Topic: The BBC

[eddymunster]

Isn't it?

Is it?

Maybe before the internet, but not now.

[eddymunster]

For the British element of it and what it is supposed to stand for, yes.

I dont think the fee should be abolished. It makes some amazing programmes and again for what it stands for its worth it. Its just their news and journalism around politics which is utter dog shit.

You'd pay £12.50 a month to subscribe to a service solely because it's a British Institution?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I would gladly pay just for the radio.

[jillcwhomever]

For the British element of it and what it is supposed to stand for, yes.

I dont think the fee should be abolished. It makes some amazing programmes and again for what it stands for its worth it. Its just their news and journalism around politics which is utter dog shit.

I agree with that view, I watch quite a bit of TV on the BBC, not in to a lot of the American shows. I don't watch the political stuff anyway, all channels have their biases one way or another. They do great documentaries as well, BBC4 is class.

[classycarra]

Again, I'm not asking if we should abolish the BBC, merely if it's funding should come from elsewhere, other than a compulsory fee taken from the public.

These shows and services could easily continue if enough of the public chose to subscribe if the compulsory fee was abolished.

Easily? Really? Given the lack of funding in other culture and art public services I don't share your optimism.

I don't really see enough in what is essentially a marketising argument to make it worthwhile gutting their funding

[Titi Camara]

Easily? Really?

These shows and services could easily continue if enough of the public chose to subscribe if the compulsory fee was abolished.

If the entire question I'm asking is about funding, and that funding was entirely replaced with voluntary subscriptions for content, why would it not be easy to continue all current programming and services?

Given the lack of funding in other culture and art public services I don't share your optimism.

I'm not sure anyone has advocated nor argued that the BBC should be funded from the UK budget?

I don't really see enough in what is essentially a marketising argument to make it worthwhile gutting their funding

Errr, dunno?

[Mutton Geoff]

To flip this on it's head, Geoff, should I be means tested for Netflix?

Of course not that is not an essential service as the BBC is, for some it is some sort of lifeline.

Netflix and Prime etc are luxury items in my opinion.

[Alan_X]

If the entire question I'm asking is about funding, and that funding was entirely replaced with voluntary subscriptions for content, why would it not be easy to continue all current programming and services?

Are you for dismantling the NHS and abandoning publicly funded education?

Why not just have a voluntary subscription for the treatments you need and do the same for schools. Why should I pay for schools when I left decades ago and my son is grown up?...

The BBC provides a level and quality of public service broadcasting that is still the envy of countries around the world. In the same way that my tax funds medical procedures that I will never need, the TV Licence Fee provides the BBC with funds to provide a range of services that would not necessarily be sustainable if they relied on subscriptions.

If you think Question Time is shit then don't watch it. I don't know why anyone bothers as it's an entertainment show for political nerds.

Like the EU, it is not perfect but it has mechanisms for taking complaints and is subject to scrutiny. The world isn't in the shit because the BBC has a few Brexiteers on Question Time. It's in the shit because people are having targetted political messages fed to them through their social media.

"I know that Question Time is biased because I got a graphic on Facebook/Twitter/Whatsapp showing there have only been Eurosceptic MEPs on the programme..."

The BBC is a great organisation that has been bullied and threatened by the Tories for decades. Thatcherites and Murdoch must piss themselves laughing when they see the left hammering the BBC. In a country where the press is dominated by the right, why the fuck would you throw the BBC to the wolves of market forces and de-regulation when it at least has a duty to provide balance, even if it struggles to fulfill those obligations ever time.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Because they think that makes them hip.

[thejbs]

I think the fee is great value. Not just for TV, but I love 6music and 5live, bbc news website, and every other night I cook something from bbc good food. It isn't perfect but it's good value.

[Brian Blessed]

There isn't a broadcaster in the world that provides such high quality content that isn't subject to voluntary subscription fees or advertising. If the BBC went to either, they'd have to chase ratings, and the quality would drop, no doubt.  With subscription, income would be lucky to be half of current levels, and there goes the quality. If they go to advertising it would be even worse.

I don't know, I see this question pop up every now and then, but I don't think it would if there wasn't a license fee, but the cost was rolled into VAT and income tax, like the NHS and other services.

[Something Worse]

Some of you guys should come to America for a month and just live and work here and see what it would be like not having a BBC (PBS is very good but underfunded in comparison and doesn't produce anywhere near the quality content).

Just don't break a toe or anything, you'd be fucked.

[JC the Messiah]

Are you for dismantling the NHS and abandoning publicly funded education?

Why not just have a voluntary subscription for the treatments you need and do the same for schools. Why should I pay for schools when I left decades ago and my son is grown up?...

The BBC provides a level and quality of public service broadcasting that is still the envy of countries around the world. In the same way that my tax funds medical procedures that I will never need, the TV Licence Fee provides the BBC with funds to provide a range of services that would not necessarily be sustainable if they relied on subscriptions.

If you think Question Time is shit then don't watch it. I don't know why anyone bothers as it's an entertainment show for political nerds.

Like the EU, it is not perfect but it has mechanisms for taking complaints and is subject to scrutiny. The world isn't in the shit because the BBC has a few Brexiteers on Question Time. It's in the shit because people are having targetted political messages fed to them through their social media.

"I know that Question Time is biased because I got a graphic on Facebook/Twitter/Whatsapp showing there have only been Eurosceptic MEPs on the programme..."

The BBC is a great organisation that has been bullied and threatened by the Tories for decades. Thatcherites and Murdoch must piss themselves laughing when they see the left hammering the BBC. In a country where the press is dominated by the right, why the fuck would you throw the BBC to the wolves of market forces and de-regulation when it at least has a duty to provide balance, even if it struggles to fulfill those obligations ever time.

UKIP have been given a disproportionate account of exposure on QT, not based on an infographic on my social media feed, but based on actual numbers. A quick search brought this up (from 2017):
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/question-time-ukip-nigel-farage_uk_58d95295e4b03787d35ae186

You might not watch it, but it not only commands relatively high viewing figures, but is also used for soundbites across the media with political commentary.

The exposure they got on QT and on BBC news broadcasts, especially on 5live, helped normalise them and brought their message to the focus of many.

I'd be bold enough to say it would have contributed significantly to the slender majority leave had in the referendum.

[Alan_X]

UKIP have been given a disproportionate account of exposure on QT, not based on an infographic on my social media feed, but based on actual numbers. A quick search brought this up (from 2017):
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/question-time-ukip-nigel-farage_uk_58d95295e4b03787d35ae186

You might not watch it, but it not only commands relatively high viewing figures, but is also used for soundbites across the media with political commentary.

The exposure they got on QT and on BBC news broadcasts, especially on 5live, helped normalise them and brought their message to the focus of many.

I'd be bold enough to say it would have contributed significantly to the slender majority leave had in the referendum.

Of course you're right. It was the BBC that caused Brexit.

You'd think that if that was the case then those who are meant to have been 'normalised by the BBC would see it as pro-Brexit:

[pimg]https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2018-02-20/BBC%20brexit-01.png[/img]

Nothing to do with the millions spent on targeted ads by Vote Leave? The 24 adverts were sent to selected voters based on an data-harvesting algorithms. They were seen by between 2 and 4 million people in the three days before the referendum vote:






This one was specifically for animal lovers.


a simple ad for simple voters.


Some adverts were targeted at younger voters


older voters saw ads focusing on the NHS


This one was targeted at older voters with a reach of up to 25% of men and women over 65.


Boris was the only politician featured apart of course from this one:


"The EU takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers." Jeremy Corbyn...


And it was nothing to do with the overwhelming Brexit-bias of the right wing press:

Leave papers: The S*n (print circulation 1.7 million), The Daily Mail (print circulation 1.5 million), The Daily Telegraph (print circulation 490,000), Mail on Sunday (print circulation 1.3 million), The Sunday Times (print circulation 797,000), The Sunday Telegraph (print circulation 370,000), Daily Star (print circulation 425,000).

Remain papers: The Times (print circulation 438,000), The Guardian (print circulation 165,000), The Financial Times (print circulation 198,000), The Observer (print circulation 194,000).

On the fence: i (print circulation 284,000).

[Jiminy Cricket]

To flip this on it's head, Geoff, should I be means tested for Netflix?

If a TV license is required to even own a TV, then yes, I think there is a strong argument for some kind of (simplified) means testing for a scaled price structure.

For me, the fundamental problem is how the corporation manages political programming. As a prime example - as you highlighted in your opening remarks - Question Time. The way I would go about rejigging political programming is to create a team of real-time fact checkers for such programming, and make really big thing of it. So, going to the BBC to discuss and debate your points of view is seen as rigorous and carries a stamp of authority. Real-time fact checking could be fed to a back-up interviewer who will counter the interviewee for a response. I would then have the interviewer challenge the interviewees point of view since they (presumably) based the view upon faulty information. I'd also keep a fact-log of every interviewee, where they are graded and risk suspension according to 1) their willingness to accept the correction of their non-facts in real-time; and 2) the number of faulty facts they utilise. After a certain low threshold, they are suspended from the service for a period of time. lengths of suspension would escalate too.

The BBC also needs to understand that 'balance' does not mean giving airtime to the unbalanced. Someone who espouses anti-climate change nonsense is not the opposing argument to the undertaking of radical change in how we generate and usilise power (disagreement about the economics of it and future developments in negating technology would be possible counter arguments). In short, arguments about policy and what we cannot know for certain are perfectly permissible, but not idiotic arguments about the basic facts. Unless the discussion directly involves religion, stop including clerics in discussion about which they possess no expert knowledge. Sister Wendy-types discussing art are fine, but they are few and far between.

I think part of the problem is the BBC has dumbed down some of its political programming to the point where it must be exceedingly difficult to for them to find intelligent and expert interviewees and panel members. I mean, who in their right mind would eagerly participate in Question Time?

And, please, no more vox pops. Just fucking stop it! It is meaningless and lazy. It is no better than what Ester Rantzen did on That's Life 40 years ago, but at least that was only supposed to be 'entertainment'.

Oh, and racist views result in lengthy or permanent suspensions from the BBC network.

Over time, the BBC could cut down on the fact-checking (using just one or two per program*), as suspensions have their effect and the BBC regains its reputation for excellence.

I base much of the above assuming that the BBC is not so hemmed-in by its charter that it could not better fulfill its requirements for 'balance'.

* I lived in the US for a good many years: program or programme?

[west_london_red]

Rupert Murdoch hates the BBC, therefore it should be preserved at all costs

That is as convincing an argument for the BBC and licence fee as any.

[JC the Messiah]

Of course you're right. It was the BBC that caused Brexit.

You'd think that if that was the case then those who are meant to have been 'normalised by the BBC would see it as pro-Brexit:

[pimg]https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2018-02-20/BBC%20brexit-01.png[/img]

Nothing to do with the millions spent on targeted ads by Vote Leave? The 24 adverts were sent to selected voters based on an data-harvesting algorithms. They were seen by between 2 and 4 million people in the three days before the referendum vote:






This one was specifically for animal lovers.


a simple ad for simple voters.


Some adverts were targeted at younger voters


older voters saw ads focusing on the NHS


This one was targeted at older voters with a reach of up to 25% of men and women over 65.


Boris was the only politician featured apart of course from this one:


"The EU takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers." Jeremy Corbyn...


And it was nothing to do with the overwhelming Brexit-bias of the right wing press:

Leave papers: The S*n (print circulation 1.7 million), The Daily Mail (print circulation 1.5 million), The Daily Telegraph (print circulation 490,000), Mail on Sunday (print circulation 1.3 million), The Sunday Times (print circulation 797,000), The Sunday Telegraph (print circulation 370,000), Daily Star (print circulation 425,000).

Remain papers: The Times (print circulation 438,000), The Guardian (print circulation 165,000), The Financial Times (print circulation 198,000), The Observer (print circulation 194,000).

On the fence: i (print circulation 284,000).

What you've posted doesn't negate what I said. Neither did what I said disagree with the rule of social advertising in the referendum, nor the role of the right-wing MSM.

But I'll stop the conversation now, can't be arsed with your condescending attitude.

