Split Topic BBC

[patman post]

@srb7677 #36
The use of "ites", "arians" and "isms" come across as a wordy reasoning as to why the BBC should only give air time to those espousing your views.
Frankly, I prefer the BBC to allow all views, with very few limitations, even views that seem stupid, or make me angry, or fill me with despair (such as the discussion programme involving several Islamic activists celebrating 9/11) — but at least I witnessed their unreasoning brainwashed anti-West behaviour in what set out to be a civilised debate...

[Nalaar]

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

You're not forced to pay?
Indeed there was a topic on this forum about people you are getting by just fine without it.

[Good old]

Surely , essentially the BBC suffers mostly from the need everyone has to shoot the messenger . The beauty of the BBC is it will go both ways . And  not always half hearted. Both sides seem sure it's got it in for them. That's all you need to know ,that unless someone shuts its mouth £3 a week is a price worth paying for being its own woman, and not trying to impress one side or the other.

[srb7677]

srb7677
You seem to be taking a contrary view to many on here and elsewhere (mostly Right, admittedly), who believe the BBC to be hopelessly in the hands of the Left.

The key to understanding the true nature of BBC bias is to properly recognise what it's nature is. It's inherent bias tends economically to be pro-Thatcherite consensus establishmentarian, yet also solidly socially liberal. The BBC thus tends to be biased against anything that threatens the economic status quo from the left, yet also biased in favour of the established order which until now included the EU. And it is totally pro social libertarian, pro gay marriage, anti-racist, feminist, etc.

It is because of the BBC's kneejerk denigration of Brexiteers and it's solid social libertarianism that the right regards it as having a left wing bias.

Yet because it is also biased against any threat from the left to the established Thatcherite economic consensus there is also inherent bias against the Labour left.

The two do not cancel each other out. The examples of systematic pro-Tory, anti left bias from the BBC that I gave were very real and a matter of public record.

That the BBC can also be simultaneously biased against Brexiteers and social conservatives does not cancel out that bias and make it neutral. It merely means it is biased in different directions on different types of issues. And as such is utterly failing in it's remit of impartiality on several fronts at once.

[papasmurf]

srb7677
You seem to be taking a contrary view to many on here and elsewhere (mostly Right, admittedly), who believe the BBC to be hopelessly in the hands of the Left.

I used to think the BBC unbiased, but for the last couple of years it seems to be a mouthpiece for government.
I find it sad I have to use foreign news services to find out what is going on in Britain because the BBC seems avoid doing so.

[patman post]

srb7677
You seem to be taking a contrary view to many on here and elsewhere (mostly Right, admittedly), who believe the BBC to be hopelessly in the hands of the Left.
If what you post is genuinely believed by you and your associates — and likewise for the Reactionary Right — I reckon the BBC does a good job overall.
Slagging it off for allowing some guests and outside commentators to comment on the appallingly unelectable Corbyn, when they were voicing the views of the majority of voters, is searching for excuses for Labour's "misjudgement" by its leaders and manipulators, where none exists.
Similarly, blaming the BBC for allowing criticisms of the govt's handling of Covid is also bizarre...

[Good old]

We on the left lost faith utterly in the impartiality of the BBC

As someone 'on the left' myself I would pause before making statements about what "We on the left" think.

Point taken.

But the "we" is based upon what appears to me to be a common perception and reaction by many on the left, based upon the expressed views all the left wingers I know and cooperate with locally and the many I interact with more widely on the internet, including on both Labour party forums and left wing forums more generally. I am a member of several.

So perhaps I seemed presumptuous in appearing to speak for all the left, but I do think I speak for many on the genuine left - as opposed to the faux Blairite version. Of course I cannot speak for all but do think my views broadly represent those of a majority of left wingers insofar as I can tell.

I certainly know of no left winger in my local LLA group who dissents from the broad thrust of what I have said. What we do about it we might differ on of course.

What you say there is exactly why the right, as opposed directly to your version of left, can rest assured that it will only ever be threatened by a loose alliance . The genuine left, You refer to act as a protest group, that pose no real threat to the right ,if they think they can remove Tory governments on their own.
The real winning cards for the left of all its shades, are somewhat bored individuals who wouldn't go to a left wing meeting if you paid them. If the left can only consider in fighting , then the Tories should seriously consider paying all Labour members sub,s for them.

[Nalaar]

But the "we" is based upon what appears to me to be a common perception and reaction by many on the left, based upon the expressed views all the left wingers I know and cooperate with locally and the many I interact with more widely on the internet, including on both Labour party forums and left wing forums more generally. I am a member of several.

So perhaps I seemed presumptuous in appearing to speak for all the left, but I do think I speak for many on the genuine left - as opposed to the faux Blairite version. Of course I cannot speak for all but do think my views broadly represent those of a majority of left wingers insofar as I can tell.

I certainly know of no left winger in my local LLA group who dissents from the broad thrust of what I have said. What we do about it we might differ on of course.

Echo chambers are loudest in local groups and shared interest forums, both will represent a very small number of people.

[srb7677]

We on the left lost faith utterly in the impartiality of the BBC

As someone 'on the left' myself I would pause before making statements about what "We on the left" think.

Point taken.

But the "we" is based upon what appears to me to be a common perception and reaction by many on the left, based upon the expressed views all the left wingers I know and cooperate with locally and the many I interact with more widely on the internet, including on both Labour party forums and left wing forums more generally. I am a member of several.

So perhaps I seemed presumptuous in appearing to speak for all the left, but I do think I speak for many on the genuine left - as opposed to the faux Blairite version. Of course I cannot speak for all but do think my views broadly represent those of a majority of left wingers insofar as I can tell.

I certainly know of no left winger in my local LLA group who dissents from the broad thrust of what I have said. What we do about it we might differ on of course.

[Nalaar]

We on the left lost faith utterly in the impartiality of the BBC

As someone 'on the left' myself I would pause before making statements about what "We on the left" think.

[srb7677]

We on the left lost faith utterly in the impartiality of the BBC with it's overt bias against the Labour left in general and Jeremy Corbyn in particular, and with the extent that it bent over backwards in support of the Tories. It replaced footage of a hopelessly dishevelled Johnson at the cenotaph with footage from an earlier year, it edited out audience laughter at him in news reports - "accidentally" they would laughingly have us believe. Some of their reporters expressed almost propagandistic bias, like the one who talked of the election being one Boris so richly deserved to win. On the press review I frequently saw both guests outdoing each other in criticising Labour for not being centrist enough, ie a total lack of balance. Then there is the photoshopped Corbyn wearing an added communist style hat in front of a Kremlin backdrop.
And so on. It was virtually systematic.

We on the left were once some of the strongest advocates for and defenders of the BBC. No more.

[patman post]

I think the BBC does a good job at educating, informing and entertaining. Not all of its content is interesting to me, but I can select what I listen to or watch. And for £3 a week, I consider its radio and TV output is good value.

On the cost front there are some things I believe the BBC could address:

1. Should it continue its local websites and its local radio stations? These are stifling local newspapers, and its local radio stations are unnecessary now that community and commercial alternatives are available.

2. Does it need BBC3 and BBC4? Why not reprogramme the schedules and put more repeats and catch-up on iPlayer now that most TVs are smart and broadband is becoming so widespread — even in pensioner households?

3. Could BBC1 and BBC2 introduce limited advertising? It already includes advertising for its own products, why not replace these with commercial advertising? And despite the dog-in-the-manger stance of many of its critics on here, the BBC marque is widely regarded as one of excellence. That could convert into £££.

All this would quite correctly involve government. Unfortunately there is a faction to the further Right of politics that would either like to see the BBC go, or become a fully-funded mouthpiece of the state.
This is possibly why the Cameron govt was persuaded to get the BBC to fund its Overseas output (formerly supported by Foreign Office funding) and pay for the Labour-introduced free TV licences for the over 75s. I don't doubt they knew the BBC could not continue with these for long and, particularly the free TV licence withdrawal, would increase anti BBC feeling at large...

[johnofgwent]

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  ?

But that is (sort of) the point.

Anyone with a political awareness and IQ slightly more than the 16 it has now been dumbed down to be in order to keep labour alive in wales UNDERSTAND that those people have vested interests.

I don't have a problem with The Guardian, the Morning Star, or Russia Today's latest mouthpiece having an agenda.

The problem I have is that the BBC are allowed to get away with a bullshit link on their website stating why they "can be trusted" when it is clear to anyone whose political ideals sit somewhere to the right of karl marx that they cannot, and that they are preaching this gospel according to pravda at my expense.

I don't give a flying one what the BBC say as long as they are not doing it from money extricated from me under threat of a criminal record if i do not pay them.

Equally, I do rather suspect that once they have been stripped of this ability to force money with menaces from the "majority households" in Britain and are thus forced to make programmes that appeal to those majority households in (forlorn) hope that some of thise majority households will actually BUY them, alot of the problems i see with the BBC will go.

I pay for what I like.

Right now I am HAPPY to shell out what is it eight quid a month to amazon in order to get their prime videos because i like the films they have (many of which I have not seen because my job has not left me the time to watch tv).

I admit I took up Prime because i wanted something amazon were selling cheaply and i wanted it yesterday. Having taken up the offer I started watching some of the stuff they were offering to subscribers with no surcharge, started reading some of the books they were offering under the same terms, and I have kept it going. I'm sure others may consider what I enjoy watching to be rubbish and that is their perogative, I'm paying for it and they are not. I admit Amazon are hoping to get next month's subscription because I will forget I am paying it (like most gym memberships people take out and forget to cancel or find too involved to cancel) BUT the fact is a little message pops up on my phone EVERY month reminding me Amazon are going to take my money unless I stop them and to date since I started paying I've come to the decision there is still something there I want to watch which I have not yet watched.

If the BBC went to the same model - or any other of the pay to use us models I might possibly pay them.

They give me no choice and they feed me leftartd woke bullshit and that is why I say they should be stripped of the ability to steal my money

[Thomas]

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.

i think the bbc will be around for  long time yet borkie , but the licence fee is certainly run its course.

With the younger generation streaming things online , they are going to have to change it to something like a transmission tax or charge for the service , but one way or the other as it stands the bbc revenue is doomed.

[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.

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.

well the psychology behind it is, if you don't save the BBC you get the like of Murdoch instead, I don't believe that either. It wouldn't bother me if both did one.