Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
can i get a refund of my taxes that went towards the 'war' in Afghanistan? I didn't like it or agree with it so I shouldn't be made to pay for a it.CaptainSlow said:
Really? So I can watch the other channels without a licence?
Which century are you in ? Here's wikileaks spilling the beans on the CIA and you are worried about not being able to watch the potters wheel interlude on the BBC.
You might get this
if you are very naughty !
CaptainSlow said:
As said, unless you can prove otherwise, in order to watch scheduled TV from other providers I have to pay the licence fee.
Why does the value matter? Either I have to pay or or I don't. Your second sentence seems to contradict the first.
I can see why your name is CaptainSlow.Why does the value matter? Either I have to pay or or I don't. Your second sentence seems to contradict the first.
Gandahar said:
CaptainSlow said:
As said, unless you can prove otherwise, in order to watch scheduled TV from other providers I have to pay the licence fee.
Why does the value matter? Either I have to pay or or I don't. Your second sentence seems to contradict the first.
I can see why your name is CaptainSlow.Why does the value matter? Either I have to pay or or I don't. Your second sentence seems to contradict the first.
CaptainSlow said:
jjlynn27 said:
It doesn't. TV Licensing makes you pay for license, not bbc. Would you whine if it was 1p?
To fund the BBC. Why do I need a licence to watch scheduled television?jjlynn27 said:
Because you live in democracy where govt decided that you should. BBC doesn't make you pay for the license, (it seems that you need things repeated to you few times in order to get them). Second time; would you whine if tv license was 1p?
It seems you are incapable of reading, I don't believe I stated that the BBC makes anyone pay, you're just repeating the poor excuse others have used. The licence fee is used to fund the BBC.CaptainSlow said:
jjlynn27 said:
Because you live in democracy where govt decided that you should. BBC doesn't make you pay for the license, (it seems that you need things repeated to you few times in order to get them). Second time; would you whine if tv license was 1p?
It seems you are incapable of reading, I don't believe I stated that the BBC makes anyone pay, you're just repeating the poor excuse others have used. The licence fee is used to fund the BBC.jjlynn27 said:
It is, it's also used to fund broadband rollout. At any rate, you live in a democracy. Govt. decided that you should pay if you want to watch live video. Still dodging the question, I see.
Fine, so if Government decides that we should pay then there needs to be more oversight on any perceived bias.Dodging what question? You mean your straw man position to effectively take away the licence fee but leave a nominal amount to make it an issue on the value of the fee rather than if an individual can refuse to fund the BBC and be able to watch other channels or not?? That one? Does it even deserve any answer? I'd whine less.
CaptainSlow said:
jjlynn27 said:
It is, it's also used to fund broadband rollout. At any rate, you live in a democracy. Govt. decided that you should pay if you want to watch live video. Still dodging the question, I see.
Fine, so if Government decides that we should pay then there needs to be more oversight on any perceived bias.Dodging what question? You mean your straw man position to effectively take away the licence fee but leave a nominal amount to make it an issue on the value of the fee rather than if an individual can refuse to fund the BBC and be able to watch other channels or not?? That one? Does it even deserve any answer? I'd whine less.
There is so much whining about BBC bias from both sides, leftie and rightie extremists, the same people who'll happily quote 'Socialist Worker' and 'breitbart' as a source of news.
As before; Very entertaining indeed.
jjlynn27 said:
Yes, we should have another tax funded body that should take into account every and any perceived bias and investigate about any programme that BBC produces. But who's to say that that body will be impartial, and that we could trust them. Maybe setup another supervisory body to monitor the monitors?
There is so much whining about BBC bias from both sides, leftie and rightie extremists, the same people who'll happily quote 'Socialist Worker' and 'breitbart' as a source of news.
As before; Very entertaining indeed.
...Or just save the hassle and move into the 21st Century and make the BBC self funding. The other news sources aren't taxpayer funded so can spout as much rubbish as they like, which back to my original point, I'm happy for the BBC to do as long as I don't have to pay for it*.There is so much whining about BBC bias from both sides, leftie and rightie extremists, the same people who'll happily quote 'Socialist Worker' and 'breitbart' as a source of news.
As before; Very entertaining indeed.
- For the benefit of the plebs, this means paying to fund the BBC via the TV Licensing authority in order to watch other scheduled channels.
Slightly off topic but it is currently annoying me that on the one hand Chris Packham can tell outright lies about the lovers of country pursuits (he tweeted that lapwings are being shot) and the BBC will say that what he says outside of the BBC is none of their concern but Jenni Murray can't say something about her views on Transgender women in the Sunday Times without being censured.
CaptainSlow said:
...Or just save the hassle and move into the 21st Century and make the BBC self funding. The other news sources aren't taxpayer funded so can spout as much rubbish as they like, which back to my original point, I'm happy for the BBC to do as long as I don't have to pay for it*.
Of course, because those very 22nd Century sources of media (Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.) do such amazing jobs at (a) providing a wide variety of content and (b) reporting the news. </sarcasm>- For the benefit of the plebs, this means paying to fund the BBC via the TV Licensing authority in order to watch other scheduled channels.
It must be noted that the second biggest channel in the UK, that is self funded, has just shunted the News At Ten out of the way so that we can watch 'celebrities' maul their CVs for the sake of a few quid.
I assume you also believe the Queen should be removed, all motorways should be toll roads and the NHS abolished? It only takes a few minutes in a a foreign country to realise what a big influence the BBC has on the quality of the media and news in this country - from weather reports through to dramas and festival coverage. Well reported news, even from a biased source, is preferable to no news at all. Or do you only ever read news from nice people who absolutely agree with you on every political point? Brexit must have been a riot for you
The fact that the BBC can put time and money into projects that they feel are important means that 'the competition' have to raise their game to respond - and thankfully on the whole they do. ITV dramas and reporting are excellent, Channel 4 puts out great content and even Dave actually commissions some decent programmes. For a small country, we punch way above our weight in media and reporting - and if you think that it all 'just happened', you really are slow.
Edited by Tuna on Sunday 12th March 11:15
Tuna said:
It must be noted that the second biggest channel in the UK, that is self funded, has just shunted the News At Ten out of the way so that we can watch 'celebrities' maul their CVs for the sake of a few quid.
I
But as supporters of the BBC are want of saying they have huge support. So if they went self funding everybody would still pay and they could still make whatever they wanted without the usual pressures of chasing ratings.I
Edited by Tuna on Sunday 12th March 11:15
Make the license a subscription you still get the watch the BBC content.
Why are supporters of the BBC so scared? It's evident from any thread on ph that they claim to know the uk supports them yet they don't want them to stand on their own two feet.
It's almost as if deep down they know they are lying to themselves.
I actually do belive most people would subscribe willingly and nothing would change. I of course then would have the option not to but oh no, we can't have that can we. Like all good left wing types want, I have to be forced for my own good to pay for things you want or go to gaol.
Tuna said:
Of course, because those very 22nd Century sources of media (Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.) do such amazing jobs at (a) providing a wide variety of content and (b) reporting the news. </sarcasm>
It must be noted that the second biggest channel in the UK, that is self funded, has just shunted the News At Ten out of the way so that we can watch 'celebrities' maul their CVs for the sake of a few quid.
I assume you also believe the Queen should be removed, all motorways should be toll roads and the NHS abolished? It only takes a few minutes in a a foreign country to realise what a big influence the BBC has on the quality of the media and news in this country - from weather reports through to dramas and festival coverage. Well reported news, even from a biased source, is preferable to no news at all. Or do you only ever read news from nice people who absolutely agree with you on every political point? Brexit must have been a riot for you
The fact that the BBC can put time and money into projects that they feel are important means that 'the competition' have to raise their game to respond - and thankfully on the whole they do. ITV dramas and reporting are excellent, Channel 4 puts out great content and even Dave actually commissions some decent programmes. For a small country, we punch way above our weight in media and reporting - and if you think that it all 'just happened', you really are slow.
Great, so biased news reporting from our national broadcaster is the price we pay for some David Attenborough documentaries. Just when I thought PH couldn't get any more moronic.It must be noted that the second biggest channel in the UK, that is self funded, has just shunted the News At Ten out of the way so that we can watch 'celebrities' maul their CVs for the sake of a few quid.
I assume you also believe the Queen should be removed, all motorways should be toll roads and the NHS abolished? It only takes a few minutes in a a foreign country to realise what a big influence the BBC has on the quality of the media and news in this country - from weather reports through to dramas and festival coverage. Well reported news, even from a biased source, is preferable to no news at all. Or do you only ever read news from nice people who absolutely agree with you on every political point? Brexit must have been a riot for you
The fact that the BBC can put time and money into projects that they feel are important means that 'the competition' have to raise their game to respond - and thankfully on the whole they do. ITV dramas and reporting are excellent, Channel 4 puts out great content and even Dave actually commissions some decent programmes. For a small country, we punch way above our weight in media and reporting - and if you think that it all 'just happened', you really are slow.
Edited by Tuna on Sunday 12th March 11:15
CaptainSlow said:
...Or just save the hassle and move into the 21st Century and make the BBC self funding. The other news sources aren't taxpayer funded so can spout as much rubbish as they like, which back to my original point, I'm happy for the BBC to do as long as I don't have to pay for it*.
You should start a petition to the Govt. to abolish TV Licensing. BBC does a lot of programming that's nothing to do with news. - For the benefit of the plebs, this means paying to fund the BBC via the TV Licensing authority in order to watch other scheduled channels.
Jockman said:
BBC allows adverts in other part of the world. Why not in the UK?
Because of the legal framework surrounding the BBC's structure in the UK.Overseas operations with adverts are part of their commercial arm.
Again, I don't want to see cretinous adverts every 10 minutes on the BBC like I already do on commercial TV - including commercial TV for which costs me a lot more money than the BBC does.
Edited by zarjaz1991 on Sunday 12th March 16:05
CaptainSlow said:
Great, so biased news reporting from our national broadcaster is the price we pay for some David Attenborough documentaries. Just when I thought PH couldn't get any more moronic.
Ah, I forgot you were a genius. Can you point to an unbiased news channel in the UK? For us slow people?I'm genuinely amazed that anyone thinks that a single news outlet is going to meet their criteria for unbiased reporting.
As it is, the bias in the BBC is a known quantity and really pretty middle of the road as far as that sort of thing goes. Compare it with Fox News for instance. In the UK there is an alternative two channels further up the TV guide, so if you think that and the Sun newspaper, Sky TV and so on don't provide enough balance what do you suggest? The point is that the BBC don't have a monopoly on news in this country, they don't parrot the 'state view' and they aren't capable of hushing up or misrepresenting news without being challenged by the many alternatives. To call that "the price we pay" is obtuse to say the least. The price we pay is a healthy media, and the benefit we get is... a very healthy media. It's not just David Attenborough documentaries, it's comedy, music, drama... If you want to see what it's like where there isn't a strong competitive market driven by a well funded dominant outlet, try watching Australian TV for a while. That would be a truly terrible price to pay.
Edited by Tuna on Sunday 12th March 22:36
Pesty said:
But as supporters of the BBC are want of saying they have huge support. So if they went self funding everybody would still pay and they could still make whatever they wanted without the usual pressures of chasing ratings.
That logic doesn't stand a moment of thought. Chasing ratings is exactly what you end up doing if you need people to pay. That's why Channel 4 spent stupid money on Bake Off.In the current global environment, where commerce and big business rides over everything, the last thing you want is yet another media outlet chasing the bucks.
And let's be honest, if anyone on this forum could come up with a television format that was popular, informative and insightful, the BBC would be more than happy to broadcast it, whatever the political bias it had.
Tuna said:
...
I'm genuinely amazed than anyone thinks that a single news outlet is going to meet their criteria for unbiased reporting.
....
Precisely.I'm genuinely amazed than anyone thinks that a single news outlet is going to meet their criteria for unbiased reporting.
....
There was a campaign to remove NR and LK from BBC by some 'lefties' as they were blatantly biased 'the other way'.
Would be interesting to see what proportion of license fee is actually spent on news/political programming. Not that that would stop people whining.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff