|
As I expected, the usual suspects supporting the BBC and ordinary citizens tending to agree with my point of view.
|
As I expected, the usual suspects supporting the BBC and ordinary citizens tending to agree with my point of view.
Usual suspect is another badge I'll wear with pride.
I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that those (in this forum) agreeing with your pov are 'ordinary citizens'.
|
As I expected, the usual suspects supporting the BBC and ordinary citizens tending to agree with my point of view.
Usual suspect is another badge I'll wear with pride.
I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that those (in this forum) agreeing with your pov are 'ordinary citizens'.
That's rather harsh, Bromp. What would you call an 'ordinary citizen' then?
|
That's rather harsh, Bromp. What would you call an 'ordinary citizen' then?
I meant ordinary citizen in sense of the man on (or perhaps waiting for!!) the Clapham Omnibus.
|
That's rather harsh, Bromp. What would you call an 'ordinary citizen' then?
I meant ordinary citizen in sense of the man on (or perhaps waiting for!!) the Clapham Omnibus.
To be fair to galileo, opinion polling has shown support for scrapping the TV licence in favour of a opt-in subscription model in the region of 60-75%. I'd say that represents a significant majority viewpoint. Whether it stays that way, who knows, but I wouldn't be suprised if it hardened.
Somehow I doubt if the condescending comments of BBC execs and series producers have helped either, especially after numeorus complaints about woke behaviour and low quality output on many programmes, or them and actors giving fans the proverbial middle finger when they complain about their favourite shows, or well-loved staff getting the boot because they're 'too old', men or no 'diverse enough'.
We should be able to choose whether we want to pay for the BBC or not, and shouldn't have to pay for it if we don't watch any of its output. The top brass who went in front of the Select Ctte recently failed to grasp that - all the streaming services cost quite a bit, but we can choose what to watch and pay for.
At most, the licence fee should be a basic amount, say £25, to cover news and other public service broadcasting and on their website. Everything else should be subscription only - only then will they be truly accountable to their viewership, and will survive or otherwise based on how popular/widely regarded their output is. Nobody seems to have a problem with the commercial channels on that score.
Channel 4 should also be sold off and left to fend for themselves. I also believe that the TV news and current affairs output (including online and radio) from TV channels should be more highly scrutinised for not being unbiased.
|
I also believe that the TV news and current affairs output (including online and radio) from TV channels should be more highly scrutinised for not being unbiased.
By who. Would that be by Boris and his right wing mates or Jeremy and his left wing mates.
Political opinions are like a*** oles, we all have one. But I will say now that there is no way on this planet that I would want Boris in charge of dictating what is correct. He is a proven liar.
|
I also believe that the TV news and current affairs output (including online and radio) from TV channels should be more highly scrutinised for not being unbiased.
By who. Would that be by Boris and his right wing mates or Jeremy and his left wing mates.
Political opinions are like a*** oles, we all have one. But I will say now that there is no way on this planet that I would want Boris in charge of dictating what is correct. He is a proven liar.
Very few politician don't lie, and most who don't also are naive idiots. What most of us want are news reports that JUST report the news, not give the journalists personal (politicised) slant or that of an 'editorial' bias for or against one political viewpoint or another. Leave that to newspapers.
And that doesn't mean that Boris and others (including occasionally on the Left) don't have a point when accusing the BBC, or Ch4 News, or (now) SKY News of having their own agenda, whether to push a political view, party or pressure group, to frame a debate or to 'get' someone (e.g. someone they or their Editorial staff politically or presonally disagree with) or a political party the dislike.
TV news in particular via its 'in-ye-face' method of delivery has a very important role in reporting news fairly, even if that means it going back to the more 'boring' content before US-style sensationalism and bias crept in during the 1990s. That is why such providers should be properly (and independently) regulated and hauled over the coals when they do not live up to their promises.
I don't want a 'balance' of biased left and right-wing reporting, or (often as it is now), centre-left woke Blairites with a smattering of hard-leftists and the odd right-winger, I want just news reporting. Staff should leave their political and personal opinions about issues and people at home and do their jobs like professionals. I suspect that's what most of us have done in our working lives. If they can't, then they can leave and go work for a newspaper or US media outlet.
In deference to your film (Dirty Harry, a fave of mine, but not exactly PC, comrade) quotation, TV and radio news/current affairs output should just stick to 'just the facts, just the facts'.
|
|
<< I want just news reporting. Staff should leave their political and personal opinions about issues and people at home and do their jobs like professionals. >>
That sounds very idealistic. I don't think you could have an acceptable news programme where the interviewer posed only mild non-leading questions. I am sometimes irritated that they have to avoid asking some really testing ones, but I guess they are obliged not to lead too strongly (A Neil excepted). But then I suspect you might accuse them of political bias. Can't win.
|
<< I want just news reporting. Staff should leave their political and personal opinions about issues and people at home and do their jobs like professionals. >>
That sounds very idealistic. I don't think you could have an acceptable news programme where the interviewer posed only mild non-leading questions. I am sometimes irritated that they have to avoid asking some really testing ones, but I guess they are obliged not to lead too strongly (A Neil excepted). But then I suspect you might accuse them of political bias. Can't win.
The interviewer should have enough competency and professionalism to be able to ask searching questions to scrutinise politicians' actions (and that of anyone) without bringing any person bias or agenda into it, especially by asking leading questions that have only two answers deliberately designed to make the interviewee look bad.
I've seen many interviews from the past (from the 1960s, 70s and even the 80s) where this was done, politely but firmly, and even when the politician tried to evade a legitimate question, it was obvious to the viewer that they were and that in itself looked bad. I think back then, politicians were more willing (and able) to go into more detail and even say 'I don't know', rather than the 'carefully scripted' non-answers many now use, often because a large number of politicians are either from the legal or journalistic professions.
Changes on both sides have been a long time coming (since the 1990s), but what I dislike is how many people think it's all the fault of the politicians. It's just as much the journalists. Even Andrew Neil, whom I normally have great respect for (one of a very small number working on the BBC), has of late gone down the 'sensationalist gotcha' path - as evidenced by the interviews around the last two General Elections, which, frankly, did not bring anything to us voters that we didn't already know.
His work on This Week and the Daily Politics show have been far superior. Maybe he thought he needed to 'make a splash' to keep his job after getting sidelined on the latter and the former being cancelled.
|
|
|
<< ... there is no way on this planet that I would want Boris in charge of dictating what is correct. He is a proven liar. >>
Never mind him being a liar - he usually knows little about what he is talking about, which is just as bad.
|
<< ... there is no way on this planet that I would want Boris in charge of dictating what is correct. He is a proven liar. >>
Never mind him being a liar - he usually knows little about what he is talking about, which is just as bad.
Very few politicians do, including the vast majority on the Opposition front bench. And those that do are often 'too close' to the front (or those working there) to be able to give a truly objective view - case in point with Keir Starmer.
What a PM should be about is leadership. After all, many execs of companies are not versed in what the company actually does, e.g. producing goods, engineering, other technical things, but as long as they can lead and draw on expertise further down, and have the head for the general direction of what should be done, then good.
Anyhoo, rather straying from the original topic I think. As I said before, public opinion has swayed significantly against the BBC of late, and not just for their news and political coverage either, or just how much the TV licence costs or that we should pay it at all even if we don't use (or much) their services.
The PM and other politicians (anyone really) have every right to air their greivances, whereby we can judge whether they are justified (and to the degree) or not. That some don't want this debate to take place at all rather shows that many agendas are at work.
Better to have this all out in the open. It's been a LONG time coming.
|
|
<< .... public opinion has swayed significantly against the BBC of late, and not just for their news and political coverage either, or just how much the TV licence costs or that we should pay it at all even if we don't use (or much) their services. >>
The problem is historical. In pre-ITV days the licence entitled people to receive radio and TV programmes, which all came from the BBC. The position was clear - if you didn't pay the fee, you were 'stealing' entertainment from those who did. The arrival of ITV and pirate radio changed the whole game, but the fee system didn't change. Ads paid for the outsiders while the BBC used the income.
The system has to change somewhere. A BBC with ads will be no better (or worse) than the other channels. If my recorder was clever enough to skip ITV (or BBC) ads automatically I would be happy.
|
|
|
|
That's rather harsh, Bromp. What would you call an 'ordinary citizen' then?
I meant ordinary citizen in sense of the man on (or perhaps waiting for!!) the Clapham Omnibus.
The fact that you suggest the man on the Clapham omnibus proves my point. Talk to the man in the street in the 'Red Wall' areas and the general opinion wold be different.
I respect your and Alan's right to disagree with me, I should make clear that years ago I too would have praised the BBC.
In the days when the BBC meant the Home Service, the Light and Third Programmes on radio and BBC 1 and 2, it was an exemplary broadcaster, with a justified worldwide reputation for truth and fairness.
Since then it diversified and, I suggest spread it's talent too thin in trying to compete with the commercial channels. (Why is it concerned with viewing figures? They need the numbers to attract advertisers, the BBC doesn't)
Its renowned impartiality also seemed diminished, compare the old "Any Questions" with "Question Time", quite different atmosphere and audience.
BBC programmes from years ago are still popular on TV Gold, YouTube and other cable channnels (no doubt a source of revenue) yet few current offerings seem of the same quality.
To return to my initial post, what irritated me was the attitude "see how generous we are" which is the same as the grants the U handed back from our own contributions to its coffers.
Edited by galileo on 14/03/2020 at 20:42
|
|
I seem to be on my way toward a 180 degree turn regarding the BBC. For a long time I have been dismayed and generally bemused by their behaviour. From being the paragon of broadcasting and an example to any organisation wishing to entertain and inform the BBC has morphed into something that seems a complete anathema to the original charter. I was always willing to pay for quality, but sadly now they are just 'me too' as far as programming and content is concerned. I also believe biased when it comes to pet projects and ideals of the senior executives. As for pay levels; Lineker and company are certainly not worth the price we pay for there 'services'. Jeremy Vine is another, but the list is long and depressing. I am a qualified engineer. I have held some senior roles in large multi national companies with a fair degree of responsibility. I would swop my pay grade with Lineker any day. Except for one thing, he could not do my job as long as his backside looked downwards. However this has never been a meritocracy so you can earn more with a set of darts than you can as a brain surgeon! Twas ever thus. I now think that a licence fee is becoming indefensible. despite the good things the BBC does it does not need our money to do them. It can surely raise money like every other commercial broadcaster. That of course would not leave room for executives and management to promulgate their own agenda onto the general population. Like my previous employment, commercial decisions require decision makers who carry the can. Low and behold they can be sacked also. When was the last time anyone heard of any BBC executive or manager being sacked for poor performance or incompetence?
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Whatever one might think of the BBC - and I share many of Concrete's concerns - it's becoming more and more anomalous, wth so many TV options, that every TV user has to pay a licence fee.
It must be possible technologically for people to opt out of paying the licence fee and thus not being able to get BBC if they don't want it. Some sort of password system maybe.
The alternative is the BBC accepting advertising, which is more controversial - although commercial TV adverts are no more irritating than the BBC's endless trailering of its own programmes.
|
|
The BBC has put a lot more free series on catch up on Sky to keep folks entertained through the current crises.
|
The BBC has put a lot more free series on catch up on Sky to keep folks entertained through the current crises.
Very good. I hope they put this material on their i player facility too. Everyone seems to pulling the same direction. My mobile provider has increased my phone, text and data package at no extra cost because they say people are keeping in touch via phones, texts, whatsapp etc etc.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
|
