advertisement


BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen...

Seanm said:
Yes, the British establishment is complex and fragmented. What I'm saying is there's been a realignment, with one (several really) fragment coming to dominate: the realignment in the Conservative Party itself is part of that. And a big part: a lot of what's happened over the last 10 years can be explained as an attempt to save a party that looked like it was in terminal decline. All this began before Corbyn of course (and Corbyn himself is less significant than the movement that got behind him), but Corbyn certainly focused minds, and showed us that for all its fragmentation and complexity the British establishment could pull together in a crisis to fight a common foe. Most parts of the establishment hate Boris and the factions he represents and would far rather have gone on with the likes of Cameron, May at worst, but he was the price they were prepared to pay to keep the left out of power.
Click to expand...
Agreed, except that many/most parts of the establishment that dislike Johnson also disliked Brexit. They were happy to keep Labour out of power, of course, but they have lost so much power in the last 5 years, to the point of being frozen out. For the winners, Getting Brexit Done was possibly more important than achieving a landslide win over Corbyn.
 
James Morris said:
It's like the time I mentioned Drogba took a freekick from an incorrect position against Man Utd, and I get a Chelsea fan sending an abusive message to me, including the words 'Manc scum'.
Well thats funny, as I have never supported Man Utd. Unfortunately you have fallen into the same trap.
Click to expand...

If you expect me to understand a football reference you clearly haven’t been here very long at all!
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Looking back through this thread, you opened with the tired old trope that if the BBC is getting complaints from both sides, that shows the BBC is unbiased. Which ignores the possibility that a proportion of complaints might be made in bad faith, and also that you can't simply weigh the numbers of complaints and declare that they're roughly equal so there's nothing to see. You have to do some qualitative analysis on the nature of the complaints.

So you received responses setting out this alternative take on the position you set out. That's discussion. That is a long way from not accepting views, and it's a bit of a lofty assumption that your views are the moderate ones, too.

So if you're not prepared to argue your case, and just prefer to play the hurt card than defend your position or develop your argument, then perhaps a discussion forum isn't the place for you. But if you do stay, try to be less defensive and more open to receiving alternative points of view. You might benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Now before I get accused again of hanging around after I said I wouldnt.
I have been very clear that both sides have made complaints in bad faith (but don't worry, that isn't moderate), and I have been very clear that surveys do not tell you a lot.
I have never once looked at any of the figures, that strangely, you yourself have produced. I do not need to. Because, as mentioned, they do not tell me a lot.

I said the BBC was likely unbiased, and when both sides complain, rightly or wrongly, it backs this assertion up to a good extent. It was you unwilling to accept they could possibly be unbiased.
But hey, I'm not the moderate one.
Have a good'n.
 
James Morris said:
Haha. I do laugh.
Now lets see who complains about the BBC.
1- The lefties
2- The righties

Oh hold on, to me that makes the BBC rather neutral. Does it not?

Lets be honest, if the Tories attack the BBC (which they are right now) then that obviously means the BBC are holding the Tories to account (BoJo hates being held to account). Which means the BBC is likely neutral.

Oh, and with the article mentioning American TV, well that just shows how stupid those advising the article are. American TV is pure garbage.
Click to expand...

James Morris said:
Ah right, gotcha. The BBC dare complain about my favourite party, so I will claim thats the only genuine argument.
In other words, I'm right, you are all wrong.

Sorry, but that does not stack up. If the BBC were really so pro right, the Tories would not keep threatening it. BoJo loves people sucking upto him. The whole of the BBC would have knighthoods by now. Or are you trying to claim this is the Tories way of making the BBC even more pro Tory? Tough love shall we call it? Well if that is the case, you can only assume this latest announcement is a pure lie.

Nah sorry. I have never once found the BBC anything other than neutral on the whole.
Click to expand...

James Morris said:
Now before I get accused again of hanging around after I said I wouldnt.
I have been very clear that both sides have made complaints in bad faith (but don't worry, that isn't moderate), and I have been very clear that surveys do not tell you a lot.
I have never once looked at any of the figures, that strangely, you yourself have produced. I do not need to. Because, as mentioned, they do not tell me a lot.

