Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[Dont like rolls]

Inside the BBC, you will find the "problem"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOZmxz-cYmI

[psi310398]

Dont like rolls said:

Inside the BBC, you will find the "problem"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOZmxz-cYmI

Interesting. What documentary series is it drawn from?

[Harry H]

In the past I've always been a fan of the BBC. Not because I necessarily watch it that often but because it sets a bar that the commercial operators have to exceed to attract audiences.

Remove that bar and it's a race to the bottom of ste reality TV designed to appeal to the masses. Cheap entertainment yes but very little quality.

My problem now though is that in spite of it's huge funding it's setting a very low bar and just trying to compete with the commercial guys in churning out tat. And Woke tat at that.

Virtually everything it does is just boring and so PC. It's unwatchable. So busy trying not to offend it fails to excite.

They are rapidly running out of time as the subscription channels are going to eat them alive if they don't get their act together. Cut out all the crap, focus on quality and they might just buy themselves a stay of execution.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Brooking10 said:

Its £150.

The services it provides to you are worth less than £3 a week to you ?

£3 a week

You are a man of means.

To me it is clearly not an issue of value for you.

I wouldn't mind if the new "Britbox" streaming service was included in the fee - since it's content is mainly programs paid for by the licence fee they should be free to licence fee payers.

At £3 per week its costs more than Netflix and has way to many adverts (for other BBC stuff) making it less time efficient. Especially as both I and my wife rarely watch content from the BBC.

[Countdown]

Jinx said:

BigMon said:

Let me guess, you're in the 'leftist mouthpiece' camp?

I'd suggest it was more of a Blairist mouthpiece hence the criticisms from both centre right leaning and far left. I would also suggest it suffers from a institutional left leaning bias due to the organisational structure and employee make-up.

Does it not get any criticism from far-right or centre-left organisations?

[Mark Benson]

Harry H said:

In the past I've always been a fan of the BBC. Not because I necessarily watch it that often but because it sets a bar that the commercial operators have to exceed to attract audiences.

Remove that bar and it's a race to the bottom of ste reality TV designed to appeal to the masses. Cheap entertainment yes but very little quality.

My problem now though is that in spite of it's huge funding it's setting a very low bar and just trying to compete with the commercial guys in churning out tat. And Woke tat at that.

Virtually everything it does is just boring and so PC. It's unwatchable. So busy trying not to offend it fails to excite.

They are rapidly running out of time as the subscription channels are going to eat them alive if they don't get their act together. Cut out all the crap, focus on quality and they might just buy themselves a stay of execution.

I was always a defender of public service broadcasting for the reasons given above. But we gave up on the BBC and indeed the licence fee about 18 months ago and just have Netflix.

The BBC seems so tied up in whatever is occupying the minds of bien pensant Londoners that it's drifted further and further away from large parts of the country, both culturally and in successfully reflecting differing opinion.
Since Blair, bien pensant Londoners have had the prevailing narrative going along with them, now that's changing and a lot of people are beginning to look around them and see a different world to the one the BBC inhabits. As a former bien pensant Londoner, now living in rural North Yorkshire, I've seen the fault lines for a long time but it's only really Brexit and the election that exposed them more clearly.

[Fundoreen]

They need to be taken down a peg of two. A smug self satistfied organization that is basically a government information service.
The gave boris an easy ride and yet apparently he's annoyed with them.
Watch as nothing happens.

[Dr Jekyll]

The problem isn't with trying to attract audiences. The problem is that if defining 'audiences' as high ratings, either to attract advertisers or to show they can equal commercial stations for ratings, the output tends to be bland. Better to have 100 people not bothering to switch off or hoping something interesting might happen in the next half hour, than 40 people engrossed.
That's why there is so much good stuff on Netflix and Prime. They aren't trying to get you to simply leave the TV on. They are trying to ensure that when you wince at your bank statement at the end of the month and start looking at direct debits to cancel you can think of something you really would not want to have missed. Better that you are engrossed by a couple of boxed sets and watch nothing else than you leave the TV on all day on the off chance the leading lady will lose her top. Subscription for the BBC would mean more of the very programs which are held up as justifying the licence fee.

Public service broadcasting is a slightly iffy concept IMHO. I can appreciate the argument that it might be a public service to broadcast certain types of program, and that therefore there should be somewhere they can be shown even if they aren't 'commercially viable', IE very few people want to watch it.
But leaving aside the question of why anyone should be expected to subsidise what we don't want to watch. This quickly turns from

'If it's a public service we should show it even if almost nobody watches it'

to

'If it isn't commercially viable because nobody wants to watch it, that proves it's a public service'.

'Public service' ends up meaning 'forcing the public to pay for stuff they don't think is worth paying for, and can't be bothered to watch even when they've paid for it.

Dismissing those members of the public as 'the masses' who presumably aren't qualified to make their own viewing decisions doesn't remove the inconsistency..

[zygalski]

Mark Benson said:

I was always a defender of public service broadcasting for the reasons given above. But we gave up on the BBC and indeed the licence fee about 18 months ago and just have Netflix.

The BBC seems so tied up in whatever is occupying the minds of bien pensant Londoners that it's drifted further and further away from large parts of the country, both culturally and in successfully reflecting differing opinion.
Since Blair, bien pensant Londoners have had the prevailing narrative going along with them, now that's changing and a lot of people are beginning to look around them and see a different world to the one the BBC inhabits. As a former bien pensant Londoner, now living in rural North Yorkshire, I've seen the fault lines for a long time but it's only really Brexit and the election that exposed them more clearly.

Benson Pensant?

[Mark Benson]

zygalski said:

Mark Benson said:

I was always a defender of public service broadcasting for the reasons given above. But we gave up on the BBC and indeed the licence fee about 18 months ago and just have Netflix.

The BBC seems so tied up in whatever is occupying the minds of bien pensant Londoners that it's drifted further and further away from large parts of the country, both culturally and in successfully reflecting differing opinion.
Since Blair, bien pensant Londoners have had the prevailing narrative going along with them, now that's changing and a lot of people are beginning to look around them and see a different world to the one the BBC inhabits. As a former bien pensant Londoner, now living in rural North Yorkshire, I've seen the fault lines for a long time but it's only really Brexit and the election that exposed them more clearly.

Benson Pensant?

Not any more, Benson Peasant now I'm 'oop Norf.

[loafer123]

An interesting comment below the Huw Edwards article, which I agree with;

"A thoughtful and convincing piece. Having been infuriated in both directions by the BBC i conclude that in general they are pretty balanced. My problem is the aggressive 'gotcha" interviewing which appear designed to trap the interviewee rather than to illuminate the matters and policies of the day. Today and the other high profile interviewers should think long and hard about this as I believe it is turning people away from them and I suspect the interviewers are doing it because they want to try to make the selves more relevant. I.E the interviewers have got it badly wrong."

[tangerine_sedge]

loafer123 said:

An interesting comment below the Huw Edwards article, which I agree with;

"A thoughtful and convincing piece. Having been infuriated in both directions by the BBC i conclude that in general they are pretty balanced. My problem is the aggressive 'gotcha" interviewing which appear designed to trap the interviewee rather than to illuminate the matters and policies of the day. Today and the other high profile interviewers should think long and hard about this as I believe it is turning people away from them and I suspect the interviewers are doing it because they want to try to make the selves more relevant. I.E the interviewers have got it badly wrong."

The style of interviewing is driven entirely by the person being interviewed. The attack dog style has been developed because politicians have wriggled, ignored questions or just downright lied for far too long. We are now in the position that the current PM will not give interviews to any serious interviewer or programme because his handlers are too scared.

[Mark Benson]

loafer123 said:

An interesting comment below the Huw Edwards article, which I agree with;

"A thoughtful and convincing piece. Having been infuriated in both directions by the BBC i conclude that in general they are pretty balanced. My problem is the aggressive 'gotcha" interviewing which appear designed to trap the interviewee rather than to illuminate the matters and policies of the day. Today and the other high profile interviewers should think long and hard about this as I believe it is turning people away from them and I suspect the interviewers are doing it because they want to try to make the selves more relevant. I.E the interviewers have got it badly wrong."

There's a place for this kind of interviewing, but it should be part of a broad approach. At the moment only Andrew Neil seems to be able to pull this off convincingly, before him it was Paxo and one person doing this is enough for any channel.

Also, the really annoying thing about BBC News (and others, but the BBC seemed to be the first) was the way that they'd report a news item, then "We now turn to our Europe Editor" or their economics, political or tiddlywinks editor for an 'interview' on the story.
No. The editor gives us the content, I don't want their view, I want an informed outsider or two to give their opinion, otherwise we've just had a story both written and commented on by the same person which is hardly likely to give a plurality of viewpoints.

