Topic: The BBC

[Lusty]

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?

Yes.  The link I gave you goes back to Nov 2018 and there's over 50 articles on it.  If you can be bothered to look, you will see the full extent of the BBC's coverage.

But what point are you trying to prove anyway?  That the government is influencing the BBC to cover up the Cambridge Analytica scandal?  Why?

It doesn't even implicate Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson or Vote Leave.  It was Frottage's group, leave.eu that were involved. 

[Titi Camara]

But what point are you trying to prove anyway?

I'm not trying to prove anything, merely incite debate on a topic which I believe should be looked at. The source of the influence is a very interesting point though. On this one issue of the election "pressures", I would suggest the entire leave campaign is culpable, which includes Johnson and Frottage. Therefore I concede that pressure may well be being exerted from outside government as well but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to reform the one with an obvious line of sight.

My personal belief is that, in it's current guise, the BBC is no longer fit to be considered a public service beyond it's value as an entertainment provider, and as such should no longer enjoy the benefit of public funding. This belief stems from an opinion that it has failed in it's duty of care to inform the country adequately in one of the most politically charged eras of our lifetime.

There are additional arguments about the quality of their programming and freedoms to choose our own entertainment but these are fairly frivolous in comparison.

[Lusty]

My personal belief is that, in it's current guise, the BBC is no longer fit to be considered a public service beyond it's value as an entertainment provider, and as such should no longer enjoy the benefit of public funding. This belief stems from an opinion that it has failed in it's duty of care to inform the country adequately in one of the most politically charged eras of our lifetime.

I think they're informing the country just fine.  The problem is that the country don't care.

The reason I jumped all over the Cambridge Analytica stuff is that I have an interest in that kind of thing and followed it pretty closely.  But you try and talk to someone about personal data and privacy issues.  No one gives a shit.  The BBC can lead people to water...

[Alan_X]

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?

It’s a public Service because it’s remit is defined by a charter that has public service at its core. And the fact that it’s funded by everyone paying the licence fee it’s not financially dependent on anyone.

There’s a separate discussion about the impact of political influence, especially since Thatcher. But the way that influence has been wielded by the right in particular has been by threatening to take away the licence fee.

[Titi Camara]

It’s a public Service because it’s remit is defined by a charter that has public service at its core. And the fact that it’s funded by everyone paying the licence fee it’s not financially dependent on anyone.

There’s a separate discussion about the impact of political influence, especially since Thatcher. But the way that influence has been wielded by the right in particular has been by threatening to take away the licence fee.

3.    The independence of the BBC
(1)    The BBC must be independent in all matters concerning the fulfilment of its Mission
and the promotion of the Public Purposes, particularly as regards editorial and
creative decisions, the times and manner in which its output and services are
supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
(2)    Paragraph (1) is subject to any provision made by or under this Charter or the
Framework Agreement or otherwise by law.
4.    The BBC’s Object
The BBC’s Object is the fulfilment of its Mission and the promotion of the Public
Purposes.
5.    The BBC’s Mission
The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through
the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which
inform, educate and entertain.
6.    The Public Purposes
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows.
(1)    To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and
engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and
impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s
understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content
should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and
depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news
providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing
freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local,
regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the
democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.
(2)    To support learning for people of all ages: the BBC should help everyone learn
about different subjects in ways they will find accessible, engaging, inspiring and
challenging. The BBC should provide specialist educational content to help support
learning for children and teenagers across the United Kingdom. It should encourage
people to explore new subjects and participate in new activities through partnerships
with educational, sporting and cultural institutions.
(3)    To show the most creative, highest quality and distinctive output and services:
the BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and across a
range of services and platforms which sets the standard in the United Kingdom and
internationally. Its services should be distinctive from those provided elsewhere and
should take creative risks, even if not all succeed, in order to develop fresh
approaches and innovative content.
(4)    To reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United
Kingdom’s nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy
across the United Kingdom: the BBC should reflect the diversity of the United
Kingdom both in its output and services. In doing so, the BBC should accurately and
authentically represent and portray the lives of the people of the United Kingdom
today, and raise awareness of the different cultures and alternative viewpoints that
make up its society. It should ensure that it provides output and services that meet
the needs of the United Kingdom’s nations, regions and communities. The BBC
should bring people together for shared experiences and help contribute to the social
cohesion and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. In commissioning and delivering
output the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and
contribute to their development.
(5)    To reflect the United Kingdom, its culture and values to the world: the BBC
should provide high-quality news coverage to international audiences, firmly based
on British values of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness. Its international services
should put the United Kingdom in a world context, aiding understanding of the United
Kingdom as a whole, including its nations and regions where appropriate. It should
ensure that it produces output and services which will be enjoyed by people in the
United Kingdom and globally.

An extract of the charter - it should be independent, impartial and act in the public interest.

I suppose whether or not a person feels it's delivering on those aspects is subjective but if it's not delivering on it's charter, should actions not be taken? I'm not suggesting what those actions should be either, just asking should there be repercussions?

[Lusty]

An extract of the charter - it should be independent, impartial and act in the public interest.

I suppose whether or not a person feels it's delivering on those aspects is subjective but if it's not delivering on it's charter, should actions not be taken? I'm not suggesting what those actions should be either, just asking should there be repercussions?

Of course.  That's the regulator's job.

[redmark]

An extract of the charter - it should be independent, impartial and act in the public interest.

I suppose whether or not a person feels it's delivering on those aspects is subjective but if it's not delivering on it's charter, should actions not be taken? I'm not suggesting what those actions should be either, just asking should there be repercussions?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2018/ofcom-reports-performance-bbc

Interestingly of the four areas Ofcom highlights where the BBC could improve, News (depth/quality/impartiality) is not one of them. The BBC remains the most trusted source of news, is rated well at informing of what's happening in the world, and is still felt to be 'impartial' by 61% of viewers/listeners (which is arguably quite an achievement given that the increasingly polarising extremes of political opinion view it as biased against them).

[eddymunster]

I think they're informing the country just fine.  The problem is that the country don't care.

The reason I jumped all over the Cambridge Analytica stuff is that I have an interest in that kind of thing and followed it pretty closely.  But you try and talk to someone about personal data and privacy issues.  No one gives a shit.  The BBC can lead people to water...

I disagree;

I think this is an example of why the BBC shot itself in the foot over it's Brexit coverage;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

Reality Check: Would Brexit mean extra £350m a week for NHS?

It takes 15 paragraphs to get to the actual news, instead of trying so hard to be impartial, just lead with the actual news.

Fact check; Brexit would not mean extra 350m a week for NHS.

Or the guardians headline;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

Why Vote Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong

If the BBC is to continue to be considered a public service & therefore justfy the licence fee, it has to get the message across.

[Alan_X]

An extract of the charter - it should be independent, impartial and act in the public interest.

I suppose whether or not a person feels it's delivering on those aspects is subjective but if it's not delivering on it's charter, should actions not be taken? I'm not suggesting what those actions should be either, just asking should there be repercussions?

As I said. It’s the definition of a public Service broadcaster and the licence fee was intended to make it independent of politics. If it’s not working as intended you don’t just throw it all away.

Diluting its independence by abolishing the licence fee is not going to make things better. 

Murdoch and the Tories would love to see the back of the BBC (as would the hard left). They would be over the moon if the Beeb was restricted to things that the public would pay for - repeats of Only Fools and Horses or Blue Planet - while a British version of Fox News becomes the ‘fair and balanced’ source of news for the country.

[eddymunster]

The next step down for impartiality is not fox news though is it? Bit sensationalist.

[Alan_X]

I disagree;

I think this is an example of why the BBC shot itself in the foot over it's Brexit coverage;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

Reality Check: Would Brexit mean extra £350m a week for NHS?

It takes 15 paragraphs to get to the actual news, instead of trying so hard to be impartial, just lead with the actual news.

Fact check; Brexit would not mean extra 350m a week for NHS.

Or the guardians headline;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

Why Vote Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong

If the BBC is to continue to be considered a public service & therefore justfy the licence fee, it has to get the message across.

So your argument that the BBC doesn’t give a balanced view is based on an article explaining why the claim is wrong and providing figures? 

The BBC is independent with a remit to explain and inform. The Guardian is a left wing paper that campaigned to stay in. A Guardian reader won’t need persuading about the £350m figure. If the BBC headline was just ‘no’ then Leave voters would just switch off. 

We all know Brexit will be a shit show and don’t need persuading. The BBC cannot be seen to campaign for one side or the other on a political vote.

[redmark]

I disagree;

I think this is an example of why the BBC shot itself in the foot over it's Brexit coverage;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

Reality Check: Would Brexit mean extra £350m a week for NHS?

It takes 15 paragraphs to get to the actual news, instead of trying so hard to be impartial, just lead with the actual news.