[Fortneef]

What if:  The BBC is overall Ok, but the producers of Question Time have gone rogue?

And if so - are they politically biased, or just put kippers on to spice things up?

[redmark]

UKIP have been given a disproportionate account of exposure on QT, not based on an infographic on my social media feed, but based on actual numbers. A quick search brought this up (from 2017):
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/question-time-ukip-nigel-farage_uk_58d95295e4b03787d35ae186

You might not watch it, but it not only commands relatively high viewing figures, but is also used for soundbites across the media with political commentary.

The exposure they got on QT and on BBC news broadcasts, especially on 5live, helped normalise them and brought their message to the focus of many.

I'd be bold enough to say it would have contributed significantly to the slender majority leave had in the referendum.

There's something quite fundamental missing from Huff Post's analysis, though - the UK Parliament is not the only political body representing the UK electorate; General Elections are not the only elections.

The Huff Post piece analyses appearances since 2010, particularly comparing UKIP (appeared on 24% of QTs) to the Greens (appearing on 7% of QTs), while having broadly similar representation in the Commons (the Greens with an MP earlier in the period, though UKIP generally had a higher number of votes).

But it completely ignores European elections, or the obvious (entirely regrettable) fact that membership of the EU has been a political issue for a long time, reflected by UKIPs performances in - particularly - European elections.

In 2009, UKIP came 2nd (Greens 5th) in the Euro elections, with 2.5m votes / 16% (Greens 1.2m / 8%) and 13 seats (Greens 2). In 2014, UKIP came 1st (Greens 4th), with 4.4m / 27% (Greens 1.1m / 7%) and 24 seats (Greens 3).

It's simply intellectually dishonest to compare UKIP representation on QT with the Greens based on UK parliamentary peformance alone, when the issue is clearly a European one, and ignoring European elections.

[Lusty]

I think a public broadcaster that is free of commercial pressure and independent from the government is a very important thing to have.  If you can think of a way that can exist without a mandatory license fee then I'm all ears.

[JC the Messiah]

There's something quite fundamental missing from Huff Post's analysis, though - the UK Parliament is not the only political body representing the UK electorate; General Elections are not the only elections.

The Huff Post piece analyses appearances since 2010, particularly comparing UKIP (appeared on 24% of QTs) to the Greens (appearing on 7% of QTs), while having broadly similar representation in the Commons (the Greens with an MP earlier in the period, though UKIP generally had a higher number of votes).

But it completely ignores European elections, or the obvious (entirely regrettable) fact that membership of the EU has been a political issue for a long time, reflected by UKIPs performances in - particularly - European elections.

In 2009, UKIP came 2nd (Greens 5th) in the Euro elections, with 2.5m votes / 16% (Greens 1.2m / 8%) and 13 seats (Greens 2). In 2014, UKIP came 1st (Greens 4th), with 4.4m / 27% (Greens 1.1m / 7%) and 24 seats (Greens 3).

It's simply intellectually dishonest to compare UKIP representation on QT with the Greens based on UK parliamentary peformance alone, when the issue is clearly a European one, and ignoring European elections.

It was one piece of evidence, that took me less than 30 seconds to find. I wasn't being "intellectually dishonest", and I wasn't saying the Huffington Post is the unbiased source for everything on this subject. It was an example.

[redmark]

It was one piece of evidence, that took me less than 30 seconds to find. I wasn't being "intellectually dishonest", and I wasn't saying the Huffington Post is the unbiased source for everything on this subject. It was an example.

I was referring to the Huff Post's piece as intellectually dishonest.

And it took me 30 seconds to wonder why the Huff Post talked almost entirely about Westminster representation in respect of a party that is clearly based on an issue about our relationship with Europe, a couple of minutes to find the Euro election figures and to check that they did indeed support my gut feeling that they offered a meaningful counterpoint to the Huff's analysis, and a few more minutes to type it up.

It was an example, but there is no example that disproves the fact that UKIP have performed significantly well in European elections for a decade, which - I suspect - is reflected in QT's decision making on representation to discuss one of the biggest two issues of that decade.


There's a modern tendency I find quite uncomfortable - to silence people one disagrees with. Outright fascists, sure, I *think* I probably still support no-platforming. But a right wing party that has a significant vote share on an issue people regrettably regard as very important? No. It's the fault of neither UKIP or the BBC that most of the people put up to counter the Leave argument weren't very effective.

[Alan_X]

What you've posted doesn't negate what I said. Neither did what I said disagree with the rule of social advertising in the referendum, nor the role of the right-wing MSM.

But I'll stop the conversation now, can't be arsed with your condescending attitude.

I apologise if being presented with counter arguments and evidence is 'condescending'.

You made these sweeping assertions:

The exposure they got on QT and on BBC news broadcasts, especially on 5live, helped normalise them and brought their message to the focus of many.

I'd be bold enough to say it would have contributed significantly to the slender majority leave had in the referendum.

I don't think there's any evidence that UKIP appearing on Question Time had any significant on 'normalising' UKIP in the lead up to the referendum. They appeared on QT and other programmes because they received the greatest number of votes of any political party (27.5%) in teh European Elections and had 24 MEPs. That was preceded by a strong showing in local elections in 2013.Frottage built local support through local councils, observing that the party did well in areas dominated by white blue-collar workers with no educational attainment.  I doubt many of that target audience gets their views from Question Time or the BBC's political output.

UKIP and The Brexit Party's rise has roots in the 2008 crash, the Tory/Lib Dem coalition and the white working class becoming disillusioned with the two mainstream parties. It was amplified by the impact of Eastern European migration and refugee crisis.

The problem isn't that the UKIP/PB have been promoted by the BBC. It's that they have popular support in the country and the BBC has represented that popularity.

[So… Howard Philips]

I no longer watch QT but seeing Frottage et al made me more vehemently Remain.

I agree with Redmark we shouldn't shy away from understanding the views of those we disagree with.

[Mutton Geoff]

The problem isn't that the UKIP/PB have been promoted by the BBC. It's that they have popular support in the country and the BBC has represented that popularity.

no problem with the rest of your post but surely this a case of what came first the chicken or the egg. i personally did not notice Ukip as a major party and having any support until Frottage became almost a fixture on QT, check the appearances massively more for Frottage than the Greens and probably even the established Libdem party so did their popular support eminate from all the exposure and promotion on not just QT but other news programmes, just to add it is also in my opinion that R4 and John Humphries in particular appeared to want to promote Frottage and Ukip above all other parties.

I think also the suggestion that QT has gone rouge is pertinent rather than the whole of the BBC.

[redmark]

no problem with the rest of your post but surely this a case of what came first the chicken or the egg. i personally did not notice Ukip as a major party and having any support until Frottage became almost a fixture on QT, check the appearances massively more for Frottage than the Greens and probably even the established Libdem party so did their popular support eminate from all the exposure and promotion on not just QT but other news programmes, just to add it is also in my opinion that R4 and John Humphries in particular appeared to want to promote Frottage and Ukip above all other parties.

I think also the suggestion that QT has gone rouge is pertinent rather than the whole of the BBC.

Jun. 1999 - UKIP 4th Euro elections (6.5%)
Nov. 2000 - QT.
May. 2003 - QT.
Jun. 2004 - UKIP 3rd Euro elections (15.6%)
Oct. 2004 - QT.
Feb. 2006 - QT.

Four appearances in six and a half years.

Sep. 2006 -Frottage elected leader of UKIP
Mar. 2007 - QT.
Nov. 2007 - QT.
Mar. 2008 - QT.
Jun. 2008 - QT.
Nov. 2008 - QT.
Feb. 2009 - QT.
May. 2009 - QT.
Jun. 2009 - UKIP 2nd Euro elections (16.0%)
Oct. 2009 - QT.
Nov 2009 - Quit as UKIP leader.

As leader of UKIP, 8 appearances in 3 years. Note, the exposure didn't help UKIP's vote share.

2010 appearances: February, April, July, November. Re-elected as leader, November.

Why so many appearances in 2010? Not sure.

2011 QT appearances: February, October.
2012 QT appearances: April, November.
2013 QT appearances: January, April, June, November.