[anonymous-user]

It's changed because it's increasingly become about scoops and profile building of the interviewer and media organisation ahead of informing the consumer.

Great interviewers used to be known because hey could gently procure information from the subject without needing a crowbar, often getting nuggets they wouldn't have otherwise.

Now it's 30 seconds to prove the subject is lying with a binary result required.

[Wills2]

BigMon said:

Given that Labour are now complaining about the BBC I think that shows they were pretty balanced in their election coverage rather than the leftist mouthpiece that gets portrayed on here.

There was a Corbyn supporter on LBC the other day going bananas about how biased the BBC was against Corbyn and how they'd edited footage to support Boris.

At least there is something they agree on they both think the BBC is biased against them.....er hold on..

[Zirconia]

loafer123 said:

An interesting comment below the Huw Edwards article, which I agree with;

"A thoughtful and convincing piece. Having been infuriated in both directions by the BBC i conclude that in general they are pretty balanced. My problem is the aggressive 'gotcha" interviewing which appear designed to trap the interviewee rather than to illuminate the matters and policies of the day. Today and the other high profile interviewers should think long and hard about this as I believe it is turning people away from them and I suspect the interviewers are doing it because they want to try to make the selves more relevant. I.E the interviewers have got it badly wrong."

Another bit from the Huw Edwards link is the commentary on broadsheets (and I expect extended to red tops). Add into that the CCHQ way it played the whole lot of them (ITV and BBC top political reporters). I expect a gotcha form a well informed journo, but this expectation was used to effect in the election by CCHQ.

Mark Benson said:

There's a place for this kind of interviewing, but it should be part of a broad approach. At the moment only Andrew Neil seems to be able to pull this off convincingly, before him it was Paxo and one person doing this is enough for any channel.

Also, the really annoying thing about BBC News (and others, but the BBC seemed to be the first) was the way that they'd report a news item, then "We now turn to our Europe Editor" or their economics, political or tiddlywinks editor for an 'interview' on the story.
No. The editor gives us the content, I don't want their view, I want an informed outsider or two to give their opinion, otherwise we've just had a story both written and commented on by the same person which is hardly likely to give a plurality of viewpoints.

Reporters can have brief (Witchell for example), it will be their bag for the time they are in that role, they need to cultivate the contacts and get across the issues and try to get interviews. It is their job to try to explain it to us, the uninitiated, the ins and outs of the issue. It does not always work, ask anyone here after they have done something on Concorde or Apollo, etc. There will be people shouting the errors and calling them names.

There will be a load of mistakes. I don't expect them to be an expert on every thing and not always able to pull in real experts for interviews. I expect the editor to try to keep it even and pull resources together and direct the show and hopefully rely on the reporter to do the job (or apply boot to @rse when they mess up).

[Randy Winkman]

psi310398 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Perhaps your wife gets £3 of value though and could pay the bill? Since you only need one licence per household, you're sorted.

AIUI, the licence is not required for radio and hasn't been for some decades.

I stand corrected. Perhaps my mind went in that direction because I think that 6-Music is the best of the BBC. I'd always want to fund it.

[psi310398]

Randy Winkman said:

I stand corrected. Perhaps my mind went in that direction because I think that 6-Music is the best of the BBC. I'd always want to fund it.

And, being a liberal-minded sort of chap, I'd not dream of telling you how to spend your money.

I'm just slightly surprised at the number here who seem to think it is ok to direct others to do precisely that. As a simple proposition, I'm sure there'd be outrage if people were told they had by law to subscribe to the Daily Mail if they wanted to buy and read the Guardian.

[TTwiggy]

Requiring a licence to view live TV is not unique to the UK.

Getting a service as comprehensive as the BBC in return is.

For some reason I find myself having to repeat this every few months on here.

[andymadmak]

TTwiggy said:

Requiring a licence to view live TV is not unique to the UK.

Getting a service as comprehensive as the BBC in return is.

For some reason I find myself having to repeat this every few months on here.

Perhaps the reason that you're having to repeat this every few weeks is because the BBC, much like the Labour Party, has forgotten that for it to remain relevant, it must respond to what it's supporters want, and not simply plough ahead with what it wants them to want...