[Closed] The BBC cuts - an opportunity missed?

What scares me the most with this discussion, or rant from my side, is that so many people think it's ok that the BBC is "leftist" because it outweights the rightwing media.

Bloody scary.

So what is?

Beyond my pay grade I'm afraid grum. It certainly shouldn't be via what is in all but name a tax on the british public.

Just thinking, like. Is this argument the same sort of rubbish that is constantly going on in the US? Extreme right wingers (like those tea-bagger people) constantly harp on about "the liberal media" in an attempt to force any political discourse to go more and more right-wing and keep anyone microscopically to the left of their bias on the back-foot?

I would have thought a liberal media would have been A Good Thing.

AdamW - Member

Just thinking, like. Is this argument the same sort of rubbish that is constantly going on in the US? Extreme right wingers (like those tea-bagger people) constantly harp on about "the liberal media" in an attempt to force any political discourse to go more and more right-wing and keep anyone microscopically to the left of their bias on the back-foot?

I would have thought a liberal media would have been A Good Thing.

Of course there is a place for liberal media. But a state controlled media should never put itself in a position to be described as anything on the political spectrum. Seriously.

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.

And based on this - completely ignoring the vast majority of science - I cannot take your argument seriously. If you want a neutral bias then you would have to give percentage time to each view and not equal.

For that, I'm out. 😆

AdamW - Member

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.

And based on this - completely ignoring the vast majority of science - I cannot take your argument seriously. If you want a neutral bias then you would have to give percentage time to each view and not equal.

For that, I'm out.

So do you know what the other side of the science say?

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.

Drawing on your 20 years of experience, how exactly would you achieve this within the confines of a 30 minute news programme featuring a host of other stories? The most you could hope for would be a single-sentence soundbite from each participant which would trivialise everything.

2tyred - Member

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.

Drawing on your 20 years of experience, how exactly would you achieve this within the confines of a 30 minute news programme featuring a host of other stories? The most you could hope for would be a single-sentence soundbite from each participant which would trivialise everything.

Oh really. Suggest you look at ITV and what they do then. Or some international programmes. This is just sound journalism. The BBC feels it doesn't need to because auntie BBC knows what's right and what's wrong, just like Ed Milliband.

you'll for instance find a serious overweight to people with a pro-MMGW stance.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So they should give equal weight to a few conspiracy theorists, despite the fact that the majority of scientific opinion supports MMGW? That's your idea of balance? 😕

If 999 people say the earth is round, and one says it's flat - on any discussion of the earth we need one from each side in order to be balanced?

But a state controlled media should never put itself in a position to be described as anything on the political spectrum

You can't possibly avoid that - as soon as a broadcaster makes mention of [i]anything[/i], there's nothing stopping some blowhard placing it on his perceived political spectrum then ranting about it on an internet messageboard!

Sweidshnatt, can I point out a small but simple fact that you appear to have overlooked, the BBC is not state controlled media.

So do you know what the other side of the science say?

Given that consensus has been reached by all scientists working in the field I'm going to deffer to them on such matters. Providing equal air time to opposing views isn't necessarily balance. Just look at the mess that was left by Andrew Wakefield when the press gave a "balanced" view on his research (?) vaccinations. Just because two people hold differing views doesn't mean one of them isn't a moron.

grum - Member

you'll for instance find a serious overweight to people with a pro-MMGW stance.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So they should give equal weight to a few conspiracy theorists, despite the fact that the majority of scientific opinion supports MMGW? That's your idea of balance?

If 999 people say the earth is round, and one says it's flat - on any discussion of the earth we need one from each side in order to be balanced?

The answer is yes, it should give a balanced view. So should all media, not just the BBC.

Irrespective of what you think of MMGW, you should hear both sides of the argument. For talking about this as an example, before you ridicule it by using your 999 example, there are in essence at least 2 stances on MMGW, probably a few more. If the BBC with its inifinite resources from the tax payer should damn well give the best coverage. But it doesn't, because it doesn't fit with their view. They're up their own bumhole.

there are in essence at least 2 stances on MMGW, probably a few more. If the BBC with its inifinite resources from the tax payer should damn well give the best coverage. But it doesn't, because it doesn't fit with their view. They're up their own bumhole.

Yep there are the opinions proposed by those who have studed the science, and then there are the morons.

The resources of the BBC aren't infinite as it is not taxpayer funded.

Gonefishing: Don't mean to de-rail this into a MMGW discussion but you're wrong. This is my point, the BBC makes the UK, as a whole, believe in one side of the story. And the sooner you realise that the better. you will of course ridicule me, which I don't particularly mind. But seriously, this country suffers from a serious dose of "I don't give a shit about politics I'll go watch X-factor and maybe question time and that's the news for me!".

The UK is brainwashed and the BBC plays a great part.

gonefishin

The resources of the BBC aren't infinite as it is not taxpayer funded.

Semantics, in reality is funded by the tax payer. I don't have much choice if I want to watch TV do I? It's a forced tax, unless, by stealth.

 

Coming back to the original question - yes, they probably did bottle it, but see below....

[As an aside, the BBC generally so a fantastic job and the bias argument is always a fun and unresolved one....particularly Nick Robinbson!]

Of the 6 public purposes of the BBC (its charter) is the requirement to:

PP3. [b]Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence[/b]

But who defines [b]creativity[/b] and [b]excellence[/b]? Do viewers[b] want[/b] excellence?

There is a well known Harvard example (an interesting audience to debate excellence as they should have a natural bias) where students are asked to state what they would prefer to watch - WWE fighting, The Simpsons and Shakespeare. Not surprisingly (perhaps) the students prefer The Simpsons. They are then asked which is of the three give the "highest qualitative experience". The answer, Shakespeare.

So what should dear old Auntie do - focus on Shakespeare or The Simspons? Cultural excellence or mass popularity? Ratings versus integrity? Rock or hard place?

psst X-factor is on ITV.

Semantics, in reality is funded by the tax payer.

Nope, you even have to pay the license fee if you're not a taxpayer. Also it's not very stealthy is it what with it being all out in the open and everyone knowing about it.

gonefishin - Member

psst X-factor is on ITV.

Semantics, in reality is funded by the tax payer.

Nope, you even have to pay the license fee if you're not a taxpayer. Also it's not very stealthy is it what with it being all out in the open and everyone knowing about it.

Sorry should have written strictly prancing! Ok let's call it a fee then if it makes you feel better.

Ok let's call it a fee then [s]if it makes you feel better[/s] because that's what it is.

Matt - You're seriously suggesting we look to ITV for 'sound journalism'?

You're not from Sweden! You're from Planet Penis

Yip - ITV News* at Ten - News* for people who regard the Daily Star as a bit taxing due to it being too heavy on political comment and analysis. I'd watch it all the time if I was that bothered about what Jordan** was up to, or I wanted to see a story about skateboarding kittens

*the word is in this case used figuratively

** Her of the big norks. Apparently there's a country too. But we wouldn't know anything about that

I consider it a tax, and a tax I'm happy to pay.
You want to drive a car; you pay road tax
You want to live in a building; you pay council tax
You want to have a TV; you pay television, er.....license

This is my point, the BBC makes the UK, as a whole, believe in one side of the story.

No, the worldwide scientific community believes in one side of the story, and the BBC reports on it. But I'm sure you know better right?

This is my point, the BBC makes the UK, as a whole, believe in one side of the story. And the sooner you realise that the better. you will of course ridicule me, which I don't particularly mind. But seriously, this country suffers from a serious dose of "I don't give a shit about politics I'll go watch X-factor and maybe question time and that's the news for me!".

The UK is brainwashed and the BBC plays a great part.

Codswallop, sir.

If the BBC is so left wing and so adept at shaping the views of the public to fit its own agenda in such a sinister fashion, then how come we've ended up with a right-leaning government?

Treating MMGW as a possible theory rather than probable fact is...

... like treating creationism as a valid altrenative to the theory fo evolution and having a scientific debate with a scientist and religeous nutter!

[Grenade thrown ...runs away]

I love how anybody who criticized the MMGW movement is a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'. 😆 You cannot be objectively critical without being tarred as an idiot. It's the opposite of how science should be.

There's a lot of bad pro-MMGW science out there ([url= http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ ]like the various misleading hockey-stick diagrams[/url]) and much of it is given an awful lot of air time on the BBC. The amount of times you hear the words 'carbon' and 'climate' on there is amazing, and it's never to retract an earlier piece of information which has been shown to be incorrect.

2tyred - Member

This is my point, the BBC makes the UK, as a whole, believe in one side of the story. And the sooner you realise that the better. you will of course ridicule me, which I don't particularly mind. But seriously, this country suffers from a serious dose of "I don't give a shit about politics I'll go watch X-factor and maybe question time and that's the news for me!".

The UK is brainwashed and the BBC plays a great part.

Codswallop, sir.

If the BBC is so left wing and so adept at shaping the views of the public to fit its own agenda in such a sinister fashion, then how come we've ended up with a right-leaning government?

Because Labour elected a grinning fool for its leader and people realised Labour again, completely and utterly, spunked up money on the wrong things? Of course they weren't helped by the global crash, of which the Labour government had absolutely nothing to do with.

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future … the UK should not return to the instability, speculation and negative equity of the 1980s and 1990s" Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, November 1997

Sorry I'm also trying to find his glowing review of the financial services in the 2000's. Something about innovation and.....hold on, you mean CDS?

I love how anybody who criticized the MMGW movement is a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'.

I'm sure not all of them are, just most of them.

There's a lot of bad pro-MMGW science out there

Unlike the anti-MMGW science, which is all beyond reproach?

Because Labour elected a grinning fool for its leader and people realised Labour again, completely and utterly, spunked up money on the wrong things?

That assumes that the Labour party are left wing, which they haven't been for a very very long time.

Because Labour elected a grinning fool for its leader and people realised Labour again, completely and utterly, spunked up money on the wrong things? Of course they weren't helped by the global crash, of which the Labour government had absolutely nothing to do with.

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future … the UK should not return to the instability, speculation and negative equity of the 1980s and 1990s" Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, November 1997

Sorry I'm also trying to find his glowing review of the financial services in the 2000's. Something about innovation and.....hold on, you mean CDS?

So this was something the BBC missed out on then?

Sounds like the Brainwashing Department are pretty incompetent and lazy after all.

I love how anybody who criticized the MMGW movement is a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'.

I think most are idiots if that helps

There's a lot of bad pro-MMGW science out there

we are lucky to have so many journalists and right wing politicians with no science background to point this out to us.

To be fair, I don't believe any of us here are environmental scientists and as such will have formed our opinions on MMGW by what has been fed to us by the media. A media which is not neutral and that is my major complaint.
Anyway, this is a thread on the BBC not MMGW so its not right that the thread is deviated this far IMHO.

After the death of steve jobs yesterday(a lot of other people also died buut didnt get a mention)i honestly thought bbc, was owned by apple, as itjust seemed one long advertising plug for that comapny.

Top save cash sack a lot of the talentless presenters, especially 2 off radio 1,

grum

I'm sure not all of them are, just miost of them.

Unlike the anti-MMGW science, which is all beyond reproach?

No, of course not and I said nothing of the sort. Point is that it is the pro mmgw (or 'anthropogenic climate change' or whatever they're calling it now) which is heavily pushed by the bbc. It is spoken if as if it is undeniable fact, and at this point it is not.

Strangely enough no, I don't think they would. I wouldn't pay for sky either way though, so this is totally irrelevant.

If you don't watch TV or have any sort of receiving equipment in the house then you don't need a licence either.

Everyone's happy. 😀

ahh SwedishMatt you should balance yourself and find some balancing quotes from Major etc....

But hmmmm a Swede arrives here and starts bashing the BBC 😆
<takes a quick look under the bridge>

It is spoken if as if it is undeniable fact, and at this point it is not.

Nothing in science is a fact or ever undeniable and this confuses non scientists who want true or false. For example some people dont accept evolution yet the BBC speaks about it like it is a fact, also gravity etc.
It is largely accepted by scientist and doubted by some members of the general public, some non qualified journalists and some politicians - you decide who you think knows best on this issue science or Clarkson and Palin. Hell even the petroleum industry accepts it these days.

I love how anybody who criticized the MMGW movement is a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'. You cannot be objectively critical without being tarred as an idiot. It's the opposite of how science should be.

Ditto the Euro - if you criticized it (not hard to do) you were a narrow minded Little Englander (sorry to my Scottish, Welsh and NI friends). Not to mention the Financial Times' pro-Euro bias.

Junkyard - Member

Nothing in science is a fact or ever undeniable and this confuses non scientists who want true or false. For example some people dont accept evolution yet the BBC speaks about it like it is a fact, also gravity etc.

I think implying that MMGW is at the same status as Natural Selection and G/S Relativity both of which have been extensively tested for over 50 years and are experimentally proven (with the exception of some edge cases) is ludicrous.

Just trying to work out how the BBC can simultaneously be "state-controlled" and also exhibit "left-wing bias". I'm thinking that one of these things (and possibly both) may be untrue 😉

It is largely accepted by scientist and doubted by some members of the general public, some non qualified journalists and some politicians - you decide who you think knows best on this issue science or Clarkson and Palin. Hell even the petroleum industry accepts it these days.

So, by that basis, the BBC should have stuck with the scientific consensus that Einstein was right, and ignored recent findings which suggest otherwise...

You cannot be objectively critical without being tarred as an idiot. It's the opposite of how science should be.

Science wirls with data and peer reviewed and replicated study. Why not get some of your "critical thinking" published then if you want to be taken seriously rather than giving me an emotive argument about what science is as that is not data and that is not science
People did criticise it initially and doubt it and look for other causes but the data is overwhelming to all but a few.
retro 83 I did not imply anything I said that all scientific theories have doubt and dissenters. Are you denying this is true? Are you denying that science does not find facts?
Your point [ minus the imply] is probably a fair one [ re which are more robust given longevity] but only last week it has been suggested we have particles travelling faster than light so perhaps Einstein is incorrect with relativity. There are no certainties in science it can all be disproved with data/new observation etc
I suggest that is what you do provide data and in particular i would like you to explain how the thermal forcing effect on carbon is negated* and by which process..good luck
I wish you the very best of luck in thinking about something that the worlds leading experts have not considered, accounted for and discounted but hey it is just possible some folk on a mtb forum will disprove AGW.
Perhaps next week we can find a cure for cancer ?

* I assume you accept that C02 is both rising and also a green house gas.

Before Watson an Crick we had no method for Evolution dso it was in doubt for a while
You seem to think longeivity
the effects of C02 as a greenhouse gas are well documented I assume you accpet that point
C02 is increasing - I assume you accept that burning fossil fuels releaseses stored carbon in th eform of Co2
I as

Junkyard - Member

(Stuff)

The FTL particles recently shown experimentally was one of the 'edge-
cases' I mentioned.

I'm going to come back to the other stuff later. 🙂

greter minds than us are on the case 😀

What I don't understand the BBC saying they may have to sell the Iconic building
But it belongs to the Licence payer does it not ?