3 ms·

Largely the same with the BBC in the UK. Lots of people scream they are pro-left/pro-right (often without evidence) but I think if you look at their history wh

Largely the same with the BBC in the UK. Lots of people scream they are pro-left/pro-right (often without evidence) but I think if you look at their history what they are is pro-whoever is in power. They know who writes the cheques.

raxxorrax 8y ago
True, I do think they make a real effort to stay neutral, but they are always very tame and if in doubt, they side with the government. Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. That was what I meant with classical censorship.
- Faark 8y ago
  > Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. Removing all political influence is hard. I also am certain there was a case of some politician calling an editor, but don't remember the details beyond the politician getting booted because of it. But that sounds like bullshit or at least highly exaggerated. I'd like a source on that.
pytester 8y ago
They used to be ok at holding the government in power to account before the Hutton Inquiry. Now they're slavishly obedient. Worse than their bias, though, was the defunding for investigative reporting. These days the front page is covered with lazy reporting, clickbait and reprinted press releases.
- JoeSmithson 8y ago
  I don't think that's true at all. The BBC has run lots of major stories embarrassing to the government such as the failed role out of Universal Credit and the Windrush scandal. Right now there's this story on the front page - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47884273 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47884273 - which appears to be original investigative reporting into a Tory MP. What are you basing your opinion on?
JoeSmithson 8y ago
The BBC aren't funded by the government though - "who writes the cheques" is members of the public who pay the license fee.
- captainbland 8y ago
  Yeah but ultimately it's the government who enable license fee collection as it currently stands with their blokes in a van who come around to harrass you if you've not coughed up. There's a special legal framework around TV licensing which more or less ensures the BBC's success - taking that away and forcing them to operate like a normal private company would inevitably massively harm their revenue and force them into finding external private investors, advertisers within the UK and such. So I think it's fair to say that the BBC's operations certainly are dependent on government good-will even if they don't officially control it. I think there is some value in having a network like this, however, in that it adds to the diversity of networks in that it's not just "yet another privately owned network". I find it interesting, however, that Channel 4 is state owned yet they (maybe I just mean Jon Snow in particular) seem to have an easier time being more critical of the government. It is likely that this is because it's not totally dependent on any one form of revenue given that it also has adverts on its main channels, but also it probably sees less pressure because of its smaller viewership and I suppose generally less serious tone of programmes.

raxxorrax 8y ago

True, I do think they make a real effort to stay neutral, but they are always very tame and if in doubt, they side with the government. Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. That was what I meant with classical censorship.

Faark 8y ago
> Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. Removing all political influence is hard. I also am certain there was a case of some politician calling an editor, but don't remember the details beyond the politician getting booted because of it. But that sounds like bullshit or at least highly exaggerated. I'd like a source on that.

pytester 8y ago

They used to be ok at holding the government in power to account before the Hutton Inquiry. Now they're slavishly obedient. Worse than their bias, though, was the defunding for investigative reporting. These days the front page is covered with lazy reporting, clickbait and reprinted press releases.

JoeSmithson 8y ago
I don't think that's true at all. The BBC has run lots of major stories embarrassing to the government such as the failed role out of Universal Credit and the Windrush scandal. Right now there's this story on the front page - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47884273 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47884273 - which appears to be original investigative reporting into a Tory MP. What are you basing your opinion on?

JoeSmithson 8y ago

The BBC aren't funded by the government though - "who writes the cheques" is members of the public who pay the license fee.

captainbland 8y ago
Yeah but ultimately it's the government who enable license fee collection as it currently stands with their blokes in a van who come around to harrass you if you've not coughed up. There's a special legal framework around TV licensing which more or less ensures the BBC's success - taking that away and forcing them to operate like a normal private company would inevitably massively harm their revenue and force them into finding external private investors, advertisers within the UK and such. So I think it's fair to say that the BBC's operations certainly are dependent on government good-will even if they don't officially control it. I think there is some value in having a network like this, however, in that it adds to the diversity of networks in that it's not just "yet another privately owned network". I find it interesting, however, that Channel 4 is state owned yet they (maybe I just mean Jon Snow in particular) seem to have an easier time being more critical of the government. It is likely that this is because it's not totally dependent on any one form of revenue given that it also has adverts on its main channels, but also it probably sees less pressure because of its smaller viewership and I suppose generally less serious tone of programmes.