Split Topic BBC

[Borchester]

LOL I could say and point out much worse about the BBC, I would say you were being rather kind.

So without going all around the houses. What would you have instead of the BBC, Who would run it, and what would be no go territory for this new world order media outlet?

why would I need anything instead of the BBC? as though there isn't even TV, Radio or media without them.

All owned by people with a vested interest of one sort or another . What makes them anymore capable of being any more fair in their content than the BBC  ?

Well as you openly admit, the BBC has run its course, it had a good run and really we are just picking over the bones. It was never great anyway, let it die in peace.

The BBC hasn't run its course. It tries to be impartial and is thus arse numbingly ineffectual. But if it wants to broadcast all the news that is fit to be heard in the coffee houses of Islington that is no skin off my nose.

But I don't want to pay for the right to watch TV. So cancel the licence fee and leave Auntie to find her own source of funding and I will be fine with that.

[Sheepy]

LOL I could say and point out much worse about the BBC, I would say you were being rather kind.

So without going all around the houses. What would you have instead of the BBC, Who would run it, and what would be no go territory for this new world order media outlet?

why would I need anything instead of the BBC? as though there isn't even TV, Radio or media without them.

All owned by people with a vested interest of one sort or another . What makes them anymore capable of being any more fair in their content than the BBC  ?

Well as you openly admit, the BBC has run its course, it had a good run and really we are just picking over the bones. It was never great anyway, let it die in peace.

[Thomas]

No Thomas, we just like to think Labour views can get a fair hearing ,on occasion , something the media barons seem to have the greatest difficulty delivering.

Theres absolutely no justification in the modern world for referencing "media barons" as a feeble excuse for why no one buys into labours crap political message when online outlets which can and do balance the "media barons bias" ( again as the snp have proved) often have far far bigger readerships than the media barons outlets.

All this type of excuse does is for you to try and present and enormously skewed bleating over why labour arent in power while keeping your hands clean from the fact labour do get a fair hearing , more than a fair hearing , but their message just isnt sellable( see brexit for example , or labours crap message about democracy which the people can only have when it works in labours favour.)

Feck the bbc.

...and labour.

[Thomas]

No Thomas, we just like to think Labour views can get a fair hearing ,on occasion , something the media barons seem to have the greatest difficulty delivering.

Labour do get a fair hearing , more than  a fair hearing. May i remind you of what i pointed out earlier which is a big fly inyour ointment of bleating about unfair media............how did the snp get into power if the media is all powerfull when the snp get far less of a fair deal than labour?

You just cant think outside the box can you?

Its all about bleating about the tories and how unfair they are to you by controlling everything , then the snp come along and shatter your excuses .

[Thomas]

I don't like paying my road tax but I don't advocate all public roads should not be paid for unless in private ownership.
£3.00 a  week . The price of a SoHo, coffee a week that's heart breaking .

i agree i think the road tax , ( much of which isnt even spent on roads but goes into a big main  tax pot)should be scrapped along with the bbc tax. I quite like the idea of the french motorways which are tolled.

When foreigners come to "the yookay" , they dont pay the outdated road tax , but when we go to france for example we pay their tolls.

Its all abour choice old yin , something you are desperate to deny people in your totalitarian labour party world.

[Thomas]

I don't like paying my road tax but I don't advocate all public roads should not be paid for unless in private ownership.
£3.00 a  week . The price of a SoHo, coffee a week that's heart breaking .

The BBC is a publicly-funded body and is committed by its charter to impartiality. It's supposed to present a balanced and accurate picture, and to give a fair voice to all sides. It fails in that duty in a great many ways, but rarely more conspicuously than in its coverage of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

Above is a page (p.99 to be precise) from the BBC's Full Financial Statements for 2015/16, which can be found on the BBC website. It details what the BBC received from, and spent in, Scotland in the past year. And it's a damning set of figures.

The Corporation took in £320m from Scotland last year, and spent just £176m (a whopping £27m, or 13%, down on 2015) on TV and radio programmes either made IN Scotland or made FOR Scotland. That, alert readers will have noted, is a hefty £144m subsidy from Scotland to the rest of the UK. But even that isn't the real story.

Because the "network content" produced in Scotland is just a veneer to make the numbers look better. There's no actual reason for Question Time, say, to be made in Scotland (which it notionally is), other than to disguise how little money the BBC spends north of the border.

If we take out the network content, just £98m of Scottish viewers' £320m is spent on actual Scottish programming. And what that means is that if Scotland were to be independent, the BBC would suddenly have a £222m hole in its budget. The loss of Scottish licence fees would take a 6% bite out of the broadcaster's coffers, at a time when its finances are already under severe pressure

Not only is the bbc extremely bad value for the scottish licence fee payers ( and i suspect the rest of the uk) but it has a charter of impartiality to uphold which is fails to do so by your very own acknowledgement.

[Good old]

That's why I don't claim it isn't. Nothing and no one reaches perfection it can never avoid being  biased . It's run by humans we are all frigging biased it's in the DNA.

Im happy for them to be biased. i just dont want forced to pay for that bias. Its when folk pretend the bbc is whiter than white i take issue .

However the bbc suits you labour supporters doesnt it?

It takes away freedom of choice , and forces everyone to pay for their biased content wether they like it or not.

That what labour is all about , taking away people right to have a choice , like for example denying people the right to have a choice by even having a brexit referdnum back in 2015 , and the blairites got hammered for it.

Then you spent the last four years denying people the right to have their brexit referendum result implemented.

Just like the bbc , you want to force your labour views down everyones throats without them having a choice in the matter or offering any dissent.

No Thomas, we just like to think Labour views can get a fair hearing ,on occasion , something the media barons seem to have the greatest difficulty delivering.

[Good old]

The question was what makes private interests more capable of fairness in content? I haven't answered that, and neither have you.  Do you actually want fairness , or any old bollocks, you happen to agree with?

I dont believe that was the question.

No one is suggesting private interests are more capable of fairness in content.

I like the different type of unfairness and bias in private interests content. I then get to choose which unfair and biased content suits my view and go with it.

With the bbc , i dont get that choice , and are forced to pay through the nose for their biased and unfair content.

I don't like paying my road tax but I don't advocate all public roads should not be paid for unless in private ownership.
£3.00 a  week . The price of a SoHo, coffee a week that's heart breaking .

[Thomas]

That's why I don't claim it isn't. Nothing and no one reaches perfection it can never avoid being  biased . It's run by humans we are all frigging biased it's in the DNA.

Im happy for them to be biased. i just dont want forced to pay for that bias. Its when folk pretend the bbc is whiter than white i take issue .

However the bbc suits you labour supporters doesnt it?

It takes away freedom of choice , and forces everyone to pay for their biased content wether they like it or not.

That what labour is all about , taking away people right to have a choice , like for example denying people the right to have a choice by even having a brexit referdnum back in 2015 , and the blairites got hammered for it.

Then you spent the last four years denying people the right to have their brexit referendum result implemented.

Just like the bbc , you want to force your labour views down everyones throats without them having a choice in the matter or offering any dissent.

[Good old]

All owned by people with a vested interest of one sort or another . What makes them anymore capable of being any more fair in their content than the BBC  ?

So is the bbc. The bbc is the mouthpiece of the british government of the day .

Every single media outlet or broadcaster on this planet is biased in one way or the other. Pretending the bbc isnt is laughable.

That's why I don't claim it isn't. Nothing and no one reaches perfection it can never avoid being  biased . It's run by humans we are all frigging biased it's in the DNA.

[Thomas]

The question was what makes private interests more capable of fairness in content? I haven't answered that, and neither have you.  Do you actually want fairness , or any old bollocks, you happen to agree with?

I dont believe that was the question.

No one is suggesting private interests are more capable of fairness in content.

I like the different type of unfairness and bias in private interests content. I then get to choose which unfair and biased content suits my view and go with it.

With the bbc , i dont get that choice , and are forced to pay through the nose for their biased and unfair content.

[Good old]

LOL I could say and point out much worse about the BBC, I would say you were being rather kind.

So without going all around the houses. What would you have instead of the BBC, Who would run it, and what would be no go territory for this new world order media outlet?

why would I need anything instead of the BBC? as though there isn't even TV, Radio or media without them.

All owned by people with a vested interest of one sort or another . What makes them anymore capable of being any more fair in their content than the BBC  ?

You answered your own question, so I have no need of the BBC, which you pointed out.

The question was what makes private interests more capable of fairness in content? I haven't answered that, and neither have you.  Do you actually want fairness , or any old bollocks, you happen to agree with?

[Thomas]

All owned by people with a vested interest of one sort or another . What makes them anymore capable of being any more fair in their content than the BBC  ?

So is the bbc. The bbc is the mouthpiece of the british government of the day .

Every single media outlet or broadcaster on this planet is biased in one way or the other. Pretending the bbc isnt is laughable.

[Sheepy]

LOL I could say and point out much worse about the BBC, I would say you were being rather kind.

So without going all around the houses. What would you have instead of the BBC, Who would run it, and what would be no go territory for this new world order media outlet?

why would I need anything instead of the BBC? as though there isn't even TV, Radio or media without them.

All owned by people with a vested interest of one sort or another . What makes them anymore capable of being any more fair in their content than the BBC  ?

You answered your own question, so I have no need of the BBC, which you pointed out.

[Good old]

LOL I could say and point out much worse about the BBC, I would say you were being rather kind.

So without going all around the houses. What would you have instead of the BBC, Who would run it, and what would be no go territory for this new world order media outlet?

why would I need anything instead of the BBC? as though there isn't even TV, Radio or media without them.

All owned by people with a vested interest of one sort or another . What makes them anymore capable of being any more fair in their content than the BBC  ?