Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
It's not relevant if I'm GB or not. BBC does some exceptional programming that wouldn't exist in a world where 5mil people will watch some z list celebs trying to dance, and about 100k people will watch DA programme. The proportion of money is also spent on bb roll-out. As is for World Service. As we are not trying to be a global trading nation again, I'd imagine that service is essential.
At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
Which still doesn't answer the point being made. To counter your "cause lefties" (which, incidentally, I've never said) I give you "cause I like Planet Earth/QI/Radio 4" as the only reason you think it's OK for me to subsidise your viewing choices. At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
We agree that the money is nothing in the overall scheme of things. But you and I are evidently very fortunate. For some, they will notice it.
Anyway, I watched BBC news this morning for 10mins.only to be subjected to a piece about the anti-Trump petition, juxtaposing the guy with Mugabe and doing g their utmost to try and make us sound desperate in inviting Trump on a state visit...
Journalistic integrity and thoroughness at zero. World class...? Better than the Breitbart/Huffington/Daily Mail (all of which I do not subscribe to btw)?
jjlynn27 said:
It's not relevant if I'm GB or not. BBC does some exceptional programming that wouldn't exist in a world where 5mil people will watch some z list celebs trying to dance, and about 100k people will watch DA programme. The proportion of money is also spent on bb roll-out. As is for World Service. As we are not trying to be a global trading nation again, I'd imagine that service is essential.
At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
I'm afraid that someone with your posting history arguing that the BBC is not biased by definition shows that it is.At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
If you were saying "It is biased, to the right" that would be a more convincing case for its neutrality.
The BBC has been hugely culturally relevant, and has put out content that more than justified its fee. If you say you don't watch (or listen) to anything from the BBC you really are missing out - the quantity of stuff they make available is astronomical. Dig through iPlayer and there are some gems - from factual through to science fiction and beyond.
Not only that, but they have consistently pushed broadcasting technology when the 'free market' has been unable to. Services like iPlayer were developed when Netflix and Amazon Prime were barely conceived of, and when American lawyers were only getting into their first breath about copyright, the BBC was making vast amounts of content available for free. The technology (for both recording and broadcast) that the BBC develops turns up around the rest of the world years later.
That said, they're only as good as their next season and their current record is not looking so good. Sherlock v's Endeavour, loosing Bake Off and Top Gear, Doctor who on the slide, sports suffering and some very tired comedy formats.
And for bias, we've got the problem that they've lost their authority, and the diktat to show balanced views lends equal weight to sides that should be analysed and understood, not parroted verbatim. The poor quality of journalism at the moment seems to be a universal malaise though. We get 'news' faster through other channels, and deeper technical insights through subject-specific websites. Where the BBC is failing is in honest and well considered analysis - the "show your working" of journalism, where you can see the reasoning that goes to forming an opinion. It doesn't matter if they're biased so long as each programme shows how it got to its conclusions. At least then you can understand some of the issues and decide which you agree with. The current situation of dressing everything up as inoffensive 'opinion pieces' and relying on third party analysis lets bias come through unchecked.
For a while now, the BBC has fought shy of showing how smart it can be (all the cool kids play dumb), and that's coming home to roost.
Not only that, but they have consistently pushed broadcasting technology when the 'free market' has been unable to. Services like iPlayer were developed when Netflix and Amazon Prime were barely conceived of, and when American lawyers were only getting into their first breath about copyright, the BBC was making vast amounts of content available for free. The technology (for both recording and broadcast) that the BBC develops turns up around the rest of the world years later.
That said, they're only as good as their next season and their current record is not looking so good. Sherlock v's Endeavour, loosing Bake Off and Top Gear, Doctor who on the slide, sports suffering and some very tired comedy formats.
And for bias, we've got the problem that they've lost their authority, and the diktat to show balanced views lends equal weight to sides that should be analysed and understood, not parroted verbatim. The poor quality of journalism at the moment seems to be a universal malaise though. We get 'news' faster through other channels, and deeper technical insights through subject-specific websites. Where the BBC is failing is in honest and well considered analysis - the "show your working" of journalism, where you can see the reasoning that goes to forming an opinion. It doesn't matter if they're biased so long as each programme shows how it got to its conclusions. At least then you can understand some of the issues and decide which you agree with. The current situation of dressing everything up as inoffensive 'opinion pieces' and relying on third party analysis lets bias come through unchecked.
For a while now, the BBC has fought shy of showing how smart it can be (all the cool kids play dumb), and that's coming home to roost.
Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
It's not relevant if I'm GB or not. BBC does some exceptional programming that wouldn't exist in a world where 5mil people will watch some z list celebs trying to dance, and about 100k people will watch DA programme. The proportion of money is also spent on bb roll-out. As is for World Service. As we are not trying to be a global trading nation again, I'd imagine that service is essential.