I said the BBC was likely unbiased, and when both sides complain, rightly or wrongly, it backs this assertion up to a good extent. It was you unwilling to accept they could possibly be unbiased.
But hey, I'm not the moderate one.
Have a good'n.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just your posting style that rubs me up the wrong way, or maybe it's the undercurrent of suppressed aggression I pick up from your posts, but I think it's more likely to be the tendency to construct a straw man argument and attack that. I never indicated that the BBC could not possibly be unbiased, I merely argued that your assertion that they are unbiased isn't supported by your argument and evidence. The technique of making and attacking a straw man is a form of trolling. Which is hardly the work of a moderate contributor.
 
James Morris said:
being anti Corbyn is surely being anti racist, as that's exactly what he is.
Click to expand...

Corbyn isn't a racist. The suggestion is laughable.

He was rubbish at tackling anti-semitism but I think that was more down to being a bit wet than genuinely being a neo-nazi or something. I suspect he also doesn't want to believe the worst about people.

A nice genuine man who is guided by his principals. By all accounts a brilliant constituency MP. Just not the right person to lead the party in my view.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Just to pick up on this one point, it cuts both ways. Especially if you include those in the "Doesn't agree with my personal, political POV. BIAS!" category.
Click to expand...
I think looking at perceptions of bias is really of limited value if you want to establish whether or not bias actually exists: you need to look at coverage itself, and come up with some reasonable criterion for measuring bias. I always link to this article when the subject comes up, but I think it does a good job of doing just that:

https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

If we accept that this demonstrates an objective right wing bias, then the general perception that no such bias exists is really part of the problem.
 
paulfromcamden said:
Corbyn isn't a racist. The suggestion is laughable.

He was rubbish at tackling anti-semitism but I think that was more down to being a bit wet than genuinely being a neo-nazi or something. I suspect he also doesn't want to believe the worst about people.

A nice genuine man who is guided by his principals. By all accounts a brilliant constituency MP. Just not the right person to lead the party in my view.
Click to expand...
It's now widely accepted that Corbyn is a racist, and that his time leading the party was characterised by institutional racism. And people did not arrive at this conception by accident, or because the establishment didn't consider him a threat.
 
PsB said:
Agreed, except that many/most parts of the establishment that dislike Johnson also disliked Brexit. They were happy to keep Labour out of power, of course, but they have lost so much power in the last 5 years, to the point of being frozen out. For the winners, Getting Brexit Done was possibly more important than achieving a landslide win over Corbyn.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's what I mean: for the (establishment) winners, getting Brexit was more important than beating Corbyn. For the (establishment) losers, it was a price they were prepared to pay to beat Corbyn.
 
Seanm said:
Yes, but that's what I mean: for the (establishment) winners, getting Brexit was more important than beating Corbyn. For the (establishment) losers, it was a price they were prepared to pay to beat Corbyn.
Click to expand...
That's a good summary.

The second claim isn't a wild conspiracy theory. It is confirmed by direct testimony from senior members of the People's Vote campaign. Some of its leading figures wanted to use it to undermine Labour and forge a political realignment in favour of the centre. Others wanted to focus on the narrow objective of securing a seond referendum. This fundamental tension was the root cause of the implosion of People's Vote on the eve of the 2019 election, never to be heard or spoken of again.

See the Brexit Witness archive at the UK in a Changing Europe website:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-witness-archive/

The stuff I'm thinking of came from the interview with Tom Baldwin, PV's Head of Comms but I think at least one other senior figure says the same thing.
 
For huge swathes of us holding onto the basic freedoms, human rights and business opportunities the EU represented was vastly more important on all counts than whatever useless indecisive 1970s bellend was leading Labour! There was no conspiracy here. Labour were just shite in the face of the worst national crisis since WWII. They provided no credible opposition. The far-right came to town and Labour just ran away.
 
Seanm said:
Yes, but that's what I mean: for the (establishment) winners, getting Brexit was more important than beating Corbyn. For the (establishment) losers, it was a price they were prepared to pay to beat Corbyn.
Click to expand...
We agree, but I'm not sure the losers had that much choice: it was a package. Accept humiliation and loss of influence, or face expulsion from the Party. Oh and BTW, "together" we will beat Corbyn's Labour.
 
Seanm said:
I think looking at perceptions of bias is really of limited value if you want to establish whether or not bias actually exists: you need to look at coverage itself, and come up with some reasonable criterion for measuring bias. I always link to this article when the subject comes up, but I think it does a good job of doing just that:

https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028
Click to expand...

I'd need to read in more detail but my first thought is that airtime does not in itself provide the "hard evidence" of bias that the article claims to provide, it merely provides an additional source of evidence for assessment.

Seanm said:
If we accept that this demonstrates an objective right wing bias,
Click to expand...

"We" don't. Well, not all of us without more evidence. :)

Seanm said:
then the general perception that no such bias exists is really part of the problem.
Click to expand...

There is a bias in the media ingested, but I would suggest that it's not a problem that would be fixed by sorting out the BBC alone. Christ, there's nearly as much time spent on the Mail online as on the BBC news site:

uktracking2_0.png


Source: https://reutersinstitute.politics.o...y-heres-what-research-tells-about-its-role-uk
 
The thing about the BBC, in particular the News and Current Affairs bit, is that we deserve better. We are not being well served if there are credible arguments of bias, which there are. But more than that, perhaps, the BBC as it is currently set up is not required to pander to the whims and prejudices of an 'owner'. It chooses to pander to government because it sees that as its role as state broadcaster, a sort of Islington branch of Pravda. But the BBC could use its position to raise standards across the board. Given the dominant position it holds, it could set and uphold standards that the rest of the media would be obliged to follow, at least somewhat. If we're not going to get Leveson 2, perhaps we can demand reform from the inside. If the BBC were to show up the rest of the media for the muckraking, antidemocratic shit-stirring cesspit it has become, we might make a start.

That the BBC has chosen to run with the pack, rather than lead by example, is a disappointment.
 
Tony L said:
I’m a long term supporter of the BBC but I no longer use any of the news and current affairs programming beyond the first 15 minutes of Newsnight if Emily Maitlis is presenting (she’s the only one left there capable of asking a question). To my mind the value is in the arts, science, nature and history programming along with many documentaries (e.g. the in-depth seven part ‘The Troubles: A Secret History’ was truly superb). I fear for the loss of this sort of programming, though being blunt Sky has been a far better rolling news channel for a very long time now (and I never thought I’d say that).

It will be interesting to see what happens to R3 & R4. I imagine the Tories will want to turn the latter into LBC/US right-wing talk radio propaganda and the former will just be scrapped as uneconomical and too niche.
Click to expand...

The Tories are also, of course, intending to disrupt C4, and BloJo was too frightened of their main news broadcast to dare face being interviewed by Jon Snow.

The announcement of the plans to change the BBC, indeed do carry the stench of Lynton Crosby having thrown a dead cat on the table to drag the news agenda away from BloJo and his chumps partying as people died alone. We really shouldn't let that succeed by doing as they hope.

FWIW I regard the BBC as worth it just for R3 and the Proms. Add in the World Service (the costs of which were dumped onto the BBC by the Tories) and to me the fee is fine. And the point of the fee was to isolate the BBC from both Government *and* commercial pressures on its reporting of news and events. And allow them to say things that many people don't want to hear.

Ch4 News did well because it *hasn't* simply been a commercial-for-profit station. But they've not been able to do anything that comes close to the sheer scope and content of the iPlayer. You only have to try much of the content in the specialist R4/WS programmes to realise this. "More or Less", "Inside Science", etc. Content needs to be far more than reporting 'news' or political argy-bargy.
 
Hi, i for one am delighted this gravy train is coming to an end, the vast sums they pay themselves and each other is, and always has been obscene, and has no relevance to pay in this country, news readers on hundreds of thousands, a year, and then claiming they are freelance, so self employed so they pay little or no tax at all, naga munchetty, has registered herself as a ltd business, to get out of paying tax, most at the beeb are corrupt and it stinks, paying people millions a year as a retainer, what the hell is all that about, forcing you to pay for a substandard service, this has been on the cards for a while, i bet they are all shitting themselves, just a shame its not happening sooner,
 
Erm, quite a lot of the "vast sums" tend to go to "talent" of various kinds who operate in a "market" which may also pay them shedloads for working for other broadcasters. It also costs a fair bit to produce programmes like the typical 'Attenborough" types of series as it takes a huge amount of specialist work and kit. Plus flying people and kit around, spending weeks to find and video items, etc, etc.

I agree, though, that BBC1 sucks up too much of the BBC budget. But their problem is that without BBC1 they fall prone to people moaning that the tripe they watch (featuring high priced 'stars' and 'presenters' and 'celebs' isn't provided for their license fee.

Looks like Crosby was right, though, to throw this dead cat on the table and get attention away from BloJo. Seems to be working here! When in doubt, abuse those who report/expose your dodgy behaviour and shift the attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top