darrylfunk
Banned
worried about the tories taking away license money?
the bbc has gone really lame.... why?
the bbc has gone really lame.... why?
the bbc - why the siding up to the government?
- Thread starter darrylfunk
- Start date
djftw
Heterodox Member
Is it? I hadn't noticed, but then I don't have a TV. R4 and the website seem to have the same metropolitan socially-liberal/soft(corporatist)-left perspective they always have, which is pretty much exactly what one would expect from a state sector organisation based in major cities!
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
They have always backed the government of the day. This time they are bobbing in a life boat with a large predator- one with foetid breath.
Mescalito
pfm Member
I always find it amusing when people who are politically active discuss the BBC. The left invariably accuse it of a right wing bias, the right see it a a hotbed of left wing propaganda.
I see that as good evidence that it is pretty neutral.
IMHO, it's political stance should be that it doesn't have one.
Chris
I see that as good evidence that it is pretty neutral.
IMHO, it's political stance should be that it doesn't have one.
Chris
paul auster
Banned
the phenomena mescalito describes is true , his solution is wrong .
the bbc news is obsessed with being fair ,neutral and objective . What this means in reality is that they get competing views on and allow them to express thier views . like pfm they each say they are right and the other is wrong , nothing is explored and all it does is reinforce the viewers own world view . This is why eveyone thinks its biased .
This is what Herbert Marcuse called repressive tolerance ,in that the tolerance of peoples views and a pretense to objectivity results in a narrowing of ideas and alternatives and it represses any alternative outside a specific world view . [ mescalito would refer to this as the centre right consensus]
what they should do is abandon the pretence of objectivity and thier raison detre should be to destroy their interlocutors position .
so if somebody comes on with power and makes [or wants to make] decisions that effect peoples life s/he should be fully aware that the interviewer will not put an alternative position to them , but look to destroy thier own position by examining its facts , assumptions and presuppositions . The best way to do is to keep asking why. Ask a politician why to any question and very shortly they will either begin to sound like they know they are talking about or will sound like any idiot [cut and paste thinker]
one thing the bbc is a bit piss poor on a the moment is the news agenda . It seems to letting the government dictate the agends.
As in hifi objectivity in news reporting is of course not possible
, it is a myth . Any language used by the bbc will contain , assumptions, presuppositions and infer an unexplored specific world view.
the bbc news is obsessed with being fair ,neutral and objective . What this means in reality is that they get competing views on and allow them to express thier views . like pfm they each say they are right and the other is wrong , nothing is explored and all it does is reinforce the viewers own world view . This is why eveyone thinks its biased .
This is what Herbert Marcuse called repressive tolerance ,in that the tolerance of peoples views and a pretense to objectivity results in a narrowing of ideas and alternatives and it represses any alternative outside a specific world view . [ mescalito would refer to this as the centre right consensus]
what they should do is abandon the pretence of objectivity and thier raison detre should be to destroy their interlocutors position .
so if somebody comes on with power and makes [or wants to make] decisions that effect peoples life s/he should be fully aware that the interviewer will not put an alternative position to them , but look to destroy thier own position by examining its facts , assumptions and presuppositions . The best way to do is to keep asking why. Ask a politician why to any question and very shortly they will either begin to sound like they know they are talking about or will sound like any idiot [cut and paste thinker]
one thing the bbc is a bit piss poor on a the moment is the news agenda . It seems to letting the government dictate the agends.
As in hifi objectivity in news reporting is of course not possible
, it is a myth . Any language used by the bbc will contain , assumptions, presuppositions and infer an unexplored specific world view.
Mescalito
pfm Member
My one major bugbear with the BBC is when it attempts to be even handed on technical, medical or scientific topics.
THE MMA fiasco is a case in point.
The overwhelming consensus & evidence was that there was no causal link between MMR vaccine & autism.
Yet the BBC (and, to be fair, most of the other media) gave equal weight to the Wakefield loonies.
