Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[TTwiggy]

No, it's like saying that cycling is free if you don't have a car. You're still using the roads and many people enjoy the FREE cycling.

[B'stard Child]

TTwiggy said:

No, it's like saying that cycling is free if you don't have a car. You're still using the roads and many people enjoy the FREE cycling.

You know that RFL is not spent on the roads??

Your enjoyment of "free" cycling is being paid for by "your taxation" in one way or other.

Shall we move on to walking?

So back to the point for many people in this country - ~26 million households listening to the BBC radio is not free

I couldn't be arse to argue the point that you can own a TV and not pay a licence so some "TV owners" are not paying for it as well

[TTwiggy]

B'stard Child said:

You know that RFL is not spent on the roads??

Your enjoyment of "free" cycling is being paid for by "your taxation" in one way or other.

Shall we move on to walking?

So back to the point for many people in this country - ~26 million households listening to the BBC radio is not free

I couldn't be arse to argue the point that you can own a TV and not pay a licence so some "TV owners" are not paying for it as well

If you don't want to pay the licence fee tax you are free to do so. If you want to watch 'live' TV however, you don't have a choice. If you object to this tax, lobby your MP about it.

If the BBC had all of its funding removed, do you think the government would drop or lower the tax?

[Atomic12C]

TTwiggy said:

If the BBC had all of its funding removed, do you think the government would drop or lower the tax?

If the BBC went commercial there would be no reason to increase taxes or lower them I would have thought.

If the BBC went subscription service then again they would simply re-size to meet demand and still government would not need to raise or lower taxes.

[TTwiggy]

Atomic12C said:

TTwiggy said:

If the BBC had all of its funding removed, do you think the government would drop or lower the tax?

If the BBC went commercial there would be no reason to increase taxes or lower them I would have thought.

If the BBC went subscription service then again they would simply re-size to meet demand and still government would not need to raise or lower taxes.

Let me make it clearer: if the BBC had its licence fee (tax) funding scrapped, do you think the government would drop or lower the licence fee (tax)?

[B'stard Child]

TTwiggy said:

B'stard Child said:

You know that RFL is not spent on the roads??

Your enjoyment of "free" cycling is being paid for by "your taxation" in one way or other.

Shall we move on to walking?

So back to the point for many people in this country - ~26 million households listening to the BBC radio is not free

I couldn't be arse to argue the point that you can own a TV and not pay a licence so some "TV owners" are not paying for it as well

If you don't want to pay the licence fee tax you are free to do so. If you want to watch 'live' TV however, you don't have a choice. If you object to this tax, lobby your MP about it.

Back to the original discussion - Statement - Radio is "free" provided you don't pay a TV licence..... That doesn't make it free for all now does it?

TTwiggy said:

If the BBC had all of its funding removed, do you think the government would drop or lower the tax?

Pointless deviation from the subject being discussed

Radio is as free provided you don't pay a TV licence (usual proviso's don't watch live TV on said TV) - just as RFL is free if you don't own a car.

[Atomic12C]

TTwiggy said:

Atomic12C said:

TTwiggy said:

If the BBC had all of its funding removed, do you think the government would drop or lower the tax?

If the BBC went commercial there would be no reason to increase taxes or lower them I would have thought.

If the BBC went subscription service then again they would simply re-size to meet demand and still government would not need to raise or lower taxes.

Let me make it clearer: if the BBC had its licence fee (tax) funding scrapped, do you think the government would drop or lower the licence fee (tax)?

Licence fee scrapped = no licence fee ...... do I think the government would then drop or lower the licence fee ?
Sorry, I'm not following.
If its scrapped then its scrapped, and would then mean the BBC would have to change its funding model.

The options available would generally be (1) commercial advertising funding or (2) subscription based.
And I would think the only viable option would be option (1).

In the days of recording TV, the inconvenience of having to watch full length commercials is no longer a problem. So option (1) would be a winner.
The BBC could then be as biased as it liked, the important factor being that the public would not be forced to directly fund the agenda.

[TTwiggy]

B'stard Child said:

TTwiggy said:

B'stard Child said:

You know that RFL is not spent on the roads??

Your enjoyment of "free" cycling is being paid for by "your taxation" in one way or other.

Shall we move on to walking?

So back to the point for many people in this country - ~26 million households listening to the BBC radio is not free

I couldn't be arse to argue the point that you can own a TV and not pay a licence so some "TV owners" are not paying for it as well

If you don't want to pay the licence fee tax you are free to do so. If you want to watch 'live' TV however, you don't have a choice. If you object to this tax, lobby your MP about it.

Back to the original discussion - Statement - Radio is "free" provided you don't pay a TV licence..... That doesn't make it free for all now does it?

TTwiggy said:

If the BBC had all of its funding removed, do you think the government would drop or lower the tax?

Pointless deviation from the subject being discussed

Radio is as free provided you don't pay a TV licence (usual proviso's don't watch live TV on said TV) - just as RFL is free if you don't own a car.

No, once again, cycling is free whether you own a car and pay RFL or not. Just as Radio is free whether you own a TV and pay the licence fee or not. The two (in both cases) are completely unconnected and simplyshare a similarity (i.e cycling is a tax free form of transport and the radio is a tax free form of media consumption).

[TTwiggy]

Atomic12C said:

Licence fee scrapped = no licence fee ...... do I think the government would then drop or lower the licence fee ?
Sorry, I'm not following.
If its scrapped then its scrapped, and would then mean the BBC would have to change its funding model.

The options available would generally be (1) commercial advertising funding or (2) subscription based.
And I would think the only viable option would be option (1).

In the days of recording TV, the inconvenience of having to watch full length commercials is no longer a problem. So option (1) would be a winner.
The BBC could then be as biased as it liked, the important factor being that the public would not be forced to directly fund the agenda.

No, I said if licence fee FUNDING was scrapped.

[Atomic12C]

TTwiggy said:

No, I said if licence fee FUNDING was scrapped.

OK, so if funding for a TV licence scheme is scrapped then it would suggest either a 'free' licence or no licence required.
Therefore for the BBC to continue it would need a funding model similar to how ITV or SKY works.

In either case I don't think government then need to fund 'nothing'.

[TTwiggy]

Atomic12C said:

TTwiggy said:

No, I said if licence fee FUNDING was scrapped.

OK, so if funding for a TV licence scheme is scrapped then it would suggest either a 'free' licence or no licence required.
Therefore for the BBC to continue it would need a funding model similar to how ITV or SKY works.

In either case I don't think government then need to fund 'nothing'.

I'm sorry, I don't know if it's me or you but I seem to be failing to get my point across.

What I'm saying is, if the BBC stopped receiving any funding (money!) from the licence fee, do you think the government would stop charging the user a fee to receive broadcast TV?

To flesh out the issue, almost every stable western democracy charges its citizens a licence fee. Some are more than ours, some are cheaper. None of them receive a service as comprehensive as the BBC in return.

[Murph7355]

TTwiggy said:

I'm sorry, I don't know if it's me or you but I seem to be failing to get my point across.

What I'm saying is, if the BBC stopped receiving any funding (money!) from the licence fee, do you think the government would stop charging the user a fee to receive broadcast TV?

To flesh out the issue, almost every stable western democracy charges its citizens a licence fee. Some are more than ours, some are cheaper. None of them receive a service as comprehensive as the BBC in return.

The most likely option (outside of no govt ever agreeing to kill the status quo!) would be for them to do similar to mobiles and to bill the providers. Far easier than chasing serfs.

I think they'd struggle ceasing BBC funding and maintaining a personal charge from an optics perspective. But wouldn't put anything past them!

[Atomic12C]

TTwiggy said:

I'm sorry, I don't know if it's me or you but I seem to be failing to get my point across.

What I'm saying is, if the BBC stopped receiving any funding (money!) from the licence fee, do you think the government would stop charging the user a fee to receive broadcast TV?

To flesh out the issue, almost every stable western democracy charges its citizens a licence fee. Some are more than ours, some are cheaper. None of them receive a service as comprehensive as the BBC in return.

Apologies, its probably me misunderstanding the point you were aiming at.

I don't foresee a situation whereby government would suddenly stop funding the BBC, if it is to survive I think a gradual change-over to a commercial model would need to be done.
Roll it in via stages and then reduce the licence fee as this happens. There would become a point whereby advertisers keen to be seen on a well established platform such as the BBC would reach a funding level to support the re-modeled organisation.

So to get to the question you put to me, yes, if the BBC were to reach a state of being commercially funded, then there would be no need for government (tax payer) input.

Also just to pick up on a point you infer in your reply.... I don't think a stable democracy is pinned on the fact that a government charges its citizens a fee to watch TV.

For example party political broadcasts are done on many channels and not confined to the BBC.
And I would suspect that if there were serious national security issues whereby government needs to inform the public then this would be broadcast via multi-channel also.

Bottom line in my personal opinion, which I fully accept is just my own opinion, is that I think the licence fee is an outdated method of funding something like the BBC.
On one hand you have people happy to pay, which is fair enough. But on the other hand those that don't see value in it, especially when they feel what they are paying for is promoting political agendas to which they don't align, turns it in to a thing of distaste and rejection.

So for the BBC to survive in its current form they really do need to admit the political biasing they currently hold and make swift changes to become neutral.

[TTwiggy]

How do you define 'neutral'?

Genuine question. This forum is quite right-wing for example. It's almost inevitable that it is so. You have many posters on here railing against other posters who they see as 'lefties', when the reality is that there are probably almost no 'true' lefties on here. These same people would almost certainly describe themselves as 'centre-right', when the evidence suggests that they are actually further to the right than they think they are. Satisfying 'neutrality' for these people would therefore be very difficult as they might view a centrist (neutral) position as left-wing.

For balance, I know a few 'proper' left-wingers who view the BBC as right-wing. Again, because they are not aware of how far left they actually are (describing themselves as centre-left) they see right-wing bias where it may not exist.

I think that true neutrality - as agreed by everyone - is impossible to achieve.

[Atomic12C]

TTwiggy said:

How do you define 'neutral'?

I think that true neutrality - as agreed by everyone - is impossible to achieve.

Both very valid questions.
As there is no definitive international standard line drawn on political centre-point; it is a moving goal post.

BUT, I would argue that as previous BBC chiefs have stated from their own mouth that the BBC is left wing biased and as they do seem to put forward a liberal left agenda, purely by the content and the angle of content that is aired, I don't think the BBC or supporters can successfully argue it as being neutral.
Most definitely not in the past number of years since Blair's government was in power. (Previous to that then my memory becomes faded, as I wasn't that much in to political swing back then )

What I do remember is that the BBC seemed to champion the whole 'political correctness' movement when it took off and I'm sure it is well recognized that over the years there has been a pro-left stance on which stories make the headlines and the angles they are viewed from.
Not saying that the BBC was alone in this as it is also said that other channels can be equally biased towards a political agenda. But the difference here is that the BBC is funded by the public and neutrality should be much more evident than it currently is.

Unfortunately neutrality is rare on the BBC, in my personal viewpoint at least - which as you say could put me to the right or left depending on where the centre-point of political swing lies.

So to accept a definition of the BBC's lack of neutrality, it probably comes down to nothing more than consensus, would you say?
It would be interesting to see what the consensus overall by the British public is

[TTwiggy]

Atomic12C said:

Both very valid questions.
As there is no definitive international standard line drawn on political centre-point; it is a moving goal post.

BUT, I would argue that as previous BBC chiefs have stated from their own mouth that the BBC is left wing biased and as they do seem to put forward a liberal left agenda, purely by the content and the angle of content that is aired, I don't think the BBC or supporters can successfully argue it as being neutral.
Most definitely not in the past number of years since Blair's government was in power. (Previous to that then my memory becomes faded, as I wasn't that much in to political swing back then )

What I do remember is that the BBC seemed to champion the whole 'political correctness' movement when it took off and I'm sure it is well recognized that over the years there has been a pro-left stance on which stories make the headlines and the angles they are viewed from.
Not saying that the BBC was alone in this as it is also said that other channels can be equally biased towards a political agenda. But the difference here is that the BBC is funded by the public and neutrality should be much more evident than it currently is.

Unfortunately neutrality is rare on the BBC, in my personal viewpoint at least - which as you say could put me to the right or left depending on where the centre-point of political swing lies.

So to accept a definition of the BBC's lack of neutrality, it probably comes down to nothing more than consensus, would you say?
It would be interesting to see what the consensus overall by the British public is

My personal take on it is that the BBC adheres to a 'safe' position that mirrors the status quo of the country, with a bias towards the metropolitan middle-class.

I think that as 'PC' became a mainstay of society (and we could argue whether that's for good or bad), the BBC reflected and embraced it.

I think the BBC is generally pro-government (of any colour) but only so long as the government remains centrist.

NOW. The question would be how many people out there paying the licence fee also adhere to this same position. IF this position represents the position of the majority of licence fee payers then I'd say the BBC was doing its best to keep its customers happy. If, as the suggestion seems to be on these pages, they are not then there might be an argument for change.


All of this however, doesn't detract, for me at least, from the fact that, in terms of quality of output, the BBC is good value for money.

[B'stard Child]

TTwiggy said:

B'stard Child said:

TTwiggy said:

B'stard Child said:

You know that RFL is not spent on the roads??

Your enjoyment of "free" cycling is being paid for by "your taxation" in one way or other.

Shall we move on to walking?

So back to the point for many people in this country - ~26 million households listening to the BBC radio is not free

I couldn't be arse to argue the point that you can own a TV and not pay a licence so some "TV owners" are not paying for it as well

If you don't want to pay the licence fee tax you are free to do so. If you want to watch 'live' TV however, you don't have a choice. If you object to this tax, lobby your MP about it.

Back to the original discussion - Statement - Radio is "free" provided you don't pay a TV licence..... That doesn't make it free for all now does it?

TTwiggy said:

If the BBC had all of its funding removed, do you think the government would drop or lower the tax?

Pointless deviation from the subject being discussed

Radio is as free provided you don't pay a TV licence (usual proviso's don't watch live TV on said TV) - just as RFL is free if you don't own a car.

No, once again, cycling is free whether you own a car and pay RFL or not. Just as Radio is free whether you own a TV and pay the licence fee or not. The two (in both cases) are completely unconnected and simplyshare a similarity (i.e cycling is a tax free form of transport and the radio is a tax free form of media consumption).

However the BBC radio stations are not tax free - it's funded by the TV licence fee - which is a tax (if paid) and myself and 26 million other households do.

[TTwiggy]

B'stard Child said:

However the BBC radio stations are not tax free - it's funded by the TV licence fee - which is a tax (if paid) and myself and 26 million other households do.

The remain tax-free to the user if the user chooses not to pay the tax.

[B'stard Child]

TTwiggy said:

B'stard Child said:

However the BBC radio stations are not tax free - it's funded by the TV licence fee - which is a tax (if paid) and myself and 26 million other households do.

The remain tax-free to the user if the user chooses not to pay the tax.

Here is the original post again

XCP said:

Einion Yrth said:

It's great that you like what the BBC provides, I don't; why do I have to subsidise your enjoyment in order to legally receive the output of other providers?

You don't. Radio is free. It's TV you pay for.

Clear stated Radio is free you are only paying for TV and that's not correct, in funding TV you are also funding radio so once again to myself and 26 million other households BBC Radio is not free in any way shape or form.

[turbobloke]

Watching Sky News the other day I caught this brief snip from 'that' press conference:

Trump - Who are you with?

Hack - BBC

Trump - Another beauty

Hack - !

He's on PH