May 2014 - QT
Jun 2014 - UKIP 1st Euro elections (26.6%).
Dec 2014 - QT

10 appearances in 4 years as leader, culminating in winning a national election.

2015 - 2 appearances.
2016 - 2 appearances before the referendum, 1 after. Quit as leader.

Got bored. Apart from 2010 (and maybe 2013), I don't really see a problem with his 'exposure'. Nor is there much evidence from that that it increased UKIP's support rather than vice versa.

[ScottScott]

I usually only use iPlayer to catch up on shows or watch MOTD during the season. The radio is a great thing the BBC does is a staple listen through a lot of the stations. Their sports coverage is up there with the best around certainly. One thing which has put me off recently is that they have removed all of their podcasts from Google podcasts, I think in a drive for people to use their Sounds app. Whilst it is good for them and having a strong app is a good thing, removing a service I pay for from somewhere it was readily available from is poor form

[gregor]

The real jewel in the BBC crown is of course Radio and that is worth the licences fee alone.

Yep.

I'd argue that TMS alone is probably worth it.

[AndyMuller]

It should turn into a monthly subscription service that you can choose to subscribe to or not. TV licence in 2019 is madness.

[Titi Camara]

Snip

I suppose the question would be, if the forces behind Brexit are known and are known to potentially have shady context, why hasn't any of this evidence been presented by the BBC?

The other wider question I would ask of those calling the BBC a public service; what makes it a public service?

[Titi Camara]

I think a public broadcaster that is free of commercial pressure and independent from the government is a very important thing to have.  If you can think of a way that can exist without a mandatory license fee then I'm all ears.

I also agree with this statement. The crux of the debate and the point this thread is trying to ascertain; is the BBC independent from government/political influence? If the answer is no, then besides adverts, how does it differ from any other broadcaster (the quality of programming is subjective)?

[Lusty]

I also agree with this statement. The crux of the debate and the point this thread is trying to ascertain; is the BBC independent from government/political influence? If the answer is no, then besides adverts, how does it differ from any other broadcaster (the quality of programming is subjective)?

Is it though?  It seems that the major complaint is that Nigel Frottage is on Question Time too much, but he's not part of the government.  I expect that if you asked the current government, they'd rather see less of him on TV.

I think there's two different things.  One is left/right wing bias, the other is government interference.  I don't see much evidence of the latter.

[Titi Camara]

Is it though?  It seems that the major complaint is that Nigel Frottage is on Question Time too much, but he's not part of the government.  I expect that if you asked the current government, they'd rather see less of him on TV.

I think there's two different things.  One is left/right wing bias, the other is government interference.  I don't see much evidence of the latter.

I pointed out that the issue with the make up of the QT panel was just one example. I used this example as it's visible and one most can relate to.

Another, more worrying/insidious example, would be the BBC's lack of interest/coverage of "The Great Hack" scandal involving Facebook and CA. It's a huge issue that impacts the entire planet and points towards foreign influence in our political system. Why isn't this being covered?

[Lusty]

I pointed out that the issue with the make up of the QT panel was just one example. I used this example as it's visible and one most can relate to.

Another, more worrying/insidious example, would be the BBC's lack of interest/coverage of "The Great Hack" scandal involving Facebook and CA. It's a huge issue that impacts the entire planet and points towards foreign influence in our political system. Why isn't this being covered?

I personally remembered the Cambridge Analytica stuff being covered a lot by the BBC at the time.  So I had a quick look.  There is a whole subsection of their website dedicated to the Cambridge Analalytica scandal:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c81zyn0888lt/facebook-cambridge-analytica-scandal

Just did a quick Google and found pretty much all the main players from the Netflix doc being interviewed on either Newsnight or BBC News in 2018.

How is the government allowing this to happen?

And, even if the government is somehow interfering in the BBC, why is the answer to that problem to scrap the license fee?  There is an independent regulator for a reason, if they're not doing their job (and I haven't seen any evidence that they're not) then surely that's a problem that can be solved rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[Titi Camara]

That story is from yesterday, the events took place over 3 years ago and it took a Netflix documentary to shine a light on it before anyone in the BBC looked arsed.

