Paying your licence fee doesn&#x27;t make you Director General

OP

Original post by 061016

BBC is too left wing
BBC is too right wing
BBC is too pro-Palestine and anti-Israel
BBC is Islamaphobic
BBC is anti-semetic

That is a perfect summary of the debate.

The moment the BBC stops trying so hard and stands up for itself is the moment it becomes relevant again.

Outrage is not news and reasonable criticism is not measured by volume.

Reply 3

anarchism101

17

The BBC doesn't so much have political bias as prejudices that influence its news (though these generally don't particularly favour either major party). Compared to other TV media networks, I'd say the BBC is more 'traditional', in the sense that it is more celebratory of longstanding British institutions like the Monarchy, Parliament, Anglican Church, Rememberance Day, etc.

Other than that, the prejudices of the BBC are similar to other TV news media - coverage of foreign events is typically simplistic, fitted into easy-to-understand-but-not-entirely-accurate tropes, and contextual explanation is quite thin and doesn't go back more than a few years. For example, virtually no explanation of the Syrian Civil War will try to provide any substantial information on events prior to the 2011 protests.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by anarchism101

The BBC doesn't so much have political bias as prejudices that influence its news (though these generally don't particularly favour either major party). Compared to other TV media networks, I'd say the BBC is more 'traditional', in the sense that it is more celebratory of longstanding British institutions like the Monarchy, Parliament, Anglican Church, Rememberance Day, etc.

Other than that, the prejudices of the BBC are similar to other TV news media - coverage of foreign events is typically simplistic, fitted into easy-to-understand-but-not-entirely-accurate tropes, and contextual explanation is quite thin and doesn't go back more than a few years. For example, virtually no explanation of the Syrian Civil War will try to provide any substantial information on events prior to the 2011 protests.

I can't disagree with any of this.

There has been a significant dumbing down in recent years, however. This is true of all media as it tries to compete with clickbait. The BBC, however, should be immune to because of the licence fee, yet has taken to such practices like a fly to ****.

The recent Charlie Hebdo "Outrage" was the perfect case in point. They offered zero context, choosing instead to report the outrage as if fact.

If the BBC cannot defend its reason for being then I see no point in defending the BBC.

Reply 5

In every country I've visited, people have expressed absolute incredulity that we talk about and treat the BBC in the way we do. It's revered all over the world - a perfect example of 'soft power', by the way. But it's impartiality, freedom from government inference and venerability is something which most other similar organisations attempt to emulate. It's a typically British thing that we berate something so valuable and only realise that were we to loose it and have it replaced by FOX or NBC or MediaSet.

Reply 6

Original post by anarchism101

The BBC doesn't so much have political bias as prejudices that influence its news (though these generally don't particularly favour either major party). Compared to other TV media networks, I'd say the BBC is more 'traditional', in the sense that it is more celebratory of longstanding British institutions like the Monarchy, Parliament, Anglican Church, Rememberance Day, etc.

Other than that, the prejudices of the BBC are similar to other TV news media - coverage of foreign events is typically simplistic, fitted into easy-to-understand-but-not-entirely-accurate tropes, and contextual explanation is quite thin and doesn't go back more than a few years. For example, virtually no explanation of the Syrian Civil War will try to provide any substantial information on events prior to the 2011 protests.

I think this is disingenuous. The BBC aims to serve every corner of the country, and every viewer. Central tendency has to be the aim of news output as a consequence - of course the informed viewer like you would like to see some more depth and perhaps even intellectual rigour in international affairs coverage, but most people don't or wouldn't necessarily be able to understand it anyway. There has to be a balance struck between effective coverage and digestibility.

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Reality Check

In every country I've visited, people have expressed absolute incredulity that we talk about and treat the BBC in the way we do. It's revered all over the world - a perfect example of 'soft power', by the way. But it's impartiality, freedom from government inference and venerability is something which most other similar organisations attempt to emulate. It's a typically British thing that we berate something so valuable and only realise that were we to loose it and have it replaced by FOX or NBC or MediaSet.

I have always agreed with this sentiment, but over the last 10 years its standards and practices have altered. The moment it backed down to pressure over Johnathon Ross/ Russell Brand it has been undignified in its grovelling to the perpetually outraged.

It cannot do the things it needs to without a backbone and if it continues to apologise for existing, while placating these people, it might as well become NBC.

Reply 8

Original post by Damien96

I have always agreed with this sentiment, but over the last 10 years its standards and practices have altered. The moment it backed down to pressure over Johnathon Ross/ Russell Brand it has been undignified in its grovelling to the perpetually outraged.

It cannot do the things it needs to without a backbone and if it continues to apologise for existing, while placating these people, it might as well become NBC.

I agree with you - the more it shamefacedly apologies for being, well, just being, the more its opponents smell blood. I agree with David Baddiel's views this week regarding the BBC - maybe it does need to be less ashamed of having an identity, and that identity has to be something tangible. Nevertheless, it's ability to mock itself undermines those who criticise it for being lofty or above any reproach. Can you imagine Fox making W1A?

Original post by 061016

BBC is too left wing
BBC is too right wing
BBC is too pro-Palestine and anti-Israel
BBC is Islamaphobic
BBC is anti-semetic

Banned? What?

Reply 10

Willy Pete

3

People still pay for a TV licence? Bunch of suckers.

Never heard of putlocker?

Reply 11

OP

Original post by Reality Check

I agree with you - the more it shamefacedly apologies for being, well, just being, the more its opponents smell blood. I agree with David Baddiel's views this week regarding the BBC - maybe it does need to be less ashamed of having an identity, and that identity has to be something tangible. Nevertheless, it's ability to mock itself undermines those who criticise it for being lofty or above any reproach. Can you imagine Fox making W1A?

I always thought this lofty accusation is about 4 decades out of date. In some ways I wish it were more lofty. It should certainly be able to rise above most of the accusations against it.

Unfortuntely the BBC is patient X regarding squeamishness of offence. That's bad enough when it comes to comedy and drama but is utterly unforgiveable when it relates to the news.

I'd prefer to not compare it to such a low bar as Fox. It's unique funding not only allows it to aspire to more, it impels it.

Reply 12

username1539513

21

People still watch TV? :laugh:

Reply 13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0fQaqupkw

Quaint, isn't it. They also read newspapers that are printed and don't feel the need to upload naked photos of themselves onto social media sites.

Weird, huh?!

Reply 14

PrinceHarrys

5

Reply 15

username1539513

21

Original post by Reality Check

Quaint, isn't it. They also read newspapers that are printed and don't feel the need to upload naked photos of themselves onto social media sites.

Weird, huh?!

I read newspapers too but I wouldn't pay the BBC's license fee just for the privilege of finding stuff out I can go online for. I'm just not that bothered about watching TV

Reply 16

But why do you think news is free? Where do you think the 'stuff online' comes from? It doesn't just fall out of the sky, gratis.

Reply 17

username1539513

21

Original post by Reality Check

But why do you think news is free? Where do you think the 'stuff online' comes from? It doesn't just fall out of the sky, gratis.

I know that the BBC is a business and it's products aren't free but the quality of TV these days is atrocious. Until they make it more interesting I have no incentive to sign up for a TV license. I'm quite happy as I am

Reply 18

OP