50 ms·

> If you wonder why the answer is successive Tory government don't like the BBC at an ideological and personal level (hence why the BBC ends up having to pay th

> If you wonder why the answer is successive Tory government don't like the BBC at an ideological and personal level (hence why the BBC ends up having to pay the once free licence fees of old people) The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills took control of the editorial policy of not just the BBC but also print media. For anyone not familiar with the debate, the BBC is inexorably accused of both being too left wing and too right wing by various loudmouths. > Even if you pay the licence fee they are still overly limited in what they can let you watch - in doing so the regulators have probably killed off the BBC's long term prospects amongst the younger generation (no one my age watches TV by default anymore) That's because the content is absolutely appalling. I speak as a BBC fan and proponent historically. Both TV and Radio output quality has been absolutely eviscerated in the last 10 or so years, for various reasons and by certain kinds of persons. I challenge anyone to go to this link for tomorrow: https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p/2020/09/26 https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p/2020/09/26 and tell me how the premier/flagship BBC channel content on a Friday there remotely represents balanced quality output? In prime time there are 3 reality/talent shows and Casualty, a terrible budget soap opera that's been endured for the last 35 years (with multiple spin offs) as well as a close to zero budget quiz show. That's the "good" content, the rest is even more miserable. How does that even remotely represent value for the $4billion a year they take by statutory arrangement?

JdeBP 6y ago
That's only BBC One. BBC Two, BBC Four, and BBC News also exist. Of course, if one only looks at one channel things seem lopsided. Providing different services on different channels was partly the point.
- easytiger 6y ago
  > Providing different services on different channels was partly the point. No, BBC one's remit is not to just show fluffy nonsense It's remit is in fact: > BBC One’s remit is to be the BBC’s most popular mixed-genre television service across the UK, offering a wide range of high quality programmes. It should be the BBC’s primary outlet for major UK and international events and it should reflect the whole of the UK in its output. A very high proportion of its programmes should be original productions.
  - JdeBP 6y ago
    No. The BBC One service description is actually: > a mixed-genre channel, with versions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and variations for English regions and the Channel Islands, providing a very broad range of programmes to a mainstream audience; As I said, the different channels are different services, which is partly the point. BBC Four's service description is, for example: > a channel providing an intellectually and culturally enriching alternative to mainstream programming on other BBC channels;
    - easytiger 6y ago
      My item was a direct quote from the BBC trust's description of the channel remit. Indeed it was the remit in full
      - JdeBP 6y ago
        Well I've gone one better than you by quoting the formal public service description that is part of the formal list of "UK Public Services" under the Agreement between the BBC and the U.K. Government. There are eight television services, not just BBC One as you had it, and they are different services on different channels.
        easytiger 6y ago
        So you deny the remit of BBC one is as stated and the BBC doesn't operate under that principle?
        michaelt 6y ago
        Is there a difference between being "most popular, wide range, mixed-genre" and being "mainstream audience, broad range, mixed-genre" ?
        easytiger 6y ago
        > offering a wide range of high quality programmes How often do you watch a show on BBC One?
ArgyleSound 6y ago
> The unelected Labour opposition ???
- easytiger 6y ago
  *failed to win the election, unelected to government
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    They were elected... to be the opposition. They’re the elected opposition. If they were unelected they couldn’t be the opposition.
    - easytiger 6y ago
      They were not elected to government,i.e. the cabinet and office of prime minister
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Right... they were elected to be... the opposition. Isn't that what we were saying? You sound like you aren't aware that Leader of the Opposition is actually an official paid position, listed in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937. You can only get this official position by being a member of parliament (voted in all practical modern cases and in this case), and representing the minority party. So they're in an elected official position, sworn to the Crown, with actual responsibilities and pay, set out in concrete legislation - and that's actually pretty rare in the British constitution!
        easytiger 6y ago
        And yet, they aren't the government and in no position to implement policy. Do you have a point of any substance to make?
- MrsPeaches 6y ago
MrsPeaches 6y ago
Are you saying that Labour controls print media and the BBC in the UK?
- easytiger 6y ago
  > Are you saying that Labour controls print media and the BBC in the UK? No, how did you arrive at that invalid summation?
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    Possibly because: "The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills" is difficult to understand.
    - easytiger 6y ago
      How so? It seems unambiguously straightforward to me on reflection.
      - pmachinery 6y ago
        For one thing, as other people are trying to explain, opposition parties are not "unelected". It's also unclear, to me at least, what you mean by "proposed" and by "shills" and who these people are, specifically, who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour.
        easytiger 6y ago
        > opposition parties are not "unelected". unelected to government. > , who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour. I didn't use a present tense. Corbyn et al had a proposal to take control of editorial departments of major newspapers and tv media to set the agenda. Your difficulty in reading comprehension is hardly relevant to the point
faceplanted 6y ago
> Both TV and Radio output quality has been absolutely eviscerated in the last 10 or so years Who was in power all that time?
- easytiger 6y ago
  Are you suggesting the editorial direction has been set by the government? Please provide evidence if so
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The BBC is overseen by a government minister
    - easytiger 6y ago
      The BBC is fully independent and there are multiple levels of oversight to ensure that. I'm sure you can furiously Google a more apt response than that. Evidence please
    - iso1631 6y ago
      Massively arms length. The head of the Radio division is literally an ex Labour minister, in Blair/Brown government.
  - throwaday2234 6y ago
    The BBC, to me, over the last 2-3 years has demonstrated massive pro-Conservative party bias. The mechanism for that is not apparent, but look at Kuenssberg and you see someone who has regularly been followed by accusations of strong bias with ultimately, it seems, nothing being done about it. To my view she (or the team she's in?) directly interfered in the last election; she didn't seem to be hindered in any way. Someone caught divisively lying on several occasions (each damaging Corbyn/Labour) yet remaining in post says to me their is political control over the BBC. She did grill Johnson after the election when it no longer mattered though. Ironically Radio 4 (taken as a whole) seems to provide a reasonably level playing field; but their listeners are a small fraction of BBC1's viewers. I think the parties involved are smart enough not to leave evidence lying around in public. The "postal vote" debacle was either a direct attack on democracy, out in the open, or a complete failure of the entire editorial team that should have seen them immediately sacked. Interestingly the Cabinet Secretary, head of the civil Service - which headlines itself as having open public recruitment - was chosen by Johnson on entry to Downing Street. My personal opinion is this is a drip-drip-drip erosion of balance to allow the current government fascististic levels of control. Most recently reports are that some satirical comedy shows are being stopped as the government see them as too critical of Tories and not critical enough of others (they must have forgotten who is in power). How is it possible the BBC aren't being interfered with in removing some of their most popular domestic broadcasting when the only extent reasoning is 'to reduce on-air criticism of the current government'. I'm sure you'll wave your hand and say this is all anecdote. In general Trump's playbook has been copied by Johnson, control of media/reporting is a part of that.

JdeBP 6y ago

That's only BBC One. BBC Two, BBC Four, and BBC News also exist. Of course, if one only looks at one channel things seem lopsided. Providing different services on different channels was partly the point.

easytiger 6y ago
> Providing different services on different channels was partly the point. No, BBC one's remit is not to just show fluffy nonsense It's remit is in fact: > BBC One’s remit is to be the BBC’s most popular mixed-genre television service across the UK, offering a wide range of high quality programmes. It should be the BBC’s primary outlet for major UK and international events and it should reflect the whole of the UK in its output. A very high proportion of its programmes should be original productions.
- JdeBP 6y ago
  No. The BBC One service description is actually: > a mixed-genre channel, with versions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and variations for English regions and the Channel Islands, providing a very broad range of programmes to a mainstream audience; As I said, the different channels are different services, which is partly the point. BBC Four's service description is, for example: > a channel providing an intellectually and culturally enriching alternative to mainstream programming on other BBC channels;
  - easytiger 6y ago
    My item was a direct quote from the BBC trust's description of the channel remit. Indeed it was the remit in full
    - JdeBP 6y ago
      Well I've gone one better than you by quoting the formal public service description that is part of the formal list of "UK Public Services" under the Agreement between the BBC and the U.K. Government. There are eight television services, not just BBC One as you had it, and they are different services on different channels.
      - easytiger 6y ago
        So you deny the remit of BBC one is as stated and the BBC doesn't operate under that principle?
        michaelt 6y ago
        Is there a difference between being "most popular, wide range, mixed-genre" and being "mainstream audience, broad range, mixed-genre" ?
        easytiger 6y ago
        > offering a wide range of high quality programmes How often do you watch a show on BBC One?

ArgyleSound 6y ago

> The unelected Labour opposition ???

easytiger 6y ago
*failed to win the election, unelected to government
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  They were elected... to be the opposition. They’re the elected opposition. If they were unelected they couldn’t be the opposition.
  - easytiger 6y ago
    They were not elected to government,i.e. the cabinet and office of prime minister
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Right... they were elected to be... the opposition. Isn't that what we were saying? You sound like you aren't aware that Leader of the Opposition is actually an official paid position, listed in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937. You can only get this official position by being a member of parliament (voted in all practical modern cases and in this case), and representing the minority party. So they're in an elected official position, sworn to the Crown, with actual responsibilities and pay, set out in concrete legislation - and that's actually pretty rare in the British constitution!
      - easytiger 6y ago
        And yet, they aren't the government and in no position to implement policy. Do you have a point of any substance to make?
MrsPeaches 6y ago

MrsPeaches 6y ago

Are you saying that Labour controls print media and the BBC in the UK?

easytiger 6y ago
> Are you saying that Labour controls print media and the BBC in the UK? No, how did you arrive at that invalid summation?
- pmachinery 6y ago
  Possibly because: "The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills" is difficult to understand.
  - easytiger 6y ago
    How so? It seems unambiguously straightforward to me on reflection.
    - pmachinery 6y ago
      For one thing, as other people are trying to explain, opposition parties are not "unelected". It's also unclear, to me at least, what you mean by "proposed" and by "shills" and who these people are, specifically, who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour.
      - easytiger 6y ago
        > opposition parties are not "unelected". unelected to government. > , who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour. I didn't use a present tense. Corbyn et al had a proposal to take control of editorial departments of major newspapers and tv media to set the agenda. Your difficulty in reading comprehension is hardly relevant to the point

faceplanted 6y ago

> Both TV and Radio output quality has been absolutely eviscerated in the last 10 or so years Who was in power all that time?

easytiger 6y ago
Are you suggesting the editorial direction has been set by the government? Please provide evidence if so
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The BBC is overseen by a government minister
  - easytiger 6y ago
    The BBC is fully independent and there are multiple levels of oversight to ensure that. I'm sure you can furiously Google a more apt response than that. Evidence please
  - iso1631 6y ago
    Massively arms length. The head of the Radio division is literally an ex Labour minister, in Blair/Brown government.
- throwaday2234 6y ago
  The BBC, to me, over the last 2-3 years has demonstrated massive pro-Conservative party bias. The mechanism for that is not apparent, but look at Kuenssberg and you see someone who has regularly been followed by accusations of strong bias with ultimately, it seems, nothing being done about it. To my view she (or the team she's in?) directly interfered in the last election; she didn't seem to be hindered in any way. Someone caught divisively lying on several occasions (each damaging Corbyn/Labour) yet remaining in post says to me their is political control over the BBC. She did grill Johnson after the election when it no longer mattered though. Ironically Radio 4 (taken as a whole) seems to provide a reasonably level playing field; but their listeners are a small fraction of BBC1's viewers. I think the parties involved are smart enough not to leave evidence lying around in public. The "postal vote" debacle was either a direct attack on democracy, out in the open, or a complete failure of the entire editorial team that should have seen them immediately sacked. Interestingly the Cabinet Secretary, head of the civil Service - which headlines itself as having open public recruitment - was chosen by Johnson on entry to Downing Street. My personal opinion is this is a drip-drip-drip erosion of balance to allow the current government fascististic levels of control. Most recently reports are that some satirical comedy shows are being stopped as the government see them as too critical of Tories and not critical enough of others (they must have forgotten who is in power). How is it possible the BBC aren't being interfered with in removing some of their most popular domestic broadcasting when the only extent reasoning is 'to reduce on-air criticism of the current government'. I'm sure you'll wave your hand and say this is all anecdote. In general Trump's playbook has been copied by Johnson, control of media/reporting is a part of that.