And, even if the government is somehow interfering in the BBC, why is the answer to that problem to scrap the license fee?

This is the absolute crux of it. If the BBC is a public service, then to me the vital aspect of that public service is to impartially inform the union and everything else is a secondary consideration. In my eyes, to qualify as a public service it must carry out it's remit to inform in the public's interest. Omission of facts/arguments or open bias in political leanings would mean it is failing on that remit. If we follow that train to it's logical conclusion, the only aspects it is then delivering on is purely entertainment. If that's all that's left then how does it differ from any other media broadcaster? The simple answer is it doesn't and therefore doesn't merit some sort of social funding (although I appreciate that view is predicated not on my own personal opinion of the BBC's failings but also on the levels of their accountability to the public).

I'm not overtly nostalgic but I would like to see the BBC regain my and others respect by finding it's soul/teeth again. The only way to do this is to remove all those with ties to government who work for the BBC and to remove all links to it's funding from lobbying/political pressures.

If that's not possibly then I would make their content an elective, subscription-based service and remove the TV license fee.

[redmark]

That story is from yesterday, the events took place over 3 years ago and it took a Netflix documentary to shine a light on it before anyone in the BBC looked arsed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0574155
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40423629/did-cambridge-analytica-play-a-role-in-the-eu-referendum

[Lusty]

That story is from yesterday, the events took place over 3 years ago and it took a Netflix documentary to shine a light on it before anyone in the BBC looked arsed.

Sorry mate, you've completely ignored what I posted.  This link is to all of their coverage and it goes back years.  They were all over it at the time.  There's loads of clips from Newsnight and their main news programme going back years.  It's been a huge story since way before the Netflix documentary.

[Titi Camara]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0574155
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40423629/did-cambridge-analytica-play-a-role-in-the-eu-referendum

Appreciate you pulling that story out.

Do you feel that a 14 minute segment on newsnight does justice to, potentially, the biggest electorial fraud of our generation (to date)?

Was this reported as fact on the news? What level of coverage does a story of this magnitude demand? Does the level of coverage provided at the time by the BBC level with that of a public service informing the union of an insidious threat to it's democratic freedoms?

[Titi Camara]

Sorry mate, you've completely ignored what I posted.  This link is to all of their coverage and it goes back years.  They were all over it at the time.  There's loads of clips from Newsnight and their main news programme going back years.  It's been a huge story since way before the Netflix documentary.

That was not my intention, I thought you were pointing me to a singular story dated yesterday.

Scrolling back through the additional stories it seems the vast majority simply relate to Facebook? There are some on there relating to CA but this is in the technology section of their website, not quite the 9 O'Clock news.

I appreciate this story was running long before the Netflix documentary.

[redmark]

Appreciate you pulling that story out.

Do you feel that a 14 minute segment on newsnight does justice to, potentially, the biggest electorial fraud of our generation (to date)?

Was this reported as fact on the news? What level of coverage does a story of this magnitude demand? Does the level of coverage provided at the time by the BBC level with that of a public service informing the union of an insidious threat to it's democratic freedoms?

I was just countering an incorrect assertion that the BBC didn't cover it. Clearly they did. The most boring task on the internet is to do somebody's research for them, and then inevitably have it ignored. Are there are other snippets on Newsnight, BBC News, Radio 4 (or 5) or other political programmes covering the story? Sure - I'm not digging them all out for you - those two are page 1 from a single google search. Enough of them, with enough priority given to them? Probably not, but I'm not BBC News editor.

The problem with any 'complex' story is that it doesn't sit well in the main news bulletins. Newsnight (and bits on R4) covers them, but every time it covers Brexit it gets complaints of ignoring climate change/Syria/austerity/Trump/Labour antisemitism/Tory Islamaphobia/LGBT rights, etc etc. It covers all of them. Sure, I'd like to see Newsnight extended and earlier in the schedule. It's never going to be peak viewing on BBC1, though.

Should there have been a Panorama on the issues? Probably. Panorama seems to have struggled for an identity and funding in recent years. Worth noting though, that those Newsnight pieces seem to pre-date Channel 4 News (which many people view as better and more 'serious' than BBC) first indepth look at the story by several months.