Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
psi310398 said:
I wouldn't read anything much into that. It is a view that actually probably reflects just how second rate and insulated from reality they are. Not least as the view you ascribe to these senior bods does not seem to recognise that if the money for ongoing operations is not to be gouged out of ordinary UK residents in the form of a licence fee but earned, it is the level of those earnings that will dictate how much infrastructure, knowledge and talent the BBC will have "to wipe the floor with their competitors".
Threat to income apart, what prognosis would you offer a big, fat, lazy public body completely unexposed to meaningful competition suddenly being required to recover its full economic costs, borrow money at non-public sector commercial rates, pay HMRC corporation tax on all its activity and pay HMG the value of the spectrum it occupies?
And on major capital projects, remember the £100m IT project it f
ked up so royally a few years ago? That debacle alone would have brought down almost any commercial TV company in the UK, possibly with the exception of Sky, but the public sector simply had to stand behind the BBC because a public corporation cannot be allowed to go bust. It would be interesting to see what terms any serious bank's project finance team would give a privatised BBC without an imputed government guarantee behind it.
I'm guessing you've not had any commercial dealings with the BBC?Threat to income apart, what prognosis would you offer a big, fat, lazy public body completely unexposed to meaningful competition suddenly being required to recover its full economic costs, borrow money at non-public sector commercial rates, pay HMRC corporation tax on all its activity and pay HMG the value of the spectrum it occupies?
And on major capital projects, remember the £100m IT project it f
ked up so royally a few years ago? That debacle alone would have brought down almost any commercial TV company in the UK, possibly with the exception of Sky, but the public sector simply had to stand behind the BBC because a public corporation cannot be allowed to go bust. It would be interesting to see what terms any serious bank's project finance team would give a privatised BBC without an imputed government guarantee behind it. It is not a 'big fat lazy public body', it is a modern media machine. Trying to draw comparisons, with, say, the NHS, is very wide of the mark.
Edited to add: if you think Sky are in a good way, you really don't know much about the landscape of modern TV.
TTwiggy said:
I'm guessing you've not had any commercial dealings with the BBC?
It is not a 'big fat lazy public body', it is a modern media machine. Trying to draw comparisons, with, say, the NHS, is very wide of the mark.
Edited to add: if you think Sky are in a good way, you really don't know much about the landscape of modern TV.
I have and I have also had to deal with them from the public sector side. It might be a modern media machine but it is simply not under proper commercial discipline and will have a rude shock if it is exposed to the rigours of a properly competitive market. It is not a 'big fat lazy public body', it is a modern media machine. Trying to draw comparisons, with, say, the NHS, is very wide of the mark.
Edited to add: if you think Sky are in a good way, you really don't know much about the landscape of modern TV.
It is, after all, not a natural monopoly as British Telecom or British Gas were when they were privatised. And their income streams (absent a licence fee) are nowhere near as predictable or secure. They'd be eaten alive in a fully competitive environment.
I didn't say that Sky is in a good way. I simply said that Sky is about the only broadcaster in the UK that could (possibly/probably) weather a cock-up on a project of the size of the BBC's without going bust. I really don't think that's a controversial statement.
psi310398 said:
TTwiggy said:
I'm guessing you've not had any commercial dealings with the BBC?
It is not a 'big fat lazy public body', it is a modern media machine. Trying to draw comparisons, with, say, the NHS, is very wide of the mark.
Edited to add: if you think Sky are in a good way, you really don't know much about the landscape of modern TV.
I have and I have also had to deal with them from the public sector side. It might be a modern media machine but it is simply not under proper commercial discipline and will have a rude shock if it is exposed to the rigours of a properly competitive market. It is not a 'big fat lazy public body', it is a modern media machine. Trying to draw comparisons, with, say, the NHS, is very wide of the mark.
Edited to add: if you think Sky are in a good way, you really don't know much about the landscape of modern TV.
It is, after all, not a natural monopoly as British Telecom or British Gas were when they were privatised. And their income streams (absent a licence fee) are nowhere near as predictable or secure. They'd be eaten alive in a fully competitive environment.
I didn't say that Sky is in a good way. I simply said that Sky is about the only broadcaster in the UK that could (possibly/probably) weather a cock-up on a project of the size of the BBC's without going bust. I really don't think that's a controversial statement.
TTwiggy said:
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree, as the alternative is we get into a silly contest concerning who or what we dealt with at the BBC, in an environment where both of us could simply be making things up.
Sure. Mind you, if the press speculation is correct, we might find out soon enough how the BBC will respond to proper commercial pressure...
New to this thread, but going by the title - seems something will indeed be done about the political bias at the BBC 
I think the idea of decriminalising the non-payment is a very good step forward. How in a modern society can people be criminalised for not paying to watch the BBC has always been a weird concept. Glad to see it go.
With the BBC drawing bias complaints from all sides of the political divide, it seems they are anything but impartial.
And I think this also rings true with just about all journalists these days. They seem incapable of demonstrating their bias. Together with the numerous 2nd rate celebrities and their ranting opinions, I think the British public are sick and tired of everyone else's agenda being pushed on to them.
Just get back to the "naked facts" and report them in the news - we can make our own minds up thank you very much.
I think the idea of decriminalising the non-payment is a very good step forward. How in a modern society can people be criminalised for not paying to watch the BBC has always been a weird concept. Glad to see it go.
With the BBC drawing bias complaints from all sides of the political divide, it seems they are anything but impartial.
And I think this also rings true with just about all journalists these days. They seem incapable of demonstrating their bias. Together with the numerous 2nd rate celebrities and their ranting opinions, I think the British public are sick and tired of everyone else's agenda being pushed on to them.
Just get back to the "naked facts" and report them in the news - we can make our own minds up thank you very much.
ZeroGroundZero said:
How in a modern society can people be criminalised for not paying to watch the BBC has always been a weird concept. Glad to see it go.
They are not. They are criminalised for not paying the licence fee to watch live TV. ZeroGroundZero said:
With the BBC drawing bias complaints from all sides of the political divide, it seems they are anything but impartial.
Odd, I would imagine it suggest they are generally equally biased against both sides.ZeroGroundZero said:
Just get back to the "naked facts" and report them in the news - we can make our own minds up thank you very much.
News became entertainment years ago. If you just had a bloke sat in a studio reading headlines in RP everyone would switch over to the other side.
TTwiggy said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Whatever Netflix viewing figures are, I'm sure they'd be much higher if they could lock you up for not having a subscription.
Nobody gets locked up for not having a TV licence.Wonder what Netflix news would look like, some avant-garde stuff, probably like trying to work out what stuff in Ikea does from the names.
psi310398 said:
Sure.
Mind you, if the press speculation is correct, we might find out soon enough how the BBC will respond to proper commercial pressure...
Indeed. Scary stuff. Don't like the press asking awkward questions, remove them. What can go wrong. Cummings wrecking the state I think.Mind you, if the press speculation is correct, we might find out soon enough how the BBC will respond to proper commercial pressure...
TTwiggy said:
ZeroGroundZero said:
How in a modern society can people be criminalised for not paying to watch the BBC has always been a weird concept. Glad to see it go.
They are not. They are criminalised for not paying the licence fee to watch live TV. ZeroGroundZero said:
With the BBC drawing bias complaints from all sides of the political divide, it seems they are anything but impartial.
Odd, I would imagine it suggest they are generally equally biased against both sides.ZeroGroundZero said:
Just get back to the "naked facts" and report them in the news - we can make our own minds up thank you very much.
News became entertainment years ago. If you just had a bloke sat in a studio reading headlines in RP everyone would switch over to the other side.You state "generally biased against both sides" - ie. generally biased. One bias doesn't 'cancel out' another bias, you simply have just more bias.
If all channels had "a bloke in a studio reading headlines in RP", then turning over would mean they also get the unbiased facts. Win win for all viewers who just want the news.
Just my opinions of course!
Zirconia said:
Indeed. Scary stuff. Don't like the press asking awkward questions, remove them. What can go wrong. Cummings wrecking the state I think.
Sky and ITN seem perfectly able to report the news without the world collapsing around us, often with faster and superior coverage to the BBC's efforts. If anything, Sky appeared to me even more anti-Brexit than the BBC, so I'm not arguing to tilt the scales on the grounds of bias.So many costs have been cut from the once-enviable BBC news operation to fund light entertainment, quizzes, chat shows and cookery programmes (that can be provided perfectly adequately by ITV etc) that it can't even rely on an international network of on-the-ground reporters to provide decent coverage - hence the increasing need to report 'news' by having journos talking between themselves (having picked stuff up from the wires) in London studios, rather than obtaining reports from an employee actually on the ground - you know, a reporter.
psi310398 said:
Sky and ITN seem perfectly able to report the news without the world collapsing around us, often with faster and superior coverage to the BBC's efforts. If anything, Sky appeared to me even more anti-Brexit than the BBC, so I'm not arguing to tilt the scales on the grounds of bias.
So many costs have been cut from the once-enviable BBC news operation to fund light entertainment, quizzes, chat shows and cookery programmes (that can be provided perfectly adequately by ITV etc) that it can't even rely on an international network of on-the-ground reporters to provide decent coverage - hence the increasing need to report 'news' by having journos talking between themselves (having picked stuff up from the wires) in London studios, rather than obtaining reports from an employee actually on the ground - you know, a reporter.
Personally I find they overlap. Some beat other to the story, next day the other way around. Stories in can also be limited by resources. That is using reporters from regions and country specific.So many costs have been cut from the once-enviable BBC news operation to fund light entertainment, quizzes, chat shows and cookery programmes (that can be provided perfectly adequately by ITV etc) that it can't even rely on an international network of on-the-ground reporters to provide decent coverage - hence the increasing need to report 'news' by having journos talking between themselves (having picked stuff up from the wires) in London studios, rather than obtaining reports from an employee actually on the ground - you know, a reporter.
TTwiggy said:
ZeroGroundZero said:
How in a modern society can people be criminalised for not paying to watch the BBC has always been a weird concept. Glad to see it go.
They are not. They are criminalised for not paying the licence fee to watch live TV. ZeroGroundZero said:
TTwiggy said:
ZeroGroundZero said:
How in a modern society can people be criminalised for not paying to watch the BBC has always been a weird concept. Glad to see it go.
They are not. They are criminalised for not paying the licence fee to watch live TV. ZeroGroundZero said:
With the BBC drawing bias complaints from all sides of the political divide, it seems they are anything but impartial.
Odd, I would imagine it suggest they are generally equally biased against both sides.ZeroGroundZero said:
Just get back to the "naked facts" and report them in the news - we can make our own minds up thank you very much.
News became entertainment years ago. If you just had a bloke sat in a studio reading headlines in RP everyone would switch over to the other side.You state "generally biased against both sides" - ie. generally biased. One bias doesn't 'cancel out' another bias, you simply have just more bias.
If all channels had "a bloke in a studio reading headlines in RP", then turning over would mean they also get the unbiased facts. Win win for all viewers who just want the news.
Just my opinions of course!
Firstly, I can see how it works with events like natural disasters or sport. "There was an earthquake in New Zealand. 20 people are reported dead." or "Spurs beat Man City 3-0". The facts are clear. I don't see how that works with politics. "Political Party A said 'X'." What if 'X' were a blatant lie - say, that the number of nurses in the NHS had gone up but they were actually falling? What is the news story? That nurse numbers were falling or that the political party was lying or both. What if the politician has been talking about this calendar year but the numbers the journalist was looking at were for five years. What is the fact in that? To which one does the reporter give precedence? If he reports the rising number with more emphasis than the falling number he is helping Political Party A. If he does the opposite, he is hindering them.
Which brings me onto the second problem with "just the facts". Even simple things such as the order of those facts is creating a form of bias. With which of these two hypothetical facts do you lead the news: that the economy is growing; or that the Prime Minister is having an affair? By giving prominence, even in ordering, to one or the other, you are creating a news agenda that has an effect on the electorate.
In short, journalists have to make judgement calls on the facts. The way they present these facts creates a narrative or can change your impression of those facts however impartial they try to be.
AstonZagato said:
In short, journalists have to make judgement calls on the facts. The way they present these facts creates a narrative or can change your impression of those facts however impartial they try to be.
I think we have to look very very hard to find a "BBC journalist" who is not a political activist at heart.psi310398 said:
I simply said that Sky is about the only broadcaster in the UK that could (possibly/probably) weather a cock-up on a project of the size of the BBC's without going bust. I really don't think that's a controversial statement.
It's wrong though. ITV managed to stomach a significantly greater loss on their equally dismal Friends Reunited venture.
Zirconia said:
I expect it to change soon anyway. No idea what will come out of the change and sod all I can do about it. Problem will be ensuring it remains impartial as best it can and at the moment, the left think BBC are right wing mouth pieces and the right think they are left wing. Seems about right to me.
7 yearshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing...
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.
yes. I hope that there is a team looking at how they move forward in 7 years. Subscription model? Break it up? I don't know.Remove that bar and it's a race to the bottom of s
te 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.
Halb said:
Yeah, I did wonder about that but wonder if No 10 can get around it. then I expect them to try.Zirconia said:
Yeah, I did wonder about that but wonder if No 10 can get around it. then I expect them to try.
Making the licence fee essentially optional has been mooted and would degrade the BBC's income stream very quickly. Who in their right minds would pay a levy that's unenforceable? I'm sure there are some high-minded people here who will pay because the BBC provides value beyond the price of rubies etc, but what about the majority?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff