The Liverpool FC Forum > News and Current Affairs
The BBC
Titi Camara:
"Why do you need a TV license?
A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer."
"What is the purpose of a TV license?
A TV licence is therefore effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public broadcasting, thus allowing public broadcasters to transmit television programmes without, or with only supplemental, funding from radio and television advertisements."
From an early age I was always told that the BBC was an institution free from political leanings, which meant you could have faith that current events and news would simply be reported on rather than framed.
Depending on your political leanings you may or may not currently feel the BBC has shown political bias in recent years. The obvious example that recently stands out for me it QT, where we've observed a huge disparity in the number of pro-leave guests versus pro-remain. We've also seen some very odd things in the audience, with pro-leave campaigners not only being selected to attend on multiple occasions but also being selected to ask questions repeatedly too!
Whilst this is only one example, my own personal faith in the BBC as an independent, unbiased news source has been completely wiped out. As such I question why I, as a UK tax payer, should continue to foot the bill for this service that I no longer feel is fit for purpose.
I am not campaigning or advocating for the dismantling of the BBC, just that it should source it's funding as an company independent of government/national funding. In doing so, it may not end up as the non-partisan group some think it is today but at least it would be seen for what it is and we could also have the choice to fund it or not!
Ultimately I feel the question is this; why should I be forced to pay for a service with no discernible differences from other broadcasters when all other broadcasting services are a personal choice?
eddymunster:
--- Quote from: Titi Camara on July 31, 2019, 11:18:00 am ---
Whilst this is only one example, my own personal faith in the BBC as an independent, unbiased news source has been completely wiped out. As such I question why I, as a UK tax payer, should continue to foot the bill for this service that I no longer feel is fit for purpose.
--- End quote ---
Bingo!
JC the Messiah:
I agree with the QT thing, ridiculous amount of airtime for Frottage and his cronies, normalising their views and agenda. Also, too much airtime given to him on 5live, when there are other people with opposing views to Europe, other than UKIP and whatever that's mutated to now.
That aside though, I think the BBC news is relatively unbiased, especially in contrast to the rest of the MSM in the UK. It will be interesting to hear what people outside the UK think of the BBC.
classycarra:
I think you'd ultimately be celebrating losing fewer things than you would miss if it was abolished.
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, could you not reform the organisation and particularly overhaul the politics (starting with UK) section of the news (which is a whole disaster on its own, aside from the BBC)?
I'd also stop BBC News 24. It's trying to keep up with the joneses that's part of the problem
redmark:
No. I'd probably put the BBC second only to the NHS in a list of great UK institutions. Undoubtedly the BBC has some right wing contributors and some left wing. My main criticism would be that the consistency in quality has decreased over the years, rather than one of bias.
On the QT/Brexit point - it would be interesting to see some detailed real analysis on the number of guests, questions etc representing each side - because I suspect that the problem isn't in the numbers, but in the simplicity/consistency of the argument being put. It's regrettable, but the Leave side has largely just been better at putting its argument than Remain has. It's had more effective speakers, articulating a simpler message - which inevitably leaves a stronger impression and prompts a stronger audience response.
Where people get this discussion wrong, I think, is insisting the BBC has a duty to fact check, interrupt and challenge every sentence that comes out of someone's mouth (see the Twitter storm on R4Today giving Bannon '15 minutes uninterrupted airtime'; I just listened, it was nothing of the sort). It doesn't. Constant interruptions prevent politicians talking themselves into a hole, too frequently, and give them an escape. The most revealing moments come when a politician has to actually finish a sentence they're expecting to be cut short.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version