National News The BBC

Essexyellows said:
Depends on who writes the article, some say the audience demographic and the panel makeup didn`t tick enough BBC diversity boxes......
Click to expand...
Well there's no hope for Match of the Day then...
 
QR said:
The BBC via Newsnight has done some excellent crtical analysis in recent weeks of the party conferences and the supply chain issues were having but how can they justify this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1446444900065632261
Click to expand...
@Essexyellows surely even you would have to admit that if the BBC thought it was fair for the audience to reflect voting patterns of a referenda five years ago it should be reflective of the total electorate and 28% of the audience should have been people who did not vote.

This may have something to do with it.

20211009_151533.jpg
 
Last edited:
Whilst not perfect, the BBC is the closest thing that we have to free press in this country. Not beholden to any political ideology, whatever you may think. Both the left and the right think it is biased against them. This actions the conservatives are taking is an attempt to take away a thorn in its side that reports on what they do, good and bad and holds them to account.
Personally I use the BBC for radio news and programming , none of it exclusively and think that it represents tremendous value and generally a fairly balanced view ( apart from Jerome on a Saturday who I’m glad to say is biased as hell!)
If someone or a board owns something you can pressurise them to your will, and the tories know that they can’t do that with the BBC.
 
Marston Road yellow said:
Whilst not perfect, the BBC is the closest thing that we have to free press in this country. Not beholden to any political ideology, whatever you may think. Both the left and the right think it is biased against them. This actions the conservatives are taking is an attempt to take away a thorn in its side that reports on what they do, good and bad and holds them to account.
Personally I use the BBC for radio news and programming , none of it exclusively and think that it represents tremendous value and generally a fairly balanced view ( apart from Jerome on a Saturday who I’m glad to say is biased as hell!)
If someone or a board owns something you can pressurise them to your will, and the tories know that they can’t do that with the BBC.
Click to expand...
I agree it’s not bias (listen to LBC to discover radio shows where presenters can express their own opinions)
The BBC does need to look at how it views balance, pitting fringe, hardline opinions against each other, and not intervening when misinformation is spread, is not helpful. I’m looking at you Jeremy Vine!!
Instead, the BBC should use its position to show the gray areas of every argument, finding the common ground.
Unfortunately that takes talented Journalists. Something the BBC is likely to shred once funding is cut.
We, the people shouldn’t have to pay the price for Partygate. Don’t let this Government take yet another thing away from us to hide their failings!
Hands off the BBC!!!
 
Jerome Sale on South Today is worth the licence fee alone (and we get his and the Radox teams match commentary for free as an added bonus)*

Oh and that chap Attenborough... he's not bad.

* Yes I know that the "TV licence" covers BBC radio funding also, before the pedants pounce[emoji6]
 
As the person who started this thread here's my two penn'orth worth. I stand by what I consider to be examples of bias as posted above, however the majority of these (not the make up of the Question Time audience one :mad: ) are probably due to the inexperience, inability, ignorance, call it what you will, of some BBC reporters. Sally Nugent's interview of Rabb this morning was a case in point. A more inane series of questions and follow ups you are ever likely to hear. I almost felt sorry for Rabb. Almost mind.

On the plus side (of which there are many) some of the news programmes and journalists are second to very few at holding politicians to accounts. Emily Maitlis, Ros Atkins, Nick Robinson to name a few. And what you get for your money is truly phenomenal. Radio, TV, iPlayer, BBC Sounds, politics, news, MOTD, light entertainment, music, film, children's TV, investigative journalism, etc. If the BBC went private I know I would pay more than the Licence fee for these services and I'm sure many, many others feels the same. I think many those who may say now they wouldn't would end up cancelling one of their Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Sky subscriptions in favour of the BBC package when the realise just what they are losing. Ironically this could actually put the Beeb in an stronger position as it wouldn't have to have the Government of the day putting the likes of Richard Sharp in as its chairman!

This may well rebound on the Tories.
 
Last edited:
The biggest problem the Tories have right now is that everything they do is viewed as cynical and with an ulterior motive of deflecting away from the shitstorm they've engulfed themselves in. Send the Navy to sort out the migrant problem, curb the right to protest, defund the BBC....and all the other so called "red meat" items, aimed at keeping the furthest right in the Tory machine sweet. Most of them would've been attempted at some point of course, but they will be deeply unpopular moves from a Government that is already deeply unpopular....and many of their precariously positioned Tory MPs will know this.

Not to mention that the Lords will simply send it back to make them think again.....and then the Lower House (because it can) will attempt to ride roughshod over the Upper House recommendations and try to whip it through anyway.....Government High Command will simply not see any problem with this swerving of democratic process. As @QR says - this could well end badly for a government already teetering.

We certainly live in interesting times - who'd thunk that a government with such a socking great majority would be so dreadfully weak and lacking in much discernable talent?

