You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Sadly it seems that we'll still be stuck with many TV channels full of brain rot rather than two channels with something worth watching, and the likes of Radio One, 1Xtra, FiveLive, as well as multiple, dire, little local radio stations will still clutter our airwaves rather than being combined into regional radio with enough to broadcast. The BBC had the chance to 'contract into quality' but they've bottled it.
You mean you're not looking forward to endless re-runs of Two Pints of Lager.... on BBC3? What about Snog, Marry, Avoid?
You're a right picky bugger, you 😉
It's ironic that such high-def, digital, plasma screens are showing repeats of Batman, George and Mildred and the Professionals. I've even spotted On The Busses in the TV shedules! And Freeview, just how many shopping channels do you need?...
repeats of Batman
When?, where?
Kapowwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!
ITV4.
It is bloody sickening that the BBC pays absolutely stupid salaries to its employees. It's equally sickening that they are on a gravy train in general.
Sod em.
BBC4's worthwhile. Don't know about the others...
Batman: "Better put 5 cents in the meter."
Robin: "No policeman's going to give the Batmobile a ticket."
Batman: "This money goes to building better roads. We all must do our part."
ohnohesback - Member
It's ironic that such high-def, digital, plasma screens are showing repeats of Batman, George and Mildred and the Professionals. I've even spotted On The Busses in the TV shedules! And Freeview, just how many shopping channels do you need?...
Um, you do know that they're not all BBC channels right?
BBC - Best broadcasting service in the world. Imagine what our telly/radio would be like without them...
It is bloody sickening that the BBC pays absolutely stupid salaries to its employees. It's equally sickening that they are on a gravy train in general.Sod em.
I know someone who works for the BBC - they work very hard indeed and get paid an average salary. Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail/Sun.
What's actually happening here is that the BBC is too good for it's competitors, and they are making it worse to keep people like Murdoch happy. Wonderful.
No offence, but you sound like a right snob
swedishmatt - MemberIt is bloody sickening that the BBC pays absolutely stupid salaries to its employees. It's equally sickening that they are on a gravy train in general.
Sod em.
Price of everything, value of nothing.
The BBC are being punished for not supporting the Eton Mess in the last election - nothing more.
Yes, I'd like to see lower salaries at the BBC, but surely, as all the right whingers on here keep saying in relation to the banking sector, you have to pay to get the right people.
Let's get rid of a few more celebrity presenters, that should save a few quid. Andrew Neill for a start, followed by Simon 'smugfest' Mayo, Nicky Campbell and Anne Robinson.
Personally, I'd like to see fewer antiques/property/cooking programmes, more documentaries presented by experts instead of celebrities, and the end to 'humorous' panel shows such as 'Mock the Week'.
But, as with the NHS, decent state education and cheap energy it will soon be done away with anyway, because it doesn't fit in with Dave's ideology.
When was it that Pink Floyd sang about "thirteen channels of shit on my TV to choose from", the good old days, eh?
Also know a few working at the beeb, one is a production assistant and the other in IT. believe me they are on no gravy train
Given what the Beeb costs - it is very good value for money. The problems that it has are
1. A very small number of people earn huge amounts of money. The vast majority do not - but the media focus on the very small number.
2. We all have a our favourite bits of the BBC and can't understand why the rest should be funded.
3. It is used as a political football - hence the off loading of the World Service to it, or the demands for local radio stations from MPs.
Without the BBC, most local radio would fold, TV would become like the US and the cost of TV would rise. I have Virgin and compared to that the TV licence is cheap for what I get.
I also get p*****d off with all those who go on how 'free' the commercial channels are. They are NOT free. I pay for those through the goods and services that I buy or subscriptions or both.
(Sorry - must get off high horse and go for a ride!)
Quite happy for my licence fee to go towards Radio 1, 1xtra and five live (well apart from the football programmes)
I'm interested in how they manage to spend £199,000,000 a year on online activities. Are their servers made from solid green?
Source: [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/licencefee/ ]BBC - How is the licence fee spent[/url]
double post wtf
A full Sky subscription is how much compared to the license fee?
And for that you get a lot of football, some shite films, The Simpsons and, erm....... erm....... erm.....
for the license fee you get an unbelievable amount of amazing quality stuff. ie: Six Music, Cbeebies, CBBC,Radio 4, 5 Live etc etc etc etc
I reckon the BBC needs to sack off its Sports coverage completely. It just can't compete with Rupert's Wallet. Its pointless to try. And concentrate on the stuff it does so much better than anyone else
Everyone I know who worked at the Beeb was fired and taken back as a contractor to save money.
Huge salaries? I would imagine it's not too bad, when you're actually working.
Lot of BBC apologists. Bunch of left leaning environmental labour supporter loonies.
If you don't realise it's left leaning you've got a problem.
It is NOT neutral. At all.
It's ironic that such high-def, digital, plasma screens are showing repeats of... the Professionals.
Nothing wrong with that.
[i]"Who are you? The police?"
"No, we're worse. Much worse."[/i] 😀
[img] 
[/img]
Lot of BBC apologists. Bunch of left leaning environmental labour supporter loonies.
😆
But you'll miss it once it's gone. And it will be gone if our 'slightly right of centre' government has its way.
swedishmatt - MemberLot of BBC apologists. Bunch of left leaning environmental labour supporter loonies.
If you don't realise it's left leaning you've got a problem.
It is NOT neutral. At all.
Name a country with a better TV service than the BBC.
Then you can start with the insults.
Lot of BBC apologists. Bunch of left leaning environmental labour supporter loonies.If you don't realise it's left leaning you've got a problem.
It is NOT neutral. At all.
Evidence? Anyway, even if it is, surely that just provides some balance against the vast majority of UK media which is right wing. If you want to see a lack of balance, try Adam Boulton on Sky - he can barely conceal his hatred for the Labour party.
If you don't realise it's left leaning you've got a problem.
Ah, there's the rub. 8)
Lot of BBC apologists. Bunch of left leaning environmental labour supporter loonies.
If you don't realise it's left leaning you've got a problem.It is NOT neutral. At all.
Who on this thread said that it was neutral?
Turns out that left leaning environmental labour supporter loonies make better telly than right wing gun toting racist pigs, is all...
Rusty Spanner: The BBC is extremely expensive. Completely over the top staffed, and a stupid amount of staff on all functions. They bid on stuff they shouldn't. They compete with private channels where they fill no public service function. They should stay well clear.
I suggest you all ask yourself the question why the BBC has its own commentators. Ask yourself why other channels bring outside experts in more often. Could it be that the BBC wants to give you their view? Next time Stephanie Flanders, the so called economic commentator interviews the powers that be, or talk about quantititative easing, or the next time they give airtime on politics. Are they being netural? No they're blatantly not.
Google "BBC left bias". Even Mark Thompson admits it himself, of course it was only "in the past". Oh yeah it's all changed hasn't it? It's not like the BBC is pushing a pro-man-made global warming piece is it?
"BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past. "
What's actually happening here is that the BBC is too good for it's competitors
It doesn't have any competitors, given that it's funded by taxation.
Some other quotes:
The BBC is operating in a "left-leaning comfort zone" and has an "innate liberal bias" according to a report commissioned by the corporation
I suggest you all ask yourself the question why the BBC has its own commentators. Ask yourself why other channels bring outside experts in more often. Could it be that the BBC wants to give you their view? Next time Stephanie Flanders, the so called economic commentator interviews the powers that be, or talk about quantititative easing, or the next time they give airtime on politics. Are they being netural? No they're blatantly not.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. 😳
The BBC constantly debates its own failings. Very publicly. Just like the commercial oprganisations. For example; when all the Murdoch press outlets gave extensive coverage to the debate about illegal phone hacking
Oh....erm.... hang on a minute.....
Evidence? Anyway, even if it is, surely that just provides some balance against the vast majority of UK media which is right wing.
Well it doesn't give unfailing Fox like devotion to the right and forces the general stadard of TV up rather than maximising revenue for the owners so obviously it's left leaning and must be eradicated, DUH.
Quite why the term left leaning is being applied to labour supporters is however beyond me. The labour party hasn't been left leaning part for a very long time.
given that it's funded by taxation
Hmm you really don't understand what taxation is, do you.
swedishmatt - Member
It is bloody sickening that the BBC pays absolutely stupid salaries to its employees. It's equally sickening that they are on a gravy train in general.Sod em.
Such as...?
swedishmatt - You are James Murdoch and I claim my free Sky subscription
Are they being netural? No they're blatantly not.
Name one, just one, neutral news source.
I reckon they got it just about right. 25% cuts is no picnic.....daytime TV with original programming is a nonsense in this day and age. Huge back catalogue of repeats to be shown or they can just beef up BBC News 24, thats plenty.
Going to be less spending on sport, I dont think is really a bad thing. If the BBC doesnt bid up for F1 rights say, those interested are still going to see it on commercial channels. Sky's coverage of the Test match cricket is about the best sports coverage I've ever seen, it's tremendous.
And maybe a bit less on foreign productions? I hope they still buy the likes of Mad Men, but when they do can they please air them primetime, say 9pm on a Thursday night? Why was maybe the best show this decade tucked away on BBC4 on a Tuesday?
Left-wing? Yes unavoidably so given the demographic of it's employees but still great for current affairs. The Guardian is left wing (I'm not) but I still buy it first. I know what I'm getting, I can figure it out, and it's a great newspaper.
The BBC is operating in a "left-leaning comfort zone" and has an "innate liberal bias" according to a report commissioned by the corporation
So it's effectively state run.
However, to have it any other way would involve massive amounts of advertising. And probably not a lot of funded decent TV programme making (they are expensive after all).
I would argue that the BBC is a national treasure. Sure, it may lean to the left but this is more than made up for by the overtly right capitalist, advertising-funded private media, with Sky being the obvious candidate here.
gonefishin have a google mate. They say themselves they've got a left bias.
It doesn't have any competitors, given that it's funded by taxation.
Eh? 😕
The BBC is operating in a "left-leaning comfort zone" and has an "innate liberal bias" according to a report commissioned by the corporation
Again, so what? Virtually all the other media in the country is owned by Murdoch or other big business interests which pursue a nakedly right wing agenda. Nothing wrong with a bit of balance surely?
I see SwedishMatt's problem - he doesn't realise he leans to the right. 😉
Hmm you really don't understand what taxation is, do you.
Yes well done, it's not literally a tax in a technical sense, just something you are legally obliged to pay if you want to watch TV. Effectively it might as well be a tax though (and a regressive one at that).
grum:Again, so what? Virtually all the other media in the country is owned by Murdoch or other big business interests which pursue a nakedly right wing agenda. Nothing wrong with a bit of balance surely?
I don't know if you're still in school or simply don't realise what a stupid statement the above is.
Just because I think the BBC is overpaid and completely past its sell by date doesn't make me a Fox lover does it? Now, secondly, if I pay bloody taxes to the BBC - it bloody well should be neutral. Actually, no media can be neutral - so the BBC should just sodding admit they are a lefty pancake and sod back to the fifties.
Left-wingers ought to be outraged by the license fee. One flat payment for everyone except pensioners? Very reggressive.
Nothing wrong with a bit of balance surely?
There is if we're all forced to pay for it.
Just because I think the BBC is overpaid[i] (sic)[/i] and completely past its sell by date doesn't make me a Fox lover does it? Now, secondly, if I pay bloody taxes to the BBC[i] (sic)[/i] - it bloody well should be neutral. Actually, no media can be neutral.
Is it me or is this a circular argument?
There is if we're all forced to pay for it.
Where else would it come from though? You don't think having some kind of balance in the media is important?
Now, secondly, if I pay bloody taxes to the BBC - it bloody well should be neutral. Actually, no media can be neutral - so the BBC should just sodding admit they are a lefty pancake and sod back to the fifties.
Where's the crackhead smiley? 😕
Yes well done, it's not literally a tax in a technical sense, just something you are legally obliged to pay if you want to watch TV.
Assuming that the BBC was no more and that the TV licence was scrapped, do you think that Sky would let you watch their channels free of charge?
If it is so clear that the BBC is left wing, i assume that anybody can see this and thus make an informed choice about how to intepretate the BBC's output.
The electorate clearly see the bias and have thus chosen to vote in a tory government.
Sorry this Left wing Right wing bias thing is crap, i don't see the BBC calling for nationalisation of the steel industry or even the electricity network.
What i do see is the Daily Mail and Sky ranting about immigration and how unfair it is to have a media output that does not call for the reconstruction of the british empire.
gonefishin have a google mate. They say themselves they've got a left bias.
At no point did I say that they didn't. What I don't understand is why that is necessarily a problem. There is plenty of Right wing bias in other forms of media which leads me to repeat my challenge to you to name one unbiased media outlet.
Yes well done, it's not literally a tax in a technical sense, just something you are legally obliged to pay if you want to watch TV
Hmm I believe this sort of thing is more normally referred to as a "charge".
Google "BBC left bias".
[url= http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=bbc+left+bias&word2=bbc+right+bias ]..guess what?[/url]
News Flash - not being slightly to the right of Hitler doesn't make it left leaning
Leave Herr Hitler out of it, he was a socialist.
Where else would it come from though? You don't think having some kind of balance in the media is important?
I don't care. The BBC is funded by all of us and so should be neutral.
They [i]should[/i] all be neutral, but the others are privately owned and so can do what they want unfortunately. Newspapers are a particular bugbear of mine, I don't want an opinion rammed down my throat or articles presented with a bias so that my emotions are affected. I want factual news, I can make my own mind up on topics thank you.
The BBC is as neutral is it can be - given that the left call it right wing and the right call it left wing 😀
Yes I'm glad that I pay a cheap rate to not watch adverts
- something which Murdoch and cronies keep whinging about and then pollute the minds of their consumers.
Just because I think the BBC is overpaid (sic) and completely past its sell by date doesn't make me a Fox lover does it? Now, secondly, if I pay bloody taxes to the BBC (sic) - it bloody well should be neutral. Actually, no media can be neutral.
Have you been to other countries and seen their TV?
Leave Herr Hitler out of it, he was a socialist
a nationalised socialist?
Have you been to other countries and seen their TV?
The US can be pretty good (I particularly klike the politically neutral choice of colour)..
[img] 
[/img]
Wrecker: The BBC is funded by all of us and so should be neutral.
Agreed. The BBC knows this, the trustees know this. The people in the organisation might be lefties, but we do pay them not to ram a socialist agenda down our throats, and as an organisation they do this.
You know what, they do pretty well most of the time. We know this because they manage to piss off whoever is in power at the time.
the BBC should just sodding admit they are a lefty pancake and sod back to the fifties.
Brilliant.
all bbc funding should go towards science and nature programs, a dashing of comedy thats approved by me and my peers, and f1 coverage. nothing else.
i have spoken! 
Just so we're clear, could those who are slamming the BBC's 'Left-wing' agenda please serve up some evidence of it beyond that remark from Mark Thompson? I suspect that the case against the BBC is being somewhat overstated, but am happy to be proved wrong.
Partial F1 coverage and I don't think it'll have that for long. The BBC has given us some very good programmes over the years and I hope the funding method stays as it is. I think that we have witnessed it dumbing down over recent years and an unacceptable increase in cheapy reality type shows and a marked decrease in what they actually do very well; documentaries, drama and comedy. I particularly want the BBC to get a larger share of the big sports events (international football, rugby, cricket, athletics etc) I am by no means anti BBC, I just want them to have a politically neutral agenda.
I don't care. The BBC is funded by all of us and so should be neutral.
Right, so you are happy for the vast majority of people to get their information on current affairs from Sky, The Sun and Daily Mail? 🙄
ram a socialist agenda down our throats
A socialist agenda? Are they calling for renationalising industry? What utter bollocks.
Right, so you are happy for the vast majority of people to get their information on current affairs from Sky, The Sun and Daily Mail?
Two wrongs don't make a right. I take the point on sky, but those who buy the mail, sun, guardian etc know what they're getting and choose to purchase the product for that reason. We cannot choose to purchase (or not) the BBCs product, in effect it belongs to us and so should not pander to any political (or other) group. IMHO.
If the BBC is so left wing, how come they pay the wages of Clarkson and Nick Robinson?
Hmm I believe this sort of thing is more normally referred to as a "charge".
I think you'll find it's a licence, since you are so fond of pedantry.
A socialist agenda? Are they calling for renationalising industry? What utter bollocks.
Is that for me? Did you read my post properly?
we do pay them not to ram a socialist agenda down our throats, [b]and as an organisation they do this[/b].
Edit: 😕 Damn me and my imprecise prose. Well, I meant that they don't ram a socialist agenda down our throats, even if some of the staff are crusty commies...
Stevious: just putting some quotes in. For some reason it blocks the URLs, maybe it thinks I'm spamming. Google the quote and you'll find it.
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?
In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.
CaptJon: because it's full of champagne socialists, and clueless managers. it's called a gravy train. Very much like politicians in general - throw more money at something because that will make it better.
I reckon the BBC needs to sack off its Sports coverage completely.
+1. I'm more than happy for my license fee to make programmes. I'm not entirely happy about a chunk of it just ending up in the pockets of Bernie Ecclestone and a bunch of footballers.
Sorry thebunk yup, but your post wasn't that clear - especially as you seemed to be agreeing with the comment about 'going back to the 50s' or whatever it was.
We cannot choose to purchase (or not) the BBCs product, in effect it belongs to us and so should not pander to any political (or other) group. IMHO.
I don't think it panders to a particular party, it just has a possibly liberal bias. They certainly don't seem pro-Labour for instance. And I think it's very important there is some representation of the liberal view in mainstream media, when everything else is ruled by commercial, corporate interests.
Rich corporate media owners have a tendency to promote right wing views (as they are good for their own finances broadly speaking).
Assuming that the BBC was no more and that the TV licence was scrapped, do you think that Sky would let you watch their channels free of charge?
Strangely enough no, I don't think they would. I wouldn't pay for sky either way though, so this is totally irrelevant.
Every election I see whinges from both the right and left about the BBC's "bias".
Shows to me that it is more or less in the middle.
I think you'll find it's a licence, since you are so fond of pedantry.
I was refering to the payment, not the piece of paper or right that it buys.
the BBC should just sodding admit they are a lefty pancake and sod back to the fifties.
What kind of reactionary simpleton are you? Just because an organisation's output is not nakedly right-wing does not make it Trotskyite.
You do not "pay bloody taxes to the BBC" - the licence fee is optional.
What would you replace the BBC with? You want to be careful what you wish for. Replacing centrally or state funded organisations with private enterprise has not been an unqualified success in this country.
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to [s]answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?[/s] present an argument from perceived authority
I don't think it panders to a particular party, it just has a possibly liberal bias.
Agreed, hence the work group and not party.
They certainly don't seem pro-Labour for instance.
Agreed
And I think it's very important there is some representation of the liberal view in mainstream media, when everything else is ruled by commercial, corporate interests.
Agreed (almost), but I don't think that the BBC is the correct vehicle.
The almost was because I don't believe that channel 4 has a particularly right wing bias (certainly not the news anchorman Jon Snow)
I reckon the BBC needs to sack off its Sports coverage completely.
Not all - I mostly (except Brian Moore on his negative days) like the 6 Nations coverage.
firmly of the Left.
define Left in the current political landscape please.
Once could argue that most of the private media leans very strongly to the right - maybe this is a way of balancing things
or maybe reflecting the majority view of their audience (just 'cos we got a Tory gov't it doesn't mean the majority are right wing.)
Agreed (almost), but I don't think that the BBC is the correct vehicle.
So what is?
The almost was because I don't believe that channel 4 has a particularly right wing bias (certainly not the news anchorman Jon Snow)
Channel 4 also receives license fee money and has some kind of public service remit though IIRC.
grum - Member
Sorry thebunk yup, but your post wasn't that clear - especially as you seemed to be agreeing with the comment about 'going back to the 50s' or whatever it was.
nooooo! that was sarcasm! igmc....
All the BBC presenters are wearing only hammer and sickle undies when seated at a desk, you just don't see that.
FACT.
You do not "pay bloody taxes to the BBC" - the licence fee is optional.
It's not exactly optional though. It's a fee that is charged for one thing (receiving broadcast TV), but is paid (largely) to only one supplier of broadcast TV. It's a ridiculous mess that would be more fairly funded by general taxation.
2tyred:
What kind of reactionary simpleton are you? Just because an organisation's output is not nakedly right-wing does not make it Trotskyite.
You do not "pay bloody taxes to the BBC" - the licence fee is optional.
What would you replace the BBC with? You want to be careful what you wish for. Replacing centrally or state funded organisations with private enterprise has not been an unqualified success in this country
I'm from a country that is far more socialist than the UK. However, the state controlled media, i.e. the BBC, is much more socialist than the equivalent media in Sweden.
The BBC, apart from being naive, not up to the job, overly expensive push out [u]their[/u] view of the news. It is not factual, they give the narrative. If you start looking at the air time of pro vs contra views on some of the hottest topics of the decade - you'll for instance find a serious overweight to people with a pro-MMGW stance. The economics news is weak. Just look at Stephanie Flanders interview of Mervyn King. Pretty important this whole money printing malarchy. She was a wet blanket. 1.5% inflation rise due to QE? Really? Did she push him on the fact he has missed the inflation target for last couple of years by twice the target? No, of course not. She's useless. You could argue this is proof that she is no biased, but actually it just proves she is shit (oh and she used to date Ed Milliband and Ed Balls, or something like that). AND SHE IS THE ECONOMICS person! GAH.
State controlled media should be doubly good at ALWAYS inviting people from not just both sides of the spectrum but bloody well from all sides. And yes, they can, and yes they should. They are lazy, incompetent and biased to the left.