Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[bitchstewie]

Ask yourselves what the reaction would be if Corbyn came out and said Labour are now boycotting the BBC because of their "right wing media bias".

Probably not "Yes good move" and more something about "avoiding media scrutiny".

[JuanCarlosFandango]

bhstewie said:

Ask yourselves what the reaction would be if Corbyn came out and said Labour are now boycotting the BBC because of their "right wing media bias".

Probably not "Yes good move" and more something about "avoiding media scrutiny".

Not really. I mostly avoid the BBC myself because of it's appalling bias, though it's been quite entertaining since about 10pm Thursday. I would consider that a tiff on the left.

[Johnnytheboy]

bhstewie said:

Ask yourselves what the reaction would be if Corbyn came out and said Labour are now boycotting the BBC because of their "right wing media bias".

Probably not "Yes good move" and more something about "avoiding media scrutiny".

Except Corbyn only went on Today about once.

[Countdown]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I mostly avoid the BBC myself because of it's appalling bias,

Out of interest, is there any possibility that the BBC might be quite neutral and that it's you who is biased?

[S7Paul]

Seems like the BBC has found a new political expert:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50772708

Stormzy? Really?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Countdown said:

Out of interest, is there any possibility that the BBC might be quite neutral and that it's you who is biased?

Of course I'm biased. But I'm not a massive state broadcaster funded by a legally enforced tax on televisions and claiming to be impartial while campaigning for my pet causes.

[andy_s]

I don't find the BBC overly biased politically, but they do seem to pepper items from the more 'woke' liberal end of things consistently. Islington bubble items today: "Why women are fighting back against hair oppression"; "'I wanted to break into white, male aviation industry'"; "Women rise up on Baghdad's walls". Not really 'news' I'd venture, more cultural inculcation.

[rxe]

andy_s said:

I don't find the BBC overly biased politically, but they do seem to pepper items from the more 'woke' liberal end of things consistently. Islington bubble items today: "Why women are fighting back against hair oppression"; "'I wanted to break into white, male aviation industry'"; "Women rise up on Baghdad's walls". Not really 'news' I'd venture, more cultural inculcation.

This, exactly. They are technically fair on the actual news (as in the facts), but sneer at every opportunity at the right, and the woke bullst emanating from them is just dull.

If they have a 5 billion budget today, it needs to be set at less than 2 billion next year. Enough to produce some excellent news programmes, on radio and TV. No more paying celebs millions to bake cakes - ITV can do that. No more paying pundits millions for sport thinking - ITV can do that. No more woke bullst.

Make them a subscription service with a reasonable government subsidy. If they want to produce more, they’ve got to persuade people to pay for it.

[psi310398]

rxe said:

This, exactly. They are technically fair on the actual news (as in the facts), but sneer at every opportunity at the right, and the woke bullst emanating from them is just dull.

If they have a 5 billion budget today, it needs to be set at less than 2 billion next year. Enough to produce some excellent news programmes, on radio and TV. No more paying celebs millions to bake cakes - ITV can do that. No more paying pundits millions for sport thinking - ITV can do that. No more woke bullst.

Make them a subscription service with a reasonable government subsidy. If they want to produce more, they’ve got to persuade people to pay for it.

Possibly even better, work out what the genuine public service content is (clue: it is a minuscule proportion of the BBC's output) and tender it out in multi-year packages to any organisation that wants and has the capacity to bid. It would have the benefit of encouraging new entrants to the market and potentially freshening up what is often a moribund corner of the BBC's output. If it is seriously only genuine public service content, this could be funded either from income from commercial broadcast licensing (of the broadcasters) or from general taxation (for example, the World Service could easily be funded from the FCO/DFID budget, if it really as important as the BBC says it is).

The whole regime could be policed with performance and content criteria assessed by an independent panel, possibly picked at random from the population at large as a safeguard against the usual luvvies hijacking membership of the panel and its operation.

[Zirconia]

rxe said:

This, exactly. They are technically fair on the actual news (as in the facts), but sneer at every opportunity at the right, and the woke bullst emanating from them is just dull.

If they have a 5 billion budget today, it needs to be set at less than 2 billion next year. Enough to produce some excellent news programmes, on radio and TV. No more paying celebs millions to bake cakes - ITV can do that. No more paying pundits millions for sport thinking - ITV can do that. No more woke bullst.

Make them a subscription service with a reasonable government subsidy. If they want to produce more, they’ve got to persuade people to pay for it.

I understand ITV have not been doing so well in recent years, at least 10 or so. Hence the cheap programming.

ITV delivered a poor show on the Rugby world cup, great matches, commentary and all that but picture quality was low, SD for some in my area. BBC is pushing the boundaries with higher resolutions. It is not just the news.

[rxe]

Zirconia said:

I understand ITV have not been doing so well in recent years, at least 10 or so. Hence the cheap programming.

ITV delivered a poor show on the Rugby world cup, great matches, commentary and all that but picture quality was low, SD for some in my area. BBC is pushing the boundaries with higher resolutions. It is not just the news.

You want HD rugby? Pay Sky for it.

[Countdown]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Countdown said:

Out of interest, is there any possibility that the BBC might be quite neutral and that it's you who is biased?

Of course I'm biased. But I'm not a massive state broadcaster funded by a legally enforced tax on televisions and claiming to be impartial while campaigning for my pet causes.

So, given that you accept you're biased, is there any possibility that that might be affecting your view of the BBC and, in fact, they're actually neutral?

[psi310398]

Countdown said:

So, given that you accept you're biased, is there any possibility that that might be affecting your view of the BBC and, in fact, they're actually neutral?

Chaps, has anybody sold that bridge yet?

If not, we have a new mark here!

[Zirconia]

rxe said:

You want HD rugby? Pay Sky for it.

Not the point, using ITV as a funding model for a denuded BBC. Not sure it will work with out a big loss in services and technological improvements.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Countdown said:

So, given that you accept you're biased, is there any possibility that that might be affecting your view of the BBC and, in fact, they're actually neutral?

No.

The idea of neutral news is an absurdity. Neutral against what standard? The very act of choosing which stories to report in what order is already an entirely subjective choice based on their perceived relative importance.

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

Countdown said:

Out of interest, is there any possibility that the BBC might be quite neutral and that it's you who is biased?

No, not the slightest possibility.

BBC quite neutral? Good one. Best laugh I have had since seeing the exit poll.

[Pesty]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

No, not the slightest possibility.

BBC quite neutral? Good one. Best laugh I have had since seeing the exit poll.

Haven’t you heard extreme left wing nut jobs are calling the BBC right wing fascists this means the BBC must be impartial.

Hopefully Boris ends the BBC stealth tax. Let the luvvies stand on their own and see how well their do.

[psi310398]

Timely publication:

https://iea.org.uk/media/scrap-licence-fee-and-cre...

[anonymous-user]

Isn’t BBC funding guaranteed until 2027 or something?

Best bbc haters will get is decriminalisation of non payment of license fee.

[21st Century Man]

I'd love to not pay the licence fee, I've no real beef with BBC content but they're responsible for the broadcasting network and we get a very poor freeview service, when the weathers nice we lose most of the HD channels and lots of others, if it's nice weather in winter we lose all the HD channels and the bulk of everything else too, no signal. We have a super duper aerial, the best coax cable, filters, and a kick ass booster system. Yet still I can't watch stuff. I could understand if I lived in rural Scotland, but it's a big town near Derby!