BBC licence fee poll.

[anonymous-user]

^ too right chap

[eccles]

Jimboka said:

Good value for money. I watch/listen to BBC more than 50% of the time. Which is a lot considering the other 999 advert ridden crap channels that exist !

Most of the advert ridden crap channels are showing ex BBC stuff anyway.

[turbobloke]

eccles said:

Jimboka said:

Good value for money. I watch/listen to BBC more than 50% of the time. Which is a lot considering the other 999 advert ridden crap channels that exist !

Most of the advert ridden crap channels are showing ex BBC stuff anyway.

Not necessarily without the crap propaganda.

Dennis Sewell, a 22+ year time-served veteran of the BBC and author of "A Question of Attitude: The BBC and Bias Beyond News" came to the conclusion from many years of direct experience at the horse's mouth that it was the wider but often more subtle bias in "arts, drama, documentaries and religious programmes" that had more influence as propaganda than the more obvious bias in BBC news and current affairs output.

[MarshPhantom]

Reading PH you feel people just think what they are told to by the papers and would shoot themselves in the face if Rupert Murdoch wanted them to.

[anonymous-user]

Stroll on! Where's the gun?

[turbobloke]

MarshPhantom said:

Reading PH you feel people just think what they are told to by the papers and would shoot themselves in the face if Rupert Murdoch wanted them to.

Try the post before yours, where people were told by somebody who helped at a senior level with the BBC's output, for over 20 years in total.

Those defending the indefensible appear to be more in thrall to The Guardian, a notably unbiased newspaper used by BBC producers to give a steer to newsreaders.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Try the post before yours, where people were told by somebody who helped at a senior level with the BBC's output, for over 20 years in total.

Those defending the indefensible appear to be more in thrall to The Guardian, a notably unbiased newspaper used by BBC producers to give a steer to newsreaders.

Surely not. What in the same way that that 'Modern Parents' in Viz steers Jeremy Corbyn?

[turbobloke]

V6Pushfit said:

turbobloke said:

Try the post before yours, where people were told by somebody who helped at a senior level with the BBC's output, for over 20 years in total.

Those defending the indefensible appear to be more in thrall to The Guardian, a notably unbiased newspaper used by BBC producers to give a steer to newsreaders.

Surely not. What in the same way that that 'Modern Parents' in Viz steers Jeremy Corbyn?

Surely the public has been steering Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs, and 70s student politics steers him for the rest of the time?

[anonymous-user]

Yes you're right - he wouldn't have read Viz. It was the Vivian to his Rick.

[jjlynn27]

Nothing like good BBC bashing thread on PH .

I especially enjoy Sissons' account of how BBC is biased. The same Sissons that complained that BBC was ageist, that treat women badly, that treat men even worse. All that, after he retired. Man of principles, right there. If you think that company is so bad, on so many levels, why work for them for so many years?

Then again, BBC is not Guido, the bible of conspiracy nutjobs.

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

Nothing like good BBC bashing thread on PH .

Where is it in error?

jjlynn27 said:

I especially enjoy Sissons' account of how BBC is biased. The same Sissons that complained that BBC was ageist, that treat women badly, that treat men even worse. All that, after he retired. Man of principles, right there. If you think that company is so bad, on so many levels, why work for them for so many years?

Playing the BBC man not the ball, what a shock!

What you typed is irrelevant.

jjlynn27 said:

Then again, BBC is not Guido, the bible of conspiracy nutjobs.

An irrelevant diversion with more playing the man and nothing remotely on-topic.

Consistency at work.

[don4l]

jjlynn27 said:

Nothing like good BBC bashing thread on PH .

I especially enjoy Sissons' account of how BBC is biased. The same Sissons that complained that BBC was ageist, that treat women badly, that treat men even worse. All that, after he retired. Man of principles, right there. If you think that company is so bad, on so many levels, why work for them for so many years?

Because you need to eat, perhaps.

Loads of people are unhappy with their employer.

jjlynn27 said:

Then again, BBC is not Guido, the bible of conspiracy nutjobs.

What has Guido published that turned out to be untrue?

[BlackLabel]

BBC journalists are paid up to forty per cent more than their competitors in the commercial sector, according to a leaked review of salaries in the corporation’s news division. Years of union-backed pay rises, as well as top-up allowances unheard of among commercial rivals, have pushed BBC journalists’ salaries far in excess of staff at organisations such as Sky News and ITN, according to a pay review leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

[turbobloke]

BlackLabel said:

BBC journalists are paid up to forty per cent more than their competitors in the commercial sector, according to a leaked review of salaries in the corporation’s news division. Years of union-backed pay rises, as well as top-up allowances unheard of among commercial rivals, have pushed BBC journalists’ salaries far in excess of staff at organisations such as Sky News and ITN, according to a pay review leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

Overpaid, overbearing and over to the left.

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

jjlynn27 said:

Nothing like good BBC bashing thread on PH .

Where is it in error?

jjlynn27 said:

I especially enjoy Sissons' account of how BBC is biased. The same Sissons that complained that BBC was ageist, that treat women badly, that treat men even worse. All that, after he retired. Man of principles, right there. If you think that company is so bad, on so many levels, why work for them for so many years?

Playing the BBC man not the ball, what a shock!

What you typed is irrelevant.

jjlynn27 said:

Then again, BBC is not Guido, the bible of conspiracy nutjobs.

An irrelevant diversion with more playing the man and nothing remotely on-topic.

Consistency at work.

LOL.

I understand that source of things that you post as 'proof' are pretty irrelevant to you. To normal people, they matter. Then again, you quote Rush Limbaugh.

It's still funny to see right-wing nutjobs frothing about BBC, almost as funny to see left-wing nutjobs frothing about right-wing bias of BBC. Other side of the same nutjob coin.

Thank God for Breitbart, Fox and Rush Limbaugh, eh?



Oh and for telegraph article whining about BBC salaries; to the author; get better at your job and get hired by the company that offer higher salaries.

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

turbobloke said:

jjlynn27 said:

Nothing like good BBC bashing thread on PH .

Where is it in error?

jjlynn27 said:

I especially enjoy Sissons' account of how BBC is biased. The same Sissons that complained that BBC was ageist, that treat women badly, that treat men even worse. All that, after he retired. Man of principles, right there. If you think that company is so bad, on so many levels, why work for them for so many years?

Playing the BBC man not the ball, what a shock!

What you typed is irrelevant.

jjlynn27 said:

Then again, BBC is not Guido, the bible of conspiracy nutjobs.

An irrelevant diversion with more playing the man and nothing remotely on-topic.

Consistency at work.

LOL.

I understand that source of things that you post as 'proof' are pretty irrelevant to you. To normal people, they matter. Then again, you quote Rush Limbaugh.

That makes sense, to you.

jjlynn27 said:

It's still funny to see right-wing nutjobs frothing about BBC, almost as funny to see left-wing nutjobs frothing about right-wing bias of BBC. Other side of the same nutjob coin.

Just like heads and tails? In other words, different. As to the subtle phraseology used, you're not related to unrepentant by any chance?

The differencee is that complaints cannot form evidence of bias since they can be tactical and/or vexatious. The output is the evidence, with supplementary information from 20+ year staffers as to how it arises e.g. using The Guardian for the BBC's take on a news item.

This puts clear blue water between the tactical and vexatious complaints from left-field, and the evidence-based diagnosis of left-wing bias from anyone with an independent view who is capable of spotting that e.g. the DM and Fox have a right-wing bias just as the BBC and The Guardian have a left-wing bias. The major difference is that only the BBC has a requirement to be impartial, which it's clearly failing to meet.

jjlynn27 said:

Thank God for Breitbart, Fox and Rush Limbaugh, eh?

But it's a pity that too many people still fail to appreciate the difference between primary and secondary sources, when it's a very simple concept.

jjlynn27 said:

Oh and for telegraph article whining about BBC salaries; to the author; get better at your job and get hired by the company that offer higher salaries.

You missed a key BBC criterion - is the author an automaton left-wing hack.

[red_slr]

I don't watch any BBC TV any more. Prob been like that for the last 3 or 4 years.
I listen to a bit of BBC radio now and then.

My TV watching is pretty much most of the docu-soaps on Discovery, Gold Miners, Ed Stafford etc. News in the morning is Sky News for about 5 minutes.
Other than that F1 on Sky F1.
I watch max half an hour per night actual TV as I tend to watch most of the Discovery stuff on play back and split it over 2 nights.

The Mrs watches more than me, mostly old Sitcoms and Murder mystery stuff from the early 80s. Not much of it on the BBC though.

I spend at least an hour on Youtube each day now, MCM, BisForBuild, Casey Neistat, Smoking Tyre, Demolition Ranch etc.

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

... appeal to authority ... secondary sources ... playing the man ... liabore ... climate change ... bliar ... public sector ...

Anything else on turbo bingo card for today?

So, the guy who spent 10 years at BBC is complaining that BBC is full of lefties, that's obviously a proof. It's not sour grapes by has-been who was replaced by someone better. And for needing to be leftie to work at BBC, someone better tell that to Chris Patten, Andrew Neil, Flanders, Kamal from the top of my head. All darned lefties. Come to think of it, Sissons must be leftie too, after all he worked for BBC for 10 years, right?

Nutjobs are nutjobs, regardless of the side of the coin. That tool who was bhing about BBC hiding stories about Vaz, despite story being on home page for two days was particularly funny.

PH, never fails to entertain.

[Mark Benson]

jjlynn27 said:

Oh and for telegraph article whining about BBC salaries; to the author; get better at your job and get hired by the company that offer higher salaries.

Or.....Publicly funded gravy train organisation's regressive tax licence fee 40% too high.

[jjlynn27]

Mark Benson said:

jjlynn27 said:

Oh and for telegraph article whining about BBC salaries; to the author; get better at your job and get hired by the company that offer higher salaries.

Or.....Publicly funded gravy train organisation's regressive tax licence fee 40% too high.

I'm sure that distinction is what's stopping them applying there.



For me, the license fee is very much worth paying just to see the frothing from weirdos on both sides.