- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 13,760
Well there's no hope for Match of the Day then...Depends on who writes the article, some say the audience demographic and the panel makeup didn`t tick enough BBC diversity boxes......
Well there's no hope for Match of the Day then...Depends on who writes the article, some say the audience demographic and the panel makeup didn`t tick enough BBC diversity boxes......
@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.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?
I agree it’s not bias (listen to LBC to discover radio shows where presenters can express their own opinions)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.
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 ) 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.
Get your wife to do itUnlikely - 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.
Get your wife to do it
Still a tax though innit, which is I thought what many of the defunders are objecting to in the first place (ie they have no choice than to pay for it).The Nordic nations have moved away from a 'licence fee' and to a tax-based model over recent years...
The Nordics replace licence fee with public service tax | Nordicom
www.nordicom.gu.se
This seems to support my supposition.If the BBC was thrown into that mix for "premium" programmes we would probably subscribe to it.
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.
"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'.
That depends on what you think of as "quality" - "quality" sports presenters cost money. He has also taken a large pay cut recently.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.