Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
hutchst said:
chrispmartha said:
There has been quite a few arguments from people (including me) as to why the current model is better than a subscription model but they seem to have been ignored somewhat.
i don't think anyone who is in favour of the BBC and license fee is under any illusion that if it wasn't compulsory the BBC would get the same revenue.
It is possible to support the concept of public funding, by licence or otherwise, to finance a public service broadcaster, while at the same time question the fitness for purpose of the current BBC setup to fulfill that objective.i don't think anyone who is in favour of the BBC and license fee is under any illusion that if it wasn't compulsory the BBC would get the same revenue.
chrispmartha said:
Of course it is but that’s not what the majority of the Anti BBC people on here are doing
I think attitudes towards funding are being influenced in part, for some, by the output that the BBC produces. My own view is that I think the BBC has a liberal bias, that unhelpfully influences too much of its news, comedy and drama output.
The liberal bias alienates a large section of viewers.
It's not that all viewers insist that there has to be bias in favour of their own viewpoint (although, doubtless there will be some that do), rather that the obvious liberal bias is rejected and a more neutral position is adopted.
Whilst the BBC has a mandate to educate and inform, it does not have a mandate to embark on a mission of social engineering and influence towards an 'acceptable group-think liberal position.'
I think that if the BBC were to be funded by subscription only it would be a disaster for the BBC budget. We would lose something that is still quite precious, (despite the fact that its reputation for neutrality is somewhat tarnished these days - it's not beyond repair!)
I'd happily pay my license fee for a modern, informative, outward looking, broad church broadcaster that could be the BBC. But for as long as it's presenters think that somehow their own political opinions are what the Corporation is there to broadcast, ( yes, that's you Hancock, Munchetty, most of the news team, Lineker, etc etc) or that any folk not subscribing to those opinions in their entirety somehow represents an extremist position to be attacked and misrepresented, then I will continue to hold the view that the BBC is not currently fit for purpose, nor is it fulfilling its charter.
hutchst said:
chrispmartha said:
Of course it is but that’s not what the majority of the Anti BBC people on here are doing
You're reading from the same hymn sheet as Trevor, that half a dozen people on a motoring forum represent the majority of the anti BBC people.I am well aware that this forum thankfully does not represent how the majority of the country feels
andymadmak said:
I think attitudes towards funding are being influenced in part, for some, by the output that the BBC produces.
My own view is that I think the BBC has a liberal bias, that unhelpfully influences too much of its news, comedy and drama output.
The liberal bias alienates a large section of viewers.
It's not that all viewers insist that there has to be bias in favour of their own viewpoint (although, doubtless there will be some that do), rather that the obvious liberal bias is rejected and a more neutral position is adopted.
Whilst the BBC has a mandate to educate and inform, it does not have a mandate to embark on a mission of social engineering and influence towards an 'acceptable group-think liberal position.'
I think that if the BBC were to be funded by subscription only it would be a disaster for the BBC budget. We would lose something that is still quite precious, (despite the fact that its reputation for neutrality is somewhat tarnished these days - it's not beyond repair!)
I'd happily pay my license fee for a modern, informative, outward looking, broad church broadcaster that could be the BBC. But for as long as it's presenters think that somehow their own political opinions are what the Corporation is there to broadcast, ( yes, that's you Hancock, Munchetty, most of the news team, Lineker, etc etc) or that any folk not subscribing to those opinions in their entirety somehow represents an extremist position to be attacked and misrepresented, then I will continue to hold the view that the BBC is not currently fit for purpose, nor is it fulfilling its charter.
The agenda-driven output produced exclusively for broadcast on the unregulated World Service networks, that you don't get to hear, is far more pronounced.My own view is that I think the BBC has a liberal bias, that unhelpfully influences too much of its news, comedy and drama output.
The liberal bias alienates a large section of viewers.
It's not that all viewers insist that there has to be bias in favour of their own viewpoint (although, doubtless there will be some that do), rather that the obvious liberal bias is rejected and a more neutral position is adopted.
Whilst the BBC has a mandate to educate and inform, it does not have a mandate to embark on a mission of social engineering and influence towards an 'acceptable group-think liberal position.'
I think that if the BBC were to be funded by subscription only it would be a disaster for the BBC budget. We would lose something that is still quite precious, (despite the fact that its reputation for neutrality is somewhat tarnished these days - it's not beyond repair!)
I'd happily pay my license fee for a modern, informative, outward looking, broad church broadcaster that could be the BBC. But for as long as it's presenters think that somehow their own political opinions are what the Corporation is there to broadcast, ( yes, that's you Hancock, Munchetty, most of the news team, Lineker, etc etc) or that any folk not subscribing to those opinions in their entirety somehow represents an extremist position to be attacked and misrepresented, then I will continue to hold the view that the BBC is not currently fit for purpose, nor is it fulfilling its charter.
Edited by hutchst on Monday 24th February 12:17
andymadmak said:
I think attitudes towards funding are being influenced in part, for some, by the output that the BBC produces.
My own view is that I think the BBC has a liberal bias, that unhelpfully influences too much of its news, comedy and drama output.
The liberal bias alienates a large section of viewers.
It's not that all viewers insist that there has to be bias in favour of their own viewpoint (although, doubtless there will be some that do), rather that the obvious liberal bias is rejected and a more neutral position is adopted.
Whilst the BBC has a mandate to educate and inform, it does not have a mandate to embark on a mission of social engineering and influence towards an 'acceptable group-think liberal position.'
I think that if the BBC were to be funded by subscription only it would be a disaster for the BBC budget. We would lose something that is still quite precious, (despite the fact that its reputation for neutrality is somewhat tarnished these days - it's not beyond repair!)
I'd happily pay my license fee for a modern, informative, outward looking, broad church broadcaster that could be the BBC. But for as long as it's presenters think that somehow their own political opinions are what the Corporation is there to broadcast, ( yes, that's you Hancock, Munchetty, most of the news team, Lineker, etc etc) or that any folk not subscribing to those opinions in their entirety somehow represents an extremist position to be attacked and misrepresented, then I will continue to hold the view that the BBC is not currently fit for purpose, nor is it fulfilling its charter.
Out of interest which BBC programmes do you consider Gary Lineker uses to propagate his political views ?My own view is that I think the BBC has a liberal bias, that unhelpfully influences too much of its news, comedy and drama output.
The liberal bias alienates a large section of viewers.
It's not that all viewers insist that there has to be bias in favour of their own viewpoint (although, doubtless there will be some that do), rather that the obvious liberal bias is rejected and a more neutral position is adopted.
Whilst the BBC has a mandate to educate and inform, it does not have a mandate to embark on a mission of social engineering and influence towards an 'acceptable group-think liberal position.'
I think that if the BBC were to be funded by subscription only it would be a disaster for the BBC budget. We would lose something that is still quite precious, (despite the fact that its reputation for neutrality is somewhat tarnished these days - it's not beyond repair!)
I'd happily pay my license fee for a modern, informative, outward looking, broad church broadcaster that could be the BBC. But for as long as it's presenters think that somehow their own political opinions are what the Corporation is there to broadcast, ( yes, that's you Hancock, Munchetty, most of the news team, Lineker, etc etc) or that any folk not subscribing to those opinions in their entirety somehow represents an extremist position to be attacked and misrepresented, then I will continue to hold the view that the BBC is not currently fit for purpose, nor is it fulfilling its charter.
hutchst said:
The agenda-driven output produced exclusively for broadcast on the unregulated World Service networks, that you don't get to hear, is far more pronounced.
HMG can of course intervene should they wish given they have a more direct lever to pull on WS than most other divisions of the Beeb.andymadmak said:
I think attitudes towards funding are being influenced in part, for some, by the output that the BBC produces.
My own view is that I think the BBC has a liberal bias, that unhelpfully influences too much of its news, comedy and drama output.
The liberal bias alienates a large section of viewers.
It's not that all viewers insist that there has to be bias in favour of their own viewpoint (although, doubtless there will be some that do), rather that the obvious liberal bias is rejected and a more neutral position is adopted.
Whilst the BBC has a mandate to educate and inform, it does not have a mandate to embark on a mission of social engineering and influence towards an 'acceptable group-think liberal position.'
I think that if the BBC were to be funded by subscription only it would be a disaster for the BBC budget. We would lose something that is still quite precious, (despite the fact that its reputation for neutrality is somewhat tarnished these days - it's not beyond repair!)
I'd happily pay my license fee for a modern, informative, outward looking, broad church broadcaster that could be the BBC. But for as long as it's presenters think that somehow their own political opinions are what the Corporation is there to broadcast, ( yes, that's you Hancock, Munchetty, most of the news team, Lineker, etc etc) or that any folk not subscribing to those opinions in their entirety somehow represents an extremist position to be attacked and misrepresented, then I will continue to hold the view that the BBC is not currently fit for purpose, nor is it fulfilling its charter.
This^.My own view is that I think the BBC has a liberal bias, that unhelpfully influences too much of its news, comedy and drama output.
The liberal bias alienates a large section of viewers.
It's not that all viewers insist that there has to be bias in favour of their own viewpoint (although, doubtless there will be some that do), rather that the obvious liberal bias is rejected and a more neutral position is adopted.
Whilst the BBC has a mandate to educate and inform, it does not have a mandate to embark on a mission of social engineering and influence towards an 'acceptable group-think liberal position.'
I think that if the BBC were to be funded by subscription only it would be a disaster for the BBC budget. We would lose something that is still quite precious, (despite the fact that its reputation for neutrality is somewhat tarnished these days - it's not beyond repair!)
I'd happily pay my license fee for a modern, informative, outward looking, broad church broadcaster that could be the BBC. But for as long as it's presenters think that somehow their own political opinions are what the Corporation is there to broadcast, ( yes, that's you Hancock, Munchetty, most of the news team, Lineker, etc etc) or that any folk not subscribing to those opinions in their entirety somehow represents an extremist position to be attacked and misrepresented, then I will continue to hold the view that the BBC is not currently fit for purpose, nor is it fulfilling its charter.
Brooking10 said:
Out of interest which BBC programmes do you consider Gary Lineker uses to propagate his political views ?
In the case on Lineker, he doesn't use his programs, but he does use the social media platform that his BBC fame offers him to push his views more widely than perhaps might have been the case for other ex footballers..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46566574
This article sort of covers my point.
Now you might argue that what he does on his own twitter feed is up to him, but if you did then I'd say that you were being somewhat disingenuous..
andymadmak said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Yeah that seals it 
So you think that's acceptable? Fair enough. I don't. And I'd think the same if he'd pulled the same stunt on Corbyn or anyone else. Even his co-host lets out an audible gasp. bhstewie said:
hstewie said:andymadmak said:
So you think that's acceptable? Fair enough. I don't. And I'd think the same if he'd pulled the same stunt on Corbyn or anyone else. Even his co-host lets out an audible gasp.
If Andrew Neil asks it I'm fine with it so should I not be if it's on the One Show? 
Matt Baker's question was a politically motivated stunt - so no, I don't think it should have happened on the One Show.
eccles said:
andymadmak said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Yeah that seals it
So you think that's acceptable? Fair enough. I don't. And I'd think the same if he'd pulled the same stunt on Corbyn or anyone else. Even his co-host lets out an audible gasp. None so blind etc.....
andymadmak said:
But that's the point. AN wouldn't have pulled a stunt like that. Moreover, a politician going on the AN show knows EXACTLY what he/she/it is going to be faced with.
Matt Baker's question was a politically motivated stunt - so no, I don't think it should have happened on the One Show.
I think you're clutching at straws a bit to be honest.Matt Baker's question was a politically motivated stunt - so no, I don't think it should have happened on the One Show.
Ditto Lineker and Munchetty.
And even then when you consider the hundreds of thousands of hours of output if you look hard enough you're almost certainly going to find something.
If you want to highlight bias I'd suggest there are probably better examples to highlight it than a gasp from the a co-host on an 8 year old clip of the one-show
andymadmak said:
Brooking10 said:
Out of interest which BBC programmes do you consider Gary Lineker uses to propagate his political views ?
In the case on Lineker, he doesn't use his programs, but he does use the social media platform that his BBC fame offers him to push his views more widely than perhaps might have been the case for other ex footballers..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46566574
This article sort of covers my point.
Now you might argue that what he does on his own twitter feed is up to him, but if you did then I'd say that you were being somewhat disingenuous..
What you have basically said is
“People on the BBC irrespective of department should not publicly express political views that differ to my own via any medium”.
That’s before we begin to address the “Gary’s more famous than other ex footballers because he works for the BBC”.
It’s laughable - he’s a former footballer, long standing crisp salesman and presenter of sports who makes a lot of noise on Twitter. So what ?
If Gary frightens you then things really are desperate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff