasting. Thus they can attack government policy on broadcasting with which they disagree, while giving no coverage to opposing views.
If your arguments really held, there is no doubt that the state ought to impose similar impartiality requirements on newspapers or publishers on the internet, such as this website. That would rightly be seen as patently authoritarian, since it is not for the government in a free society to dictate the content or form of political views which individuals can impart or receive. So what if a person wants to fund a television channel to promote their influence at a loss? No one is forced to watch it, and it is always open to others to set up channels with better content to attract viewers.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
My view is that the BBC should not have to report the news in the way that the Tories approve for it to be considered unbiased. We will just have to disagree on that.
I may be wrong, but between the BBC’s John Humphrys and Nick Robinson, haven’t they both recently apologised long after the event for failing to report the decade long hostility between Blair and Brown, mass immigration not reported for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ and not being sufficiently sceptical about the EU (Lisbon treaty)?
That basically equates to a failure to hold Labour to account on some major issues for a decade.
Why are the Greeks delaying? Is Syriza disagreeing among themselves? Or they still hoping for a EZ climbdown or having won rhe referendum are they fearing rioting on the streets? Or are they (like so many politicians) just afraid of facing the truth?
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most.
I watch as much Sky News as I do BBC News, and I reckon - if anything - Sky News has a slight left wing bias. I base that on the journos doing the paper reviews - but it might be that the left leaning journos are more vociferous in giving their views that their right leaning counterparts. Also - note Sky News' campaign to get youngsters to vote - it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if Sky is overcompensating out of fear of being accused of being right wing.
Off topic - read a short article in the Metro yesterday about the personal toll investigating CSE had taken on Simon Danczuk.
Sounds like it has been very tough on him, and I hope he's getting himself the neccesary support to overcome his issues. And well done to him for having a go at trying to root out this evil in our country !
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
My view is that the BBC should not have to report the news in the way that the Tories approve for it to be considered unbiased. We will just have to disagree on that.
I'd argue for the BBC to be considered unbiased, that in a polar argument both sides should feel equally aggrieved (or neither). If one side feels more aggrieved than the other then the inference is that either the reporting is balanced but one side is clearly wrong, or that the reporting is biased.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
My view is that the BBC should not have to report the news in the way that the Tories approve for it to be considered unbiased. We will just have to disagree on that.
Us Tories would happily approve of news reported objectively by the Beeb. Even if that is painful or embarrassing or hurts our re-election prospects.
The problem is when current affairs comes so obviously pre-loaded with the Beeb's own subjective agenda.
Why are the Greeks delaying? Is Syriza disagreeing among themselves? Or they still hoping for a EZ climbdown or having won rhe referendum are they fearing rioting on the streets? Or are they (like so many politicians) just afraid of facing the truth?
If you believe AEP (who has had a bad crisis), it is because Tsipiras had expected to lose the referendum, and therefore didn't have a Plan A.
The free tv licence wheeze by Gordon Brown was one of the most stupid of all of his wheezes. Bus passes you can justify as it assists old people in living an independent life, winter fuel payments to make sure they don't freeze to death, but a free tv licence has no societal benefits and the wording allows anybody with one person over 75 to have the whole household watch tv on the free.
It would have been one of the first things I would have scraped in 2010.
But then I wouldn't have the tv licence fee in its current form either. It is outdated and unenforceable, even with this proposed tinkering of making people have a licence for iplayer. It is like the early days of music streaming all over again, with the big labels desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. The pirates already put out tv programs faster than they appear on iPlayer and in higher quality.
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most.
I watch as much Sky News as I do BBC News, and I reckon - if anything - Sky News has a slight left wing bias. I base that on the journos doing the paper reviews - but it might be that the left leaning journos are more vociferous in giving their views that their right leaning counterparts. Also - note Sky News' campaign to get youngsters to vote - it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if Sky is overcompensating out of fear of being accused of being right wing.
I think Sky News tries to be absolubtely stone cold centre line. It's a News channel I struggle to see any bias in, with Radio 4 (in particular) on the BBC being very lefty indeed. The print media tends towards a centre-right tinge. Sky News is in the middle !
As I say I have Sky News as being centre/neutral but that may be my own personal bias.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese
I'd be a bit more impressed at the sincerity of their global outreach efforts if their entire expensively-produced online TV output wasn't deliberately closed off to everyone in the world without a British IP address. You can't even pay for it FFS.
Global rights are expensive, both in themselves and in this complexity of the negotiations. IPlayer whilst a technical product is also a legal rights product, essentially an extension of terrestrial TV rights.
To go truly global would require BBC one etc to be commissioned globally from the get go. Maybe that should happen, but its not cheap or trivial to do.
For some programs maybe, but what does it cost to get the global rights to your own footage of a Labour leadership hustings? What are they going to do, get in a bidding war with CSPAN?
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most.
I watch as much Sky News as I do BBC News, and I reckon - if anything - Sky News has a slight left wing bias. I base that on the journos doing the paper reviews - but it might be that the left leaning journos are more vociferous in giving their views that their right leaning counterparts. Also - note Sky News' campaign to get youngsters to vote - it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if Sky is overcompensating out of fear of being accused of being right wing.
I watch both and both seem pretty similar to me. Sky is more immediate and slightly less cautious, but the angles taken and the stories chosen are basically the same.
Why are the Greeks delaying? Is Syriza disagreeing among themselves? Or they still hoping for a EZ climbdown or having won rhe referendum are they fearing rioting on the streets? Or are they (like so many politicians) just afraid of facing the truth?
If you believe AEP (who has had a bad crisis), it is because Tsipiras had expected to lose the referendum, and therefore didn't have a Plan A.
I think Occam's Razor in this case is that they didn't have the faintest idea WTF they were going to do in either case, and they were just trying to work out a way to get through the week.
I find Sky a little leftish at times - but it's a tiny % and based on inclinations of Faisal et al who are well known for their own politics. Adam Boulton isn't exactly a Tory either, but doesn't bring it into the studio.
Conversely, I'd say Andrew Neil is the only Toryish leaner on the BBC, but it's only noticeable *because* he challenges the Left more vigorously than almost all of the rest put together.
Paul Mason is the best example of someone with very strong views who doesn't let them bleed over much at all. I don't mind a bit of bias - it's natural, but I do object to group-think prisms that colour output in the way the BBC does.
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most.
I watch as much Sky News as I do BBC News, and I reckon - if anything - Sky News has a slight left wing bias. I base that on the journos doing the paper reviews - but it might be that the left leaning journos are more vociferous in giving their views that their right leaning counterparts. Also - note Sky News' campaign to get youngsters to vote - it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if Sky is overcompensating out of fear of being accused of being right wing.
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most.
I watch as much Sky News as I do BBC News, and I reckon - if anything - Sky News has a slight left wing bias. I base that on the journos doing the paper reviews - but it might be that the left leaning journos are more vociferous in giving their views that their right leaning counterparts. Also - note Sky News' campaign to get youngsters to vote - it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if Sky is overcompensating out of fear of being accused of being right wing.
I think Sky News tries to be absolubtely stone cold centre line. It's a News channel I struggle to see any bias in, with Radio 4 (in particular) on the BBC being very lefty indeed. The print media tends towards a centre-right tinge. Sky News is in the middle !
As I say I have Sky News as being centre/neutral but that may be my own personal bias.
Print media centre right i think you jest. There is nothing centre about the bias at GE2015
The free tv licence wheeze by Gordon Brown was one of the most stupid of all of his wheezes. Bus passes you can justify as it assists old people in living an independent life, winter fuel payments to make sure they don't freeze to death, but a free tv licence has no societal benefits and the wording allows anybody with one person over 75 to have the whole household watch tv on the free.
It would have been one of the first things I would have scraped in 2010.
But then I wouldn't have the tv licence fee in its current form either. It is outdated and unenforceable, even with this proposed tinkering of making people have a licence for iplayer. It is like the early days of music streaming all over again, with the big labels desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. The pirates already put out tv programs faster than they appear on iPlayer and in higher quality.
Science can be tricky to cover for journos/broadcasters. Avoiding the whole global warming hot potato, the issue of vaccines was an area where the need for 'balance' in covering Andrew Wakefield/ MMR probably worried some parents into not getting the MMR jab.
Off topic/Betting: Overcast conditions in the Test for the first 2 days have made my initial punt to be to lay the draw to £50 liability @ 3.8.
I take your first point, though it seems to me subjectively that the BBC takes this mandate a bit more seriously than most.
I watch as much Sky News as I do BBC News, and I reckon - if anything - Sky News has a slight left wing bias. I base that on the journos doing the paper reviews - but it might be that the left leaning journos are more vociferous in giving their views that their right leaning counterparts. Also - note Sky News' campaign to get youngsters to vote - it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if Sky is overcompensating out of fear of being accused of being right wing.
I think Sky News tries to be absolubtely stone cold centre line. It's a News channel I struggle to see any bias in, with Radio 4 (in particular) on the BBC being very lefty indeed. The print media tends towards a centre-right tinge. Sky News is in the middle !
As I say I have Sky News as being centre/neutral but that may be my own personal bias.
Print media centre right i think you jest. There is nothing centre about the bias at GE2015
OT _ can see no reason to give a free licence to anyone. However, I also think broadcasting, like the rest of the media should be free from central control with it's funding determined by the market. Everyone keeps saying the BBC is good - let's see that hypothesis tested by the market. Having seen other broadcasters I personally think it is like our revered NHS - no longer [if it ever was] - primus inter pares.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
My view is that the BBC should not have to report the news in the way that the Tories approve for it to be considered unbiased. We will just have to disagree on that.
I may be wrong, but between the BBC’s John Humphrys and Nick Robinson, haven’t they both recently apologised long after the event for failing to report the decade long hostility between Blair and Brown, mass immigration not reported for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ and not being sufficiently sceptical about the EU (Lisbon treaty)?
That basically equates to a failure to hold Labour to account on some major issues for a decade.
Reporting the news in an unbiased manner surely has sod all connection with "holding Labour to account". On the examples you give, Blair/Brown was reported but frankly is unremarkable given the long history of antagonism between Numbers 10 and 11 under both parties, and between other politicians ostensibly on the same side. Likewise the BBC did report the various controversies around Lisbon but how does "not being sufficiently sceptical" tie in with a statutory requirement for neutrality?
Why are the Greeks delaying? Is Syriza disagreeing among themselves? Or they still hoping for a EZ climbdown or having won rhe referendum are they fearing rioting on the streets? Or are they (like so many politicians) just afraid of facing the truth?
Erm...they have until Sunday to come up with a proposal that potential lenders can accept. But the Greek people have just overwhelmingly voted for the Greek government NOT to come up with a deal potential lenders can accept. So the real world choice is Greece becomes an out-and-out EU puppet with zero independent control of their finances (which is of course precisely what the Brussels machine wants) or we get Grexit. Either outcome is going to outrage the Greek electorate - who just emphatically and with all the political maturity of Justin Bieber at a coke'n'hookers party just voted for jam forever paid for by the other guys. What a complete and utter fucking mess.
Given how many welfare benefits are being protected for pensioners ending free TV licenses for those who live with younger relatives who can pay for them seems entirely sensible.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.
Interesting justification for bias by the Beeb. "If it winds up the Tories, it does no harm..."
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
My view is that the BBC should not have to report the news in the way that the Tories approve for it to be considered unbiased. We will just have to disagree on that.
I may be wrong, but between the BBC’s John Humphrys and Nick Robinson, haven’t they both recently apologised long after the event for failing to report the decade long hostility between Blair and Brown, mass immigration not reported for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ and not being sufficiently sceptical about the EU (Lisbon treaty)?
That basically equates to a failure to hold Labour to account on some major issues for a decade.
Reporting the news in an unbiased manner surely has sod all connection with "holding Labour to account".
I think Humphrys and Robinson's point regarding in fighting and immigration was that they didn’t report it at all.
Why are the Greeks delaying? Is Syriza disagreeing among themselves? Or they still hoping for a EZ climbdown or having won rhe referendum are they fearing rioting on the streets? Or are they (like so many politicians) just afraid of facing the truth?
Erm...they have until Sunday to come up with a proposal that potential lenders can accept. But the Greek people have just overwhelmingly voted for the Greek government NOT to come up with a deal potential lenders can accept. So the real world choice is Greece becomes an out-and-out EU puppet with zero independent control of their finances (which is of course precisely what the Brussels machine wants) or we get Grexit. Either outcome is going to outrage the Greek electorate - who just emphatically and with all the political maturity of Justin Bieber at a coke'n'hookers party just voted for jam forever paid for by the other guys. What a complete and utter fucking mess.
Can we leave yet?
When the French and Germans voted for "socialising the fallout from their banks lousy commercial decisions and dumping the cost on the Greeks an ultimately the EU tax payer" who can blame them.
Simplest solution for the BBC is to privatise the whole thing. If people want the BBC's products let them pay for it - either through advertising or subscription. Especially when the vast, vast bulk of the BBC has nothing whatsoever to public service broadcasting.
@DanHannanMEP: The only sober speech comes from @ecrgroup's Ryszard Legutko. "Whom do we want to save? Greece, the EU, creditors? We can't save them all."
A lot of Europhiles seriously divided. Messrs Weber & Verhofstadt shouting at the elected Greek Prime Minister about how he should be running his own country. Others claiming Grexit is unthinkable. All agreed that the answer to all life's problems is more integration. Farcical scenes.
But then I wouldn't have the tv licence fee in its current form either. It is outdated and unenforceable, even with this proposed tinkering of making people have a licence for iplayer. It is like the early days of music streaming all over again, with the big labels desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. The pirates already put out tv programs faster than they appear on iPlayer and in higher quality.
The piracy thing is interesting. One important difference between American and British telly is that Americans generally show episodes of drama series as they make them, whereas in Britain the practice is first to record an entire series and only then start showing it. This can create a demand for American series before the European channels have bought them and before they are commercially available on DVD.
One thing people aren't mentioning about the slowed pace of cuts is that this is likely in the long tradition of governments being cyclical with the economy before an election. Historically, it was done with monetary policy, but now central banks have independence, they've focused on fiscal policy instead.
The only difference here is that it's the European Union referendum rather than a general election.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
I don't think the BBC intends to be party political. But they have been captured by a metropolitan group-think (which tends to be soft left) and means that certain shibboleths go unquestioned. Hence I think that they are benchmarking "impartial" to the wrong thing - and that they also make the mistake, e.g., with ISIL that "impartial" doesn't mean that the wicked should be treated equally: just that they should be treated fairly
(2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
I'd tend to agree with that. News, and certain other programmes (e.g. regional) clearly have a public service remit, so there is a case for some central funding. But there's no reason why the BBC should get all of it - I think a public commissioning body that all sorts of small production firms could pitch ideas to would be much more effective
Simplest solution for the BBC is to privatise the whole thing. If people want the BBC's products let them pay for it - either through advertising or subscription. Especially when the vast, vast bulk of the BBC has nothing whatsoever to public service broadcasting.
There's a lot to like about the BBC, but I have increasingly lost patience with them in the last twelve months. There was an article on the website today referring to the project as "the European dream", and also stated the EU "achieved peace in Europe" as an objective fact. No mention of NATO, the establishment of Germany and Austria as democratic republic or the United Nations. European peace definitely comes from the EU, according to the Beeb. If they are not even going to attempt to be impartial than they can be a private organisation rather than a public broadcaster.
But then I wouldn't have the tv licence fee in its current form either. It is outdated and unenforceable, even with this proposed tinkering of making people have a licence for iplayer. It is like the early days of music streaming all over again, with the big labels desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. The pirates already put out tv programs faster than they appear on iPlayer and in higher quality.
The piracy thing is interesting. One important difference between American and British telly is that Americans generally show episodes of drama series as they make them, whereas in Britain the practice is first to record an entire series and only then start showing it. This can create a demand for American series before the European channels have bought them and before they are commercially available on DVD.
You are being very naive if you think it is just Poldark or whatever that is getting pirated. They pirate Homes Under The Hammer in HD, I kid you not.
But then I wouldn't have the tv licence fee in its current form either. It is outdated and unenforceable, even with this proposed tinkering of making people have a licence for iplayer. It is like the early days of music streaming all over again, with the big labels desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. The pirates already put out tv programs faster than they appear on iPlayer and in higher quality.
The piracy thing is interesting. One important difference between American and British telly is that Americans generally show episodes of drama series as they make them, whereas in Britain the practice is first to record an entire series and only then start showing it. This can create a demand for American series before the European channels have bought them and before they are commercially available on DVD.
You are being very naive if you think it is just Poldark or whatever that is getting pirated. They pirate Homes Under The Hammer in HD, I kid you not.
@DanHannanMEP: The only sober speech comes from @ecrgroup's Ryszard Legutko. "Whom do we want to save? Greece, the EU, creditors? We can't save them all."
I think Francois Hollande let the cat out of the bag yesterday – the Euro comes first.
The FT has some of the Tsipiras speech: "I am not a politician who claims that those responsible... are wicked foreigners. Greece has got to [the] verge of bankruptcy because governments of Greece have created clientilism, strengthened corruption, nurtured a nexus between political and economic power. They have allowed tax evasion to run riot and it's now rife.
I have been given a mandate to redouble efforts to get a socially just solution without the mistakes of the past.
I fully assume responsibility for what has happened in last five and a half months, but we must recognise that the basic responsibility for the impasse we find ourselves in don't just concern the last five and a half months, but also the last five and a half years."
In the budget, I expect GO to widen the gap between the income being received by those who are employed and those on benefits - this has to be a key part of the budget to improve productivity.
How does making work pay help productivity? One of the main reasons that our productivity record is so ordinary is that we have been far more successful than most in bringing marginal employees into the market by making work pay. It has been a success but it has reduced average productivity, not increased it.
Are you defining the productivity of the whole nation or just of those in work?
Comments
I don't mind being shown clips of things I may like based on my viewing prefs.
Alternatively, it deliberately obfuscates the truth.
Another example of politically poor reporting would be that the price freeze wasn't torn to shreds by a numerate media. It was clearly bonkers, as many of us here commented.
I find the complacency/Oh Tories Are Too Sensitive meme very irritating. Claiming Lefties don't like the BBC is laughable. If they really felt like this - we wouldn't have droves of them saying the Tories are imagining things and so keen to support it.
(1) whether it's desirable to have a broadcaster which purportedly attempts to provide neutral coverage
(2) whether the BBC is a valuable asset for other reasons.
It seems to me that (1) is clearly true, if it succeeds. The print media show the seriously crap alternative - a bunch of biased papers pushing the agenda dictated by a small group of owners by selective coverage and slanted headlines. We can argue about whether the BBC fails and we all get annoyed by it at times, but tackling perceived bias is a different thing from undermining the body itself. Supporting neutral news coverage seems to me clearly in the public interest and ought to continue, whether by the licence fee or other means, If the we think it's biased, put in more independent governors.
(2) is more debatable and more readily subject to commercial testing. I'd be OK with a freed non-news BBC encouraged to fight ruthlessly for commercial success worldwide on a subscription basis. Persoinally I virtually never watch ITV, Sky, etc. because I hate commercial breaks and would happily pay a BBC sub to avoid them, but that's a matter of taste and the market could reasonably decide.
In reply to Nick, the BBC are outrageously biased in regard to the EU (who have donated to them) and climate change. If I am wrong please point me to a programme that seriously questioned either.
As a socially lefty, economic righty sort of person who wanted Cameron to win in 2010 and 2015 (though I wanted a coalition both times), I'm pretty sure I'm not committed enough to be fully 'the left' or 'the right', and to me it seems obvious the BBC does have issues of bias, but it is nowhere near as prevalent as critics pretend.
A pleasant day to all.
I think they also have a secondary bias towards big news and interesting personalities. So they can get excited by coverage of big events like 1997 or 2015 and also give compelling personalities like Boris or Blair a different treatment.
Attacking (or not) the price freeze may have been poor reporting but might also perhaps have been seen as neutral. "Labour says this: Tories (not BBC but reported by BBC) claim this is barmy."
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
They never mention MSNBC, CNN et al who are similarly Leftish bias. Fox have more eyeballs than everyone else put together IIRC.
There's a reason for that.
Dire? Hardly.
OK, so not every program on Beebs 1 through 3 are gold-standard, but there have been plenty of top quality shows produced.
My problem with the BBC is that they continue to make populist eye-candy type stuff that is already catered for on other commercial channels.
The BBC new website is also very disappointing. There are lots of good news sources and stories hidden in there, but you have to dig to find them and far too many video pieces! I just want the text damn it! Guardian and Telegraph sites are better. Used to like the Times site but wasn't using it enough to justify the subs.
It is going to be obselete soon in anycase, license fee or not, as view on demand is getting so easy and widespread.
MSNBC is largely left wing, apart from its morning show which is presented by a former GOP congressman.
CNN is only left wing if you believe Fox is 'Fair and Balanced'.
Why not go back to being excellent at a few rather than spreading the effort over many, then it would not lose national sporting events to the PTV networks.
I've up to now (today) deliberately avoided getting into the argument about whether the BBC are in fact biased. My personal view is like Jonathan's - they are anti-politician and needlessly cynical, as well as having a bias to big events (and to "big stories", even if the facts don't altogether support them). They're a bit crap at giving a hearing to grass-roots dissidents, especially uncomfortable ones (e.g. we don't see many programmes on why some people are rscists, or why some like ISIS, but both would be illuminating), and conversely I think they don't give a fair run to politicians who are making genuine efforts to solve difficult issues (e.g. a neutral analysis of the pros and cons of Universal Credit would be helpful). But all these things are questions of policy application rather than policy - the policy should remain that all broadcasters should be required to attempt to be neutral.
Miliband tried to hire him before the election
Climate change might (arguably) be proven, that man makes is significant difference to it, much less so, that man can do anything about it, even less so, that doing any about it compared to mitigating the effects is the right choice, even less so still.... And yet the BBC has only one unquestioning view on all of this, and the key word here is "unquestioning".
If your arguments really held, there is no doubt that the state ought to impose similar impartiality requirements on newspapers or publishers on the internet, such as this website. That would rightly be seen as patently authoritarian, since it is not for the government in a free society to dictate the content or form of political views which individuals can impart or receive. So what if a person wants to fund a television channel to promote their influence at a loss? No one is forced to watch it, and it is always open to others to set up channels with better content to attract viewers.
That basically equates to a failure to hold Labour to account on some major issues for a decade.
Sounds like it has been very tough on him, and I hope he's getting himself the neccesary support to overcome his issues. And well done to him for having a go at trying to root out this evil in our country !
The problem is when current affairs comes so obviously pre-loaded with the Beeb's own subjective agenda.
Mr. Financier, the suggestion is a deal will happen, or not, on Sunday, but surely that's too late?
It would have been one of the first things I would have scraped in 2010.
But then I wouldn't have the tv licence fee in its current form either. It is outdated and unenforceable, even with this proposed tinkering of making people have a licence for iplayer. It is like the early days of music streaming all over again, with the big labels desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. The pirates already put out tv programs faster than they appear on iPlayer and in higher quality.
As I say I have Sky News as being centre/neutral but that may be my own personal bias.
Stan James have Australia 2.05 to win toss!
Conversely, I'd say Andrew Neil is the only Toryish leaner on the BBC, but it's only noticeable *because* he challenges the Left more vigorously than almost all of the rest put together.
Paul Mason is the best example of someone with very strong views who doesn't let them bleed over much at all. I don't mind a bit of bias - it's natural, but I do object to group-think prisms that colour output in the way the BBC does.
Off topic/Betting: Overcast conditions in the Test for the first 2 days have made my initial punt to be to lay the draw to £50 liability @ 3.8.
Put as much on as you can.
The bet simply by definition is value.
Can we leave yet?
O/T Paul Goodman on conservativehome has an article this morning 'Osborne's Sunday Trading policy is an anti-family plan'
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/07/osbornes-sunday-trading-policy-is-an-anti-family-plan.html
I think Humphrys and Robinson's point regarding in fighting and immigration was that they didn’t report it at all.
They're drunks calling for whisky to stave off the hangover. It'll work, until their livers give way.
The only difference here is that it's the European Union referendum rather than a general election.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
I have been given a mandate to redouble efforts to get a socially just solution without the mistakes of the past.
I fully assume responsibility for what has happened in last five and a half months, but we must recognise that the basic responsibility for the impasse we find ourselves in don't just concern the last five and a half months, but also the last five and a half years."