Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
The example I gave further up gave one of her supporters, unqualified as well, a good 5 minutes of unquestioned microphone time. When did that happen to someone spouting left wing policies without qualification?
How bent are the Beeb?
- Thread starter BlindBoyGrunt
- Start date
Randy
Well-known member
Extreme levels?
Explain?
I don't pay the license because of any politically motivated reasons. I don't agree with the concept of the license as it is now. Before somebody comes in and says "well I pay for schools but I don't have any children" it's not the same thing.
I've mentioned previously the tv license is a mostly European model. Americans do not pay a TV license for example and it could be argued they have a lot more choice when it comes to TV programming and radio programming than anywhere else in the developed world. The only other countries outside of Europe where a TV license exist are Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Namibia, South Africa, Ghana and Mauritius. Uganda tried to bring it in in 2005 but ultimately asked private TV companies to fund public service television instead.
I'd be in favour of the TV licence been soaked into general taxes (like it is in Finland for example) and also funded by private companies such as Sky, Channel 4, ITV, UKTV etc.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
There's been a big drift to the right over the last few years. Appointments at governor level as well as in the political department have seen to that.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
The national broadcaster should be publicly owned. The news and current affairs programmes shouldn't come under pressure from sponsors in the way that they do in USA for example
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Ok. But that party is currently on course to receive its biggest defeat in a GE for over 25 over years. I think calling it propaganda is a bridge too far when all the evidence presented by both sides suggests it is fighting hard for both parties to win votes. This “shift” doesn’t seem to be doing the Tories any good at present.
I really don’t see any tangible evidence that it holistically impacts voting habits in the UK overall. I don’t disagree that there are examples of particular individuals making mistakes and/or letting their human traits creep into coverage (for which they are usually condemned). But as a collective, as an organisation, it will never be abolished while there’s so much disagreement about what is actually wrong with it. As I say, you’d be better of all clubbing together on the subject, pick a horse and all back it, if you want rid of it (or even just major reform).
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Oh mate I can’t give specific examples, but you don’t have to look hard on social media to find examples every bit as condemning as yours, from the other side. There are websites and Twitter accounts etc literally dedicated to it.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
I wasn’t specifically talking about your own motives Randy, which you didn’t really specify. I was mainly talking about those who vehemently claim it is overly biased towards the Left or Right. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Oh, just a bit!
Towards the end of the Thatcher premiership I think it's fair to say that the broadcast media. peopled as it was by those with a left-liberal (i.e. developed, intelligent) worldview, weighed in against a worldview it say as corrupted and malign; this was probably exemplified by Channel 4 News.
This perceived bias certainly became a running sore for those of a right-wing bent, whose basic attitude became, 'What's the point of owning the Press when the TV stations undermine all our 'good' work?' Now I'm no conspiracy theorist but I do think there is a degree of circumstantial evidence of systematic entryism (probably originating among Cameron's Notting Hill set) into the BBC via historic Tory-supporting broadcasters - Robbie Gibb, Allegra Stratton, James Mandale, even Nick Robinson - as a direct means of addressing the Beeb's underlying left-liberal bias, and ultimately shaping the news agenda to reflect more right-wing perspectives. The revolving door between the Downing St back office and the BBC's News and Current Affairs team is just too 'coincidental'. The outcome was seen most egregiously during the interminable Brexit years, with neverending vox pops from dense Brexit voters; yet I never once heard the case for a second referendum made on the basis that polls were consistently showing narrow but persistent majorities suggesting that the Will of the People (TM) had actually changed.
At the same time, the right-wing Press has continued its campaign to undermine the BBC's uniquely trusted status as national treasure, driven especially by Murdoch's long battle to takeover BSkyB and launch a partisan Fox News style channel in the UK. Partisan news broadcasting is, of course, now with us, however risibly, via GB News, but though we may snigger, it's the thin end of the wedge. Most people no longer consume news content via newspapers, or even regular TV, but there will still be dominant media platforms and, as Brexit showed, these will generally equate to who has most money to throw at social media or whatever consumption modes become dominant.
The point is that while the open, plural nature of media production in the internet age remains a challenge, the right is quite understandably focused on seeking and retaining whatever means it can to ensure it continues to shape the dominant assumptions guiding the news agenda. Though they seek to control it from within for now, ultimately if the BBC can be fatally weakened, that is the preferred outcome, because then big-money partisanship can rule the roost.
Zoophonic
Well-known member
Trouble with trying to stay balanced and impartial leads to false narrative of the consensus. Question Time is a prime example. Years ago it was nowhere near as divisive and petty with point scoring as it is these days. Now they are charged with filling the audience with equal numbers from left and right no matter what area or strength of feeling. It does not reflect the mood. I agree that both sides need to have a voice on our national broadcaster but as a result of making absolutely sure nobody is upset they give voice to extremism. Nigel Farage was able to grow his popularity and policies on to the nation by being time and time again invited on to QT.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
No, you've made a series of posts that have totally missed the point of the OP, which is that representitves of secretive black economy organisations that call themselves think tanks but are actually lobbyists, and who make huge donations to politicians, are dictating policy in favour of billionairs and hedge funds. Some of them are even boasting on Twitter aboit how they incubated the current PM and chancellor.
This is not party political; they will carry on whoever wins the next GE. These groups are given free rein on the BBC and are never challenged on who funds them or who they represent.
There is a strong argument for the beeb having a right wing bias but that's for another thread.
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
They are give credibility by the right wing owned media - and the relationships in some cases are common.
h_m_boro
Well-known member
So, here's an article and add Robbie Gibb to this list .......
www.google.com
Richard Sharp's arrival at the BBC will entrench conservative influence | Tom Mills
A BBC headed by Sharp is unlikely to champion universality in news and culture, says Tom Mills, a lecturer in sociology
www.google.com
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
That link doesn’t work for me but Robbie Gibb is the Conservative party member shaping BBC news output. So worrying that Emily Maitlis felt the need to speak up about him.So, here's an article and add Robbie Gibb to this list .......
Richard Sharp's arrival at the BBC will entrench conservative influence | Tom Mills
A BBC headed by Sharp is unlikely to champion universality in news and culture, says Tom Mills, a lecturer in sociology
We shouldn’t be blind to what’s happening. Very worrying indeed.
BobUpnDown
Well-known member
You only have to look at Trump, Putin & authoritarian states control their media & sensor counter voices to realise the absolute need for truly independent - public - broadcaster, paid for by the people & for the benefit of the people financially dependent to no Gov, party or influence.
The BBC is far from perfect, maybe a license fee has passed it's time - at least, maybe, in those that have turned a blind eye to objectivity or resent paying for anything (now it's 'free' on the internet) though it remains far better than the mogul owned or influenced channels of many other countries..
Reform & modernise, yes.. remove, no.
The BBC is far from perfect, maybe a license fee has passed it's time - at least, maybe, in those that have turned a blind eye to objectivity or resent paying for anything (now it's 'free' on the internet) though it remains far better than the mogul owned or influenced channels of many other countries..
Reform & modernise, yes.. remove, no.
Billy69_uk
Well-known member
its funny how the Left think the BBC is being manipulated by far right think tanks and influencers, whilst the Right think the BBC is being controlled by leftist woke snowflakes.
The truth is probably somewhere in-between. And NEVER forget just how great the BBC is. I am off to the US for a couple of weeks and the alternative FOX networks and how they present "news" make Russia Today and Al Jezeera look like Pulitzer prize winning journalism.
people wont value the BBC until its gone.
The truth is probably somewhere in-between. And NEVER forget just how great the BBC is. I am off to the US for a couple of weeks and the alternative FOX networks and how they present "news" make Russia Today and Al Jezeera look like Pulitzer prize winning journalism.
people wont value the BBC until its gone.
Linthorpe_Exile
Well-known member
NYboro
Well-known member
Have you ever been to the States? Never mind 13 channels of shît to choose from - it's hundreds of them. I happily pay my TV licence.
Randy
Well-known member
I have. Multiple times.
Definition of **** varies from person to person. I got example wouldn't watch anything on BBC Four or BBC Three as it's all ****. But that's my opinion and choice not to watch. If I had a license I'd still have to pay for it though.
Why is there such a pushback against the idea of a subscription model for BBC programming and radio? Is it because they'd have to reduce the overpaid salaries of the likes of Gary Lineker and Zoe Ball?