Topic: The BBC

[Alan_X]

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

If Northern Ireland wasn't a bizarre religious backwater and didn't have parties that make LGBT rights political it wouldn't be a problem. If a mainland political party made criminalising homosexuality a manifesto pledge (not a stretch in these populist times) the BBC would be in the same situation.

Thank fuck the rest of the UK is more enlightened. And when we moan about the BBC over things like this we should remember that there are many countries where homosexuality is banned with punishments that include death.

[eddymunster]

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

The Earth: is it flat or round? An unbiased BBC report
8th August 2019

THE BBC is always at pains to present both sides of an argument. Here news editor Nathan Muir discusses the ongoing ‘round or flat Earth’ debate.

A controversy is currently raging as to whether the Earth is flat, or, as some scientists have speculated, spherical.

Certainly photographic images from the Apollo missions would seem to suggest the latter. Others, however, such as the experts at the Flat Earth Society, say this is nonsense and the Earth cannot be round because we’d all roll off.

Therefore in our latest report on the flat/round Earth debate we decided to ask random people in Lincolnshire, far away from metropolitan bias. They maintained that for them the earth is very flat indeed and therefore the whole planet must be the same.

Naturally both sides have accused us of bias.

Flat earthers believe we are in the pay of scientists, who in turn are bribed by NASA – an allegation we take very seriously. Meanwhile ‘Rounders’ insist the BBC should side with them, often in very strong terms such as “Oh for f*ck’s sake!”.

All of which goes to show – we must be doing something right!

So, taking all points of view into account, which is it? Is the Earth flat or round?

As ever in these matters, the truth lies somewhere in between. In all probability the Earth is both flat and round, like a squashed orange.

 

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/the-earth-is-it-flat-or-round-an-unbiased-bbc-report-20190808188058

[BobOnATank]

If Northern Ireland wasn't a bizarre religious backwater and didn't have parties that make LGBT rights political it wouldn't be a problem. If a mainland political party made criminalising homosexuality a manifesto pledge (not a stretch in these populist times) the BBC would be in the same situation.

Thank fuck the rest of the UK is more enlightened. And when we moan about the BBC over things like this we should remember that there are many countries where homosexuality is banned with punishments that include death.

Religious, yes unfortunately as long as the dupers are around, but come on Alan using a term such as backwater is a bit much. The BBC should have grown a pair rather than kowtowed to the elected elite. If the BBC is such as reflection of culture then its is its duty to stand up for reasonable morals which if course they never do unless its government/local policy. Happy clappy crap and why it should be binned.

[thejbs]

Generally speaking, I'd say 'backwater' is probably fair.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Generally speaking, I'd say 'backwater' is probably fair.

And, specifically, Alan wrote, 'religious backwater'. Which seems like fair comment.

[thejbs]

And, specifically, Alan wrote, 'religious backwater'. Which seems like fair comment.

Yup. And it's not just the DUP.

[redmark]

The BBC should have grown a pair rather than kowtowed to the elected elite. If the BBC is such as reflection of culture then its is its duty to stand up for reasonable morals which if course they never do unless its government/local policy.

This is nonsense. Who defines 'reasonable morals'? The public. How do we measure their views? By whom they elect.

[Dizzyfinn]

You're all fucking nuts. I've lived in just about every English speaking western country. You're letting the folks behind fox news rob you of one of the pillars of western civilization if you abandon the BBC.

[redmark]

You're all fucking nuts. I've lived in just about every English speaking western country. You're letting the folks behind fox news rob you of one of the pillars of western civilization if you abandon the BBC.

If you check the top of the page, there isn't a majority for abolishing the licence fee.

[Alan_X]

Religious, yes unfortunately as long as the dupers are around, but come on Alan using a term such as backwater is a bit much. The BBC should have grown a pair rather than kowtowed to the elected elite. If the BBC is such as reflection of culture then its is its duty to stand up for reasonable morals which if course they never do unless its government/local policy. Happy clappy crap and why it should be binned.

Religious backwater is fair I think.

[gregor]

You're all fucking nuts. I've lived in just about every English speaking western country. You're letting the folks behind fox news rob you of one of the pillars of western civilization if you abandon the BBC.

People just don't give a shit about things. Was it always like this? I'm 35 and for all of my adult life I can remember people moaning about the licence fee existing. Were people doing the same in the 60s and 70s?

[BobOnATank]

And, specifically, Alan wrote, 'religious backwater'. Which seems like fair comment.

A religious backwater which is specifically supported and maintained by the british government. The majority of people in NI and of course the island of Ireland have no such issue with equal rights.

This is nonsense. Who defines 'reasonable morals'? The public. How do we measure their views? By whom they elect.

In fairness 'reasonable morals' is quite very vague, but I bet the beeb has corporate 'beliefs' that sure as hell include equality regardless of religion, race, sexuality, disability etc. that they promote, all they would have to do is repeat that with a bit of conviction to equal 'reasonable morals' IMO i.e. grow a pair.

[thejbs]

A religious backwater which is specifically supported and maintained by the british government. The majority of people in NI and of course the island of Ireland have no such issue with equal rights.

In terms of abortion, I fear you might be wrong. And marriage equality would only win narrowly if put to a vote.

[west_london_red]

As much as I love the beeb I am getting very tired of the news coverage of the Strictly Come Dancing lineup being announced today. Does that really constitute news?

[redmark]

As much as I love the beeb I am getting very tired of the news coverage of the Strictly Come Dancing lineup being announced today. Does that really constitute news?

Yes (news is just information on 'current events', which may be entertainment related as much as war or politics). Announcement of the lineup is probably on a par with a World Cup squad announcement. And sadly, probably of more interest to a greater number of people than the latest details of Brexit, too. A bit of an advert for the BBC too, of course.

[west_london_red]

Yes (news is just information on 'current events', which may be entertainment related as much as war or politics). Announcement of the lineup is probably on a par with a World Cup squad announcement. And sadly, probably of more interest to a greater number of people than the latest details of Brexit, too. A bit of an advert for the BBC too, of course.

Yes, if it’s the curling World Cup!

[redmark]

Yes, if it’s the curling World Cup!

Well, the Strictly final gets about half the viewers England got during the penalty shootout against Columbia - but 7 times as many as the England women got for their semi-final. The point being that it is a big television event, topped perhaps only by events like England in the latter stages of a world cup or the London Olympics, and about on a par with Andy Murrary's Wimbledon finals.

[jillcwhomever]

As much as I love the beeb I am getting very tired of the news coverage of the Strictly Come Dancing lineup being announced today. Does that really constitute news?

Of course it does, one of the highlights of the year Strictly. 

[west_london_red]

Well, the Strictly final gets about half the viewers England got during the penalty shootout against Columbia - but 7 times as many as the England women got for their semi-final. The point being that it is a big television event, topped perhaps only by events like England in the latter stages of a world cup or the London Olympics, and about on a par with Andy Murrary's Wimbledon finals.

Next, they’ll be giving knighthoods to the winners...

[Trada]

I think they should be allowed to show Ads between shows never during them. it won't make that much difference between shows is usually full of Ads now anyway for their own shows.

[thaddeus]

I admire the BBCs attempts at impartiality but it's never really worked.  As the perceived champions of impartiality this causes problems and is my biggest gripe with the BBC.

1. What is the current hot topic?
2. Who do we know who can argue in favour of said topic?
3. Who do we know who can argue against said topic?
4. Bring the two together for a five minute debate mediated by a presenter with a very shallow knowledge of said topic.

In theory it's sort of OK.  In reality it plays into the hands of the obstinate battle hardened debater over the (often cold seeming) fact dispensers, and to the lay people watching the former is given credibility merely by being given air-time.

Example:
1. Man made climate change
2. Respected scientist/lecturer
3. "Shock jock" host of late night US phone-in
4. Charlie Stayt nodding sagely while the denier (3) rants on in animated fashion and the scientist (2) sits quietly in a state of shock at what they're hearing

The BBC defends this set-up by saying both sides of any topic complain about impartiality so they must be doing something right.

No other media really tries for such impartiality.  I don't know if this is a good thing but I'd hope, maybe wrongly, that most people tuning into FOX News aren't doing so expecting a ringing endorsement of socialism or progressive policies.

[KillieRed]

It occurred to me that i only watch(ed) the BBC for live events and big news items.

Now i dont feel i can trust their news coverage because those at the top of the BBC have been infiltrated by a partisan cabal and bias has become increasingly obvious.

As far as live events, if the BBC is truly a state 'corporation' then it shouldnt need to bid for the big live events, especially sports. Not everything should be run for profit. They should be government reserved, whilst allowing private companies to bid for lesser or complimentary packages. Since I was a kid the BBC have lost;

-The Open/Masters
-Test Cricket
-Live Football Coverage
-The Grand National and other racing events
-The Boat Race
-Grand Prix
-Rugby Union (from time to time)


If the BBC really wanted to be a channel that served the national interest and especially promote institutions it`s these kind of things (though personally i have no interest in many of them) that it needs to keep. The biggest live event they cover now , for me, is Glastonbury.

[rebel23]

Of courser the license fee should be abolished. its so outdated its untrue. The BBC should charge for iPlayer. They missed a trick there. Netflix has 180milllion subscribers. That shows the potential for the BBC

[lobsterboy]

Yes it should be abolished.
Why should I pay a tax for something I do not watch?
I rarely watch TV and when I occasionally do, very little of the BBCs output is of any interest to me.

[lobsterboy]

It occurred to me that i only watch(ed) the BBC for live events and big news items.

Now i dont feel i can trust their news coverage because those at the top of the BBC have been infiltrated by a partisan cabal and bias has become increasingly obvious.

As far as live events, if the BBC is truly a state 'corporation' then it shouldnt need to bid for the big live events, especially sports. Not everything should be run for profit. They should be government reserved, whilst allowing private companies to bid for lesser or complimentary packages. Since I was a kid the BBC have lost;

-The Open/Masters
-Test Cricket
-Live Football Coverage
-The Grand National and other racing events
-The Boat Race
-Grand Prix
-Rugby Union (from time to time)


If the BBC really wanted to be a channel that served the national interest and especially promote institutions it`s these kind of things (though personally i have no interest in many of them) that it needs to keep. The biggest live event they cover now , for me, is Glastonbury.

Trouble is a fair few generations of those in government have profited financially and/or politically by forcing the BBC to bid against the likes of Murdoch. Its the usual tale of posh scumbags selling us down the river for their own personal gain.

[KillieRed]

Trouble is a fair few generations of those in government have profited financially and/or politically by forcing the BBC to bid against the likes of Murdoch. Its the usual tale of posh scumbags selling us down the river for their own personal gain.

Yep, same as most of our cherished institutions from Thatcher and onwards.

[redmark]

Yes it should be abolished.
Why should I pay a tax for something I do not watch?
I rarely watch TV and when I occasionally do, very little of the BBCs output is of any interest to me.

Why should I pay for schools when I don't have kids? Why should my wife pay taxes towards the healthcare of people (like me) who smoke(d) when she never has? Why should I pay for the healthcare of people (like my wife) who have long term joint damage from playing sports? Why should a pacifist pay for the military? Why should the taxes of rich people pay for benefits for the poor (that one will get a bite!)? Why should those with private health care pay for the NHS? Etc etc.

Public goods. Whether you watch it or not - and that's entirely your choice - you almost certainly benefit from the contributions it has made to society (directly and indirectly, via people inspired and educated) over decades.

[Alan_X]

I admire the BBCs attempts at impartiality but it's never really worked.  As the perceived champions of impartiality this causes problems and is my biggest gripe with the BBC.

