The BBC

[Glory Lurker]

Inspired by the nascent rammy that's simmering on the highlights thread on the main forum......

As a teen growing up in the Thatcher years, I loved the BBC. It upset the Tories (for reasons real and imagined) which made it a force for good in my eyes then. Looking back, though, this is everything that is wrong about the whole BBC concept. It can never be utterly unbiased. How can something that people are forced to pay for be allowed to have an editorial policy? If it was paid for by advertisers, then fine.

It is bloated by forced subscription monies but seems to only be accountable to assorted committees of folk that aren't really representative of the population at large (yes, I am including Parliament in that!). It is an absurdity like the House of Lords and the monarchy. I agree that it could be worse (although BBC3 surely wouldn't have much margin here), but that does not make it good. Or more importantly, good enough to justify the licence fee.

[marinello59]

Inspired by the nascent rammy that's simmering on the highlights thread on the main forum......

As a teen growing up in the Thatcher years, I loved the BBC. It upset the Tories (for reasons real and imagined) which made it a force for good in my eyes then. Looking back, though, this is everything that is wrong about the whole BBC concept. It can never be utterly unbiased. How can something that people are forced to pay for be allowed to have an editorial policy? If it was paid for by advertisers, then fine.

It is bloated by forced subscription monies but seems to only be accountable to assorted committees of folk that aren't really representative of the population at large (yes, I am including Parliament in that!). It is an absurdity like the House of Lords and the monarchy. I agree that it could be worse (although BBC3 surely wouldn't have much margin here), but that does not make it good. Or more importantly, good enough to justify the licence fee.

It might be worth while comparing it to Public service Broadcasters in other countries.

[Glory Lurker]

It might be worth while comparing it to Public service Broadcasters in other countries.

I don't know anything about psbs in other countries to do this. It's the whole concept that I have a problem with, though, so even if the Beeb fairs well against similar organisations elsewhere then I still don't think that makes a case for it.

[marinello59]

I don't know anything about psbs in other countries to do this. It's the whole concept that I have a problem with, though, so even if the Beeb fairs well against similar organisations elsewhere then I still don't think that makes a case for it.

Me neither. :greengrin
I don't have a problem with the concept but do wonder if they should have a more restricted role. Do we really need such a large and presumably expensive online presence for example.

[snooky]

Me neither. :greengrin
I don't have a problem with the concept but do wonder if they should have a more restricted role. Do we really need such a large and presumably expensive online presence for example.

PBS in the States (Maine was the one I watched) was bottom of the barrel stuff akin to a 3rd rate STV.
The Beeb is (or should I say was) quality. It's major problem is the lack of independence from government influences.
While this unhealthy influence may not be a new thing, the internet plus the likes of RTV and Al Jazeera has now wakened us up to the other side of the political moon.

[hibsbollah]

The main reason i support the BBC is that i hate commercial TV and stick adverts on mute as soon as they come on. Although these days a lot of TV I watch now is on catchup/recorded where the adverts are taken out.

But with a couple of notable exceptions (Attenborough, some stuff on BBC4) the quality on the BBC is getting worse. Sport and news/current affairs is especially poor.

[Stranraer]

Inspired by the nascent rammy that's simmering on the highlights thread on the main forum......

As a teen growing up in the Thatcher years, I loved the BBC. It upset the Tories (for reasons real and imagined) which made it a force for good in my eyes then. Looking back, though, this is everything that is wrong about the whole BBC concept. It can never be utterly unbiased. How can something that people are forced to pay for be allowed to have an editorial policy? If it was paid for by advertisers, then fine.

It is bloated by forced subscription monies but seems to only be accountable to assorted committees of folk that aren't really representative of the population at large (yes, I am including Parliament in that!). It is an absurdity like the House of Lords and the monarchy. I agree that it could be worse (although BBC3 surely wouldn't have much margin here), but that does not make it good. Or more importantly, good enough to justify the licence fee.

When they spent the whole night celebrating Jackie Bird's anniversary that was it for me. I hated the BBC for their bias in the referendum but even after it, Bird's anniversary was seen as a more important story than Nicola Sturgeon taking over as FM/leader of the SNP.

Edit: also the fact that Newsnight Scotland was scrapped in favour of a show run by Labourites.

[lord bunberry]

I don't always agree with the BBC but imo we're lucky to have such a fine broadcaster in our country.

[Speedy]

I don't really grudge the fee because I do watch a reasonable amount of BBC stuff.

I do understand people's issue with the concept though. You have to pay the BBC to watch any live TV, not sure why watching ITV should earn BBC money. Equally, using BBC iPlayer and the website is free if you don't watch live TV.

It probably balances itself out but the system for deciding who should pay is a bit out of date. A BBC subscription would probably be better.

[steakbake]

The BBC is very self congratulatory and self obsessed. It does have an agenda and is used to promote specific interests. It receives public money and it's governance is full of people who have political backgrounds and interests.

In my view, all too often the BBC is trying to create the news as opposed to just informing us about it - example, look at its coverage of UKIP and the cackhanded way it's setting up the election debates.

During the referendum, it undoubtedly went into bat for the status quo. It's about shoring up a certain view of the country and defending that position.

It also harboured a number of well known sexual predators, falling asleep at the wheel in at least three examples but savile in particular was protected by a nod and a wink from the BBC.

The Scottish news content is derisory and woeful. A couple of weeks back, the startling revelation that Aberdeen will have Xmas lights after all making it to the main 6.30 broadcast: there's no content giving a Scottish perspective on world events - international events and reaction must be reserved to London, I think, and broadcast through Manchester.

Anyhow, the license fee is a tax, it pays some pretty outlandish salaries and its existence serves to reinforce the supremacy of the state broadcaster on the television accessible in the UK.

They generally do good documentaries and the partnership with open university is pretty good, but beyond that, it needs reform which we'll never see happening and it is increasingly just an arm of the government or at least, an arm of the centre of power.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If you watch the BBC from breakfast till bed time, you'll notice that exactly the same stories make up the news. Their stuff is formulaic - usually at the back of seven you get the first hint of what today's bread and circuses are:

A new report about obesity/smoking/sugar/mental health/supermarket clothes shows that some/most/just about everybody/all people surveyed said that it was a good/bad thing.

Im joined in the studio with Finella Badhair and Cuddly Findlayson, two university graduates making a career in PR, who will now tell you in nice smiley tones how all you poor people are going to die - then they're going to talk about boys, and what their daughter made at nursery yesterday.

[Beefster]

If you watch the BBC from breakfast till bed time, you'll notice that exactly the same stories make up the news. Their stuff is formulaic - usually at the back of seven you get the first hint of what today's bread and circuses are:

A new report about obesity/smoking/sugar/mental health/supermarket clothes shows that some/most/just about everybody/all people surveyed said that it was a good/bad thing.

Im joined in the studio with Finella Badhair and Cuddly Findlayson, two university graduates making a career in PR, who will now tell you in nice smiley tones how all you poor people are going to die - then they're going to talk about boys, and what their daughter made at nursery yesterday.

That's the nature of 24 hour news cycles and isn't specific to the BBC. Sky, CNN and the rest are exactly the same.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's the nature of 24 hour news cycles and isn't specific to the BBC. Sky, CNN and the rest are exactly the same.

Fair play, I've been laid up for a week and got absorbed in the Beebs offerings. What struck me though, by tea time, was that "surely something else has happened today?"

[PeeJay]

The BBC is very self congratulatory and self obsessed. It does have an agenda and is used to promote specific interests. It receives public money and it's governance is full of people who have political backgrounds and interests.

In my view, all too often the BBC is trying to create the news as opposed to just informing us about it - example, look at its coverage of UKIP and the cackhanded way it's setting up the election debates.

During the referendum, it undoubtedly went into bat for the status quo. It's about shoring up a certain view of the country and defending that position.

It also harboured a number of well known sexual predators, falling asleep at the wheel in at least three examples but savile in particular was protected by a nod and a wink from the BBC.

The Scottish news content is derisory and woeful. A couple of weeks back, the startling revelation that Aberdeen will have Xmas lights after all making it to the main 6.30 broadcast: there's no content giving a Scottish perspective on world events - international events and reaction must be reserved to London, I think, and broadcast through Manchester.

Anyhow, the license fee is a tax, it pays some pretty outlandish salaries and its existence serves to reinforce the supremacy of the state broadcaster on the television accessible in the UK.

They generally do good documentaries and the partnership with open university is pretty good, but beyond that, it needs reform which we'll never see happening and it is increasingly just an arm of the government or at least, an arm of the centre of power.

Your argument does not convince me. What is the alternative, I wonder - Murdoch and his agenda-led concept? Al Jazeera - astonishingly suggested elsewhere in this post? I know which I would prefer. If you've been to the States you will soon see how great the BBC is in comparison to an atrociously-biased or disinterested news broadcasting companies - pick anyone you like. I'm sure that not everything is right about the Beeb, but I've seen Newsnight enough times to know that they do not pull punches with any party politicians - I listen to the radio all day - mainly 4 & 5, there is no bias whatsoever, both sides to an argument are usually heard, questions put to both sides.

As to it being an arm of the government, how does that work in practice. When a Tory gov. is in, is everyone involved in news policy decisions then a Tory, and when Labour get in do they all switch overnight to becoming Labourites - how does that work in Scotland - if your accusation is correct shouldn't the Beeb in Scotland be on the side of the SNP? Salmond seems to think differently. Why are the Tories complaining of the BBC's bias towards Labour if it's - as you suggest - an arm of the government? I recall when Blair was in power that the BBC went at him as much - if not more than- other broadcasters - again you claim it is biased for the government - are you sure? I don't care for UKIP, but the BBC surely has to report what is going on in the country - in your world would you ban reporting on certain parties (ones you don't like agree with)? How does that fit in with unbiased reporting?

I think the accusations of bias may well be from people unable themselves to be objective about politics, people who expect their view to be reflected and that of the other side to be dissed. Just because some people disagree with the report on a particular issue need not necessarily mean that the report - in itself - was biased.

As to Scotland's poor or "derisory" news content, could it be that Scotland is just not very good at it, or again, maybe your allowing your own preferences to cloud your judgement. What is the Scottish perspective on world events I wonder, maybe BBC Scotland is just doing its job as a regional broadcaster? Have you complained about the blandness of the news?

I've no problems with things that are patently wrong at the Beeb being corrected, but general accusations of bias simply do not wash, and - again - what is the alternative (commercial television, public broadcasting ...? or Murdoch)

Your sexual predator accusation is out of order, surely? It is hardly something that can be directed solely at the BBC - it's a societal problem ...

[McD]

Your argument does not convince me. What is the alternative, I wonder - Murdoch and his agenda-led concept? Al Jazeera - astonishingly suggested elsewhere in this post? I know which I would prefer. If you've been to the States you will soon see how great the BBC is in comparison to an atrociously-biased or disinterested new broadcasting companies - pick anyone you like. I'm sure that not everything is right about the Beeb, but I've seen Newsnight enough times to know that they do not pull punches with any party politicians - I listen to the radio all day - mainly 4 & 5, there is no bias whatsoever, both sides to an argument are usually heard, questions put to both sides.

As to it being an arm of the government, how does that work in practice. When a Tory gov. is in, is everyone involved in news policy decisions then a Tory, and when Labour get in do they all switch overnight to becoming Labourites - how does that work in Scotland - if your accusation is correct shouldn't the Beeb in Scotland be on the side of the SNP? Salmond seems to think differently. Why are the Tories complaining of the BBC's bias towards Labour if it's - as you suggest - an arm of the government? I recall when Blair was in power that the BBC went at him as much - if not more than- other broadcasters - again you claim it is biased for the government - are you sure? I don't care for UKIP, but the BBC surely has to report what is going on in the country - in your world would you ban reporting on certain parties (ones you don't like agree with)? How does that fit in with unbiased reporting?

I think the accusations of bias may well be from people unable themselves to be objective about politics, people who expect their view to be reflected and that of the other side to be dissed. Just because some people disagree with the report on a particular issue need not necessarily mean that the report - in itself - was biased.

As to Scotland's poor or "derisory" news content, could it be that Scotland is just not very good at it, or again, maybe your allowing your own preferences to cloud your judgement. What is the Scottish perspective on world events I wonder, maybe BBC Scotland is just doing its job as a regional broadcaster? Have you complained about the blandness of the news?

I've no problems with things that are patently wrong at the Beeb being corrected, but general accusations of bias simply do not wash, and - again - what is the alternative (commercial television, public broadcasting ...? or Murdoch)

Your sexual predator accusation is out of order, surely? It is hardly something that can be directed solely at the BBC - it's a societal problem ...


I agree, it's not really something that stands up to scrutiny to say that the bbc is inherently biased to the government, as you've said how does it work when the party in power changes. And if the bbc is so biased to the Tories for instance, then labour would, a) be shouting it continually, and b) would have taken steps in the past (when in power) to curb/change/do away with them.

the issue I have is that in order to watch any tv, one must pay a tv licence fee, which only the bbc benefits from. I rarely (if ever) watch the bbc, so why must i pay them in order to watch another broadcaster. I agree that having a national broadcaster is a good concept, I just believe the system needs to be changed to reflect the current (and where possible, future) situation in regards to choice and availability of broadcasters.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Public service broadcasting is a wonderful benefit to society IMHO. How it's funded can of course be open to discussion, but an independent broadcaster which doesn't have its agenda set by the multinationals via advertising is an excellent concept. The licence fee means the BBC isn't totally beholden to ratings but can promote education and the arts. It broadcasts minority interests e.g. opera, science, and some documentaries that would never be shown on commercial television. The charge of BBC bias is as old as the hills, but the beeb has very stringent rules governance in its charter to endure objectivity as much as is practicable. Compare and contrast that with the tendentious editorial lines in the print media and some of the commercial broadcasters. Yes, reform the BBC where necessary, but IMO we must keep it; publicly funded by one means or another, and independent of corporate/state interference. The beeb is where I go for my TV coverage of the big events, and I believe it's of great benefit to the country.

[snooky]

Public service broadcasting is a wonderful benefit to society IMHO. How it's funded can of course be open to discussion, but an independent broadcaster which doesn't have its agenda set by the multinationals via advertising is an excellent concept. The licence fee means the BBC isn't totally beholden to ratings but can promote education and the arts. It broadcasts minority interests e.g. opera, science, and some documentaries that would never be shown on commercial television. The charge of BBC bias is as old as the hills, but the beeb has very stringent rules governance in its charter to endure objectivity as much as is practicable. Compare and contrast that with the tendentious editorial lines in the print media and some of the commercial broadcasters. Yes, reform the BBC where necessary, but IMO we must keep it; publicly funded by one means or another, and independent of corporate/state interference. The beeb is where I go for my TV coverage of the big events, and I believe it's of great benefit to the country.

There lies the problem with Auntie.
That's how it SHOULD be but, ....

[WeeRussell]

The BBC is very self congratulatory and self obsessed. It does have an agenda and is used to promote specific interests. It receives public money and it's governance is full of people who have political backgrounds and interests.

In my view, all too often the BBC is trying to create the news as opposed to just informing us about it - example, look at its coverage of UKIP and the cackhanded way it's setting up the election debates.

During the referendum, it undoubtedly went into bat for the status quo. It's about shoring up a certain view of the country and defending that position.

It also harboured a number of well known sexual predators, falling asleep at the wheel in at least three examples but savile in particular was protected by a nod and a wink from the BBC.

The Scottish news content is derisory and woeful. A couple of weeks back, the startling revelation that Aberdeen will have Xmas lights after all making it to the main 6.30 broadcast: there's no content giving a Scottish perspective on world events - international events and reaction must be reserved to London, I think, and broadcast through Manchester.

Anyhow, the license fee is a tax, it pays some pretty outlandish salaries and its existence serves to reinforce the supremacy of the state broadcaster on the television accessible in the UK.

They generally do good documentaries and the partnership with open university is pretty good, but beyond that, it needs reform which we'll never see happening and it is increasingly just an arm of the government or at least, an arm of the centre of power.

:agree:
:aok:

... ****.

[JimBHibees]

I think anyone who thinks that BBC remain neutral surely went out the window in the recent referendum both North and South of the Border, they were fired up to save the status quo and worked on that accordingly with little regard for the concept of democracy.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I think anyone who thinks that BBC remain neutral surely went out the window in the recent referendum both North and South of the Border, they were fired up to save the status quo and worked on that accordingly with little regard for the concept of democracy.

Agree 100%, although you might get some stick for saying so.

The BBC is also a gravy train with many carriages.

[hibsbollah]

Public service broadcasting is a wonderful benefit to society IMHO. How it's funded can of course be open to discussion, but an independent broadcaster which doesn't have its agenda set by the multinationals via advertising is an excellent concept. The licence fee means the BBC isn't totally beholden to ratings but can promote education and the arts. It broadcasts minority interests e.g. opera, science, and some documentaries that would never be shown on commercial television. The charge of BBC bias is as old as the hills, but the beeb has very stringent rules governance in its charter to endure objectivity as much as is practicable. Compare and contrast that with the tendentious editorial lines in the print media and some of the commercial broadcasters. Yes, reform the BBC where necessary, but IMO we must keep it; publicly funded by one means or another, and independent of corporate/state interference. The beeb is where I go for my TV coverage of the big events, and I believe it's of great benefit to the country.

I actually agree with all of that. I don't want the bbc to disappear, but I do want it to be much better.

[GreenLake]

Lots of good comedy and drama come out of the BBC and there are plenty of places slightly further away from the end of a nose to look for news reporting.:greengrin