# Dumping the BBC?



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

God bless Auntie eh?

The British Broadcasting Corporation has always been a 'national treasure' through the good times and the bad. Nobody wants to see trashy adverts for products and shit holidays so the good old Beeb are a safe pair of hands and great with a nature documentary.







Some level of propaganda in wartime 75-100 years ago is one thing but what is happening now? It is so obvious and self serving that massive reform or just shutting down is the best outcome.

Step 1: How does one cancel the TV Licence without postal 'threats' about non-existent vans?
Step 2: After cancelling how do you keep the TV Licence Wolves People from your door?

*EDIT UPDATE*: 
*



			If you use a TV licence payment card you should call the payment card inquiries line at 0300 555 0286 between 08:30 and 6:30 Monday to Friday or 08:30 and 13:00 on Saturday.

If you pay all in one go you should call the inquiries line for all in one customers at 0300 790 0368 between 08:30 and 6:30 Monday to Friday or 08:30 and 13:00 on Saturday.
		
Click to expand...

I called and spoke to someone who said **if there is a complaint with the BBC political lies coverage then call 0370 010 0222 to log this. If you just want to cancel then call either of the numbers above. *

I know there are some lovely posters that work for the BBC here but surely you can see this shit for what it is? Surely it makes you wonder what other global horrors are repressed, invented or doctored for the party line?

For the record I *accidentally/shortened/bloopered/fell over *this thread while typing so it may not be factual and if that is the case I halfheartedly apologise (on page 16 of the thread) and hope you don't cancel your direct debits.

Any good examples of shocking BBC bias we can put in a nice chronological order?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

Election 2019: stage set for Nigel Farage in BBC Question Time specials


> Nigel Farage is to be included in two prime-time TV programmes under plans for the BBC’s election coverage.
> 
> The broadcaster’s proposals also include a second head-to-head clash between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, while Mr Farage will be one of seven party leaders or senior figures in a debate programme. The Brexit party leader will also take part in a special edition of _Question Time_ before polling day on December 12.



Good content


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

Tory activist who slammed Jeremy Corbyn on BBC Question Time speaks out


> A man who confronted Jeremy Corbyn over abuse and anti-Semitism has spoken out after it emerged he is a Tory activist who's been on Question Time four times.
> 
> Ryan Jacobsz, 36, is a father-of-two who lives in Hessle, East Yorkshire and has canvassed for the Conservative Party after moving to the UK from South Africa.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2019)

I used to defend the BBC's new coverage and strangely feel a bit proud of it. But recently it really seems to be turning into a mouthpiece of the government, with all sorts of dodgy 'mistakes' appearing in Boris Cuntface's favour. And Question Time has turned into a joke.

BBC apologises for wrong Remembrance Sunday clip

BBC admits 'mistake' in editing out laughter at Johnson in TV debate

*name corrected


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

I work for the BBC; obligatory 'views are my own' disclaimer required.

News is high profile but only one part of a large organisation. At work I see nothing at all about it, DG email handwaving about scandals aside.

Whatever you imagine the culture to be like inside the BBC is probably wrong. That's not to say it's better or worse, just not what you expected unless you have worked there. Amongst other things I suspect you severely underestimate just how under siege it is from all quarters, and what difficulties that produces.

It would no doubt be unwise to share my political views on the specifics of editorial but I think the organisation is overall a force for good. A perhaps overly-benevolent way of looking at it is don't think 'what would the world be like if the BBC was more faithful to my view?' but instead 'what would the world be like if the BBC was removed completely and other dominant influences filled the void?'


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

editor said:


> I used to defend the BBC's new coverage and strangely feel a bit proud of it. But recently it really seems to be turning into a mouthpiece of the government, with all sorts of dodgy 'mistakes' appearing in Boris Cutface's favour. And Question Time has turned into a joke.
> 
> BBC apologises for wrong Remembrance Sunday clip
> 
> BBC admits 'mistake' in editing out laughter at Johnson in TV debate


you've missed out an 'n'


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

It’s not just Boris Johnson’s lying. It’s that the media let him get away with it | Peter Oborne


> A big reason for Johnson’s easy ride is partisanship from the parts of the media determined to get him elected. I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> It’s not just Boris Johnson’s lying. It’s that the media let him get away with it | Peter Oborne


what undermines trust in british politics is seeing a lying cunt lie and get away with it.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 27, 2019)

I am currently in this process myself. Having told the licensing bastards I don't need a TV licence, the cookies on my PC from before I moved (where there was a TV licence) got picked up here, and I got a couple of snotty emails saying that I'd been naughtily watching iPlayer, and to expect UTTER DAMNATION.

Keeping the twunts from your door is a fairly straightforward process, and the thing to remember here is that the game, from their point of view, is to get you either to admit that you've been a naughty citizen (I believe that over 90% of TV licence prosecutions are based on admissions), or just to buy the fucking licence to get them off your backs. As a stroppy kind of person, in some circumstances, the latter dog ain't going to hunt round here. And I'm not admitting to anything, either.

Before all this, though, do remember that the BBC and the organisation that enforces the licence fee are two completely different groups. FWIW, the licensing bit is run by Crapita, if I remember correctly. They employ "enforcement officials" on piece rates - ie., they're paid by results. A nice way of ensuring a quality, ethical service, ahem.

So, this seems to be the strategy:

Admit nothing. Don't respond to their letters, even just to deny something. Just ignore them.
If someone comes to the door, they will try to sneakily pretend that they have some kind of right of admission. THEY DO NOT. Unless they have a warrant, in which case they may well be accompanied by a police officer, who is there only to "keep the peace" - he or she will not be involved in the TV licence bullshit. So you can refuse them admission.
If they DO have a warrant, or you allow them in anyway, they will try to get you to incriminate yourself, both by statements, and/or by getting you to demonstrate the equipment to them. Don't. If they want the TV turning on, tell them to turn it on. If they want you to switch to TV reception, tell them to do it. If they want you to turn your computer on and fire up iPlayer, tell them. And, obviously, don't tell them the password. They will be pushy, rude, and threatening. They may try to provoke you to anger, so that they can complain to the police officer.
Something they seem to really, really hate - from the various Youtube videos I've seen - is being filmed. So don't do that . On the other hand - and this is what I plan to do if one does turn up - you could say "I am concerned by the misleading and deliberately confusing claims made in your correspondence, and want to ensure that I have a record of what has gone on here today, so I shall be filming this for evidentiary purposes. If you don't like it, you are free to leave."
This is a good website. TV LICENCE RESISTANCE - Index


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> A perhaps overly-benevolent way of looking at it is don't think 'what would the world be like if the BBC was more faithful to my view?' but instead 'what would the world be like if the BBC was removed completely and other dominant influences filled the void?'


I guess commercial news broadcasters would fill the void - I've not seen half as many complaints of bias, or half as many _mistakes_ from them, mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

existentialist said:


> I am currently in this process myself. Having told the licensing bastards I don't need a TV licence, the cookies on my PC from before I moved (where there was a TV licence) got picked up here, and I got a couple of snotty emails saying that I'd been naughtily watching iPlayer, and to expect UTTER DAMNATION.
> 
> Keeping the twunts from your door is a fairly straightforward process, and the thing to remember here is that the game, from their point of view, is to get you either to admit that you've been a naughty citizen (I believe that over 90% of TV licence prosecutions are based on admissions), or just to buy the fucking licence to get them off your backs. As a stroppy kind of person, in some circumstances, the latter dog ain't going to hunt round here. And I'm not admitting to anything, either.
> 
> ...


the problem i face is the tv can be seen from outside the flat


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> I guess commercial news broadcasters would fill the void - I've not seen half as many complaints of bias, or half as many _mistakes_ from them, mind.


The current landscape is held in place by the BBC. In (inter)national news but especially elsewhere: radio, local news, anything public service oriented, availability of content. A lot of stuff happens directly relative to its presence, not despite it.

Also: who would complain about, say, Sky News bias? Complaints are in relation to expectation.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the problem i face is the tv can be seen from outside the flat


You don't need a TV license to watch a TV. Only to watch terrestrial TV or iPlayer. Anything seen from the outside of your flat was obviously only YouTube or similar, as you don't have a license because you don't watch live terrestrial TV or iPlayer.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Whatever you imagine the culture to be like inside the BBC


I imagine it to be _exactly_ like that comedy programme, W1A.  _Exactly_. Whatever you tell us otherwise. Because frankly I don’t believe you.


----------



## gosub (Nov 27, 2019)

Dina Asher Smith winning silver at 100 meters at 2019 World Championships a full 5 minutes before mentioning at the end that a Jamaican won


----------



## existentialist (Nov 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the problem i face is the tv can be seen from outside the flat


I do at least have the advantage of: a first floor flat, and curtains. Also, the lack of a TV, which helps somewhat


----------



## existentialist (Nov 27, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> You don't need a TV license to watch a TV. Only to watch terrestrial TV or iPlayer. Anything seen from the outside of your flat was obviously only YouTube or similar, as you don't have a license because you don't watch live terrestrial TV or iPlayer.


And you're never going to give them access without a warrant to prove otherwise. And they hardly ever bother to go for a warrant. Not low-enough-hanging fruit.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 27, 2019)

Longdog had some legendary threads on here about TV licence stuff...


----------



## elbows (Nov 27, 2019)

Its the state broadcaster, and some of its alleged fairness is a side effect of that state not being a one party state.

As part of the establishment, it has the attitude we would expect when it comes to the status quo, rocking the boat, going blind inside a bubble, and being slow to adjust to changes in the dominant ideologies and what counts as mainstream. The likes of Tony Benn came to see the BBC as being deliberate crushers of hope on a variety of political fronts.

Traditionally issues relating to the class of its management and employees, and paternalism were major complaints. Different complaints regarding partial commercialisation and management culture emerged and grew in stature during changes the Tories imposed on it, and the top level management appointments they oversaw, in the 1980's.

The class, educational establishments frequented, economic circumstances and peers of management and employees of factual and news departments is part of the problem. So too the bloated self-importance, mission, history and status of the BBC, which in many ways resembles the deliberate effects of powerful architecture used in important state institutional buildings. Powerful ideas about the BBC bravely shouldering burdens and carrying the weight responsibly, rub off on employees and the output, and siege mentality feelings end up being a part of that, onward noble journalists, unfairly maligned, blah blah.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> The current landscape is held in place by the BBC. In (inter)national news but especially elsewhere: radio, local news, anything public service oriented, availability of content. A lot of stuff happens directly relative to its presence, not despite it.
> 
> Also: who would complain about, say, Sky News bias? Complaints are in relation to expectation.


I regularly see people praising Sky's news coverage - maybe it's because there's an expectation they'll be biased and it's a surprise that they aren't: I don't think so though - the people on the left who complain about media bias complain about The Times _and_ The Guardian - they don't reserve their ire for outlets who're supposed to be neutral or on our side. So of course people would complain about Sky news bias.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I imagine it to be _exactly_ like that comedy programme, W1A.  _Exactly_. Whatever you tell us otherwise. Because frankly I don’t believe you.


I haven't actually seen it, but I don't understand why or how they made W1A. For an organisation that's often afraid of itself, it seems nuts that they made a satire of themselves. I once wrote a blog post explaining to the world that our particular project was really good, despite public opinion, and I said that, "a very new formative product like ours is largely whatever you perceive it to be. That could be anywhere from giving you a sparkling new way to access something you love, to having wheeled out an accidental tribute to _W1A". _They asked me to remove the reference. I binned the whole thing instead.

Everyone rides Bromptons.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I haven't actually seen it, but I don't understand why or how they made W1A.


I tried watching it and it was excruciatingly bad.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 27, 2019)

I've never paid telly licence. Sometimes I dress this up as a moral position, because it's a flat tax, but mostly it's just habit now. I get letters but have never had somebody knock on, or at least not when anybody is in. Used to think it was cos I moved quite frequently but I own this house and have been here coming up to five years. Come to think of it, it's been a while since I've had any letters


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> I regularly see people praising Sky's news coverage - maybe it's because there's an expectation they'll be biased and it's a surprise that they aren't: I don't think so though - the people on the left who complain about media bias complain about The Times _and_ The Guardian - they don't reserve their ire for outlets who're supposed to be neutral or on our side. So of course people would complain about Sky news bias.


I see plenty of people criticising or praising each player in this space, but the sheer volume of ire pointed at the BBC - not just in news - is a whole different class. If anyone else got this much grief in their everyday endeavours they'd pack it in and do something with higher reward.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've never paid telly licence. Sometimes I dress this up as a moral position, because it's a flat tax, but mostly it's just habit now. I get letters but have never had somebody knock on, or at least not when anybody is in. Used to think it was cos I moved quite frequently but I own this house and have been here coming up to five years. Come to think of it, it's been a while since I've had any letters


Most likely it's cause you aren't at home during the day. There's a reason it's mostly single mums and the unemployed who get caught.


----------



## elbows (Nov 27, 2019)

Worth a few minutes, especially since Marr brings up crusading journalism and Chomsky destroys this stuff. (clip is only about 3 minutes long)


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I see plenty of people criticising or praising each player in this space, but the sheer volume of ire pointed at the BBC - not just in news - is a whole different class. If anyone else got this much grief in their everyday endeavours they'd pack it in and do something with higher reward.


Are you saying that Sky, ITN etc are making the same kind of and volume of questionable decisions people are regularly criticising in the BBC news and it's just not picked up on as much?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

Has anyone here actually phoned the BBC and asked to cancel their license due to their political coverage? I am tempted to just for the response


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Are you saying that Sky, ITN etc are making the same kind of and volume of questionable decisions people are regularly criticising in the BBC news and it's just not picked up on as much?


It's impossible to compare across a broad enough set, if at all, because the standards and remits aren't the same, but if they were, then probably yes. Invert the question and try running an example through it: if you're going to complain about, say, QT audience or panel selection, how would the others compare? Is anyone keeping score? Do they even have such a thing?

Or if you take, say, Peston, who recently attracts similar criticism (justified or not) to certain BBC people, is the same _really _made of it? Are we on a thread called 'Dumping ITV'?

In other words, a questionable decision is often only questionable because it's made by the the BBC. Now, that's potentially legitimate, because it's not some case of unfairly high accountability being applied to the BBC. Expectations are rightly different because it's a whole different model. But it makes it near impossible to make judgements in comparison to other broadcasters.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 27, 2019)

The BBC at this point is mistakenly advertising itself as an independent broadcaster. They've effectively confessed to this with that sickening shit about not calling out Johnson's outright lies for fear of undermining faith in the establishment.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> the standards and remits aren't the same


I thought they were all under OfCom for standards now?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> I thought they were all under OfCom for standards now?


Complaint to Ofcom will redirect you to BBC complaints


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

It's also not true that it isn't possible to compare: that Cardiff Uni study from a few years ago found ITV was considerably more balanced than the BBC in their coverage of Corbyn.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> I thought they were all under OfCom for standards now?


Oh aye, Ofcom the great leveller. Who looks at the BBC and thinks to themselves, 'Before I complain about this thing, I wonder how Ofcom rates them for truth'? Nah. It's the charter, the funding, the history, expectations & the subsequent self-reinforced identity, the whole environment.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

this discrepancy must be down to the BBC charter I guess.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

By telephone

For payment card customers (cash plan). All queries and new applications.
Call 0300 555 0286

For Direct Debit customers, or if you pay all in one go, call us on:
Call 0300 790 0368

Cancel your TV licence the easy way: A how-to guide


----------



## nogojones (Nov 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the problem i face is the tv can be seen from outside the flat


Buy some blinds. They're cheeper than a licence. If they see flickers it's a DVD, now fuck off and get a warrant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

nogojones said:


> Buy some blinds. They're cheeper than a licence. If they see flickers it's a DVD, now fuck off and get a warrant.


we have blinds. we do not want to live behind blinds so we open them during the day.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

Here's another _mistake_: somehow, they filmed and broadcast a brutal bodying of the leader of the opposition before even securing a date for a similar interview with the actual prime minister


----------



## nogojones (Nov 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> we have blinds. we do not want to live behind blinds so we open them during the day.


Is there really daytime TV worth watching?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Here's another _mistake_: somehow, they filmed and broadcast a brutal bodying of the leader of the opposition before even securing a date for a similar interview with the actual prime minister



my source in number ten tells me johnson will offer neil an interview slot on 14 december


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

nogojones said:


> Is there really daytime TV worth watching?


don't know, i'm at work


----------



## nogojones (Nov 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> don't know, i'm at work


You're better off there. There's fuck all on telly


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> my source in number ten tells me johnson will offer neil an interview slot on 14 december


Well, yes. Johnson has two options here:  he can ignore people calling him a coward for a couple of weeks, or he can have his own disembowelment at the hands of Neil become the most shared video clips of the season. I wonder which he'll go for.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> I halfheartedly apologise (on page 16 of the thread)


Is that in the Arts & Entertainment section.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> we have blinds. we do not want to live behind blinds so we open them during the day.


There was talk of cunning technology that was capable of enabling inspectors to synchronise the relative brightness of the light in a room with that of the currently broadcast channels, but because of the unique way in which the BBC licensing regime is funded (ie, via workers on a "commission" for every prosecution they get), that kind of tech isn't going to be feasible. So if the screen isn't visible from the street, they're unlikely to be any the wiser.

So the first line of defence is that, if an enforcement person turns up, you simply shut the door on them, and there's nothing they can do. If they want a warrant to enter without your permission, they require two pieces of evidence that there is a TV being watched unlicensed. One of those might be a satellite dish or TV aerial (yes, I know...), but they need another bit of evidence that you are actively watching TV. Warrants are very rarely obtained, you won't be surprised to know.

It might be a good idea to turn the TV off before answering the door, though - I'd imagine the EastEnders theme tune at 1957 would be a bit of a dead giveaway 

I think that anyone who gets to a 4-digit post count on Urban has probably enough scepticism, cynicism, and lack of respect for petty authority to fall victim to this stuff very easily. Just arm yourself with information.


When I moved here, I was 50:50 about getting a TV licence, even though I only ever watched very little. Having worked in the US, I have a deep appreciation for the principle of non-commercial TV, and the BBC does produce a lot of good programming, even if it's not all my kind of thing. And (bite me) Radio 4 is a worthwhile resource that I don't mind contributing towards. I know some on here have some ideological objections to the whole state-funded broadcaster thing, but I'm not that much bothered.

But when, within a day of my arrival, one of those TVLA letters, full of veiled threats and insinuation, came through the door, I thought "Fuck 'em. You don't have to bully people into doing this, and you can't claim credibility as some kind of organ of the state if you're going to base the whole thing on half-truth and oppression." So that was that. Course, the same applies to the DWP, so I won't pay my DWP licence either .


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I haven't actually seen it, but I don't understand why or how they made W1A. For an organisation that's often afraid of itself, it seems nuts that they made a satire of themselves. I once wrote a blog post explaining to the world that our particular project was really good, despite public opinion, and I said that, "a very new formative product like ours is largely whatever you perceive it to be. That could be anywhere from giving you a sparkling new way to access something you love, to having wheeled out an accidental tribute to _W1A". _They asked me to remove the reference. I binned the whole thing instead.
> 
> Everyone rides Bromptons.


You should watch it.  It's very accurate.  I imagine.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

*I called and spoke to someone who said if there is a complaint with the BBC political lies coverage then call 0370 010 0222 to log this. If you just want to cancel then call either of the numbers above.*


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> this discrepancy must be down to the BBC charter I guess.
> 
> View attachment 191197


*shrug*

I dunno, it's one data point without (to me) the full context, and I couldn't argue the toss on it anyway. It's also not really the broader point I'm making, which is that regardless of its particular rights and wrongs, the BBC is inevitably more scrutinised. That's not something that passively happens to it either, it has consequences, perhaps like being organisationally fearful of all kinds of factors.

I'm not here to, or compelled to, defend the news coverage or editorial standards; not my job, not my sphere, and not something I have any greater insight into. But I can perhaps cast a little light on the organisation, the media landscape and its pressures so that it can be analysed more thoughtfully.


----------



## chilango (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Well, yes. Johnson has two options here:  he can ignore people calling him a coward for a couple of weeks, or he can have his own disembowelment at the hands of Neil become the most shared video clips of the season. I wonder which he'll go for.



Is any of this bias stuff cropping up irl? I know the Left bubble is getting (understandably) worked up about it, but beyond? 

I've not heard it...yet.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

I called *0370 010 0222* to complain and spoke to a nice chap who diligently took down my complaints, read them back to me and said they will be passed to senior/management at the BBC. I complained about... 

Tory plant at multiple episodes BBCQT 
Editing of BBCQT to display disgraced Prime Minister Johnson in a better light 
Editing in old footage of disgraced Prime Minister Johnson at cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday
Excessive airtime give to unelected racist Nigel Farage during political content 

Only took 5 minutes at most to do this  

If you choose to call the number *0370 010 0222* to complain about biased coverage then be polite and calm. The chap I spoke to said most people complaining were ranting at him rather than relaying the facts.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

Some unfortunate soul will actually have to read that.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Some unfortunate soul will actually have to read that.


My heart bleeds


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

chilango said:


> Is any of this bias stuff cropping up irl? I know the Left bubble is getting (understandably) worked up about it, but beyond?
> 
> I've not heard it...yet.


Most of the public seem to think it's left-wing. I guess some of them really mean to say it's liberal, like The Guardian.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> My heart bleeds


Point is, complaints get read. Worst case they add to aggregated numbers in a report - n complaints about this particular thing this week. The Munchetty debacle also showed what can be done, for better or worse, with a single complaint, but I'm not going to get into that one.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

chilango said:


> Is any of this bias stuff cropping up irl? I know the Left bubble is getting (understandably) worked up about it, but beyond?
> 
> I've not heard it...yet.


how the fuck would I know?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Tory plant at multiple episodes BBCQT


I've been seeing references to this type of thing for years and years.  It's nonsense.  It's a misunderstanding of how audience selection works.  They actively try to achieve "balance" when you apply to be in the audience.  I've been in the audience, when it was in Glasgow many years ago.  A researcher called me back and asked me about my politics.  He asked me which party I thought I was closest to.  I said none, I was an anarchist.  He said "we've not got any anarchists yet. Are you an SSP supporter?"  I said "Absolutely not".

There was a list of profiling questions, while they tried to work out if I was going to skew their audience.  That's how it's done.  So of course there will be Tory activists in the audience.  And Labour.  And Lib Dem.  And, if an SNP panel member is present, SNP.  And so on.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

I mean, jesus christ man. We're so deep in the bubble everyone I know sees Corbyn as a centrist compromise at best.


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I've been seeing references to this type of thing for years and years.  It's nonsense.  It's a misunderstanding of how audience selection works.  They actively try to achieve "balance" when you apply to be in the audience.  I've been in the audience, when it was in Glasgow many years ago.  A researcher called me back and asked me about my politics.  He asked me which party I thought I was closest to.  I said none, I was an anarchist.  He said "we've not got any anarchists yet. Are you an SSP supporter?"  I said "Absolutely not".
> 
> There was a list of profiling questions, while they tried to work out if I was going to skew their audience.  That's how it's done.  So of course there will be Tory activists in the audience.  And Labour.  And Lib Dem.  And, if an SNP panel member is present, SNP.  And so on.


There's certainly something in that.  My mate, who had a right go at Swinson, was all over the right wing press as being a plant because she is an actress, and so cant possibly have an opinion that hasn't been written out for her. Obvious bollocks.

Having the same guy on ni the audience almost as often as Farage is on the panel _does _look a bit dodge tho.


----------



## chilango (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> I mean, jesus christ man. We're so deep in the bubble everyone I know sees Corbyn as a centrist compromise at best.



OTOH living in the home counties I do know a fair few people who are pleased that they no longer have to feel bad voting to have their taxes cut now that Jeremy Corbyn hates Jews and that.

Not sure they're anymore of a helpful source of anecdata either


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

belboid said:


> Having the same guy on ni the audience almost as often as Farage is on the panel _does _look a bit dodge tho.


I don't know what their policy on repeat attendance is.  But I don't imagine it's uncommon.  Same as I answer absolutely every YouGov survey I'm sent.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I've been seeing references to this type of thing for years and years.  It's nonsense.  It's a misunderstanding of how audience selection works.  They actively try to achieve "balance" when you apply to be in the audience.  I've been in the audience, when it was in Glasgow many years ago.  A researcher called me back and asked me about my politics.  He asked me which party I thought I was closest to.  I said none, I was an anarchist.  He said "we've not got any anarchists yet. Are you an SSP supporter?"  I said "Absolutely not".
> 
> There was a list of profiling questions, while they tried to work out if I was going to skew their audience.  That's how it's done.  So of course there will be Tory activists in the audience.  And Labour.  And Lib Dem.  And, if an SNP panel member is present, SNP.  And so on.


Nonsense


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Point is, complaints get read. Worst case they add to aggregated numbers in a report - n complaints about this particular thing this week. The Munchetty debacle also showed what can be done, for better or worse, with a single complaint, but I'm not going to get into that one.


So don't bother then?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> So don't bother then?


No, the opposite. It does count.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Nonsense


 Touché.

However, if I was criticising QT (which isn’t really current affairs, but entertainment), I’d focus on other areas of its artifice than the make up of the audience.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Touché.
> 
> However, if I was criticising QT (which isn’t really current affairs, but entertainment), I’d focus on other areas of its artifice than the make up of the audience.


For a large % of our idiot country it is seen as THE WORD on politics in the same way as the Daily Mail or the Times. These are still the main media influencing voters and they should not be let to run riot.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> For a large % of our idiot country it is seen as THE WORD on politics in the same way as the Daily Mail or the Times. These are still the main media influencing voters and they should not be let to run riot.


Don't get me wrong: BBC current affairs is absolutely biased. It’s been a member of the CBI since at least right through the 80s. Including during the miners’ strike, when they reversed the Orgreave footage “by accident” and had CBI spokespeople on as if ‘impartial experts’.

But they deliberately make sure the audience of QT has supporters of each party. The audience isn’t supposed to be randomly plucked from the street.  It’s supposed to be weighted.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Has anyone here actually phoned the BBC and asked to cancel their license due to their political coverage? I am tempted to just for the response


Yup.

Email first, then letter, then visit (about a year later). About 4 years ago.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

DexterTCN said:


> then visit (about a year later)


tell us more about this.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> tell us more about this.


Some woman came to this house, you don't have to let them in.  They're self-employed usually so no point being a dick.

I said "Come on then" ...hustled her into the living room, showed her there was no box and the tv was only connected to the ps4, the blu-ray and the sound system.

On her way out she said they might contact me again in a couple of years and I said "post only, thanks".  Now I get a letter every 2 years or so, no bother.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

ah, they visited you! I was imagining you rocking up to broadcasting house to tell them again you'd cancelled your licence. possibly with some sort of banner.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 27, 2019)

Nah, those banners get heavy quite quickly.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't know what their policy on repeat attendance is


They politely ask that you don't apply to be on again if you've been on in the previous 10 years. To "give other people a chance".

It's not enforced/checked, clearly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 27, 2019)

I cancelled my licence years ago and I just get an email every two years - never had a visit.

It was just because I never watched telly though. I just found that I'd not even turned it on in a year because I didn't want to watch anything that was on. It wasn't a protest, and I don't think it _would_ be an effective protest against any idea of BBC political bias tbh - it's completely non-specific, it doesn't even just affect the BBC but all broadcast tv, and any manifesto you write about it isn't going to be paid attention to. If you want to complain about BBC coverage there are many other ways to do it.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

I haven't had a license for years and have had a visit. I filled in a form online saying I don't watch TV and a fella came around. I said I don't watch TV and he said, "sound" and that was that. Didn't even want to come in.

I think he said he might pop around in a few years. I've since moved so no idea if he did.


----------



## polly (Nov 27, 2019)

I think the outrage about BBC bias comes from a place of sadness that what was once a pretty evenhanded state broadcaster has become an apparently shameless establishment mouthpiece. As opposed to Sky or whatever who have always been trash. I mean I know about Orgreave - it's never been radical - but it's demonstrably and consistently worse now. Which is a real shame.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> I haven't had a license for years and have had a visit. I filled in a form online saying I don't watch TV and a fella came around. I said I don't watch TV and he said, "sound" and that was that. Didn't even want to come in.
> 
> I think he said he might pop around in a few years. I've since moved so no idea if he did.


I did this once (not whilst working there). The guy said, 'can I come in?', I said 'sure', and he said, 'oh OK, I don't need to, just wanted to see if you'd let me', then fucked off.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 27, 2019)

Yes. That mission to inform, educate, and entertain *sounds* good.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 27, 2019)

haha, mauvais! They have sent me a few red letters so I wonder if they will visit my telly-less flat soon.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I did this once (not whilst working there). The guy said, 'can I come in?', I said 'sure', and he said, 'oh OK, I don't need to, just wanted to see if you'd let me', then fucked off.


I think this is almost exactly what happened to me. I didn't even have my telly plugged in at the time so was pretty relaxed about the whole thing, and it probably showed, which meant no checks needed etc.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 27, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> ...If you want to complain about BBC coverage there are many other ways to do it.


All complaints about the bbc have to go through the bbc on multiple levels, and they get to decide if it goes further.   Good luck finding anything from ofcom.


----------



## geminisnake (Nov 27, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Step 1: How does one cancel the TV Licence without postal 'threats' about non-existent vans?
> Step 2: After cancelling how do you keep the TV Licence Wolves People from your door?
> 
> *EDIT UPDATE*:
> ...


You can cancel online and renew the cancellation online, did this about 4 yrs ago, they only ever email me, not letters, no one at the door. If they do come to the door they have zero rights, tell them to go away if you do answer it.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Here's another _mistake_: somehow, they filmed and broadcast a brutal bodying of the leader of the opposition before even securing a date for a similar interview with the actual prime minister


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

I wonder what _actual _problem it could end up being for the BBC though? Maybe some producer resigns or something. OH NO


----------



## xenon (Nov 27, 2019)

TBH if I didn't get a half price one, I'd bin the BBC off. Won't claim that's necessarily about politics Their oxbridge stuffed presentership, they're establishment bias does agrovate. The purported reasoning behind editing Johnson's performances is fucking disgraceful and not a little ironic.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Maybe some producer resigns or something


Years later.


----------



## magneze (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> I wonder what _actual _problem it could end up being for the BBC though? Maybe some producer resigns or something. OH NO


Nothing immediate. It is just killing itself slowly though with this stuff. When a government proposes stopping the license fee, perhaps no-one really cares any more.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

I guess in the absence of a Brillo interview, there's this essential content.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

I missed this 'mistake' from the other day - there's so many it's hard to keep up these days


----------



## Scaggs (Nov 28, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Has anyone here actually phoned the BBC and asked to cancel their license due to their political coverage? I am tempted to just for the response



Did it tonight online. Been wanting to do it for ages but my wife agreed at last.


----------



## Riklet (Nov 28, 2019)

Been watching Sky news recently cos at least it's blatantly centre right biased, but even so tries to provide balance. Also quite entertaining sometimes.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 28, 2019)

magneze said:


> Nothing immediate. It is just killing itself slowly though with this stuff. When a government proposes stopping the license fee, perhaps no-one really cares any more.


I think that’s it, really.  You can do what you want when you have power right up to the point that you lose that power and then you see who your friends are.  The BBC can do what they want with impunity right now, but they’re aligning themselves with the very people who’d happily get rid of the public broadcast element.  When those people turn on the BBC, who’s going to stand up for them?


----------



## chilango (Nov 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> I think that’s it, really.  You can do what you want when you have power right up to the point that you lose that power and then you see who your friends are.  The BBC can do what they want with impunity right now, but they’re aligning themselves with the very people who’d happily get rid of the public broadcast element.  When those people turn on the BBC, who’s going to stand up for them?



Not me.

Fuck 'em.


----------



## chilango (Nov 28, 2019)

...and it's not just about the bias. I could live with that if the programming was insightful or engaging but their coverage of this election has been close to unwatchable. 

They had Malcolm Gladwell on the Daily Politics the other day (why??) who actually made a very valid observation - the journos seem obsessed with trying to trap the politicians into providing some "viral clip" for them...


----------



## ska invita (Nov 28, 2019)

What roles explicitly does the government of the day get to appoint to the BBC? (I dont mean via under the counter old school tie network). Google search results suggest majority of the Board Government will choose most members of BBC board, says Whittingdale , but anyone else?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 28, 2019)

Quite a lot of people on social media canceling their licences and encouraging others to do the same.  

Useful link:
Do I need a TV licence?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 28, 2019)

Should they lose a lot of revenue no doubt the Tories will start taxing us all at source


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 28, 2019)

One of my main objections to BBC is that, at senior level, it's the same posh cunts who flit between it, the civil service, and politics


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 28, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> One of my main objections to BBC is that, at senior level, it's the same posh cunts who flit between it, the civil service, and politics


Now let's be fair here, it's not always the exact same posh cunts. It's the same _class_ of posh cunts, who frequently know each other, socialise together, and went to the same schools. Across the whole media, government, the City, er.


----------



## Cid (Nov 28, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> One of my main objections to BBC is that, at senior level, it's the same posh cunts who flit between it, the civil service, and politics



This is the board:

David Clementi
Chairman - Late of Virgin Money, Prudential, Deputy Governor Bank of England.

Tony Hall
DG - Career arts/BBC.

Elan Closs Stephens
Wales rep - Academic, but of the sort who chairs things, works with government etc.

Tim Davie
CEO BBC studios, director global (the commercial subsidiary stuff) - Procter and Gamble, Pepsi, then various BBC roles.

Shirley Garrood
Non-exec - has been CFO of various investment funds. Currently a senior independent director of esure, and at Hargreaves-Landsdown.

Tanni Grey-Thompson
Non-exec - sports, obviously.

Ian Hargreaves
Non-exec - Academic stuff, previous news stuff (deputy editor at FT, editor at Indie, New Statesman).

Tom Ilube
Non-exec - currently director of a cyber security company, has worked in PWC and Goldman Sachs.

Ken MacQuarrie
Director, nations and regions - career BBC type.

Steve Morrison
Non-exec - Another career media type, Granada, All3media (big production stuff around ITV).

Nicholas Serota
Senior independent director - Tate, Arts council etc.

Ashley Steel
Non exec, member for England - current non exec director on... National fucking express. Previous Vice Chairman at KPMG.

Francesca Unsworth
Director news and current affairs - career BBC broadcast journo.

I can't be arsed to do the exec committee. More career BBC types, bit of civil service and one James Purnell. It's a pretty awful picture really...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 28, 2019)

It's all a fucking merry-go-round at that level - it doesn't matter what the actual business of whoever you work for is. Get kicked out for harassment or just fancy a change? Choo choo next stop on the gravy train.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 28, 2019)

This is an old one and quite long, but it's very detailed.  It's mainly about the reporting on the first indyref.   The Nick Robinson stuff should be required viewing.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Nov 29, 2019)

Someone has to pay Gary Lineker's much needed salary don't they?

He doesn't get enough for talking about the footy on BT Sport, so has to do exactly the same thing paid for by the tax payer.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 29, 2019)

Balanced reporting 

The story of 'Mr Brexit'


----------



## gosub (Nov 29, 2019)

7 way leadership debate, even fucking UKIP to get airtime but not the MRLP


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 29, 2019)

gosub said:


> 7 way leadership debate, even fucking UKIP to get airtime but not the MRLP



Err, UKIP is dead & buried, I think you mean the Brexit Party.

And, err, it's not a leadership debate.

But, at least you got the '7 way' bit right. 

* Only 3 out of the 7 are sending their leaders. 



> Presenter Nick Robinson will chair the debate between the Conservatives' chief secretary to the Treasury Rishi Sunak, Labour's business secretary Rebecca Long Bailey, Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson, SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price, former Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas and the Brexit Party's chairman Richard Tice.
> 
> Parties to be quizzed in seven-way election debate



Who the fuck is going to bother to watch that?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 29, 2019)

.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 29, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Who the fuck is going to bother to watch that?



People laid low with norovirus.


----------



## Cid (Nov 29, 2019)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 191330 .



Do you reckon they gave a definition of ‘left wing’?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 29, 2019)

Cid said:


> Do you reckon they gave a definition of ‘left wing’?





> BMG's poll asked all respondents to chart their political beliefs on a scale from 0-10, with 0 being very left-wing and 10 being very right-wing.
> 
> They then categorised people who said 0-3 as left-wing, 4-6 as centrists, and 7-10 as right-wing.


Self-identifying left- and right-wingers I guess.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 29, 2019)

It's not so much whether it is left- or right-wing balanced (although I can't remember the last time the BBC ran a piece in which capitalism as a concept was taken as read to be a bad thing, whereas the opposite happens all the time).  It's the fact that it is demonstrably anti-_Corbyn_, and this has been evidenced time and again.  For example, the BBC was reprimanded in a report in 2016: Media 'persistently' biased against Jeremy Corbyn, academic study finds


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It's not so much whether it is left- or right-wing balanced


or that_ people think_ it's left or right balanced either.


----------



## Cid (Nov 29, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Self-identifying left- and right-wingers I guess.



I mean in terms of the question... left wing means very different things to different people. If you asked the question ‘does the bbc regularly criticise capitalism as a system?’ I imagine you’d be met with a lot of don’t knows/general bafflement. For many on the right, left wing and socially liberal are essentially synonymous.


----------



## Cid (Nov 29, 2019)

But yes, also what kabbes and killer b said.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2019)

Cid said:


> For many on the right, left wing and socially liberal are essentially synonymous.


Also to many who call themselves "left leaning".


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It's not so much whether it is left- or right-wing balanced (although I can't remember the last time the BBC ran a piece in which capitalism as a concept was taken as read to be a bad thing, whereas the opposite happens all the time).  It's the fact that it is demonstrably anti-_Corbyn_, and this has been evidenced time and again.  For example, the BBC was reprimanded in a report in 2016: Media 'persistently' biased against Jeremy Corbyn, academic study finds


Yes, but a report written by academics, who we know are all fantasist communists with no experience of the real world.


----------



## Reno (Nov 30, 2019)

I didn’t pay my licence for a year once. Had them knocking on my door. Unfortunately I’m a shit liar and they found out that I had a telly. I got a court date, but that went away once I paid the fee.

At least in the UK you can get out of it if you can prove you have no telly. In Germany everybody has to pay the equivalent of the licence fee, no matter what. German telly is far more crap than the BBC, I never watch it and the two main channels show commercials anyway.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 30, 2019)

Assuming that people who are cancelling are also not watching it would be cool to hear how their perception of 'the news' changes after a little while.

And of the place of tv in general.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2019)

DexterTCN said:


> Assuming that people who are cancelling are also not watching it would be cool to hear how their perception of 'the news' changes after a little while.
> 
> And of the place of tv in general.


I stopped watching TV news for a long time before I stopped watching TV altogether - or rather I might have watched it occasionally but I found it increasingly weird and irrelevant. Now, if I watch a BBC news bulletin on TV at somebody's house or whatever, it seems like a parody, one of the news segments from _Robocop_. It's not just that there's a bias - I'm used to that from everything else - but that it's so _long_ and expects me to believe the whole thing on all topics from start to finish. Not even some random channel on Twitter expects that, they just try to hit you with a few short things.

I don't know if I ever actually "believed" in TV news anyway though. I think it was hearing "this statement is being read by an actor" when I was a kid that made it all out to be a joke. The major personal change has been in being more sceptical of newspapers, and even that wasn't some sudden massive revelation, and was helped along by all the consolidation of publishing in the last few decades.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 30, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I stopped watching TV news for a long time before I stopped watching TV altogether - or rather I might have watched it occasionally but I found it increasingly weird and irrelevant. Now, if I watch a BBC news bulletin on TV at somebody's house or whatever, it seems like a parody, one of the news segments from _Robocop_. It's not just that there's a bias - I'm used to that from everything else - but that it's so _long_ and expects me to believe the whole thing on all topics from start to finish. Not even some random channel on Twitter expects that, they just try to hit you with a few short things.
> 
> I don't know if I ever actually "believed" in TV news anyway though. I think it was hearing "this statement is being read by an actor" when I was a kid that made it all out to be a joke. The major personal change has been in being more sceptical of newspapers, and even that wasn't some sudden massive revelation, and was helped along by all the consolidation of publishing in the last few decades.


Yup...it expands.

It's not revelatory (may or may not be a word), it's confirmatory.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 1, 2019)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 191330 .


It's because rightwingers think the BBC is biased towards liberal social values while leftwingers think the BBC is biased towards the political establishment and the cultural status quo. Which is true, but expressing it as biased towards either left or right is inaccurate. It's just a product of the culture that creates and nurtures it and from which all of its senior types come from, which is the chattering class russell group socially liberal but let's not address economic inequality because that sounds bad for us section of society that controls culture more widely than just the BBC


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

Reno said:


> I didn’t pay my licence for a year once. Had them knocking on my door. Unfortunately I’m a shit liar and they found out that I had a telly. I got a court date, but that went away once I paid the fee.
> 
> At least in the UK you can get out of it if you can prove you have no telly. In Germany everybody has to pay the equivalent of the licence fee, no matter what. German telly is far more crap than the BBC, I never watch it and the two main channels show commercials anyway.


In the immortal words of Tony Soprano, "Waaaarant, waaarant."


----------



## mx wcfc (Dec 1, 2019)

Until this election, I've been  quite happy to pay the licence fee.  I listen to Radio 6 all the time, and the little telly I do watch is mainly the Beeb.  Plus it seemed good value compared to all the amazon, netflix etc channels that my womenfolk sign my bank account up to.

But now I'm starting to get really pissed off with the tory bias.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's because rightwingers think the BBC is biased towards liberal social values while leftwingers think the BBC is biased towards the political establishment and the cultural status quo. Which is true, but expressing it as biased towards either left or right is inaccurate. It's just a product of the culture that creates and nurtures it and from which all of its senior types come from, which is the chattering class russell group socially liberal but let's not address economic inequality because that sounds bad for us section of society that controls culture more widely than just the BBC


This certainly goes for the traditional kind of BBC bias, which was unconscious, rooted in the unthinking assumptions of the producers. As a conservative (not Tory, never Tory) who loathes neoliberalism, I was in the unusual position of seeing it from both sides. The last BBC drama I can remember giving a conservative POV was _Lilies_ (created by Heidi Thomas, as it happens), which aired back in 2007, and was unceremoniously cancelled after one series.

The recent antics of BBC news are something else altogether, moving from lazy bias to straight-up propaganda, a concerted effort to distort the narrative in the government's favour. Enough to make me nostalgic for the old school Bloomsbury set assumptions. At least they allowed some subtlety, and weren't fully aware of what they were doing.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

mx wcfc said:


> Until this election, I've been  quite happy to pay the licence fee.  I listen to Radio 6 all the time, and the little telly I do watch is mainly the Beeb.  Plus it seemed good value compared to all the amazon, netflix etc channels that my womenfolk sign my bank account up to.
> 
> But now I'm starting to get really pissed off with the tory bias.


This'll be a watershed. In public and private, I've seen and heard people who've reflexively defended the BBC come-what-may express their disgust, look into cancelling their license, and outright say that the BBC should be made subscription only. 

The extent and overtness of partiality and deception in an election is something new and sinister. From the string of accidental edits that just happen to favour the government to (according to Labour sources, who I believe) lying through their teeth to get Corbyn interviewed under false pretences, the BBC have junked any pretence at balance and are openly backing the governing party. The placemen in the news dept. may be immediately responsible, but no-one at the top has stepped in to rein them in, making those at the highest levels responsible.

If the BBC succeed in throwing an election, they'll never be forgiven by their natural supporters, nor will they deserve to be. They'll have earned everything that's coming.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 1, 2019)

Azrael said:


> This certainly goes for the traditional kind of BBC bias, which was unconscious, rooted in the unthinking assumptions of the producers. As a conservative (not Tory, never Tory) who loathes neoliberalism, I was in the unusual position of seeing it from both sides. The last BBC drama I can remember giving a conservative POV was _Lilies_ (created by Heidi Thomas, as it happens), which aired back in 2007, and was unceremoniously cancelled after one series.
> 
> The recent antics of BBC news are something else altogether, moving from lazy bias to straight-up propaganda, a concerted effort to distort the narrative in the government's favour. Enough to make me nostalgic for the old school Bloomsbury set assumptions. At least they allowed some subtlety, and weren't fully aware of what they were doing.


I think it's still more or less the same thing though, or comes from same place. It's not pro tory, it's driven by the absolute fear of corbyn (which I would argue comes from the - fairly mild relatively but that's to me immersed in the arguments of the marxist left - threat of wealth redistribution) amongst the chattering class types, and it's still not, or not entirely, conscious. It's a reaction to that fear that prevents them from dealing with a left movement (shit term this but bear with me) which is a threat to them in anything but bad faith and therefore conversely forces them to show more (not necessarily conscious) good faith to tories than they would in other circumstances


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I think it's still more or less the same thing though, or comes from same place. It's not pro tory, it's driven by the absolute fear of corbyn (which I would argue comes from the - fairly mild relatively but that's to me immersed in the arguments of the marxist left - threat of wealth redistribution) amongst the chattering class types, and it's still not, or not entirely, conscious. It's a reaction to that fear that prevents them from dealing with a left movement (shit term this but bear with me) which is a threat to them in anything but bad faith and therefore conversely forces them to show more (not necessarily conscious) good faith to tories than they would in other circumstances


At least I'd know where I was with that. We've now crossed the line from bias to concerted government propaganda. Deceptively editing clips, smearing Labour with the government's narrative, and worst of all, using Andrew Neil to savage Corbyn while (accidentally, of course) neglecting to get Johnson confirmed for similar treatment: this is a concerted campaign of lies and deception that'd do _Pravda_ proud.

It's not entirely unprecedented -- we all know about the Orgreave edit, alongside a general tendency to ignore police lawlessness in the Miners' strike -- but such sustained and overt bias in an election campaign's a whole new level.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

DexterTCN said:


> This is an old one and quite long, but it's very detailed.  It's mainly about the reporting on the first indyref.   The Nick Robinson stuff should be required viewing.



Watched this before, but required viewing. As, incredibly, was the three-part docco on Indyref1 aired on BBC Scotland, which also covered the bias in detail, and was impeccably balanced. Mystery for the ages how it ever got made let alone broadcast, but glad it did: an afterglow of the BBC as we like to think it once was.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 2, 2019)

Well, they have managed to get facebook to take down a Tory ad...



> Facebook has deleted a Conservative election ad that used BBC News footage because it infringed the corporation's intellectual property (IP) rights.
> 
> The BBC said the material had been used out of context in a way that "could damage perceptions of our impartiality".
> 
> ...



Facebook bans Tory ad over BBC footage


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2019)

Peter Oborne rips apart the BBC's anti-Labour propaganda in a Grauniad op-ed. That's _Peter Oborne_ of all people, ex-_Telegraph_, ex-_Mail_, ex-_Spectator_, conservative to the cuticles.

When you've got a journalist so deeply embedded in Toryism he's in danger of morphing into the Royal Oak taking you to task for being unfair to Labour, you've got a major problem.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 3, 2019)

Farage being welcomed onto radio 5


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Farage being welcomed onto radio 5


when he should be being ushered into a tumbril


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 4, 2019)

Nick Robinson's getting ratio'd on Twatter. The comments are


----------



## Azrael (Dec 4, 2019)

My how they've circled the wagons!

I don't for a second buy the "oh, it's just News, rest are OK" defence. News are running riot 'cause they're allowed to. The corporation's board could put a stop to it at any time. Bosses in other departments could publicly protest. "Talent" could resign with zero personal cost beyond less time on the box. They haven't, and won't, 'cause Auntie looks after her own. This rot runs throughout the organization, and will remain until it's ended in its current form.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 4, 2019)

When you get the concept of dropping state tv....you start to see all the people that quote it...unquestioningly.


----------



## SovietArmy (Dec 5, 2019)

There is better channel calling ARTE and got English subtitles good documentaries, concerts, current affairs and is free.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 5, 2019)

SovietArmy said:


> There is better channel calling ARTE and got English subtitles good documentaries, concerts, current affairs and is free.


I like the Late Late Show


----------



## Badgers (Dec 6, 2019)

Labour complains to BBC over "slanted and biased" election coverage - LabourList


----------



## Badgers (Dec 6, 2019)

Just had a follow up call from a company called ICM on behalf of the BBC regards the complaint I made. 

Pleasant enough chap 
Lot's of questions about my demographic 

Questions like _'how do you rate the BBC from 0 to 10'_ which is tricky when I rate some of their content (Attenborough etc) a full 10/10 but their news/election coverage a lot lower. 

The chap did ask what I hoped/expected from my complaint. Said that I expected some sort of communication and a commitment of responsibility in the future when coverage is deliberately altered to manipulate a political agenda.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 7, 2019)




----------



## magneze (Dec 15, 2019)

> The Sunday Telegraph claims Mr Johnson's planned overhaul of Whitehall is part of a bid to show the government "works for the people". The paper also reports planned reforms to the civil service, including a review of hiring and firing processes. *Separately, it claims Mr Johnson has ordered an urgent review into decriminalising non-payment of the BBC licence fee, which costs £154.40 annually for watching live TV or iPlayer.*


PM's 'Whitehall revolution' after election win


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2019)

John Simpson says the Tories are doubling down on attacking the BBC, boycotting Today, that famously anti-Tory hotbed of lefties.



Never saw _that_ coming, oh no, completely out of the blue.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 15, 2019)

Privatisation looming


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 15, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Privatisation looming



Not in the short term, the current Royal Charter doesn't end until 31st Dec 2027.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 15, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not in the short term, the current Royal Charter doesn't end until 31st Dec 2027.


Plenty of time to run it into the ground and sell it cheap


----------



## ska invita (Dec 15, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> John Simpson says the Tories are doubling down on attacking the BBC, boycotting Today, that famously anti-Tory hotbed of lefties.
> 
> 
> 
> Never saw _that_ coming, oh no, completely out of the blue.




Trump PLAYBOOK. There, I said it. Hard to play the media is my enemy card when you look at the front pages of the papers today, or of course look at the election itself, but I guess the BBC'll do


----------



## Wolveryeti (Dec 15, 2019)

Main problem with BBC news/politics coverage is that they have been cowed into accepting the bullshit that fact-checking and challenging politicians on the facts can be considered political bias.

Over polarising issues (e.g. Brexit) they have treated it entirely as a difference of views rather than an area where their responsibility as a public service is to inform the public. Hence excessive airtime given to dog shit shills (balance!) who have absolutely no scruples about lying to the public if it furthers their agenda.

If lying on national TV is costless (as it is now) it will become endemic and deep rooted (there is already evidence of this) - and the BBC will just move closer and closer to becoming a mouthpiece of No. 10.

There are ways of combating this, but the BBC has no spine to do so (probably concerned for their cushty jobs and 6 figure salaries). For instance, I agree with the suggestion that lies interviewees tell should form the first item of questioning whenever they are back on the programme next.

I am not quite sure I'm ready to accept the premise that the whole BBC should go or be funded by advertising, but little point of continuing with news/politics output in the current format. It's now beyond a joke and I never watch it / rely on it.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not in the short term, the current Royal Charter doesn't end until 31st Dec 2027.


Since it's not binding on Parliament, the government can legislate to end it anytime it likes. Whether they will's another question.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2019)

Wolveryeti said:


> Main problem with BBC news/politics coverage is that they have been cowed into accepting the bullshit that fact-checking and challenging politicians on the facts can be considered political bias.
> 
> Over polarising issues (e.g. Brexit) they have treated it entirely as a difference of views rather than an area where their responsibility as a public service is to inform the public. Hence excessive airtime given to dog shit shills (balance!) who have absolutely no scruples about lying to the public if it furthers their agenda.
> 
> ...


At the very least, new and current affairs need to go.* The conflict of interest of a state broadcast dominating the news market is just too great.

* Except perhaps the world service, which isn't subjected to the same pressures, and seems to've kept its reputation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Plenty of time to run it into the ground and sell it cheap


So much of it has been privatised, it's in many ways a commissioning organisation


----------



## elbows (Dec 15, 2019)

magneze said:


> PM's 'Whitehall revolution' after election win



And another article based on the same:

Ministers 'reviewing licence fee evasion sanction'



> The government will consider whether failure to pay the TV licence fee should cease to be a criminal offence, a Treasury minister has said.
> 
> Rishi Sunak confirmed Prime Minister Boris Johnson has ordered a review of the sanction for non-payment of the £154.50 charge, which funds the BBC.
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2019)

magneze said:


> PM's 'Whitehall revolution' after election win


Katie Price lost her house?????


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 15, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Katie Price lost her house?????



C4U


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 16, 2019)

Have to say that I didn't notice any great vermin shortage on Today this morning.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 29, 2020)

BBC News - BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive








						BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive
					

There will be cuts to Radio 5 Live and BBC Two’s Newsnight as part of an £80m savings drive.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## magneze (Jan 29, 2020)

Was watching a BBC panto on iplayer (not my choice). Why does the BBC need to do panto? There loads of panto. Seemed a bit of an odd thing.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 29, 2020)

D'wards said:


> BBC News - BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive
> 
> 
> 
> ...


all the cut announcements that have caught my ear have been related to news programming....i wonder what the reasoning of that has been.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 29, 2020)

Why do they need to save money?


----------



## magneze (Jan 29, 2020)

D'wards said:


> Why do they need to save money?


To pay Widow Twanky?


----------



## mauvais (Jan 29, 2020)

D'wards said:


> Why do they need to save money?


Primarily the fucked up licence fee settlement that resulted in them paying for licences/losing licence fee revenue from certain pensioners.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 29, 2020)

Too bad.  Completely disagree with this.  News and current affairs should be at the core of what BBC does.  Anyone these days can make drama series, or screen sports and pay dumb pundits to spout crap about it.  (End of.  )


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 29, 2020)

ska invita said:


> all the cut announcements that have caught my ear have been related to news programming....i wonder what the reasoning of that has been.



maybe they have worked out that it doesn't need many staff just to recycle whatever tory party hq puts out?


----------



## mauvais (Jan 29, 2020)

A joy to see some numpty deciding to quote Julia Hartley Brewer and Paul Mason in that article by the way. That's probably the kind of digital journalism we're going to see more of.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 29, 2020)

BBC News has been lacking in news for a while. I doubt they could bounce back from their last election coverage and claim to be unbiased. The bollocks about Corbyn and anti-semitism yet not questioning the racism in the tory party is unforgivable. They should have started ever broadcast with.... 'Today's lies from the government are'


----------



## mx wcfc (Jan 29, 2020)

D'wards said:


> Why do they need to save money?


Possibly to pay compensation to all the women who they've discriminated against wage wise?


----------



## Hollis (Jan 29, 2020)

MrSki said:


> The bollocks about Corbyn and anti-semitism yet not questioning the racism in the tory party is unforgivable. They should have started ever broadcast with.... 'Today's lies from the government are'



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c1n985jw6z6t/islamophobia


----------



## MrSki (Jan 29, 2020)

The thing is the BBC has fucked itself. Previously the left would have stood up for it but that is past. Programmes like QT & Andrew Marr have had a sickly bias for too long.

They do good nature programmes though.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 29, 2020)

MrSki said:


> The thing is the BBC has fucked itself. Previously the left would have stood up for it but that is past.


I don't think this is really true. However, two more important factors:

- the public opinions specifically around news output have damaged the popularity of the rest of the BBC

- the BBC has sought to humour/placate/whatever the establishment at its own expense, and to noone's surprise but its own it has very much not been rewarded.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 30, 2020)

D'wards said:


> BBC News - BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## Badgers (Jan 30, 2020)

No doubt the media are covering this well. 

Shame they are not covering the real hurt that the cuts in this country are causing eh? 

Fuck em


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 8, 2020)




----------



## Marty1 (Mar 9, 2020)

The frustration of the BBC’s left wing London bubble bias continues to be exposed.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> The frustration of the BBC’s left wing London bubble bias continues to be exposed.



And you wonder why you get shit here ?


----------



## MrSki (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> The frustration of the BBC’s left wing London bubble bias continues to be exposed.



If you think the Guardian is a left wing paper then it shows how daft you are as well as being a boring little cunt.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 10, 2020)

Tonight on Newsnight here's Nigel Farage to share his opinions about Coronavirus...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Tonight on Newsnight here's Nigel Farage to share his opinions about Coronavirus...


i'd like it better if they gave nf coronavirus, locked him in a cage by london's city hall, and made him replicate david blaine's famous fast: and then interviewed him


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2020)

MrSki said:


> If you think the Guardian is a left wing paper then it shows how daft you are as well as being a boring little cunt.


it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## kabbes (Mar 10, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Tonight on Newsnight here's Nigel Farage to share his opinions about Coronavirus...


I remarked on that last night too.  The BBC are sooooooo in love with Farage.  Is there any subject they won’t bring him on to give his uninformed reckons about?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 10, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Tonight on Newsnight here's Nigel Farage to share his opinions about Coronavirus...


What?

WTAF are they doing bringing that racist, nasty twat on to discuss a medical issue?

What the fuck are they doing having him on for any reason, in fact.  Fuck sake.

Anyway I'm not paying for it, apart from a brief dalliance with Bang Claes I've had nothing to do with them,


----------



## D'wards (Mar 12, 2020)

Is he basically saying that as the viewers are old men we'll cancel it? The BBC don't help themselves at times do they?  









						Victoria Derbyshire viewers 'more male and older than you think', says Tony Hall
					

Outgoing BBC director general defends axing of Derbyshire’s show in latest round of cuts




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## mauvais (Mar 17, 2020)

43m unique UK browsers (basically devices) on BBC Online yesterday.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 17, 2020)

mauvais said:


> 43m unique UK browsers (basically devices) on BBC Online yesterday.


That's corona.  I and many others weren't one of them.

This is no time for statistics though...of that kind anyway.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 17, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> That's corona.


I think you've cracked the case, detective!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 17, 2020)

My normal reaction to having to stay at home and not do much is to turn on Radio 4 or the World Service, but I absolutely can't do that now. The Today programme is three hours of virus. Everything is virus, even the sports which I don't care about anyway. Every other programme, you know is going to turn virus at some point. The World Service is all virus. I know it's a good cheap way of filling air time but it's worthless and in fact actively damaging - not that other channels and publications are any different tbh.


----------



## killer b (Mar 17, 2020)

Front Row with Stig Abell this evening made me long for more CV19 chat tbh


----------



## Badgers (Aug 9, 2020)

From the Times  



> Boris Johnson is seeking to rebuild bridges with the BBC by appointing as its new chairman a prominent figure from the right, who does not want to “blow up” the national broadcaster.
> 
> The prime minister is drawing up a long list of possible leaders, understood to include the former cabinet ministers Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd and the television interviewer Andrew Neil.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 9, 2020)

According to social media 

Apparently the BBC didn’t want to report on the NHS demonstrations tbecause they want too ‘remain impartial’ 

Anyone seen confirmation of this impartiality?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 9, 2020)

Badgers said:


> According to social media
> 
> Apparently the BBC didn’t want to report on the NHS demonstrations tbecause they want too ‘remain impartial’
> 
> Anyone seen confirmation of this impartiality?


Yes, at Orgreave.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 10, 2020)

BBC says sorry over racial slur in news report - BBC News
					

Director general Tony Hall apologises a day after Radio 1Xtra DJ Sideman quit over use of the slur.




					www.bbc.com
				






> BBC director general Tony Hall has apologised and said a mistake was made after a news report containing a racial slur was broadcast last month.
> 
> More than 18,600 people complained after the N-word was used in full in a report about a racially aggravated attack in Bristol.
> 
> *The BBC initially defended the use of the slur *, broadcast by Points West and the BBC News Channel on 29 July.



Cunts


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 10, 2020)

MrSki said:


> BBC News has been lacking in news for a while. I doubt they could bounce back from their last election coverage and claim to be unbiased. The bollocks about Corbyn and anti-semitism yet not questioning the racism in the tory party is unforgivable. They should have started ever broadcast with.... 'Today's lies from the government are'



BBC News has always been establishment, but it's been particularly timid and seemingly unwilling to criticise the government of the day ever since Alistair Campbell took it to the cleaners over the 'sexed up dossier' in 2003, and it does seem to have become a lot worse in the last few years.

I cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago.  I was never a big TV watcher anyway so it was a bit of a waste of money and I'd been thinking of getting rid, but it was some particularly crap bit of reporting on some aspect of the Brexit saga (I can't remember what) that tipped me into actually doing it.  I did think about making a political point of it, as someone suggested upthread, but in the end just went through the 'I don't need a TV licence any more' procedure.  Tbf to TV licensing (not something I'd often say!) they've not made any difficulties about it.  I've had one letter asking me to confirm I still don't need a licence, which I did, and I've heard nothing for more than a year.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 10, 2020)

Badgers said:


> BBC says sorry over racial slur in news report - BBC News
> 
> 
> Director general Tony Hall apologises a day after Radio 1Xtra DJ Sideman quit over use of the slur.
> ...


Are you familiar with this story?

An NHS worker got racially abused and physically attacked. The BBC reported on it and were told by the victim's family that they wanted the photos to be shown and the racist phrase to be heard. So the BBC did that.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 16, 2021)

False Equivalence is Killing the BBC – and It’s Killing Us, Too – Byline Times
					

As the national broadcaster continues to provide a platform for Coronavirus fringe science, Patrick Howse explores how its airing of opinions not evidence, and prioritisation of political – rather than health – reporters could be lethal during the COVID-19 crisis




					bylinetimes.com


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 16, 2021)

Has anyone taken the survey? I was sent an email asking to rate them and their programming. I did so gladly.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 16, 2021)

Badgers said:


> False Equivalence is Killing the BBC – and It’s Killing Us, Too – Byline Times
> 
> 
> As the national broadcaster continues to provide a platform for Coronavirus fringe science, Patrick Howse explores how its airing of opinions not evidence, and prioritisation of political – rather than health – reporters could be lethal during the COVID-19 crisis
> ...


The only thing I’d say is that I think that article is too kind in suggesting it’s an innocent mistake — a failed attempt to create balance.  I think that TV stations intentionally go for those whose opinions create a lot of heat and secondary coverage precisely because it improves ratings.  Accuracy is utterly irrelevant to this calculation.  If anything, hearing the sober truth is, by comparison, boring and niche.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 16, 2021)

It's too far from my wheelhouse to say with confidence but I'm not sure the BBC is all that heavily driven by programme-specific ratings in the usual way, at least not directly, compared to commercial broadcasting. The favoured measurements are different. I think you need to look elsewhere to try and explain these kind of behaviours.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 16, 2021)

mauvais said:


> It's too far from my wheelhouse to say with confidence but I'm not sure the BBC is all that heavily driven by programme-specific ratings in the usual way, at least not directly, compared to commercial broadcasting. The favoured measurements are different. I think you need to look elsewhere to try and explain these kind of behaviours.


At the same time, if they consistently made programmes people didn’t want to watch, I think the programme-makers would find themselves answerable to the bosses p.d.q.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 16, 2021)

kabbes said:


> At the same time, if they consistently made programmes people didn’t want to watch, I think the programme-makers would find themselves answerable to the bosses p.d.q.


Yes, definitely. But I think the org is most concerned with something a bit more holistic. Per-person hours of weekly engagement, habit forming etc, as well as value for money and whether the output as a whole caters sufficiently to all the licence fee payers. That's how we see it in discussions of what the BBC is doing. Peak numbers alone wouldn't cut it. However it's possible I'm wrong and the most impactful decision making on this stuff is closer to the show level and they're motivated by the bit they most directly own, effectively "ratings".

Me, I think that article has it about right and it's a product of normalising certain behaviours.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 18, 2021)




----------



## Badgers (Sep 2, 2021)

I wonder if staff at the BBC are ashamed of how BBC News are reporting?

Can see some whistle-blowers appearing in the future but would be good for the country (the truth) to hear from some now???


----------



## Badgers (Sep 3, 2021)

The BBC has Blacklisted Peter Stefanovic and his ‘Johnson Lies’ Video. Why? – Byline Times
					

It’s accurate, it sheds light on a vital question, and it has been viewed tens of millions of times – but our national broadcaster is pretending it isn’t there. Brian Cathcart wants an explanation




					bylinetimes.com


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)




----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 20, 2021)

people at opposite ends of the political spectrum think the bbc is biased against them... probably means they're not.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

crojoe said:


> people at opposite ends of the political spectrum think the bbc is biased against them... probably means they're not.


You. Are. Kidding. Right.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 20, 2021)

No that's correct - I've seen people on the left and right say that Fox News is biased against them so they've probably got the balance about right.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)




----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)




----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)




----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

two sheds said:


> No that's correct - I've seen people on the left and right say that Fox News is biased against them so they've probably got the balance about right.


Let me see the Leftie bias


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

Examples of BBC Bias - Is the BBC biased - Politics.co.uk
					

An overview of the various accusations of political bias made against the BBC, including the history of the claims, and the various different forms they take.




					www.politics.co.uk


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

Left bias is rampant


----------



## two sheds (Sep 20, 2021)

Badgers said:


> Let me see the Leftie bias


They've claimed Trump _isn'_t the Son of God at least twice


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 20, 2021)

defunding the bbc is basically in the tory manifesto. and most of the don't pay the licence fee types are on the right. I think they do a decent job of straddling a tricky line for a huuuge organisation.
the alternative for many people is a load of fake news or deliberate misinformation from social media or worse, the daily mail, so careful what you wish for is my opinion.


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 20, 2021)

Guido Fawkes is very anti the BBC


----------



## Spandex (Sep 20, 2021)

crojoe said:


> people at opposite ends of the political spectrum think the bbc is biased against them... probably means they're not.


There's a range of views on the BBC within a narrow window of acceptable opinion, but in general they are economically liberal (and actively hostile to anything resembling socialism) and socially liberal (within limits).

The left objects to its economic liberalism and hostility to anything to the left of Blair. The right objects to its social liberalism, plus the free market types object to a state owned media, thinking it should all be privatised.

That there's complaints from left and right doesn't mean they aren't biased.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

Spandex said:


> There's a range of views on the BBC within a narrow window of acceptable opinion, but in general they are economically liberal (and actively hostile to anything resembling socialism) and socially liberal (within limits).
> 
> The left objects to its economic liberalism and hostility to anything to the left of Blair. The right objects to its social liberalism, plus the free market types object to a state owned media, thinking it should all be privatised.
> 
> That there's complaints from left and right doesn't mean they aren't biased.


The BBC produces great (marketable) media across TV and radio but their news is a disgrace.


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 20, 2021)

Spandex said:


> There's a range of views on the BBC within a narrow window of acceptable opinion, but in general they are economically liberal (and actively hostile to anything resembling socialism) and socially liberal (within limits).
> 
> The left objects to its economic liberalism and hostility to anything to the left of Blair. The right objects to its social liberalism, plus the free market types object to a state owned media, thinking it should all be privatised.
> 
> That there's complaints from left and right doesn't mean they aren't biased.



you've basically described the job of a national broadcaster. not sure what you expect them to do.


----------



## Spandex (Sep 20, 2021)

crojoe said:


> you've basically described the job of a national broadcaster.


Having a narrow window of acceptable opinion and being actively hostile to anything resembling socialism is the job of a national broadcaster? 





crojoe said:


> not sure what you expect them to do.


Not have such a narrow window of acceptable opinion and not be actively hostile to anything to the left of Blair.


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 20, 2021)

I don't agree on 'actively hostile' at all.

narrow window = mainstream national broadcaster


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2021)

crojoe said:


> people at opposite ends of the political spectrum think the bbc is biased against them... probably means they're not.


The BBC _is_ biased against people at both ends of the political spectrum. And people of spectrums you can’t even conceive of too.  The BBC occupy the ground of the neoliberal centre-right.  There aren’t just two sides and a middle ground that means you are balanced if you sit in it.  That’s stupidly naïve


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2021)

crojoe said:


> I don't agree on 'actively hostile' at all.
> 
> narrow window = mainstream national broadcaster


For you, Blair and Cameron were heroes, weren’t they?


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The BBC _is_ biased against people at both ends of the political spectrum. And people of spectrums you can’t even conceive of too.  The BBC occupy the ground of the neoliberal centre-right.  There aren’t just two sides and a middle ground that means you are balanced if you sit in it.  That’s stupidly naïve


But what should they be?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2021)

Badgers said:


> But what should they be?


Depends what type of society you want, really. The BBC are exactly what they should be if you support a neoliberal consensus and banal nationalism.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Depends what type of society you want, really. The BBC are exactly what they should be if you support a neoliberal consensus and banal nationalism.


An Independent broadcaster ideally.

Not a North Korea light news

Propaganda should have ended after WW2


----------



## Spandex (Sep 20, 2021)

crojoe said:


> I don't agree on 'actively hostile' at all


From its partial reporting of the General Strike, to re-editing footage of the police attacking miners at Orgreave to make it look like miners attacked the police, to depicting Corbyn as a Bolshevik, to its reporting of liberal economics as natural and right BBC News has always been hostile to any form of socialism. I don't see that as an "I don't agree" thing, it just is.

BBC Drama is where sympathetic depictions of the working class and the impact of government policy on people has happened from time to time, from Cathy Come Home in the 60s to Boys From the Black Stuff and Arthur Fowler unravelling after losing his job in Eastenders in the 80s. When was the last time the BBC did something like that?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 20, 2021)

There's also the property programmes that (I assume, I've not seen them for a while) cheer on making money from buying/selling houses, reporting rent rises as a fact of life rather than caused by greedy landlords, reporting strikes from the company point of view, accepting government propaganda on the NHS unchallenged etc etc.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2021)

Does not reflect Britain despite it's funding and name.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 26, 2021)

This shit is part of the BBC daily Covid briefing


----------



## Badgers (Sep 29, 2021)




----------

