7 ms·

>The left’s critique of the BBC hasn’t been restricted to the undefinable question of bias. I like the way that slipped in there. Is the question of bias undef

>The left’s critique of the BBC hasn’t been restricted to the undefinable question of bias. I like the way that slipped in there. Is the question of bias undefinable? Or can we define it as "The person who was in charge of editing the BBC's 2010 news coverage went on to be the Director of Communications for Number 10". Or maybe "The presenter of the BBC's flagship toptical debate programme has a history of making factually inaccurate statements about the the Labour party", or "The BBC repeatedly appoints key Conservative journalists to flagship programmes". I mean, this isn't undefinable, it's very easily definable. For those in the US who may not understand this, imagine you had a state broadcaster funded by taxes, and it had been putting on shows presented by Roger Ailes. I mean it's really quite basic, people shouldn't be going back and forth from political positions to the independent state broadcast. The state broadcaster should have an open and accountable procedure to deal with factual issues. Neither of those are true, and these systemic issues don't have a neutral political outcome.

hither2 7y ago
What about the rest of the organisation?
- pjc50 7y ago
  What about it? The non-current affairs content is often excellent, especially the BBC4 channel. The further from current affairs, the less the pressure to engage in both-sidesism. "Both-sidesism" doesn't necessarily result in bias, but it does make the content worse; having leftwing nonsense and rightwing nonsense in the same show will result in an equal weight of complaints from both sides, but that doesn't mean the public has been well-informed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
seibelj 7y ago
Perhaps the solution is to stop publicly funding the BBC (and NPR)? They are popular enough to survive on their own. Then all of the arguments are moot.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Perhaps those in favour of continuing public funding of the BBC can explain why people should be forced to pay a licence fee for a channel they don't watch. You get a criminal record - not a minor issue for anyone - if you persist in not paying if at the same time you own and use a TV even if you use it to only watch Japanese wrestling on a non-BBC channel. How would this go down in the US? If you hack your TV to make it impossible to attach an aerial (old style) or a cable service which excludes BBC you might get away with it. I'm not informed on that.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Same reason you pay for fire service even if you don’t burn your house down. It’s a public service, available to you if you want it.
  - sparkie 7y ago
    It used to be the case that you required a TV license merely to possess a TV. This is no longer the case, and you can possess a TV without a license as long as you do not use it to receive any broadcast media. You also need the TV license to use the BBCs online media services, but if you also opt out of those, there's no need to pay the fee. The BBC claim they can detect if you're watching, but this is of course, bullshit. The TV receives broadcast media - it doesn't send anything out. The only way they can catch you is in the act, if you leave your blinds or curtains open and they can see the TV playing live. The main tactic they use to make people pay the license is constant intimidation and threats. There is a form you can fill out to clearly state that you do not use a TV for any of the purposes which require a license fee, but this has little use as the bullies will still come knocking even if you fill it out. The main thing people need is awareness that they do not need to pay the license fee to merely own a TV for watching Netflix or anything not covered by the license. If one of their cronies comes knocking, you tell them to get lost. If they come again, threaten to report them for harassment. If they take you to court, you explain that you don't use the TV for any of the covered purposes and the BBC pays your court costs and leaves you alone after that.
    - 7y ago
Ackshully 7y ago
Seriously, that was ridiculous. Their bias is practically worn on the sleeve. I will never forget the way the BBC "covered" Corbyn, with the heavy handed propaganda techniques and constant repetition of patently ridiculous smears. Meanwhile, that BoJo prick had his gaffes covered over, such as [1]. I'll never forget how the BBC "covered" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and David Kelly. The original article mentions ever so briefly how the BBC "covered" the troubles - it was a constant stream of one sided filth for decades. To this day, coverage of those years remains sheer propaganda, though with less naked venom and foaming at the mouth. So, when people write articles like this implying the BBC walks a tight rope of bias, my stomach churns. Like the Guardian, they never deserved their reputation and have gotten tremendously worse in the last decades. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-boris-johnson-brexit-wreath-laying-cenotaph-footage-wrong-old-tory-bias-a9198521.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-boris-joh...
- mercer 7y ago
  > Like the Guardian, they never deserved their reputation and have gotten tremendously worse in the last decades. Thanks for the comment. As someone from outside the UK I know very little about the BBC. Could you elaborate on your views regarding The Guardian?
  - muglug 7y ago
    The parent comment does not represent the views of most British people FYI. The Guardian has come under fire recently for having a pretty anti-trans editorial board. At the same time, it's still one of the more left-leaning broadsheets in the UK.
  - Ackshully 7y ago
    The Guardian presents itself as Britain's establishment left newspaper, but undermined Labour's leader, the most effective left wing leader in the country, constantly and consistently for years. The Guardian being fake left wing might not be the view of the average Briton, but Chomsky and Klein would agree. The average Briton voted for Brexit then Googled what it meant after they won. Also, I'm not British.
notahacker 7y ago
I mean, the right has a similar critique of the BBC: 'the outgoing Leader of the Opposition's Director of Communications learned his trade from his daddy running the whole BBC', 'The presenter of the BBC's flagship topical news discussion programme has had successful complaints held against her about her treatment of a right wing guest' and 'the BBC is frequently accused of having a liberal bias by its own journalists, including some who aren't notably right leaning or confrontational'. And it's equally insubstantial about actual reporting - with complaints about that having been upheld on both sides for various programmes over the past. Apparently people who present political programmes sometimes have political views and differences of opinions, and sometimes get hired by partisan bodies. Who knew? FWIW the current Director of Communications for the Conservative Party in Number 10 is a guy who was previously employed by an outspokenly Labour-supporting tabloid to chase round previous Conservative PMs dressed as a chicken during election campaigns. And the BBC's most outspokenly conservative journalist Andrew Neil is someone the left were desperate to see interview the Conservative party leader in the run up to the election on the basis they expected Neil to absolutely savage him.
- zimpenfish 7y ago
  > the left were desperate to see [Andrew Neil] interview the Conservative party leader Indeed but it was because all the other party leaders had submitted to his interviewing and it was seen as blatantly unfair that someone with a track record of, let's be nice, wildly inaccurate and misleading statements should be able to skip the process.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    Agreed. But it was also because regardless of his politics being largely aligned with Johnson's and if anything further to the right, Neil could be relied upon to aggressively question Johnson on his inaccurate and misleading statements and track record in government (more so than some of the lighter interviewers who I suspect have considerably greater issues with Johnson and his platform). If they'd thought Neil's [undisputed] personal bias would have lead him to softball or even stan for Johnson rather than challenging all the candidates equally toughly, it would have been different.
muglug 7y ago
> For those in the US who may not understand this, imagine you had a state broadcaster funded by taxes, and it had been putting on shows presented by Roger Ailes. As a British person living in the US, this is absolute nonsense. Roger Ailes used his television network to aggressively present a one-sided view that demonised progressivism, and fed baby-boomers a steady diet of Republican talking points every evening. The BBC has done nothing remotely similar – but it makes a very convenient punching bag for supporters of the previous opposition leader – a man who had the ardent support of the party faithful, but who was incapable of translating that into national appeal.

hither2 7y ago

What about the rest of the organisation?

pjc50 7y ago
What about it? The non-current affairs content is often excellent, especially the BBC4 channel. The further from current affairs, the less the pressure to engage in both-sidesism. "Both-sidesism" doesn't necessarily result in bias, but it does make the content worse; having leftwing nonsense and rightwing nonsense in the same show will result in an equal weight of complaints from both sides, but that doesn't mean the public has been well-informed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

seibelj 7y ago

Perhaps the solution is to stop publicly funding the BBC (and NPR)? They are popular enough to survive on their own. Then all of the arguments are moot.

vixen99 7y ago
Perhaps those in favour of continuing public funding of the BBC can explain why people should be forced to pay a licence fee for a channel they don't watch. You get a criminal record - not a minor issue for anyone - if you persist in not paying if at the same time you own and use a TV even if you use it to only watch Japanese wrestling on a non-BBC channel. How would this go down in the US? If you hack your TV to make it impossible to attach an aerial (old style) or a cable service which excludes BBC you might get away with it. I'm not informed on that.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Same reason you pay for fire service even if you don’t burn your house down. It’s a public service, available to you if you want it.
- sparkie 7y ago
  It used to be the case that you required a TV license merely to possess a TV. This is no longer the case, and you can possess a TV without a license as long as you do not use it to receive any broadcast media. You also need the TV license to use the BBCs online media services, but if you also opt out of those, there's no need to pay the fee. The BBC claim they can detect if you're watching, but this is of course, bullshit. The TV receives broadcast media - it doesn't send anything out. The only way they can catch you is in the act, if you leave your blinds or curtains open and they can see the TV playing live. The main tactic they use to make people pay the license is constant intimidation and threats. There is a form you can fill out to clearly state that you do not use a TV for any of the purposes which require a license fee, but this has little use as the bullies will still come knocking even if you fill it out. The main thing people need is awareness that they do not need to pay the license fee to merely own a TV for watching Netflix or anything not covered by the license. If one of their cronies comes knocking, you tell them to get lost. If they come again, threaten to report them for harassment. If they take you to court, you explain that you don't use the TV for any of the covered purposes and the BBC pays your court costs and leaves you alone after that.
  - 7y ago

Ackshully 7y ago

Seriously, that was ridiculous. Their bias is practically worn on the sleeve. I will never forget the way the BBC "covered" Corbyn, with the heavy handed propaganda techniques and constant repetition of patently ridiculous smears. Meanwhile, that BoJo prick had his gaffes covered over, such as [1]. I'll never forget how the BBC "covered" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and David Kelly. The original article mentions ever so briefly how the BBC "covered" the troubles - it was a constant stream of one sided filth for decades. To this day, coverage of those years remains sheer propaganda, though with less naked venom and foaming at the mouth. So, when people write articles like this implying the BBC walks a tight rope of bias, my stomach churns. Like the Guardian, they never deserved their reputation and have gotten tremendously worse in the last decades. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-boris-johnson-brexit-wreath-laying-cenotaph-footage-wrong-old-tory-bias-a9198521.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-boris-joh...

mercer 7y ago
> Like the Guardian, they never deserved their reputation and have gotten tremendously worse in the last decades. Thanks for the comment. As someone from outside the UK I know very little about the BBC. Could you elaborate on your views regarding The Guardian?
- muglug 7y ago
  The parent comment does not represent the views of most British people FYI. The Guardian has come under fire recently for having a pretty anti-trans editorial board. At the same time, it's still one of the more left-leaning broadsheets in the UK.
- Ackshully 7y ago
  The Guardian presents itself as Britain's establishment left newspaper, but undermined Labour's leader, the most effective left wing leader in the country, constantly and consistently for years. The Guardian being fake left wing might not be the view of the average Briton, but Chomsky and Klein would agree. The average Briton voted for Brexit then Googled what it meant after they won. Also, I'm not British.

notahacker 7y ago

I mean, the right has a similar critique of the BBC: 'the outgoing Leader of the Opposition's Director of Communications learned his trade from his daddy running the whole BBC', 'The presenter of the BBC's flagship topical news discussion programme has had successful complaints held against her about her treatment of a right wing guest' and 'the BBC is frequently accused of having a liberal bias by its own journalists, including some who aren't notably right leaning or confrontational'. And it's equally insubstantial about actual reporting - with complaints about that having been upheld on both sides for various programmes over the past. Apparently people who present political programmes sometimes have political views and differences of opinions, and sometimes get hired by partisan bodies. Who knew? FWIW the current Director of Communications for the Conservative Party in Number 10 is a guy who was previously employed by an outspokenly Labour-supporting tabloid to chase round previous Conservative PMs dressed as a chicken during election campaigns. And the BBC's most outspokenly conservative journalist Andrew Neil is someone the left were desperate to see interview the Conservative party leader in the run up to the election on the basis they expected Neil to absolutely savage him.

zimpenfish 7y ago
> the left were desperate to see [Andrew Neil] interview the Conservative party leader Indeed but it was because all the other party leaders had submitted to his interviewing and it was seen as blatantly unfair that someone with a track record of, let's be nice, wildly inaccurate and misleading statements should be able to skip the process.
- notahacker 7y ago
  Agreed. But it was also because regardless of his politics being largely aligned with Johnson's and if anything further to the right, Neil could be relied upon to aggressively question Johnson on his inaccurate and misleading statements and track record in government (more so than some of the lighter interviewers who I suspect have considerably greater issues with Johnson and his platform). If they'd thought Neil's [undisputed] personal bias would have lead him to softball or even stan for Johnson rather than challenging all the candidates equally toughly, it would have been different.

muglug 7y ago

> For those in the US who may not understand this, imagine you had a state broadcaster funded by taxes, and it had been putting on shows presented by Roger Ailes. As a British person living in the US, this is absolute nonsense. Roger Ailes used his television network to aggressively present a one-sided view that demonised progressivism, and fed baby-boomers a steady diet of Republican talking points every evening. The BBC has done nothing remotely similar – but it makes a very convenient punching bag for supporters of the previous opposition leader – a man who had the ardent support of the party faithful, but who was incapable of translating that into national appeal.