Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
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. Da.
Verery bad showing political colours especially when red.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-4346...
Verery bad showing political colours especially when red.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-4346...
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..
When did ‘liberal’ become something to complain about?
As for Lineker’s fame being solely down to his BBC work, are you serious? Former England captain, one of the top scorers for his country, golden boot winner, star of Italia 90 (Gazza’s tears) and someone who played for Barcelona in an era when most English footballers barely left their home town. Have you noticed that David Beckham is rather more famous that Gary Speed?
As for Lineker’s fame being solely down to his BBC work, are you serious? Former England captain, one of the top scorers for his country, golden boot winner, star of Italia 90 (Gazza’s tears) and someone who played for Barcelona in an era when most English footballers barely left their home town. Have you noticed that David Beckham is rather more famous that Gary Speed?
As a mini update, after logging with the BBC website that I no longer required the licence, they replied today with a short email thanking me for informing them and that they'd review it again in 2 years.
They did state someone may visit me to confirm I do not need the licence but other than that I won't receive any more emails or letters about it within the next 2 years.
If anyone's interested I'll update further, should anything else happen.
They did state someone may visit me to confirm I do not need the licence but other than that I won't receive any more emails or letters about it within the next 2 years.
If anyone's interested I'll update further, should anything else happen.
V1nce Fox said:
As a mini update, after logging with the BBC website that I no longer required the licence, they replied today with a short email thanking me for informing them and that they'd review it again in 2 years.
They did state someone may visit me to confirm I do not need the licence but other than that I won't receive any more emails or letters about it within the next 2 years.
If anyone's interested I'll update further, should anything else happen.
Eminently sensible. They did state someone may visit me to confirm I do not need the licence but other than that I won't receive any more emails or letters about it within the next 2 years.
If anyone's interested I'll update further, should anything else happen.
If everyone on here who's blethering about BBC bias, or who dislikes their output, did the same thing then surely everyone would be happy?
TTwiggy said:
When did ‘liberal’ become something to complain about?
As for Lineker’s fame being solely down to his BBC work, are you serious? Former England captain, one of the top scorers for his country, golden boot winner, star of Italia 90 (Gazza’s tears) and someone who played for Barcelona in an era when most English footballers barely left their home town. Have you noticed that David Beckham is rather more famous that Gary Speed?
I did chuckle at linekers fame being due to the BBCAs for Lineker’s fame being solely down to his BBC work, are you serious? Former England captain, one of the top scorers for his country, golden boot winner, star of Italia 90 (Gazza’s tears) and someone who played for Barcelona in an era when most English footballers barely left their home town. Have you noticed that David Beckham is rather more famous that Gary Speed?
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.
I don’t care about the bias. ( well I care about paying for it) 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 simple issue is that I don’t agree with being threatened with jail for watching Australian motor racing live and no BBC output. Entertainment is not essential like roads so I don’t agree with it being taxed.
Huge fees wages while they dodge tax doesn’t help either but that’s just minor quibbles if they are in agree market they can set whatever fee they want.
Make it subscription and be done.
The supporters on here would have you believe anybody who doesn’t support the BBC is a Nazi farrage voting right winger.
I just don’t want to go to jail for something I wouldn’t use if I had a choice.
Most of the country want it to end. Those that support it are out of date, out of time and on the wrong side of history.
Times change
Pesty said:
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.
I don’t care about the bias. ( well I care about paying for it) 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 simple issue is that I don’t agree with being threatened with jail for watching Australian motor racing live and no BBC output. Entertainment is not essential like roads so I don’t agree with it being taxed.
Huge fees wages while they dodge tax doesn’t help either but that’s just minor quibbles if they are in agree market they can set whatever fee they want.
Make it subscription and be done.
The supporters on here would have you believe anybody who doesn’t support the BBC is a Nazi farrage voting right winger.
I just don’t want to go to jail for something I wouldn’t use if I had a choice.
Most of the country want it to end. Those that support it are out of date, out of time and on the wrong side of history.
Times change
Would you be happy if like in many other countries you paid a broadcasting license fee but didn’t get the BBC?
As for the Nazi comment don’t be so daft.
andy_s said:
PRTVR said:
TTwiggy said:
When did ‘liberal’ become something to complain about?
When it doesn't correspond to the views of the majority of the population .Zirconia said:
andy_s said:
PRTVR said:
TTwiggy said:
When did ‘liberal’ become something to complain about?
When it doesn't correspond to the views of the majority of the population .i4got said:
A liberal used to say they may not like what you say but they will defend your right to say it. This by itself confirms there are no liberals around any more.
No, it means people are misusing the term liberal and have now started to use it as a pejorative.There are plenty people that fit your description
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff