BBC. Why?

[10 Pence Short]

On a slightly different note, it was interesting watching the ITN news last night regarding the election fixing in Birmingham. They must have mentioned Labour 20 times in 2 minutes as being responsible. The only thing they didn't do is drive a big red bus through the studio with 'Labour are C*nts' written all over it.

The press are starting to abandon the socialists, and about time too.

BBCs current affairs have been dumbing down for a while now. The same thing's happening with documentaries. Instead of presenting a balanced, informative viewpoint, they always want to create controversy and headlines instead.

Watching the old 80s Horizon program about Chernobyl proved to me how crap things have now become. It didn't have an agenda, it wasn't trying to blame one group or another for all the World's woes, it was just trying to be informative and stimulating.

[MentalSarcasm]

I tend to only watch the BBC for Top Gear now, or if they show a film I really want to watch there was once a time when I'd get in from school at 4:30, and watch BBC1 until 6pm, then flick over to BBC2 for Simpsons and whatever "cult" show was on at the time (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Farscape), and then flick back to BBC1 to watch something else at 7:30.

But now, Channel 4 has the Simpsons, and splits the "hit" American shows with Channel 5 (CSI, NCIS etc), I only watch ITV for the films, and then the BBC for Top Gear and films (oh, and Rome but that's finished and won't have a 3rd season). The rest of the time Sky is generally on. The BBC wants everyone to switch to digital but don't seem to realise that most channels on Digital are better than them, my sisters have the Disney channel on more often than CBeebies.

[Incorrigible]

FFS why do you bother

I gave up telly 3 years ago. What have I missed ? fk all

And I've saved enough cash to pay for a couple od race entries (a seasons race entries compared to the difference with sky)

If you don't like it, don't buy it - and stop fg moaning

[Ecks Ridgehead]

tank slapper said:

There is cerainly a bias in the way the BBC presents things. It is not necessarily pro-government, but the two often coincide. There is blog that concentrates solely on this subject. The problem is that the BBC reflects the political opinions of many of the people who work there, and it is difficult to see bias if it happens to be similar to your own views.

Yes, well that blog is hardly reliable, is it? Ten minutes of brief checking shows that the post Why Doesn't The BBC Name Emily Thornberry?" is undermined somewhat by the fact that the BBC article referenced names Emily Thornberry in the second paragraph, and that if you examine the item about Daniel Hannan having had an invented quote attributed to him, you'll see that the BBC quote "Daniel Hannan MEP told Mr Cameron to 'stop playing games' on the issue" is not so far away from his actual words of "Let us play no games of our own", and every journalst in the world tweaks quotes.

You are right that it is easy to see bias if it happens to be similar to your own views, but it is similarly easy to invent bias if it opposes them. Personally, I don't think that any news source can ever be completely unbiased, but I certainly don't think that the bias in the BBC is as great as many around here seem to think it is.

[Ecks Ridgehead]

grumbledoak said:

If I wasn't clear (though tank slapper seems to have understood me), I'll try again.

I didn't mean that they don't report the facts (they could not get away with that, in any case). The bias shows in the manner of presentation - the BBC has a (Guardian/PC -style) liberal bias, and other views are often broadcast with the attitude of 'we have to show the other side, to appear to be fair'. They appear pro-government at the moment, seemingly through a combination of alignment of views and Alistair Campbell's previous threats. They were clearly pretty anti- the conservatives in the past, a stance that served the country better.

Mud?

You said there was a visible bias in their reporting, not their presenting. That's what I responded to.

[Plotloss]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

Personally, I don't think that any news source can ever be completely unbiased, but I certainly don't think that the bias in the BBC is as great as many around here seem to think it is.

I'd broadly agree with that.

I look forward to the day that everyones mobile phones have the ability to beam pictures/video from anywhere in the world onto the internet.

Can you imagine, the viewing of the New Orleans floods, or the Iraq conflict, entirely unbiased, through the eye of the camera, without editing, as it happens.

[tank slapper]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

Yes, well that blog is hardly reliable, is it? Ten minutes of brief checking shows that the post Why Doesn't The BBC Name Emily Thornberry?" is undermined somewhat by the fact that the BBC article referenced names Emily Thornberry in the second paragraph, and that if you examine the item about Daniel Hannan having had an invented quote attributed to him, you'll see that the BBC quote "Daniel Hannan MEP told Mr Cameron to 'stop playing games' on the issue" is not so far away from his actual words of "Let us play no games of our own", and every journalst in the world tweaks quotes.

From the bottom of that first article:

articel said:

* Earlier versions of this story did not include the name of the MP as it was a straight report from Sir Philip's report in which she was not named. We added the name, and some extra background, once we became aware of her identity.

In this example they have addded a note at the bottom, in the past they have often edited things after the fact without mentioning it. The point of that entry was clearly that it took little effort to discover who it was about, but they didn't bother to research it before posting the article.

The second example you give is a good one. The original quote and the one published are very different in meaning. The last lines of the article from which the quote is taken are cautionary. The way it was reported implies a direct criticsm. Yes, journalists tweak quotes but if they do so the original meaning should be left intact. It may appear a subtle difference, but it is understandable why the original author would be annoyed. That BBC article has also been edited to correct the quote.

[simonrockman]

It's fine for entertainment - Top Gear, Dr Who - but not for anything serious and certainly not for anything like technology.

"Click" the premier technology programme is only shown on BBC world. Can you imagine them doing that with an arts programme.

Simon

[BliarOut]

Plotloss said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

Personally, I don't think that any news source can ever be completely unbiased, but I certainly don't think that the bias in the BBC is as great as many around here seem to think it is.

I'd broadly agree with that.

I look forward to the day that everyones mobile phones have the ability to beam pictures/video from anywhere in the world onto the internet.

Can you imagine, the viewing of the New Orleans floods, or the Iraq conflict, entirely unbiased, through the eye of the camera, without editing, as it happens.

Nick Robinson, not biased? You're having a giraffe.

And here is the news according to Nick Robinson.
"Labour proven to lie, 50 billionty squillion quid wasted on initiatives, Brown takes into the EU after reneging on the Labour election pledge"

"But don't you think he makes a lovely dad and David Cameron still smells of wee".

More biased than a very biased thing indeed.

[Fittster]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

grumbledoak said:

More annoying, at least from the BBC, is the visible pro-government bias in their reporting. I sometimes wonder if Campbell still has their metaphorical balls in a vice...

Really? Just five minutes on the BBC website turns up the following articles that can hardly be said to be pro-Government:

Ex-MI6 boss attacks Iraq policy
Cameron hailed over immigration
Smith 'sorry' for migrants error
Cameron marks 'non-election day'
Brown 'spins as much as Blair'

I can never understand why so many people on PH seem to watch the BBC with one eye covered up.

Lets look at how the presenters handle a story to give a pro-labour view:

George Alagiah: The number of immigrants arriving in Britain is too high, that's what the Conservative leader, David Cameron's said, in his first ever major speech on the issue. He says there's an unsustainable pressure on public services because of a rising population. The Tories say that there should be strict annual limits on the number of migrants allowed to come here from outside the EU, which would be substantially lower than the figure coming in now.
We then cut to a clip of David Cameron:

David Cameron: Well at the moment the net figure, that's the difference between people coming and people going to live elsewhere, the net figure, is about 200,000, so that's two million over ten years, it's a large number. We think it should be substantially lower than that, I'm not naming the number today, because we think what should happen is a conversation between business on the one hand, that talks about the skills we need in Britain, and public services on the other, about the pressure that immigration brings, and we should arrive at the number, arrive at the limit, through those conversations.
3, 2, 1 and we're back in the studio with George:

George Alagiah: Well, lets speak to our Political Editor, Nick Robinson, Nick, David Cameron is aware presumably that immigration has proven to be a rather controversial topic for Tory leaders in the past...
We then cut to Nick Robinson, 'Going live!', outside at Westminster:

Nick Robinson: So aware that the 'I' word, immigration, has barely passed his lips since he became Tory leader, aware yes that Michael Howard, who he worked for of course, and before him, William Hague, were accused of playing the race card when when they spoke of immigration...
Were they Nick, were the Conservatives, sorry Beeboids, let's use your term, the Tories accused of 'playing the race card' when raising legitimate public concerns about population growth, pressure on public services and the establishment of substantial unassimilated foreign communities in the UK on a far larger scale than ever before? Were they really? Who would have done a thing like that?

Nick Robinson: ...but quite a bit has changed since then George, first of all the Tories policy now talks of immigration and does not mention controls on asylum seekers. Secondly, there is much greater public concern about a rising population. Thirdly, David Cameron today was careful to talk about family breakdown, as well as immigration, contributing to that increased population and pressure on public services. There could be trouble ahead though when he finally does give us a number, if he ever does, of the number that he wants to come into this country. Why George? He cannot limit the number of Europeans coming, from the EU, those he limits therefore, and let's just say it, are unlikely to have white faces, they're likely to have faces that are black and brown, and the controversy will continue. (emphasis added)

George Alagiah: Nick, thank you.

And there we have it: the race card, played by Nick Robinson and the BBC - doing Labour's dirty work for them. The BBC. It's what we do.

[grumbledoak]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

You said there was a visible bias in their reporting, not their presenting. That's what I responded to.

Splitting hairs. Most people just watch "The News". They cannot seperate, and the BBC don't try to seperate, the facts from the editorial. If anything, the BBC conflate them.

No worse than any other media station, I'd admit. Except I pay for this one, and resent it.

[pistonbroke PHd]

Here's to the day when the licence fee AND the BT line rental fee have been abolished. Can't come soon enough.

[GAJoe]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

... the BBC quote "Daniel Hannan MEP told Mr Cameron to 'stop playing games' on the issue" is not so far away from his actual words of "Let us play no games of our own" ...

Is English your first language?

I ask simply because if it is not, then your error might be excusable, and I apologise in advance. Your interpretation of the meaning of these two phrases is completely ridiculous. To say that Cameron should "stop playing games" implies that he must be playing games. To state that his side must "play no games" implies nothing of the sort.

Not only is that an important distinction, the misquote is making up the only important part of the meaning. The two quotes do have implications in common, that people should not be playing games, but that is irrelevant to the BBC's use of the "quote".

As for the post Fittster commented on, no-one said that the BBC completely ignores anti-government stories. The fact that you can find a few does not mean that it has no overall bias. I would however suggest that the bias is left-wing rather than pro-Labour. They do attack the government, but when they do it is more often for not being left-wing enough than for being too left wing. They should be examining the government from all reasonable perspectives.

An example, a few years back when income taxes first rose (or did they call it NI?) Paxman asked Brown why it had taken so long to raise taxes. Not only was this a lie (there had already been dozens of tax rises, some of which had hit me hard when I was unemployed) but it was ignorant socialism. The economy had been improving. A far more sensible question was why taxes had to rise when earnings and so receipts were up and unemployment was down, so social security should have fallen.

Edited by GAJoe on Friday 2nd November 00:13

[Hooli]

pistonbroke PHd said:

Here's to the day when the licence fee AND the BT line rental fee have been abolished. Can't come soon enough.

does the licence fee pay for any infrastructure the other channels require? ive no idea on this. do the beeb 'run' the transmitters?
at least the line rental pays for the physical upkeep of the telephone system, no matter who you get your calls from its a BT exchange & lines it goes over.

personally id say scrap the beeb, it serves no purpose except to be another tax. we dont need it, it does no good & in all honesty the adverts on the other side are often better than the beeb's progams anyway.

[AlexKP]

nubbin. said:

What has happened to the BBC? What used to be a genuine public service broadcasting giant has become a trivialised, dumbed-down parody of ITV and all the other nonsense channels driven by advertising. The BBC is given huge gobs of our cash, and yet do not seem to feel they have any responsibility to broadcast thoughtful, thought-provoking or even remotely interesting programming which might educate or entertain, or even God forbid, do both!

Even if only one person watches a BBC programme, does it really matter as they have no advertising revenue to chase, and ratings wars are just about smug self-satisfied TV executives preening themselves. Surely the BBC should still be an independent organisation, dedicated to improving educational and intellectual standards? Why are they scared of appearing intelligent? Watching BBC programmes in the main is like watching your granny getting pissed - faintly amusing but really rather embarrassing. With no need to attract advertising income, why does the BBC feel it has to compete with tacky reality TV and low-grade gameshows, as well as going into their corporate shell by sticking to tried-and-tested nature programming and bloody food/antiques/decorating pap? Part of the reason why Britain is in a mess is the lack of cultural direction and moral leadership. Surely part of the BBC's remit is to provide just those aspects of cultural welfare?

Plus, I want to kick sneery-faced Huw fecking Edwards right in the mouth.

I could not agree more, and have said similar on here before. The rot started in the early 1990's when the BBC, for some unknown reason, decided it had to compete directly with ITV and SKY in a ratings war. The result was the endless dross of derivitive talk and chat shows, and low-grade soaps. More recently, the appalling onslaught of "reality" (the irony) shows has nailed the coffin lid shut IMHO.

I have worked briefly for the BBC in the past. It is an incredibly arrogant and nepotistic organisation that is living on the back of long past glories.

The bitterest irony is that the BBC never did need to compete. Its unique funding allowed it to concentrate on quality and not chase ratings. But mismanagemnt and corporate arrogance has seen it become a shadow of its former self.

[Talksteer]

Hooli said:

pistonbroke PHd said:

Here's to the day when the licence fee AND the BT line rental fee have been abolished. Can't come soon enough.

does the licence fee pay for any infrastructure the other channels require? ive no idea on this. do the beeb 'run' the transmitters?
at least the line rental pays for the physical upkeep of the telephone system, no matter who you get your calls from its a BT exchange & lines it goes over.

personally id say scrap the beeb, it serves no purpose except to be another tax. we dont need it, it does no good & in all honesty the adverts on the other side are often better than the beeb's progams anyway.

The BBC spends about 10% of its income on the transmission system and collecting the licence fee. I personally would not remove the BBC as I like some of the output however I would get rid of the licence fee as it is a regressive tax that is ridiculously expensive to collect.

[Biker's Nemesis]

I've given up with TV, music channels, PH, in the garage with my bikes, pretty much anything except TV.

It's all a load of tosh now.

[Talksteer]

Twincam16 said:

The BBC is a government department, never forget that.

No it's not, its a trust that is funded by a licence fee. The charter of the BBC is renegotiated once every 10 years. Apart from when the charter is renewed the government has no ability to affect the running of the BBC, and even when they do renegotiate the charter they cannot direct individual programing or content.

Twincam16 said:

In previous years, its role was to uphold the status of the establishment in the face of populism and controversy from its terrestrial neighbours.

The BBC ripped into Eden back in 1956, and since then it has pretty much ripped into every government since. I seam to recall even back in 1982 Jon Snow causing a bit of a storm by reporting any press release from the government with the words "the british claim".

Twincam16 said:

However, since Blair, with his media-savvy ways, got hold of it, it's been about getting the population to be relaxed and unquestioning, whilst toing the government line on things like the environment, taxation and crime.

Funny I was watching the BBC last night and there was a program on specifically accusing the labour party of buying votes in the 2004 council elections.

The BBC does have a biase in their news reporting which is towards, liberalism, socialism and enviromentalism. This is not down to it supporting any one party and more to do with the sort of people that become TV journalists.

[drivin_me_nuts]

I watched the BBC4 program the Genius of Photography. Compelling and wonderful TV.....that in all probably never be made by a commercial channel.

Just one example of what the BBC does so very well. Sometimes it's easy to forget the good and just think about the bad, which really is a shame.

[tank slapper]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

Yes, well that blog is hardly reliable, is it?

You appear to have ruffled a few feathers Ecks - Click.