You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Note the author of this article
Unfortunately he now, more than ever, needs to appease right-wing Tories :
How did the BBC report today’s “Kill the Bill” marches? Oh yes. They didn’t.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0013tvd
Why are left leaning people here getting worked up about the death of an organisation which supports and enables the right wing? Laura Kuensberg, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, need I say more? Some real independence from govt will be a good thing no?
On the evidence of existing media, broadly no.
Why are left leaning people here getting worked up about the death of an organisation which supports and enables the right wing?
A balanced media outlet circulates both left and right leaning content.
I'm not going to argue about where the BBC sits on that spectrum but I do think a large part of the opposition now facing the organisation, is down to a growing intolerance for consuming any content that does not align with our political views.
This is not a good thing.
A balanced media outlet circulates both left and right leaning content.
The BBC can in no way be called balanced. Their political coverage is highly biased in favour of the right wing, they give a platform to every nutcase, fruitcake and self-interested mouthpiece, and ignore anyone from the left by painting them as extremists.
https://twitter.com/phinharper/status/1482876198619389956?s=21
Any organisation that still thinks Steve Wright and Jeremy Whine is acceptable to be on the air needs disbanding. Oh and the many overpaid executive
Oh and the many overpaid executive
I doubt it's any different to any other similar sized organisation.
For this...
The BBC can in no way be called balanced.
... See this, from the same post you quoted...
I’m not going to argue about where the BBC sits on that spectrum
If the BBC were still impartial it would be worth saving but it's not and would need major reform (and protections that would be likely unenforceable in order to prevent it becoming politicised again in future) before I'd care about it surviving. Yes there's a lot of good programming on it but much of that could survive on a streaming platform.
I doubt it’s any different to any other similar sized organisation.
And like when any government funded organisation it's meant to show value for money and the BBC imo no longer does.
I would happily pay my fee for iPlayer, R4 and R5 on BBC Sounds
And like when any government run organisation it’s meant to show value for money and the BBC imo no longer does.
If they paid significantly below the market rate for talent (in front of and behind the camera) they'd just loose all their good staff to the competition. There's currently a record breaking investment surge in TV production (for the streamers) so no shortage of companies paying top dollar for talent.
A good example is Chris Evans, he left with his entire team to join Virgin radio (IIRC) as they were happy to pay his 'high' salary which was proving too controversial at the BBC. So Zoe Ball replaced him on a slightly reduced salary, but not a huge cut.
Yes there’s a lot of good programming on it but much of that could survive on a streaming platform.
More and more seems to be joint productions these days, seen a few things on Netflix recently which were joint BBC productions.
Any organisation that still thinks Steve Wright and Jeremy Whine is acceptable to be on the air needs disbanding.
Much as I agree both those things are absolutely bloody awful, millions of people listen to them every day. The point is that theres so much variety on BBC radio, if you can't find something you want to listen to on one of their platforms, there's no hope.
I have either Five Live, 6 music or Radio 4 on pretty much all day, every day and think the licence fee is an absolute bargain
The BBC can in no way be called balanced. Their political coverage is highly biased in favour of the right wing, they give a platform to every nutcase, fruitcake and self-interested mouthpiece, and ignore anyone from the left by painting them as extremists.
They seem pretty good at upsetting each end of the political spectrum and quite a large chunk in between which implies they are more or less getting it right. As Butcher says half the current problem is that people are so comfortable in their selected social media world that they get upset when anyone questions their world view.
The main problem is that the government and quite a few other politicians would love the BBC to carry on with the none challenging Steve Wright and Jeremy Vine type stuff and ditch any form of vaguely balanced journalism (which is expensive).
Where the BBC do have a problem is when they twist and turn to ‘show balance’. They still seem to think that means giving a platform to someone with a diametrically opposed view rather than talking to several people who know what they are talking about (I know it is a few years ago but giving Nigel Lawson air time springs to mind).
Anyway they can’t get rid of radio 4 because it could trigger a nuclear war.
The point is that theres so much variety on BBC radio, if you can’t find something you want to listen to on one of their platforms, there’s no hope.
This is key. All the "I only use A, B & C, what's the point of the rest" comments ignore that someone else, who also lives here, and also pays their licence fee, could say "I only use C, D & E, what's the point of all the rest".
They seem pretty good at upsetting each end of the political spectrum and quite a large chunk in between which implies they are more or less getting it right
People always say this but I think it's BS of the highest order. People are comparing the BBC to the oligarch-owned borderline far-right newspapers which dominate our media landscape when they say it's too left-wing. They're just wrong.
More and more seems to be joint productions these days, seen a few things on Netflix recently which were joint BBC productions.
I'm sure some are but I've been fooled before by things being branded a 'Netflix Original' - doesn't actually mean they had anything to do with making it.
I quite like their radio when tinkering in the garage, Unbelievable Truth, Infinite Monkey Cage, Dead Ringers, Radio 6 etc.. 🙁 Hope that survives somehow
Hope that survives somehow
Adverts? 😕
I had a look at the BBC site this morning and saw this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-59938380
Another clickbait headline but what's behind it? I thought. Reading the article it's about inflation in Nigeria. Fair enough but at least tell us why. My immediate thought was that the civil war is still limiting oil exports. I wasn't wrong:
https://tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/exports/united-kingdom/crude-oil-petroleum-bituminous-minerals
When a country's balance of payments is screwed inflation is the inevitable result - they're doing what they can to reduce imports and produce locally but... now there's a real story.
After independance in 1960 the UK propped up a series of puppet governments with arms sales for oil but finally decided this wasn't such a good thing a few years back and limited sales, how much we don't know it all very secret and parliamentary questions aren't answered.
But the British military involvement continued with a "training mision":
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-forces-in-nigeria-a-long-partnership-in-west-africa/
All this to consider (and more) and the best those click bait headline writers can come up with about Nigeria is the price of sanitary towels! What's the real problem BBC? I couldn't write about Nigeria with out the words "Boko Harem", "deaths", "displaced people", "food shortages", "closed borders", "oil sector investment crisis"... .
Their radio output is utterly fantastic and constitutes the largest portion of my media consumption. The usual channels have been given a shout out on this thread but I'd have to give a nod to 1xtra and how it dovetails with radio1 and radio 6 (and even shares a few presenters with radio2)
With radio, the Beeb managed to respond magnificently to the twin threats of pirate radio and the issuing of new commercial radio licences. 1xtra has nurtured UK music and talent for 20 years, training up hundreds of people in the process to creating a channel that has a global outreach.
Someone needs to apply the same kind of thinking to the TV output.
As for the Corbyn montage above, the BBC photoshopped constructivist style graphics to photographs of Corbyn on a number of occasions if I remember correctly.
At the time I thought it only fair that they did the same to Jacob Lynch Mobb, addressing a Nuremberg rally in a fetching armband for instance.
the twin threats of pirate radio
Is that even a thing anymore?
Who, under the age of 30, has an FM radio?
Reading through this it's depressing to see people falling into Nadine's trap. By focusing on the BBCs news output and ignoring the majority of programming is exactly what she wants. Everybody can find news reporting they are not happy with and I get as frustrated as everyone else by the establishment bias, superficiality and timidity of a lot of current affairs programming.
But it's like EU membership, it's a broad enough subject to annoy at both ends of spectrum and on a host of different issues. But that ignores the greater portion of benefit you get from all the rest of the programming. I also think BBC forces up quality of "free" to view TV on other channels
I think there is a real risk of us on the left not realising what we've list until it's gone.
I think there is a real risk of us on the left not realising what we’ve list until it’s gone.
I bloody realise it. I am a civil servant and supposed to keep political views to myself, but come 2027 if this plays out as currently desired it might be the hill I choose to - fruitlessly of course - die on.
A year ago Tories were saying that they were changing rules to decriminalise not paying fee then ditched that
and of course they axed free licenses for OAPs, its almost like they are deliberately trying to demonise it
Who, under the age of 30, has an FM radio?
Anyone with a car, for a start.
This is key. All the “I only use A, B & C, what’s the point of the rest” comments ignore that someone else, who also lives here, and also pays their licence fee, could say “I only use C, D & E, what’s the point of all the rest”.
Quite. I don't see why my taxes should pay for the fire brigade when I've never had a fire.
I think there is a real risk of us on the left not realising what we’ve list until it’s gone.
The chances of this resulting in more balanced news provision are slim to **** all. Just another lurch rightwards.
Quite. I don’t see why my taxes should pay for the fire brigade when I’ve never had a fire
I'm not sure you can reasonably compare paying indirectly for an emergency service with paying directly for an entertainment service...
Agreed that loss of radio stations will have a impact for many that I hadn't considered (I never listen to radio anymore myself) but presumably the better content has the chance for surviving in podcast form post-BBC?
Reading through this it’s depressing to see people falling into Nadine’s trap. By focusing on the BBCs news output and ignoring the majority of programming is exactly what she wants.
Not sure I'm falling into her trap it's just that for me the real value of the BBC would come from it being an impartial and easily digestible news source - that I'd be willing to pay for. Sure there are programs on the BBC that likely would never have been made for a streaming platform (or other format) but I'd guess in the scheme of things those programs only pull in a tiny fraction of the BBC's viewing figures. It comes down to whether you think those programs are worth funding the entire BBC for (and the baggage it comes with) - personally I don't but obviously others will disagree.
Sure the government are trying to spin it as a good idea for other reasons that are complete garbage (e.g. the no more pensioners facing prison for non-payment of the licence fee utter bollocks that is a situation of the Tories making and something they could easily fix by other means). And I'll miss a bit if/when it's gone but the current licensing model and the BBC itself is hopelessly out-dated and flawed.
Go and watch TV in the USA and you'll be sticking up for the beeb, despite the RW pro-apartheid bias.
Remember the Blair years?
He was hammered, daily, on many controversial issues.
Gordon Brown was rightly exposed as a wet fart.
Uncle Jezza?
Destroyed. Game over.
There is no bias, just a desire to remove the public service model and an independent voice.
I'm looking into my crystal ball and seeing the absolute tsunami of middle class whining from the Daily Mail readership who are presently hostile or ambiguous about the license fee once the BBC is no more.
It'll all be fun and games once they're asked to pay for all the individual bits of the BBC's output they presently just take for granted, or have it boxed in by adverts. Lets see how the Archers being interupted with 'this message from our sponsors' or paying a subscription for Gardeners Question Time goes down, eh?
I suspect that they haven't given a thought to the actual reality and that its the same sort of cakism as Brexit where they expect all the BBC content to somehow miraculously still be there but without them paying the license fee
Their radio output is utterly fantastic and constitutes the largest portion of my media consumption. The usual channels have been given a shout out on this thread but I’d have to give a nod to 1xtra and how it dovetails with radio1 and radio 6 (and even shares a few presenters with radio2)
Not to mention Radio 3 and the BBC's support of music of all types and the arts. It's not a news organisation it's a cultural gem.
Quite. I don’t see why my taxes should pay for the fire brigade when I’ve never had a fire
Yeah and let's privatise the NHS, I'm sure I've not had my money's worth!
Oh, and if 'woke' means inclusive, diverse and respectful that's fine by me.
That's merely what I would expect from an institution that should reflect our aspirations as a nation, even if not to everyone's taste.
Remember this?
An organisation that harboured and protected prolific paedophiles for decades. No not the Tories, the BBC. They knew about Savile and others but did nothing, even going so far as protecting them. Vermin like Esther Rantzen as an example. Up to her neck in it if you ask me. The BBC should have been burned to the ground when all that came out. How they managed to squirm and back hand their way out of all that is beyond me.
Therefore I wouldn't bat an eyelid if they ceased to exist and they certainly should not be protected or talked about as some sort of national treasure.
Iconoclasm.
Goddam woke puppet fascist mouth piece paedo commie libtard nazi bastards
Mrs Brown's boys, though, hilaaaario
...and away....
An organisation that harboured and protected prolific paedophiles for decades. No not the Tories, the BBC. They knew about Savile and others but did nothing, even going so far as protecting them
As already posted Margaret Thatcher was close friends with him and lobbied to have him knighted despite knowing about his crimes. Interesting selective memory you have there.
Quite. I don’t see why my taxes should pay for the fire brigade when I’ve never had a fire
I’m not sure you can reasonably compare paying indirectly for an emergency service with paying directly for an entertainment service…
Exactly.
The license fee is entirely optional, we choose not to pay it (legitimately) as it doesn't seem good value to us. Quite happily pay for other media services which we use daily eg Spotify, Netflex, half a dozen newspaper subscriptions (and STW).
Why are left leaning people here getting worked up about the death of an organisation which supports and enables the right wing?
If the left were prepared to pay for it there would be left wing news (well more than Novara Media), the odd thing is they seem to be campaigning for an alleged "impartial" organisation, then moan it's stuffed full of RW reporters and news
Thing i don't understand is how many actual voters does this appeal to? I can't honestly believe that there's a massive constituency for who getting rid of a public funded broadcaster is the difference between voting for a Tory at the next election and not.
If anything, the BBC's news output is centrist in general - but of course there's not a uniform approach or worldview informing that output.
It makes some brilliant docs (e.g. File on 4) which show the impact of gov't policy in devastating detail. They also have Laura K, who gets (unfairly IMO) labelled a crypto-Tory puppet.
Most people saying the BBC (or any mainstream UK broadcast media) is hopelessly biased are whiny cockbags with more opinions than knowledge, IMHO.
🙂
It's not hopelessly biased and traditionally has been quite centrist or even slightly liberal/lefty but it's increasingly being threatened/brought under Tory control and is increasingly towing the government line.
Just one small example:
https://www.****/news/article-9775183/Political-row-appoint-ex-Huffington-Post-editor-BBC.html
Oh, and the current DG was a Tory councillor and former chairman of his local conservative party.
Anyone who can't see this is, well, not necessarily a whiny cockbag, but probably just a bit dim.
As usual I agree with George. If the bbc is a rabidly left wing woke organisation then it has nothing to lose from breaking free from repressive government influence.
https://twitter.com/georgemonbiot/status/1483068888233435139?s=21
If anything, the BBC’s news output is centrist in general
and
Most people saying the BBC (or any mainstream UK broadcast media) is hopelessly biased are whiny cockbags
You seem to acknowledge it has a centrist bias so does that make you a whiny cockbag? Or are you considering "centrist" somehow unbiased?
the twin threats of pirate radio
Is that even a thing anymore?
Who, under the age of 30, has an FM radio?
20 years ago pirate radio changed the face of radio, The BBC responded by recruiting dj's from and copying and developing the format of pirate radio with BBC 1xtra.
I was giving an example of how the Beeb managed to adapt successfully to a changing media environment and they continue to this day to compete very successfully within the competitive digital environment, setting a benchmark for contemporary radio (as they do with BBC radio 3 and 6 etcetera.)
The beeb didn't get left behind with the changes to radio listening, it could learn a lot from how it acted back then. So could you footflaps...
"’m not sure you can reasonably compare paying indirectly for an emergency service with paying directly for an entertainment service…"
When World War 3 is announced, who you gonna trust...... Rupert Murdoch?
Can you not envisage a situation so where a National Broadcaster becomes an emergency service? Like in a pandemic for instance? Of would you leave it all to the free market.
Tory ministers have spent the last few years avoiding any scrutiny from the BBC. We would have had this administration choosing which broadcasters to let into Coronavirus press briefings.
Here's a fairly comprehensive list of the BBC being "unbiased":
https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1206992886841192451
Can you not envisage a situation so where a National Broadcaster becomes an emergency service? Like in a pandemic for instance? Of would you leave it all to the free market.
So which channel did best on Covid, the BBC or Sky News? Sky News gets my vote, consistently with the science and keeping people informed.
"face masks are not necessary" said the Beeb in this vid:
The BBC was very much a part of the problem on masks and it's never gone away. Check out my own links on the Covid from before March 2020 on aerosols and other STW members links to an American study showing Covid was present i very fine aerosols hanging in the air. The BBC claiming:
"Please note: This video was produced on 13 March 2020 and based on the advice available from the World Health Organization and other health groups at the time."
is bollocks. It should read "we had our own agenda, ignored some of the science and made a misleading video, sorry".