Fact check; Brexit would not mean extra 350m a week for NHS.

Or the guardians headline;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

Why Vote Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong

If the BBC is to continue to be considered a public service & therefore justfy the licence fee, it has to get the message across.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the question-as-title, or showing it's workings. The verdict could be displayed at the top more prominently, though.

But - as one of the Newsnight referendum programmes showed - the Remain campaign quickly realised arguing about the figure was counter productive. To paraphrase, "whether it was £350m, £170m or £210m - it sounds like a big number".

The argument should have been that those saying that money could be spent on the NHS (at least, frontline services) had no intention of doing so; that they wanted to privatise the NHS. But that's a political argument that needed to be made by politicians, not the BBC.

[Alan_X]

The next step down for impartiality is not fox news though is it? Bit sensationalist.

Is it? Who knows what will happen. If you said a few years ago that the US will elect a sex offending clown as President and the UK would collectively commit economic suicide by leaving the EU that would have seemed sensationalist. We now have our own obnoxious clown as PM and Russia is polluting public discourse with targeted ads.   

[Lusty]

I disagree;

I think this is an example of why the BBC shot itself in the foot over it's Brexit coverage;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

Reality Check: Would Brexit mean extra £350m a week for NHS?

It takes 15 paragraphs to get to the actual news, instead of trying so hard to be impartial, just lead with the actual news.

Fact check; Brexit would not mean extra 350m a week for NHS.

Or the guardians headline;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

Why Vote Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong

If the BBC is to continue to be considered a public service & therefore justfy the licence fee, it has to get the message across.

That's a weird example though because it's exactly the kind of thing I think the BBC should be doing, and they've been integrating that stuff more and more into the mainstream coverage.

It's never going to be the Guardian.  But the Guardian is not impartial (nor is it regulated by OFCOM).

[eddymunster]

That's a weird example though because it's exactly the kind of thing I think the BBC should be doing, and they've been integrating that stuff more and more into the mainstream coverage.

It's never going to be the Guardian.  But the Guardian is not impartial (nor is it regulated by OFCOM).

I'm not saying it should be the guardian, or that the guardian is impartial, just that the BBC headline would reach more people if the conclusion was in the title or at least the opening paragraph. 

[eddymunster]

So your argument that the BBC doesn’t give a balanced view is based on an article explaining why the claim is wrong and providing figures? 

The BBC is independent with a remit to explain and inform. The Guardian is a left wing paper that campaigned to stay in. A Guardian reader won’t need persuading about the £350m figure. If the BBC headline was just ‘no’ then Leave voters would just switch off. 

We all know Brexit will be a shit show and don’t need persuading. The BBC cannot be seen to campaign for one side or the other on a political vote.

You don't think it would have been better to have the answer in the title? Or atleast somewhere near the top of the wall of text?

If it's a public service, that service should be provided in a manner that reaches the most people. That image, headline and opening paragraphs switch people off and buries the important information.

[Lusty]

I'm not saying it should be the guardian, or that the guardian is impartial, just that the BBC headline would reach more people if the conclusion was in the title or at least the opening paragraph. 

You're kind of nitpicking though.  This is a thread to discuss if the license fee should be abolished.  Bit harsh abolishing the license fee because you don't like the way the BBC presented a fact checking article.

[Titi Camara]

The BBC cannot be seen to campaign for one side or the other on a political vote.

This is an interesting point. I think it can, not as a political argument but on the grounds of..."act in the public interest".

If the BBC, as a public service, has a duty of care to act in the public interest, then it should educate the public in ways to best provide and protect the union.

In that sense it would not be an overtly political argument but one of well being of the state.

[redmark]

You don't think it would have been better to have the answer in the title? Or atleast somewhere near the top of the wall of text?

If it's a public service, that service should be provided in a manner that reaches the most people. That image, headline and opening paragraphs switch people off and buries the important information.

I disagree with the bolded bit - and I think the BBC is more or less right in the way it does it (though as I've said, the 'verdict' could have come directly below the title).

The question in the title (rather than the answer) I think is designed precisely to present it as an honest question and to draw people in. A title containing the answer would instantly put off people with the opposite view, and condition people to believe that the BBC is presenting a narrative rather than facts.

Again - it's not the BBCs job to 'settle' political arguments. It is their job to impartially present the sides of an argument and, where applicable, provide some fact checking and objective analysis.

Newspapers write headlines that appeal to the preconceptions of their readers. The BBC can't (shouldn't) do that - it sometimes does, with stuff in quotes, and often changes those headlines when people complain.

[redmark]

This is an interesting point. I think it can, not as a political argument but on the grounds of..."act in the public interest".

If the BBC, as a public service, has a duty of care to act in the public interest, then it should educate the public in ways to best provide and protect the union.

In that sense it would not be an overtly political argument but one of well being of the state.

But 'what is in the best interest of the state' is a political argument.

[Titi Camara]

But 'what is in the best interest of the state' is a political argument.

The BBC's charter/remit is to act both impartially and in the public interest.

Are those two things mutually exclusive?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I disagree;

I think this is an example of why the BBC shot itself in the foot over it's Brexit coverage;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

Reality Check: Would Brexit mean extra £350m a week for NHS?

It takes 15 paragraphs to get to the actual news, instead of trying so hard to be impartial, just lead with the actual news.

Fact check; Brexit would not mean extra 350m a week for NHS.

Or the guardians headline;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

Why Vote Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong

If the BBC is to continue to be considered a public service & therefore justfy the licence fee, it has to get the message across.

So you're pissy that they didn't scream liar in the headline even though they did say that it is wrong ?

The reality check headline is a long standing headline that the BBC uses,but I guess you knew that 

[redmark]

The BBC's charter/remit is to act both impartially and in the public interest.

Are those two things mutually exclusive?

No. But when the public interest is a matter of political disagreement, the arbiters of political decision making are us, not the BBC.

[Alan_X]

You don't think it would have been better to have the answer in the title? Or atleast somewhere near the top of the wall of text?

If it's a public service, that service should be provided in a manner that reaches the most people. That image, headline and opening paragraphs switch people off and buries the important information.

No. I design exhibitions and the way you get a message across is by engaging first. If you just tell someone something they either agree or disagree. That’s especially true where you’re trying to change people’s perception. “Show don’t tell” is what all the analysis and assessments show.

And it’s doubly true when views are entrenched.

Doing what you suggest might get the fact front and centre but anyone who doesn’t already believe the truth is likely to reject the message and won’t read any further.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I think the sad fact is that 20 years ago a complete arsehole would be seen as a total dickhead.

I think the UK has been steadily dumbed down with 'the crowd' emerging that believe any old shite. Given that popularism screams louder than anyone else, that's what they 'believe'

[Shankly998]

Yes but it should be funded through general taxation.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I think the sad fact is that 20 years ago a complete arsehole would be seen as a total dickhead.

I think the UK has been steadily dumbed down with 'the crowd' emerging that believe any old shite. Given that popularism screams louder than anyone else, that's what they 'believe'

Only the total dickheads.

[eddymunster]

So you're pissy that they didn't scream liar in the headline even though they did say that it is wrong ?

The reality check headline is a long standing headline that the BBC uses,but I guess you knew that 

I didn’t know that to be honest.

Nowt like being generally condescending to convince people of your opinion though.

[Elmo!]

Yes but it should be funded through general taxation.

This would just put its budget under direct control of the government and therefore more prone to political pressure.

[Shankly998]

This would just put its budget under direct control of the government and therefore more prone to political pressure.

The BBC is already pro establishment and is basically already under control of government who control the purse strings funding it out of general taxation would be a fairer way of funding it for those on low incomes.

[eddymunster]

No. I design exhibitions and the way you get a message across is by engaging first. If you just tell someone something they either agree or disagree. That’s especially true where you’re trying to change people’s perception. “Show don’t tell” is what all the analysis and assessments show.

And it’s doubly true when views are entrenched.

Doing what you suggest might get the fact front and centre but anyone who doesn’t already believe the truth is likely to reject the message and won’t read any further.

Nice one for the explanation. I was thinking it would be likely to bypass the undecided voter rather than give the info upfront that could potentially sway them.

I am a little pissy about brexit.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

This would just put its budget under direct control of the government and therefore more prone to political pressure.

And make Murdoch cream his nappy.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I didn’t know that to be honest.

Nowt like being generally condescending to convince people of your opinion though.

It's the BBCs version of a Politifact fact check,talk you through it with the facts and give you the yay or nay.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/reality_check

And you were wrong,they said it was bullshit in literally the 3rd sentence.

We've said it before and we'll say it again - the UK does not send £350m a week to Brussels

[Elmo!]

