Let’s talk about BBC

[bobzmyunkle]

Just to try to understand something here:

Could I ask where people would (or do) go for unbiased, factual journalism if they couldn't (or don't) access the BBC in its various formats?

No such thing as unbiased, factual journalism.
Of course some sources are more truthful than others.
If you get your news from a single source you're in grave danger of being lied to.

Telegraph

The Telegraph hasn't been a serious newspaper since at least 2004.

 

[First Aspect]

Prett

Trouble is that budget seems to be forever reduced for news and passed to sport, Strictly and the high profile mindless entertainment that the commercial stations would love to make. I'd always considered the justification for the license fee and a "Natioal Broadcaster" was to make/broadcast those programs that would otherwise not be made. Yet BBC has instead been disproportionately spending on those programs that directly compete with the commercial broadcasters.

When I do end-up watching BBC News I don't find it particularly informative (eg compared to C4 News). Newsnight used to be very good, just what I believe the BBC should have been doing but they massively cut the budgets and turned it into a low cost waste of time.

But that moves the discussion on to the license fee.

Pretty much totally agree. Main reason BBC News seems uninformative is because it strips out a lot of opinion. That's informative in itself if you use other outlets for contrast.

The license fee should be something like £50 to be split between the various broadcasters making factual content. I'm in two minds as to the value of the Attenborough-worshiping programmes, Small mammal Watch etc.

Selfishly I'd like the sports content on the radio to continue - it is part of the fabric of our national sport. But clearly the BBC can no longer compete for other sports on TV effectively. If the government wants to legislate for free to air events, such as the Olympics, national team games in various sports, that's fine, but it wouldn't have to be the BBC.

All that said, I also wouldn't object to the status quo, providing the BBC gets it's house in order.

The "competing for tallen" thing bothers me, because there is an almost unlimited supply of cheaper alternatives, so let the likes of Lineker go there, and pay someone nearly as good a fraction as much. Similarly, stop pandering to the stars for years then hand wringing when the sh1t hits the fan, just get rid. They are replaceable. Also, wtf is it with the news? Same mistakes, repeatedly.

 

[briantrumpet]

Prett


Pretty much totally agree. Main reason BBC News seems uninformative is because it strips out a lot of opinion. That's informative in itself if you use other outlets for contrast.

The license fee should be something like £50 to be split between the various broadcasters making factual content. I'm in two minds as to the value of the Attenborough-worshiping programmes, Small mammal Watch etc.

Selfishly I'd like the sports content on the radio to continue - it is part of the fabric of our national sport. But clearly the BBC can no longer compete for other sports on TV effectively. If the government wants to legislate for free to air events, such as the Olympics, national team games in various sports, that's fine, but it wouldn't have to be the BBC.

All that said, I also wouldn't object to the status quo, providing the BBC gets it's house in order.

The "competing for tallen" thing bothers me, because there is an almost unlimited supply of cheaper alternatives, so let the likes of Lineker go there, and pay someone nearly as good a fraction as much. Similarly, stop pandering to the stars for years then hand wringing when the sh1t hits the fan, just get rid. They are replaceable. Also, wtf is it with the news? Same mistakes, repeatedly.

I think the problem for the BBC is that they have to justify their existence by their viewing and listening figures, so if they retreat to stuff which is worthy and adequate, the majority of people who need celebrities and high-profile sport won't tune in. Then the people who want to destroy the BBC will say it must be abolished because so few people are tuning in.

They can't win, whatever they do.

 

[First Aspect]

I think the problem for the BBC is that they have to justify their existence by their viewing and listening figures, so if they retreat to stuff which is worthy and adequate, the majority of people who need celebrities and high-profile sport won't tune in. Then the people who want to destroy the BBC will say it must be abolished because so few people are tuning in.

They can't win, whatever they do.

Fwiw I think the measure of ratings is not appropriate for the BBC. The national discussion has to be whether the content that is watched by fewer people has enough value simply by existing. The proposed changes to the national curriculum seems to suggest a dawning realisation that we are heading for a post-factual and counter-factual world where people will be prone to believing things based on likes, volume of watches etc. and we have some opportunities still available to try to somewhat stem the tide, including some of the BBCs output. Following the crowd down the "likes" route will just lead to the same place, in which case why is the BBC worthy of a tax?

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I think the death and breadth of BBC output is unparalleled in Britain certainly. The fact we are having a discussion about its news impartiality suggests it is still largely viewed by many as the bastion of objective news reporting. Whether it is your bag or not, its light entertainment output is still amongst the most popular on offer, only really rivalled by Ant & Dec led stuff and a few other ITV bits. It's natural history programmes are still seen as world leading benchmarks.

If you are an aspiring comedian, drama writer, documentary maker in Britain, it is still viewed as the number one destination to have your work developed and broadcast. Draw up a list of the most influential sitcoms, drama series, documentaries ever made in Britain and it will overwhelmingly have been made or commissioned by the BBC

It radio coverage is pretty much without equal, and the world service and website are also revered across the globe.

 

[Psamathe]

Fwiw I think the measure of ratings is not appropriate for the BBC. The national discussion has to be whether the content that is watched by fewer people has enough value simply by existing. The proposed changes to the national curriculum seems to suggest a dawning realisation that we are heading for a post-factual and counter-factual world where people will be prone to believing things based on likes, volume of watches etc. and we have some opportunities still available to try to somewhat stem the tide, including some of the BBCs output. Following the crowd down the "likes" route will just lead to the same place, in which case why is the BBC worthy of a tax?

Plus, life of the BBC in its current form is time limited anyway. These days younger generation(s) are getting most of their media from the likes of youtube, social media, subscription services, etc. so won't be spending the significant costs on the BBC subscription (license fee) but rather on Netflix, Amazon, etc..

So BBC can start adapting now or can struggle fighting what is going to happen anyway. My impression is they are fighting what is going to happen anyway.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Wow, "entirely innocent" doing a *lot* of heavy lifting there

It's fair to say that the senate which had a majority that supported Trump found him not guilty of insurrection. That's not much of a measure.

I agree

In my opinion, the main problem with the edit was that it made his intention too clear
he was trying to hide it - but when I listened to the whole thing then that is exactly what I think he was hoping for

If he had wanted it to stop he would have called in more forces earlier and not just stood there watching it on TV and cheering them on
which I heard he was doing

but that is just my opinion and carries no weight

the edit was clumsy - a short break in between would have fixed it

as you say - "other media outlets" do worse every week (every day in some cases!!)

 

[Psamathe]

as you say - "other media outlets" do worse every week (every day in some cases!!)

Those same "other media outlets" now leading the charge against the BBC calling for it to be dismantled with immediate effect.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Those same "other media outlets" now leading the charge against the BBC calling for it to be dismantled with immediate effect.

Well yes - among others

basically, you know a news organisation by who hates them

and they all hate the BBC at one time or another

 

[Psamathe]

It will be interesting if Trump does sue. Whilst I'm no legal expert I can't see it getting anywhere and probably threat intended to keep people talking about him (something narcissists strive for).

I didn't see the program but my impression was

• It was made/broadcast around 4 years after the event.
• It was not streamed/broadcast in the US.
• iPlayer did not allow it to be viewed from the US
• The overall impression from the program was widely accepted as accurate.
• It was made/broadcast after those participating in the riots had testified that it wa sTrump's speach the motivated them.
• It was made/broadcast after Trump has been impeached for insurrection.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Those same "other media outlets" now leading the charge against the BBC calling for it to be dismantled with immediate effect.

Ironically, the “other media outlets” are those that bleat endlessly that Britain/England isn’t what it used to be without acknowledging that BBC played a huge part in shaping that view of Britain.

Once those nostalgic dreamers have torn down public service broadcasting, they will go after the NHS, Welfare and education.

 

[secretsqirrel]

It will be interesting if Trump does sue. Whilst I'm no legal expert I can't see it getting anywhere and probably threat intended to keep people talking about him (something narcissists strive for).

I didn't see the program but my impression was

• It was made/broadcast around 4 years after the event.
• It was not streamed/broadcast in the US.
• iPlayer did not allow it to be viewed from the US
• The overall impression from the program was widely accepted as accurate.
• It was made/broadcast after those participating in the riots had testified that it wa sTrump's speach the motivated them.
• It was made/broadcast after Trump has been impeached for insurrection.

And nobody battered an eyelid at the time it was broadcast. Only now, why now, I don’t know. Maybe that’s how long it takes the Telegraph to pick at carefully selected old scabs to get them to bleed.

 

[Pblakeney]

Plus, life of the BBC in its current form is time limited anyway. These days younger generation(s) are getting most of their media from the likes of youtube, social media, subscription services, etc. so won't be spending the significant costs on the BBC subscription (license fee) but rather on Netflix, Amazon, etc..

The World is going to hell in a hand cart. I use the examples given above but I do not rely on them for factual news.
Yes, I realise that view is probably dating me as a grumpy old man, but still...

 

[monkers]

It will be interesting if Trump does sue. Whilst I'm no legal expert I can't see it getting anywhere and probably threat intended to keep people talking about him (something narcissists strive for).

I didn't see the program but my impression was

• It was made/broadcast around 4 years after the event.
• It was not streamed/broadcast in the US.
• iPlayer did not allow it to be viewed from the US
• The overall impression from the program was widely accepted as accurate.
• It was made/broadcast after those participating in the riots had testified that it wa sTrump's speach the motivated them.
• It was made/broadcast after Trump has been impeached for insurrection.

Indeed. The permissibility of his claim fails since he is too late - the law restricts him to 12 months, and that time has passed. The point is well made in the media.

A point I have not seen being made is that the BBC operates under Royal Charter. That in itself is insufficient to protect the BBC from being sued for defamation / libel. However, the BBC, despite the licence fee not being its only source of income, the BBC operates on the back of the licence fee rather than commercial activity. The courts will be sensitive, or so I believe, that compensation claims have the effect of being a tax on viewers rather than the body corporate.

 

[Psamathe]

And nobody battered an eyelid at the time it was broadcast. Only now, why now, I don’t know. Maybe that’s how long it takes the Telegraph to pick at carefully selected old scabs to get them to bleed.

In the next few weeks the once per decade BBC Charter review is due to start (or be launched). Thus the best time to have a long term destructive impact by highlighting a high profile BBC failure.