And if Nadine Dorries is the champion of Culture Media and Sport in this country.....god help us! She really should've stuck to sucking on Ostrich anus.
 
QR said:
As the person who started this thread here's my two penn'orth worth. I stand by what I consider to be examples of bias as posted above, however the majority of these (not the make up of the Question Time audience one :mad: ) are probably due to the inexperience, inability, ignorance, call it what you will, of some BBC reporters. Sally Nugent's interview of Rabb this morning was a case in point. A more inane series of questions and follow ups you are ever likely to hear. I almost felt sorry for Rabb. Almost mind.

On the plus side (of which there are many) some of the news programmes and journalists are second to very few at holding politicians to accounts. Emily Mattis, Ros Atkins, Nick Robinson to name a few. And what you get for your money is truly phenomenal. Radio, TV, iPlayer, BBC Sounds, politics, news, MOTD, light entertainment, music, film, children's TV, investigative journalism, etc. If the BBC went private I know I would pay more than the Licence fee for these services and I'm sure many, many others feels the same. I think many those who may say now they wouldn't would end up cancelling one of their Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Sky subscriptions in favour of the BBC package when the realise just what they are losing. Ironically this could actually put the Beeb in an stronger position as it wouldn't have to have the Government of the day putting the likes of Richard Sharp in as its chairman!

This may well rebound on the Tories.
Click to expand...

Unlikely - times are changing.

There is an awful lot of good quality BBC output alongside a lot of mundane dross, that needs weeding out, if the organisation wishes to retain its stature.

The other problem for the BBC is how we consume our viewing now and how much it is changing and at pace

I probably watch 70%+ on catch up rather than live and it might be the same for many others.

Then there is the competition, we don`t have SKY, but we have Freesat (part funded by the licence fee IIRC), Netflix, Amazon Prime and some sport channels as part of our BT package. If the BBC was thrown into that mix for "premium" programmes we would probably subscribe to it.

It's also surprisingly easy to not pay the licence fee if you so wish. 🤷‍♀️
 
Essexyellows said:
Unlikely - times are changing.

There is an awful lot of good quality BBC output alongside a lot of mundane dross, that needs weeding out, if the organisation wishes to retain its stature.

The other problem for the BBC is how we consume our viewing now and how much it is changing and at pace

I probably watch 70%+ on catch up rather than live and it might be the same for many others.

Then there is the competition, we don`t have SKY, but we have Freesat (part funded by the licence fee IIRC), Netflix, Amazon Prime and some sport channels as part of our BT package. If the BBC was thrown into that mix for "premium" programmes we would probably subscribe to it.

It's also surprisingly easy to not pay the licence fee if you so wish. 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
Get your wife to do it :unsure:
 
Essexyellows said:
Unlikely - times are changing.

There is an awful lot of good quality BBC output alongside a lot of mundane dross, that needs weeding out, if the organisation wishes to retain its stature.

The other problem for the BBC is how we consume our viewing now and how much it is changing and at pace

I probably watch 70%+ on catch up rather than live and it might be the same for many others.

Then there is the competition, we don`t have SKY, but we have Freesat (part funded by the licence fee IIRC), Netflix, Amazon Prime and some sport channels as part of our BT package. If the BBC was thrown into that mix for "premium" programmes we would probably subscribe to it.

It's also surprisingly easy to not pay the licence fee if you so wish. 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...

"There is an awful lot of good quality BBC output alongside a lot of mundane dross, that needs weeding out, if the organisation wishes to retain its stature."
There is of course a downside to the real world cuts in funding imposed on the BBC over the last decade. Less money to invest in 'quality' broadcasting, more goes on cheap 'filler'.
 
It’s tax-based here and that increases the potential as a political football rather than decrease it.
 
OUFCGav said:
"There is an awful lot of good quality BBC output alongside a lot of mundane dross, that needs weeding out, if the organisation wishes to retain its stature."
There is of course a downside to the real world cuts in funding imposed on the BBC over the last decade. Less money to invest in 'quality' broadcasting, more goes on cheap 'filler'.
Click to expand...

Sorry, don`t buy that.

If the likes of Lineker et al are earning millions then it just needs a review of the how & where they spend the money and what they get for the money.

Producing "filler" just to have something on suggests there are too many output channels than they can fill with quality programming.
 
Essexyellows said:
Sorry, don`t buy that.

If the likes of Lineker et al are earning millions then it just needs a review of the how & where they spend the money and what they get for the money.

Producing "filler" just to have something on suggests there are too many output channels than they can fill with quality programming.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you think of as "quality" - "quality" sports presenters cost money. He has also taken a large pay cut recently.

Cheaper 'filler' is still of interest to some people. The majority of the country still watches BBC daily at some point. If channels only existed on the basis of what some people consider 'quality programming' then the Sky channel list wouldn't be hugely long.

The only reason the BBC is an 'issue' is that Murdoch despises it, and has waged a long war against it, both via his media, and via his political interference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom