BBC Discussion

[Bowden Guy]

In the 1980s the Glasgow Media Group (Marxists to a man/woman) published a series of books attacking the BBC (and the rest of the media) as a right-wing pro- Establishment organisation, with titles such as Bad News, More Bad News and Really Bad News. They are no longer writing such books, I believe, preferring to focus on how the UK media allegedly demonises "refugees".

Perhaps we could have a referendum on the future funding of the BBC and put the issue to bed "for a generation"?

[tonysheldon]

Most of this discussion appears to presume that people watch or listen to the BBC purely for current affairs.  A liittle narrow-minded.

I'd be interested to know everyone's assumptions of where bias occurs in The Archers, or Doctor Who, or in Sport on 5, or programming that people actually enjoy to watch or listen and be entertained...

The fact that the discussion on the BBC's bias has produced a great deal of debate by its nature proves that it's fairly impartial, surely?

The debate is hardly new anyway. Labour accused them of bias after the 1970 election in broadcasting a programme called 'Yesterday's Men' after they were voted out of power.

Agreed. The Left often see the BBC as unfair and establishment, whereas the Right see it  as a Communist-conspiracy. As you say, the bias is in the eye of the beholder. Its drama output is world-class and requires rival broadcasters to up their game.

[Duke Fame]

Most of this discussion appears to presume that people watch or listen to the BBC purely for current affairs.  A liittle narrow-minded.

I'd be interested to know everyone's assumptions of where bias occurs in The Archers, or Doctor Who, or in Sport on 5, or programming that people actually enjoy to watch or listen and be entertained...

The fact that the discussion on the BBC's bias has produced a great deal of debate by its nature proves that it's fairly impartial, surely?

The debate is hardly new anyway. Labour accused them of bias after the 1970 election in broadcasting a programme called 'Yesterday's Men' after they were voted out of power.

For me, their bias shouldn't come into it. The fact that we have a very unfair tax system to pay for it makes us feel that having paid, we want a say.

As for sport, the bbc sport is very bias in favour of Newton heath.

If I were not forced to pay, I'd not care.

Reality is that technology will beat the licence system, if I were to give up the TVs bit of my sky subscription, I'd not need a licence as I watch most TVs on an on demand service. That saves me 170 quid and I can't be the only one to have worked that out.

[Melancholyflower]

Most of this discussion appears to presume that people watch or listen to the BBC purely for current affairs.  A liittle narrow-minded.

I'd be interested to know everyone's assumptions of where bias occurs in The Archers, or Doctor Who, or in Sport on 5, or programming that people actually enjoy to watch or listen and be entertained...

The fact that the discussion on the BBC's bias has produced a great deal of debate by its nature proves that it's fairly impartial, surely?

The debate is hardly new anyway. Labour accused them of bias after the 1970 election in broadcasting a programme called 'Yesterday's Men' after they were voted out of power.

[Duke Fame]

The BBC licence fee works out at about 40p per day and sets the standard for television in this country. The BBCs independence of commercial interest makes it an important counter to the right-wing agenda set by the Murdoch empire et al. Murdoch has challenged BBC programming in the EU courts. 
And don't forget BBC radio. Radio 4 alone is probably worth the 40p.
Oh, and the web services.

That is fine for you, if the 30pc of the country that want a left-wing media, why not just get the Guardian, Indy and Mirror rather than be subsidised by the rest of the country. in fact all those defending the licence fee seem to have quote a personal attachment to the BBC which is fine by why make those who may not care so much, pay for your indulgences! Personally, I would happily have a bit of shake n vac or R'whites lemonade instead of the lads in wheelchairs or ads for up and coming programs. It's very easy to avoid any conflict with paid advertising and content - they do it on bbc worldwide for a start.

[Bowden Guy]

Tigerman, from your posts you seem to be a "man of the Left" and you clearly see the BBC as a counter to the 'right wing agenda" of Rupert Murdoch et al. I cannot think of a clearer description of the liberal/left-wing bias of the Corporation. Thank you.

Btw I agree about Radio 4 and I would gladly (and voluntarily) pay a small sum each year to subscribe to it, even with the normal BBC bias.

[tonysheldon]

The BBC licence fee works out at about 40p per day and sets the standard for television in this country. The BBCs independence of commercial interest makes it an important counter to the right-wing agenda set by the Murdoch empire et al. Murdoch has challenged BBC programming in the EU courts. 
And don't forget BBC radio. Radio 4 alone is probably worth the 40p.
Oh, and the web services.

 

[Dave]

What do you think they should report then, ringi?

[ringi]

The bias with the BBC is not on how they report something; it is on what they choose to report.

The tent to report what the left wing types that wish to work for them find interesting…

[Duke Fame]

Isn't that what BBC Worldwide effectively does, by selling the Beebs's fantastic programmes around the word for about a billion quid a year ?  Where they're often shown on foreign commercial channels, plagued with adverts, but never inflicted on ourselves (hoorah!)

Like a private business? Just privatise it and let it compete properly.

[Bowden Guy]

And don't forget the darts on BBC2 later!

[Bowden Guy]

Quick, sgk, put the telly on. Eastenders is on BBC1!

[sgk]

I'm not saying the BBC is rubbish, some of the content is very good indeed (as is ITV, Ch4, 5 Sky & Television X).
....

Turned on Channel 5 last night, during the prime evening period, only to find an hour of "Worlds Deadliest Storms", followed by an hour of "World's Worst Storms", followed by an hour of "Worst Weather Ever?".  Next programme looked ok, "Britain's Best Loved Double Acts" for that seemed to be recycled BBC content (Two Ronnies, Morecambe And Wise etc). 


Bilge.

[sgk]

......A better plan, IMO, would be to finance the Beeb at least partly through advertising.

Isn't that what BBC Worldwide effectively does, by selling the Beebs's fantastic programmes around the word for about a billion quid a year ?  Where they're often shown on foreign commercial channels, plagued with adverts, but never inflicted on ourselves (hoorah!)

[Duke Fame]

Most countries have state broadcasting networks of one sort or another, many of them (the best ones) modelled on the BBC.  We would be crazy to scrap the Beeb, for the good reasons given by Howard.  It's a National Treasure.

But I can see Duke's point about the licence fee, and I understand his reference to the poll tax: it's a very blunt instrument,with its flat rate charge for everyone.   The over-75s are exempted, which puzzles me, as many of them could well afford to pay.  Perhaps we should devise simple ways of exempting or reducing the cost for those who can't afford the full licence fee, maybe by linking it to the tax and benefit system.

Switching to a subscription service like Sky Sports is definitely a bad idea - it would decimate the BBCs income.  A better plan, IMO, would be to finance the Beeb at least partly through advertising.

I'm not saying the BBC is rubbish, some of the content is very good indeed (as is ITV, Ch4, 5 Sky & Television X).

It's competing on a world stage with one hand behind it's back and now is the time to set it free as very soon it'll be worthless. As we start to watch telly in different ways, financing TV needs to be different. I bought a TV licence for the first time in 6 years as I got a sky subscription and TV but for yonks i didn't need it and TBPH, if it were just me, I'd have a large screen and watch through catchup (avoiding the licence fee).

In time, it will be an uncollectable tax and far better to look at other options. I know many say it will be worse if privatised but private companies do not throw away the image that the BBC has gained. When VW bought Rolls Royce, they did not start to build cheap hatchbacks, the USP is the quality and a private enterprise would maximise that.