1. What is the current hot topic?
2. Who do we know who can argue in favour of said topic?
3. Who do we know who can argue against said topic?
4. Bring the two together for a five minute debate mediated by a presenter with a very shallow knowledge of said topic.

In theory it's sort of OK.  In reality it plays into the hands of the obstinate battle hardened debater over the (often cold seeming) fact dispensers, and to the lay people watching the former is given credibility merely by being given air-time.

Example:
1. Man made climate change
2. Respected scientist/lecturer
3. "Shock jock" host of late night US phone-in
4. Charlie Stayt nodding sagely while the denier (3) rants on in animated fashion and the scientist (2) sits quietly in a state of shock at what they're hearing

The BBC defends this set-up by saying both sides of any topic complain about impartiality so they must be doing something right.

No other media really tries for such impartiality.  I don't know if this is a good thing but I'd hope, maybe wrongly, that most people tuning into FOX News aren't doing so expecting a ringing endorsement of socialism or progressive policies.

So are you saying that because impartiality is difficult to achieve we should just abandon it?

Attempts to eradicate poverty have been tried but they've never really worked - let's just allow the poor to starve...

Attempts to eradicate crime have been tried but they've never really worked - let's just allow criminals free reign...

Attempts to eradicate sexual abuse and rape have been tried but they've never really worked - let's just...

You get the idea.

[Alan_X]

It occurred to me that i only watch(ed) the BBC for live events and big news items.

Now i dont feel i can trust their news coverage because those at the top of the BBC have been infiltrated by a partisan cabal and bias has become increasingly obvious.

As far as live events, if the BBC is truly a state 'corporation' then it shouldnt need to bid for the big live events, especially sports. Not everything should be run for profit. They should be government reserved, whilst allowing private companies to bid for lesser or complimentary packages. Since I was a kid the BBC have lost;

-The Open/Masters
-Test Cricket
-Live Football Coverage
-The Grand National and other racing events
-The Boat Race
-Grand Prix
-Rugby Union (from time to time)

If the BBC really wanted to be a channel that served the national interest and especially promote institutions it`s these kind of things (though personally i have no interest in many of them) that it needs to keep. The biggest live event they cover now , for me, is Glastonbury.

I have no idea what you're arguing for here. The BBC didn't 'lose' those events. They were taken away by successive governments and handed to subscription services who restrict access by charging for their channels or other free-to-air channels have bid for them.

As for your 'partisan cabal' comment it's pointless going there.

[Gerry Attrick]

Don't think I'd do away with it just yet but it's definitely depreciated in value for me in the last couple of years. The amount of air time afforded to politicians or parties that don't deserve it (Frottage on QT, anyone?) and being unable to retain any sport that isn't something like European Roller Skating Championships being 2 significant reasons why. The quality of the online sports section is utter shite now, they're churning out click bait junk all over the place. Still does some okay things but it's inching towards crap by the day.

[Kashinoda]

It's worth the license fee for the 5Live Barcelona commentary alone.

I don't watch much BBC TV but it's not without some stand out gems, their nature documentary output is unmatched by any other production company world wide.

People on all sides of the political spectrum argue their news service is biased which should tell you how unbiased it really is. The BBC News and Sport websites are great and I spend a lot of my time there.

Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Germany all pay more for their license - I really don't see what the issue is here. It's fundamentally a tax for watching any live broadcast and that money seems to be put to good use.

[lobsterboy]

Why should I pay for schools when I don't have kids? Why should my wife pay taxes towards the healthcare of people (like me) who smoke(d) when she never has? Why should I pay for the healthcare of people (like my wife) who have long term joint damage from playing sports? Why should a pacifist pay for the military? Why should the taxes of rich people pay for benefits for the poor (that one will get a bite!)? Why should those with private health care pay for the NHS? Etc etc.

Public goods. Whether you watch it or not - and that's entirely your choice - you almost certainly benefit from the contributions it has made to society (directly and indirectly, via people inspired and educated) over decades.

Sorry mate but I think equating the BBC with the NHS or the armed forces is a long fucking stretch.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Sorry mate but I think equating the BBC with the NHS or the armed forces is a long fucking stretch.

I think you underestimate the importance of a national broadcaster like the BBC. They may have lost their way somewhat, but they have been and remain extremely important in how information has been and is disseminated to the public. Perhaps it would be better to fix it the corporation than to throw it out on the scrapheap. Or, do you wish to rely upon the likes of ITV and 5 to get out news and provide political content?

[Devon Red]

I'm generally a fan of the BBC and think the license fee is great value, but the news and current affairs output is becoming worse and worse. They need to train their presenters in how to effectively interview, the presenters need to be better informed, they need to cut out vox pops and twitter quotes, and as thaddeus rightly said they need to realise that 'balance' is not two people shouting at each other for 5 minutes. Oh, and they need to stop inviting on paid lobbyists and not even introducing them correctly. If you can't tell me who pays your salary I don't want to hear your bullshit.

I will give them credit for one thing; within the first hour of proroguing being announced BBC News interviewed two actual experts on government and constitutional law. More of this please, and less opinion journalists being outrageous for money.

[Elmo!]

People on all sides of the political spectrum argue their news service is biased which should tell you how unbiased it really is.

No it shouldn't. It doesn't tell you at all how unbiased it is.

It is perfectly possible for BBC to be biased in one direction and yet both sides feel it is biased towards the other.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I'm generally a fan of the BBC and think the license fee is great value, but the news and current affairs output is becoming worse and worse. They need to train their presenters in how to effectively interview, the presenters need to be better informed, they need to cut out vox pops and twitter quotes, and as thaddeus rightly said they need to realise that 'balance' is not two people shouting at each other for 5 minutes. Oh, and they need to stop inviting on paid lobbyists and not even introducing them correctly. If you can't tell me who pays your salary I don't want to hear your bullshit.

I will give them credit for one thing; within the first hour of proroguing being announced BBC News interviewed two actual experts on government and constitutional law. More of this please, and less opinion journalists being outrageous for money.

I don't disagree with any of that. Certainly, 'balance' is not inviting on some with the contrary view when that view is transparent fantasy.

[Kashinoda]

No it shouldn't. It doesn't tell you at all how unbiased it is.

It is perfectly possible for BBC to be biased in one direction and yet both sides feel it is biased towards the other.

You would say that, you're biased.

[redmark]

I think you underestimate the importance of a national broadcaster like the BBC. They may have lost their way somewhat, but they have been and remain extremely important in how information has been and is disseminated to the public. Perhaps it would be better to fix it the corporation than to throw it out on the scrapheap. Or, do you wish to rely upon the likes of ITV and 5 to get out news and provide political content?

Indeed, but it's not just news and politics. It has been (and largely still is) the primary source of popular science, nature, culture, arts and educational content for decades. Who knows how many people have been inspired and encouraged into areas of study and work, adding to the greater good of society, by some niche programme produced by the BBC?

I scream at crap news presenters as much as anyone, but to ignore everything else the BBC produces baffles me.

[redmark]

Sorry mate but I think equating the BBC with the NHS or the armed forces is a long fucking stretch.

I'm not equating the BBC with the NHS or the armed forces. It costs a lot less.

[Sangria]

Indeed, but it's not just news and politics. It has been (and largely still is) the primary source of popular science, nature, culture, arts and educational content for decades. Who knows how many people have been inspired and encouraged into areas of study and work, adding to the greater good of society, by some niche programme produced by the BBC?

I scream at crap news presenters as much as anyone, but to ignore everything else the BBC produces baffles me.

I wonder how much of the now popular Green movement now belatedly gaining ground is attributable to the BBC's nature programmes. If it finally becomes critical, the BBC will have justified its existence many times over.