Good link Doctor.
As someone pointed out upstream, BBC news is too obsessed with what the papers say when not a lot of people are reading the papers these days. It lets the Daily Mail set its agenda, a paper whose average readership is probably over 60.
Wether you think the main presenters and editors are biased or not (I do), you can't argue that they are all identikit Oxbridge graduates and live in an absolute bubble. They are as out of touch with the population as the toffs in charge are. Their biases might not be deliberate, they might be because they have led sheltered and protected lives, never doubting their own inteligence.
Fiona Bruce and Andrew Marr are the 'Smashy and Nicey' for our times. It's time the BBC built its' news team in a way that more reflects the nation as a whole. The current incumbents are far too chummy with those in power.
Tbh Johnson & Dorries threatening to destroy the BBC appeals to the hard right nutters
But plenty of their core vote wont be happy about it
Especially when it's so obviously an attempt to deflect from Johnsons incompetence
And cutting its funding, means less services being offered
Tory own goal imho
I'm slating the BBC news output as well educator.
It's just I'm arguing for it to be better, not disappear. And as others have pointed out, what would Sky news be like without the BBC's presence?
Yes Kimbers.
Through the goalkeepers legs as well.
Before we start demanding that the BBC model changes and/or it goes - what else do we get in replacement. And how much will this cost - if at all practical.
As an example add together Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, The Times and it come out far more expensive - and I don't get any of Radio 4.
How do you plan to make the BBC a subscription service? While many people can stream it already, large numbers of people watch the BBC on Freeview or listen to the BBC on FM/DAB. How can you make them pay?
While the BBC is not perfect, what will replace it - and not just the bits you use - and ensure that the costs are no more than current. Now if anyone can answer that, then I am all ears - at the moment it is all about news to fill the airways to stop news programmes reporting another party at No 10!
Oh, and the current DG was a Tory councillor and former chairman of his local conservative party.
You'll be shocked at James Purnell's background
I can't understand why the main focus of this argument is on news output - other than it being a battlefield in the culture war.
In relation to the Beeb's immeasurable cultural contribution to the nation, its news is almost an insignificant part.
I'm still getting used to John Peel not being around. Imagine if it had all gone.
Talk about voting to make yourself poorer............
Agree with this
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1482778798001201157?t=mQw4GmB6CtqKmfjtCgaQyA&s=19
I think they're just handing ammo to Labour for the next GE
sadmadalan.
Pay for it out of general taxation (hardly going to annoy people any more than the current licence situation).
Cut the expensive celebrity crap that plenty of other channels do so well anyhow.
Build a new news and current affairs department that reflects something more than what the tabloids said.
Stop bidding millions for sports events.
Be more like BBC Radio.
Here's the BBC news being unbiased because both sides complain about bias
https://twitter.com/SteveNickSmith/status/771840984388894720
Yup, this actually happened
I’m still getting used to John Peel not being around. Imagine if it had all gone.
As his self admitted behaviour reminds some of Jimmy Saville I'd suggest picking a different BBC hero
Personally I will only be a little sad to lose some of the excellent TV from the BBC due mainly to the poor news service from BBC Scotland where despite its name editorial decions are ultimately taken in London
As his self admitted behaviour reminds some of Jimmy Saville
Peel was definitely creepy but I think comparing him to Saville is OTT to say the least.
Cut the expensive celebrity crap that plenty of other channels do so well anyhow.
The opposite would be better. Keep the entertainment, documentaries and arts coverage, and get rid of news and current affairs. Sky news is miles better than bbc news in pretty much every area. The only news I’d keep is newsnight, and even that is pretty poor.
Why not make it a subscription service exactly like Netflix? The Beeb's back catalogue would bring in £££ from around the world.
I cannot stand the bias in the news programmes and don't watch a lot of TV butI would pay the license just for the sport on 5live.
& the bias in the news could be corrected pretty easily.
why all the emphasis on the news? The BBC has far more content than that. Much of it excellent and likely to be lost if it ever gets forced into the competitive (i.e. lowest common denominator) market.
Peel was definitely creepy but I think comparing him to Saville is OTT to say the least.
You can pick your heroes, I can pick my villians. Let's just say he wasn't to be trusted with 14 yo groupies in a caravan etc
Its also a generational thing. As a mid/late 20 year old myself and all of my friends have never paid for a TV license. Maybe we have less money or maybe we get our content elsewhere - I think a bit of both
An organisation that harboured and protected prolific paedophiles for decades. No not the Tories, the BBC. They knew about Savile and others but did nothing, even going so far as protecting them.
Hate to break it to you but that wasn't the BBC, that was the 1970s and to an extent 1980s. The BBC was but one cog in a way larger machine of moral bankruptcy, we were burying this shit left and right.
Vermin like Esther Rantzen as an example.
Esther Rantzen who ran a consumer affairs show for years and created Childline? Either you've lost your mind or I've totally missed a scandal somewhere here.
I can’t understand why the main focus of this argument is on news output
This. The BBC is more than Question Time and Newsnight. It's almost like the people shouting about bias might be cherry-picking because of, eh, wait, it's on the tip of my tongue...
...because its so important?
As already posted Margaret Thatcher was close friends with him and lobbied to have him knighted despite knowing about his crimes. Interesting selective memory you have there.
Can you provide any evidence for this statement ?
Thought this was interesting about bias:
https://twitter.com/paulbernaluk/status/1483354518314274816?s=21
As a mid/late 20 year old myself and all of my friends have never paid for a TV license. Maybe we have less money or maybe we get our content elsewhere
I'm honestly interested in this, where do you get your content from that doesn't require a license?
George Monbiot is wrong on two counts there.
If the licence fee goes then the Gov't will still be able to hold a direct grant over the BBC's head.
And BBC dramas are usually bland and formulaic.
How do you plan to make the BBC a subscription service? While many people can stream it already, large numbers of people watch the BBC on Freeview or listen to the BBC on FM/DAB. How can you make them pay?
Fairly easily. It would be via iPLayer/BBC Sounds only which would require login/paid account. Those stuck in the past who are not on the internet will have to quickly do so.
BBC on FM/DAB would need to either supported from profits of TV side or include adverts as can't really have a subscription radio service can you.
The BBC needs to be weaned off the teat of the licence fee because, as others have pointed out, a majority of the current under 20s will probably never buy one.
As someone who spent some time working there, I think its central problem is that it can no longer claim to be anywhere near the best in several areas. News, Children's programming, Comedy, Drama, Sport and documentary making (with the exception of nature docs). Local news and radio is, for the most part, dross. Online is bloated, poorly organised, and lifeless compared to many modern sites - I can remember a time when the news site was entertaining and took risks, but it has been homogenised with the rest of news in the normal fashion.
The lack of need to compete (and a couple of decades of running scared from government interference), means that its offering is bland and risk-free. There is very little innovation, and that is partly driven by the fact that the BBC does not need to excel to earn its money.
And BBC dramas are usually bland and formulaic.
Maybe sometimes, but saying you don't like some part of its output is like criticizing the NHS for providing cancer treatment when all you want is insulin for your diabetes (in an extreme life-threatening metaphor compared to just how you alleviate the boredom between 8 and 9 on a Wednesday evening).
Take for example this year's coverage of the Olympics, is that what we have to look forward to with the BBC's budget cut? I'm not a fan of Clare Balding but she's better than the highlight reel from a couple of random sports that no one else could be bothered to televise. Then what, in another decade sports funding (inc cycling) gets cut because it's not on free to view TV anymore and no one GAS. Just look what happened to Cricket, or F1. The latter only surged in popularity when Netlfix made it possible to follow it cheaply (albeit 10 months delayed).
I’m honestly interested in this, where do you get your content from that doesn’t require a license?
You only need a license for live TV and iPlayer IIRC, neither of which we use.
We get my news from various online sources (Guardian, FT, Economist, NYT, Le Monde etc) and we watch Netflix / Amazon Prime.