The BBC is already pro establishment and is basically already under control of government who control the purse strings funding it out of general taxation would be a fairer way of funding it for those on low incomes.

I'd be interested in ways to provide licenses for free/discounted to those on low incomes or on certain benefits but there are better ways to do it that wouldn't sacrifice the independence of the BBC (or whatever independence is still has).

[Alan_X]

I didn’t know that to be honest.

Nowt like being generally condescending to convince people of your opinion though.

You mean it's better to explain before getting straight to the point?...

 

[eddymunster]

You mean it's better to explain before getting straight to the point?...

 

Haha, indeed [emoji23]

[Shankly998]

I'd be interested in ways to provide licenses for free/discounted to those on low incomes or on certain benefits but there are better ways to do it that wouldn't sacrifice the independence of the BBC (or whatever independence is still has).

They could keep the existing charter and just change the funding source.

[redmark]

https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck/status/1157217111908999170

On @BBCr4today MP @JamesCleverly said the UK had been "precluded for decades" from having free ports. The EU does permit free ports and the UK had them until 2012

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48868234

Interestingly (5th July original story), the BBC had moved the verdict to a more prominent position:

The claim: The UK does not have free ports because of its membership of the EU.

Reality Check verdict: It is not true to say you can't have free ports or tax-free zones if you are a member state of the EU. There are more than 80 such zones across the Union. It would be easier to take advantage of potential benefits outside the EU.

[BarryCrocker]

Irish government trying to catch up with technology.

New broadcasting charge: How will it work, how much will it cost, who has to pay?
 
A new broadcasting charge that will hit virtually every home in Ireland is set to be introduced to replace the TV licence fee. Here is everything you need to know.

How will this new broadcasting charge work?

The government says it will be “device independent”, meaning any device that can access television in any way.

What does that mean?

It almost certainly means laptops, tablets and phones.

So anyone with a phone has to pay a TV licence now?

No, the licence fee is per household, not per television (or device). But yes, it looks like if all you have in your apartment or house is a smartphone, you’d be required to pay the charge.

But how will they know which households have phones or laptops?

The government can’t answer this question. Under data protection law, it has very limited means available to detect whether a household currently has a smartphone or iPad accessing TV online. At least with television sets, there is often a satellite dish or TV aerial.

But I don’t watch RTÉ. I only watch Netflix and YouTube. Why should I pay this?

The TV licence has never been about proving you watch RTE. It has been a blanket assumption that if you have a television that you access, at some stage, content created by RTE as the public service broadcaster. The TV licence is as much a social and ‘information society’ policy tool as a tax on usage.

Then why don’t they just make it a household charge or pay for it centrally out of general taxation?

For political reasons, the government does not want to be seen as bringing in anything called a ‘household charge’, even if that is essentially what this is. Secondly, successive governments have always been reluctant to tie RTE’s funding to central Exchequer control, fearing it could lead to a more awkward relationship.

Will there be any legal way to avoid it?

In theory, if you do not have any device in the house that can access an internet TV stream or a terrestrial television service, you may still legal avoid the broadcasting charge. But it’s doubtful whether there are many, if any, households in Ireland without a smartphone or a television set. According to the telecoms regulator ComReg, smartphone penetration in Ireland stands at 95pc of all 4.9 million subscriptions. It's a reasonable bet that this 5pc of mobile users who don't have a smartphone (who may be very elderly) do have a TV. As for traditional tellies, figures from Nielsen say that 1,653,000 Irish households have an active television.

How much will it cost?

Communications Minister Richard Bruton says that are no current plans to change it from €160.

Why don’t they just put a small levy on services like Netflix or smartphones?

We don’t know for sure, but it seems that this might be complicated to collect. In the case of a levy on phones, this would also complicate things, making it a per user charge instead of a per household charge. This would mean, for example, that a single parent with three teens would pay disproportionately more than a single person living in an apartment.

Who can legally avoid the TV licence at present?

Anyone without a traditional TV set. That’s one in ten households, according to the government. It would typically include third level students and young couples living in small apartments.

When is this happening?

Not for five years. The government is first going to try and cut down on evasion of the current licence fee, which stands at 12pc, and then switch the definition of who has to pay.

https://www.independent.ie/au/irish-news/news/new-broadcasting-charge-how-will-it-work-how-much-will-it-cost-who-has-to-pay-38369134.html

[BobOnATank]

BBC at its best...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/03/bbc-northern-ireland-steps-back-from-belfast-pride-after-complaints

Unbiased and equal what??

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk