3 ms·

There's a difference between aspiration and execution. Every TV channel will claim they aspire to inform, educate and be diverse. No TV channel in history has s

There's a difference between aspiration and execution. Every TV channel will claim they aspire to inform, educate and be diverse. No TV channel in history has said their goal is to misinform, dumb down and present homogenous uniformity day after day. The BBC is clearly failing at its goals. Most of the UK population no longer trusts its news output; that's huge and a new phenomenon, although of course it's been a long time in coming. Unlike normal TV companies the BBC cannot receive a reality check from the market because people are forced to fund it, so there's no way to break the downward spiral. It just gets worse, every year. Indeed it would be sensible to argue that the BBC's problem is too little government interference, not too much. The government is, at least in theory, accountable to the people. Sure, it's only every 4 years and many different issues are conflated together. But there is at least a vote. The BBC is accountable to nobody. It's not accountable to its viewers. It's not accountable to elected representatives. It is not even really accountable to Ofcom, given the incredibly weak enforcement of the vaguely worded regulations on fairness and neutrality. If you have a complaint about the BBC you can complain to, well, the BBC itself. Or you could complain to an MP who will do nothing because the BBC is de-facto independent of the government. If the BBC were actually controlled by the government then it would have already been forced back to more mainstream political views. The ruling party is very unhappy with the BBC's wokeness and openly biased news (e.g. "Brexit threat to sandwiches" being a memorable headline). That unhappyness is not self-serving politics but rather, reflecting the frustration that their voters are telling both them and opinion pollsters. The public no longer perceives the BBC as "society enhancing" but instead society damaging. Yet, they can do nothing about it. The political will to reform the BBC isn't there.

eynsham 5y ago
> The BBC is clearly failing at its goals. Well, the Proms this year were bound to be disappointing, but I’m sure matters will improve next year. And the cricket commentary is still perfectly sound. > Most of the UK population no longer trusts its news output This is simply untrue: >60% of the population trust the BBC’s news output.¹ > The government is, at least in theory, accountable to the people. It is less accountable when the public broadcaster is under its thumb. This is how e.g. Orban stays in power, and it’s not healthy regardless of the ideology of the person in power. > Sure, it's only every 4 years and many different issues are conflated together. Four years? It sounds like you’re rather unfamiliar with the UK. > The BBC is accountable to nobody The BBC survives because it is popular. Like any Quango or government body, it can be abolished by an act of parliament. If it is special, it is worth asking why it is special—and the most obvious answer is that people like it. You also ignore that there are mechanisms other than accountability to ensure that people do things—institutions can have a culture. All your criticisms could be applied to the UK judiciary, yet its culture precludes certain behaviours that e.g. the prospect of removal from office alone cannot explain. > If the BBC were actually controlled by the government then it would have already been forced back to more mainstream political views. It is amusingly naïve to think that that would be the only response. I prefer having fair elections and avoiding entrenching one party rule to whatever non-mainstream views the BBC propagates. > BBC's wokeness and openly biased news (e.g. "Brexit threat to sandwiches" being a memorable headline) Is that really ‘woke and openly biased’? It’s not that implausible that something in the supply chain is affected by Brexit. The Conservatives, like governments of all stripes, are unhappy with the BBC because it is not in total agreement with government policy, has (excepting a commitment to democracy and human rights) no official stance in the first place making agreement or disagreement with policy something of a category error, and is not entirely under its thumb. That alone isn’t very good evidence of ‘wokeness and open bias’. > The public no longer perceives the BBC as "society enhancing" but instead society damaging. Yet, they can do nothing about it. The political will to reform the BBC isn't there. If turning the BBC into a UK version of CCTV were a popular policy, Boris Johnson would not shy away from it: cf. Brexit. Polling clearly indicates that you are wrong and the BBC is still quite popular: this is far more consistent with the evidence than some mysterious unwillingness to impose the will of Number 10 on the BBC. 1: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021/united-kingdom https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-repo...
- iso1210 5y ago
  > Four years? It sounds like you’re rather unfamiliar with the UK. I agree OP sounds like an uninformed american, but since 1979 there's been an general election every 4 years on average.
- native_samples 5y ago
  I'm British. As the sibling comment has pointed out, my understanding of UK elections is fine. You appear to be arguing that the only way to hold the BBC accountable is to convince Parliament to entirely abolish it, which is rather making my point for me. That is the most limited form of accountability imaginable. Opinion polls on trust in the BBC vary, perhaps by time, but reputable and recent polls show that most people do not trust it any more: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/16/do-britons-trust-press https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1... "YouGov figures show British trust in the press to tell the truth has fallen, with less than half believing BBC news journalists are honest and impartial." This document shows trust in BBC News by year - as you can see it has constantly fallen since 2003, the earliest year they started polling: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/vf1qhxf7kh/YG%20trackers%20-%20Trust.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/vf1qhxf7kh/YG%20trackers%20-%20T... This fall in trust is deserved. If you genuinely believe the "supply chain" for two pieces of bread with some stuff in between could have been disrupted by Brexit then you're exactly the sort of person the BBC is pandering to, which is probably why you don't see the problems. There is nothing special about the BBC beyond its archaic funding model. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, it is being regularly beaten by Netflix, Amazon and other larger scale content producers.
  - eynsham 5y ago
    > As the sibling comment has pointed out, my understanding of UK elections is fine. ‘Every’ is not the same as ‘on average’. > You appear to be arguing that the only way to hold the BBC accountable is to convince Parliament to entirely abolish it, which is rather making my point for me. That is the most limited form of accountability imaginable. ‘There are mechanisms other than accountability’ does in fact appear above. And no, this is simply untrue: the BBC can also be reformed by an act of parliament, or, say, turned into a Quango to farm garlic. > https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1 https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1... > "YouGov figures show British trust in the press to tell the truth has fallen, with less than half believing BBC news journalists are honest and impartial." First of all the BBC suddenly looks rather special according to YouGov (see e.g. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/articles-reports/2020/04/29/no-trust-media-has-not-collapsed-because-coronavir https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/articles-reports/2020/04/2...) for a longer perspective. Second, ‘not much’ is a pretty vague category and not trusting journos much to tell the truth could quite easily encompass still thinking that the Beeb is still all right given the alternatives. This is also confirmed by e.g. this: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/bbc-most-trusted-news-source-2020 https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/bbc-most-trusted-news.... > If you genuinely believe the "supply chain" for two pieces of bread with some stuff in between could have been disrupted by Brexit then you're exactly the sort of person the BBC is pandering to, which is probably why you don't see the problems. I can’t tell whether you’re joking. The article read: > Sandwiches would be one of the first victims of a breakdown in the food supply chain in the event of a disorderly no-deal Brexit, according to a senior grocery executive. This is, simply, er, true. If goods were delayed for a week at the border, we would have a lot of rotten tomatoes and not very much to put in our sandwiches. This seems to be some sort of weird reaction to catastrophising about Brexit where somehow Brexit has no effect on supply chains whatsoever. A ‘disorderly no-deal Brexit’ would have been precisely that. > There is nothing special about the BBC beyond its archaic funding model. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, it is being regularly beaten by Netflix, Amazon and other larger scale content producers. Only somebody who does not consume the output of, say, All India Radio, CCTV, Channel News Asia &al. could say that the BBC is ‘not special’. I find it difficult not to be thankful for the Proms, and for cricket broadcasts without incessant American-style—to be thankful for civilisation, really.

eynsham 5y ago

> The BBC is clearly failing at its goals. Well, the Proms this year were bound to be disappointing, but I’m sure matters will improve next year. And the cricket commentary is still perfectly sound. > Most of the UK population no longer trusts its news output This is simply untrue: >60% of the population trust the BBC’s news output.¹ > The government is, at least in theory, accountable to the people. It is less accountable when the public broadcaster is under its thumb. This is how e.g. Orban stays in power, and it’s not healthy regardless of the ideology of the person in power. > Sure, it's only every 4 years and many different issues are conflated together. Four years? It sounds like you’re rather unfamiliar with the UK. > The BBC is accountable to nobody The BBC survives because it is popular. Like any Quango or government body, it can be abolished by an act of parliament. If it is special, it is worth asking why it is special—and the most obvious answer is that people like it. You also ignore that there are mechanisms other than accountability to ensure that people do things—institutions can have a culture. All your criticisms could be applied to the UK judiciary, yet its culture precludes certain behaviours that e.g. the prospect of removal from office alone cannot explain. > If the BBC were actually controlled by the government then it would have already been forced back to more mainstream political views. It is amusingly naïve to think that that would be the only response. I prefer having fair elections and avoiding entrenching one party rule to whatever non-mainstream views the BBC propagates. > BBC's wokeness and openly biased news (e.g. "Brexit threat to sandwiches" being a memorable headline) Is that really ‘woke and openly biased’? It’s not that implausible that something in the supply chain is affected by Brexit. The Conservatives, like governments of all stripes, are unhappy with the BBC because it is not in total agreement with government policy, has (excepting a commitment to democracy and human rights) no official stance in the first place making agreement or disagreement with policy something of a category error, and is not entirely under its thumb. That alone isn’t very good evidence of ‘wokeness and open bias’. > The public no longer perceives the BBC as "society enhancing" but instead society damaging. Yet, they can do nothing about it. The political will to reform the BBC isn't there. If turning the BBC into a UK version of CCTV were a popular policy, Boris Johnson would not shy away from it: cf. Brexit. Polling clearly indicates that you are wrong and the BBC is still quite popular: this is far more consistent with the evidence than some mysterious unwillingness to impose the will of Number 10 on the BBC. 1: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021/united-kingdom https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-repo...

iso1210 5y ago
> Four years? It sounds like you’re rather unfamiliar with the UK. I agree OP sounds like an uninformed american, but since 1979 there's been an general election every 4 years on average.
native_samples 5y ago
I'm British. As the sibling comment has pointed out, my understanding of UK elections is fine. You appear to be arguing that the only way to hold the BBC accountable is to convince Parliament to entirely abolish it, which is rather making my point for me. That is the most limited form of accountability imaginable. Opinion polls on trust in the BBC vary, perhaps by time, but reputable and recent polls show that most people do not trust it any more: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/16/do-britons-trust-press https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1... "YouGov figures show British trust in the press to tell the truth has fallen, with less than half believing BBC news journalists are honest and impartial." This document shows trust in BBC News by year - as you can see it has constantly fallen since 2003, the earliest year they started polling: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/vf1qhxf7kh/YG%20trackers%20-%20Trust.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/vf1qhxf7kh/YG%20trackers%20-%20T... This fall in trust is deserved. If you genuinely believe the "supply chain" for two pieces of bread with some stuff in between could have been disrupted by Brexit then you're exactly the sort of person the BBC is pandering to, which is probably why you don't see the problems. There is nothing special about the BBC beyond its archaic funding model. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, it is being regularly beaten by Netflix, Amazon and other larger scale content producers.
- eynsham 5y ago
  > As the sibling comment has pointed out, my understanding of UK elections is fine. ‘Every’ is not the same as ‘on average’. > You appear to be arguing that the only way to hold the BBC accountable is to convince Parliament to entirely abolish it, which is rather making my point for me. That is the most limited form of accountability imaginable. ‘There are mechanisms other than accountability’ does in fact appear above. And no, this is simply untrue: the BBC can also be reformed by an act of parliament, or, say, turned into a Quango to farm garlic. > https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1 https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1... > "YouGov figures show British trust in the press to tell the truth has fallen, with less than half believing BBC news journalists are honest and impartial." First of all the BBC suddenly looks rather special according to YouGov (see e.g. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/articles-reports/2020/04/29/no-trust-media-has-not-collapsed-because-coronavir https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/articles-reports/2020/04/2...) for a longer perspective. Second, ‘not much’ is a pretty vague category and not trusting journos much to tell the truth could quite easily encompass still thinking that the Beeb is still all right given the alternatives. This is also confirmed by e.g. this: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/bbc-most-trusted-news-source-2020 https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/bbc-most-trusted-news.... > If you genuinely believe the "supply chain" for two pieces of bread with some stuff in between could have been disrupted by Brexit then you're exactly the sort of person the BBC is pandering to, which is probably why you don't see the problems. I can’t tell whether you’re joking. The article read: > Sandwiches would be one of the first victims of a breakdown in the food supply chain in the event of a disorderly no-deal Brexit, according to a senior grocery executive. This is, simply, er, true. If goods were delayed for a week at the border, we would have a lot of rotten tomatoes and not very much to put in our sandwiches. This seems to be some sort of weird reaction to catastrophising about Brexit where somehow Brexit has no effect on supply chains whatsoever. A ‘disorderly no-deal Brexit’ would have been precisely that. > There is nothing special about the BBC beyond its archaic funding model. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, it is being regularly beaten by Netflix, Amazon and other larger scale content producers. Only somebody who does not consume the output of, say, All India Radio, CCTV, Channel News Asia &al. could say that the BBC is ‘not special’. I find it difficult not to be thankful for the Proms, and for cricket broadcasts without incessant American-style—to be thankful for civilisation, really.