It's the equivalent of giving equal weight to creationists in a debate about the origins of life.
It's a function of the BBC being mainly run by scientifically illiterate arts graduates, I suppose.
Chris
Mescalito
pfm Member
The BBC News should not attempt to "explore" the issues. That is a function of news magazine progammes like "Newsnight" or "PM".
Chris
paul auster
Banned
Exactly my point ,had they got wakefiled on an attempted to destroy his position i submit they would have succeeded .
and the bbc are not explorign the issues , they are explorign a person in power position .
for example - dont have osborne and balls discsussing austerity over keysenian stimlus .at the end any viewer will be were they were at the start .
get osborne on start from his position and keep asking him why and see were he goes .
and the bbc are not explorign the issues , they are explorign a person in power position .
for example - dont have osborne and balls discsussing austerity over keysenian stimlus .at the end any viewer will be were they were at the start .
get osborne on start from his position and keep asking him why and see were he goes .
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
the phenomena mescalito describes is true , his solution is wrong .
the bbc news is obsessed with being fair ,neutral and objective . What this means in reality is that they get competing views on and allow them to express thier views . like pfm they each say they are right and the other is wrong , nothing is explored and all it does is reinforce the viewers own world view . This is why eveyone thinks its biased .
This is what Herbert Marcuse called repressive tolerance ,in that the tolerance of peoples views and a pretense to objectivity results in a narrowing of ideas and alternatives and it represses any alternative outside a specific world view . [ mescalito would refer to this as the centre right consensus]
what they should do is abandon the pretence of objectivity and thier raison detre should be to destroy their interlocutors position .
so if somebody comes on with power and makes [or wants to make] decisions that effect peoples life s/he should be fully aware that the interviewer will not put an alternative position to them , but look to destroy thier own position by examining its facts , assumptions and presuppositions . The best way to do is to keep asking why. Ask a politician why to any question and very shortly they will either begin to sound like they know they are talking about or will sound like any idiot [cut and paste thinker]
one thing the bbc is a bit piss poor on a the moment is the news agenda . It seems to letting the government dictate the agends.
As in hifi objectivity in news reporting is of course not possible
Read What is History? by E.H. Carr. Basically an impartial view of history (or current affairs that become history) is impossible. You are correct in that in order to attempt present news in an unbiased way you end up presenting two polarised and irreconcileable views and this does not lead to nuanced, balanced thinking.
Joe Hutch should work as a political interviewer for the Beeb. He picks holes in both sides of the argument. A good journalist should, with splinters up his arse, be chucking rubbish into both gardens.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
It's also because of the idea that 'balance' must over-ride everything. Another effect of this (eg on the Today programme on R4) is the way they pit two people with diametrically opposed views against each other and let them argue the toss for ten minutes or so. Plenty of heat is generated, but very little light.
paul auster
Banned
This misses the point. If you get somebody on and allow them to explain thier position and simply explore thier positions facts, logic and assumption , you are in fact being more objective , because you are challenging the interlocutor on thier own terms not battering them with the alternative position .
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
To be fair, the BBC does do this (as well as the confrontations between opposites), but unfortunately in the wrong hands it can degenerate into hectoring. It's the difference in the approach of, say, John Humphrys and Evan Davies; the former being brusque and often interrupting the interviewee with supplementary questions, the latter being polite and also knowledgeable about economics, so his questions are to the point.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Your legal training shows, Paul.
Chris
It's a shame legal training results in such poor spelling!
djftw
Heterodox Member
I think there is an element of viewer entertainment there too. People want to see a row and take sides, othering is a fundamental part of the human personality. I might like to watch George Osborne being asked 'why...why...why' until he is explaining the fundamentals of monetarism or Austrian business cycle theory, but I bet it would lose them a lot of viewers.
paul auster
Banned
Id place the blame on my lazy shoulders not the education/training i have undertaken .
i was'nt going to say this , but now , what the hell.
its a shame the only other point you've made on this thread is direct and complete repetition of the point I had already made