Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Paying your licence fee doesn't make you Director General Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Somewhere along the line the BBC persuaded everyone that their opinion mattered. It doesn't. While I have enormous problems with parts of the organisation, one of them being they're so spineless, the snidey right-wing attempts at sabotage and the false outrage of the left should be ignored.

    The BBC has provided some of the best TV in the world, it can only do this by growing a pair and standing for something.

    http://thesatedire.com/entertainment...bc-claims-man/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People still pay for a TV licence? Bunch of suckers.

    Never heard of putlocker?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People still watch TV? :laugh:
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    People still watch TV? :laugh:
    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?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    People still watch TV? :laugh:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0fQaqupkw
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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 don't think people understand just how important it is to have a genuinely unbiased news source. Like so many things that so many seem happy to throw away, they're in for a shock when it's gone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
 
 
 
Poll
Is GoT overrated?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.