At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
Which still doesn't answer the point being made. To counter your "cause lefties" (which, incidentally, I've never said) I give you "cause I like Planet Earth/QI/Radio 4" as the only reason you think it's OK for me to subsidise your viewing choices. At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
We agree that the money is nothing in the overall scheme of things. But you and I are evidently very fortunate. For some, they will notice it.
Anyway, I watched BBC news this morning for 10mins.only to be subjected to a piece about the anti-Trump petition, juxtaposing the guy with Mugabe and doing g their utmost to try and make us sound desperate in inviting Trump on a state visit...
Journalistic integrity and thoroughness at zero. World class...? Better than the Breitbart/Huffington/Daily Mail (all of which I do not subscribe to btw)?
While there is an element of me liking PE a lot, how do you think programmes like World Service should be funded? I have a different vantage point to most people here as I remember being impressed by BBC (and by extension Britain) when I was growing up and watching DA programmes, Monty Pythons, and the rest.
As for the news, I see it as a small percentage of BBC output. I find it funny that actual lefties (which are world of difference to PH definition of a leftie) are equally up in arms about BBC being Tory mouthpiece, inviting the likes of Le Pen for interviews and asking for NR, for example, to be sacked as he's openly hostile to GB.
I do however understand that some people might see BBC as not good value for money. No problem with them campaigning (and signing petitions) to change that.
jjlynn27 said:
Who is going to pay for things that you watch on BBC? Think of it as £12 pm for MOTD and DA 'shows'. Ignore bits that don't conform to your particular prejudices.
Sadly DA will not live forever & catchup footy is available on BT Sport anyway. £12/month to feed a bunch of champagne socialists? No thanks....jjlynn27 said:
As for the news, I see it as a small percentage of BBC output. I find it funny that actual lefties (which are world of difference to PH definition of a leftie) are equally up in arms about BBC being Tory mouthpiece, inviting the likes of Le Pen for interviews and asking for NR, for example, to be sacked as he's openly hostile to GB.
Its this that make me think the BBC are pretty much spot on in their coverage. Neither the "left" or the "right' of the political spectrum seem to be happy.Personally I think the BBC is good value for money. I wish that the licence fee wasn't taken out of already taxed income, but its small beer compared to Council Tax!
Edited by jonnyb on Tuesday 31st January 09:47
jjlynn27 said:
As is for World Service. As we are not trying to be a global trading nation again, I'd imagine that service is essential.
I've watched BBC News International & listened to WS when abroad: the bias seems even worse! Even more pointless; do the natives watch /listen? I read somewhere that the BEEB is beaming stuff into DPRK: if anybody gets caught lightening, they end up in a gulag!Biker 1 said:
jjlynn27 said:
As is for World Service. As we are not trying to be a global trading nation again, I'd imagine that service is essential.
I've watched BBC News International & listened to WS when abroad: the bias seems even worse! Even more pointless; do the natives watch /listen? I read somewhere that the BEEB is beaming stuff into DPRK: if anybody gets caught lightening, they end up in a gulag!There are other countries in the world where BBC is broadcast too.
jjlynn27 said:
When I was listening and watching BBC programmes when living abroad, it was a great virtual ambassador for Britain.
Good for you. I found it nauseating & quite unbelievable. You think its great & don't mind paying for it - fine. Many of us have simply had enough of paying for something that is poor value & extreme. I guess the opposite analogy would be to be forced to pay a subscription for Fox News....jjlynn27 said:
I didn't say that you mentioned 'lefties' it was more of a general observation.
While there is an element of me liking PE a lot, how do you think programmes like World Service should be funded? I have a different vantage point to most people here as I remember being impressed by BBC (and by extension Britain) when I was growing up and watching DA programmes, Monty Pythons, and the rest.
As for the news, I see it as a small percentage of BBC output. I find it funny that actual lefties (which are world of difference to PH definition of a leftie) are equally up in arms about BBC being Tory mouthpiece, inviting the likes of Le Pen for interviews and asking for NR, for example, to be sacked as he's openly hostile to GB.
I do however understand that some people might see BBC as not good value for money. No problem with them campaigning (and signing petitions) to change that.
Historically I agree with you. While there is an element of me liking PE a lot, how do you think programmes like World Service should be funded? I have a different vantage point to most people here as I remember being impressed by BBC (and by extension Britain) when I was growing up and watching DA programmes, Monty Pythons, and the rest.
As for the news, I see it as a small percentage of BBC output. I find it funny that actual lefties (which are world of difference to PH definition of a leftie) are equally up in arms about BBC being Tory mouthpiece, inviting the likes of Le Pen for interviews and asking for NR, for example, to be sacked as he's openly hostile to GB.
I do however understand that some people might see BBC as not good value for money. No problem with them campaigning (and signing petitions) to change that.
I'm not old enough to know, but when TV was in its infancy I can see some benefit in the state having a broadcaster. Time's were also very different then socially.
It seems to me that the reporting was much more "reporting" news and much less "making" it than now too. It was probably why many considered it boring
I understand that this is a modern malaise and all news channels do it, but the main benefit of a state broadcaster is that they should be above this as they do not have to pander to the £s from the lowest common denominator.
Once they start doing that, their raison d'etre is over. And I think we have gone past that point.
Funding for the World Service? Is it really relevant in this day and age? If it's a good advert for the country then let the Foreign Office or Home Office fund it. And as with all other programming, if it's genuinely good it can be sold.
Which brings me onto royalty free content (Tuna)... It's bloody easy to provide "free" content when someone else is paying for it! (ie license payers). As an alternative, charge royalties and let the UK license payer have a reduced/no cost!
And as for tech... iPlayer is not great.
jjlynn27 said:
When I was listening and watching BBC programmes when living abroad, it was a great virtual ambassador for Britain.
There are other countries in the world where BBC is broadcast too.
I only ever watch BBC WS when abroad. It is recognised worldwide as a reliable source of news.There are other countries in the world where BBC is broadcast too.
One thing I did notice in November was that WS has Adverts !!! Perhaps this is only in the Caribbean? Perhaps it's a new business model?
Jockman said:
I only ever watch BBC WS when abroad. It is recognised worldwide as a reliable source of news.
One thing I did notice in November was that WS has Adverts !!! Perhaps this is only in the Caribbean? Perhaps it's a new business model?
How did you get time to watch telly between shifts on the pots?One thing I did notice in November was that WS has Adverts !!! Perhaps this is only in the Caribbean? Perhaps it's a new business model?
Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
I didn't say that you mentioned 'lefties' it was more of a general observation.
While there is an element of me liking PE a lot, how do you think programmes like World Service should be funded? I have a different vantage point to most people here as I remember being impressed by BBC (and by extension Britain) when I was growing up and watching DA programmes, Monty Pythons, and the rest.
As for the news, I see it as a small percentage of BBC output. I find it funny that actual lefties (which are world of difference to PH definition of a leftie) are equally up in arms about BBC being Tory mouthpiece, inviting the likes of Le Pen for interviews and asking for NR, for example, to be sacked as he's openly hostile to GB.
I do however understand that some people might see BBC as not good value for money. No problem with them campaigning (and signing petitions) to change that.
Historically I agree with you. While there is an element of me liking PE a lot, how do you think programmes like World Service should be funded? I have a different vantage point to most people here as I remember being impressed by BBC (and by extension Britain) when I was growing up and watching DA programmes, Monty Pythons, and the rest.
As for the news, I see it as a small percentage of BBC output. I find it funny that actual lefties (which are world of difference to PH definition of a leftie) are equally up in arms about BBC being Tory mouthpiece, inviting the likes of Le Pen for interviews and asking for NR, for example, to be sacked as he's openly hostile to GB.
I do however understand that some people might see BBC as not good value for money. No problem with them campaigning (and signing petitions) to change that.
I'm not old enough to know, but when TV was in its infancy I can see some benefit in the state having a broadcaster. Time's were also very different then socially.
It seems to me that the reporting was much more "reporting" news and much less "making" it than now too. It was probably why many considered it boring
I understand that this is a modern malaise and all news channels do it, but the main benefit of a state broadcaster is that they should be above this as they do not have to pander to the £s from the lowest common denominator.
Once they start doing that, their raison d'etre is over. And I think we have gone past that point.
Funding for the World Service? Is it really relevant in this day and age? If it's a good advert for the country then let the Foreign Office or Home Office fund it. And as with all other programming, if it's genuinely good it can be sold.
Which brings me onto royalty free content (Tuna)... It's bloody easy to provide "free" content when someone else is paying for it! (ie license payers). As an alternative, charge royalties and let the UK license payer have a reduced/no cost!
And as for tech... iPlayer is not great.
As for the cost, even on minimum wage, it's like 1h pay a month.
Not sure why would you think that iplayer is not great. Works for me on any platform without any issues whatsoever.
Murph7355 said:
Jockman said:
I only ever watch BBC WS when abroad. It is recognised worldwide as a reliable source of news.
One thing I did notice in November was that WS has Adverts !!! Perhaps this is only in the Caribbean? Perhaps it's a new business model?
How did you get time to watch telly between shifts on the pots?One thing I did notice in November was that WS has Adverts !!! Perhaps this is only in the Caribbean? Perhaps it's a new business model?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff