Let’s talk about BBC

[First Aspect]

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.

Indeed. The UK funds a lot of the "arts" that a tiny number of people consume, and philosophically I don't see much of a difference with a lot of BBC output.

And the BBC is not the only organisation that receives public service broadcasting funding for news etc.

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.

It doesn't need to get anywhere to achieve the desired effect.

 

[matticus]

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.

iPlayer viewing is on the march, suggesting they're adapting pretty well:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2024/bbc-iplayer-fastest-growing-vod-platform-uk
BBC iPlayer has recorded remarkable year on year growth and is outstripping all its competitors across all audiences – powered by creativity and storytelling from across the UK.

The truly distinctive British service continues to break records – up over 20% this year so far. BBC iPlayer’s viewing growth is twice that of Netflix, three times ITVX and four times that of Channel 4.

__________________________________________________________________________
Also, they are the top of all services for age 35-54 ; that is quite a few years of viewing coming their way in the future!

 

[Pross]

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.

Some of that 'mindless entertainment' is actually a big revenue raiser for the BBC (over £2 billion last year from BBC Studios). If they didn't spend money on those programmes they would probably lose more. OK they could still keep licencing the Strictly format to other countries without carrying on with the UK version but if they hadn't invested in it in the first place they wouldn't have had the product to sell.

 

[Rusty Nails]

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

The other media outlets that are all commercially driven and profits hungry. It benefits them for the BBC to lose viewers. Not that that influences their actions in any way.

 

[CXRAndy]

When the BBC is made to be commercially responsible, it will be directly competing with other commercial programme makers.

Then we will see how good the BBC really is.

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

Perhaps there is a clue there, as to where this is going, eventually?

 

[icowden]

THIS JUST IN... From the Papua New Guinea Courier...

 

[Beebo]

As James O’Brien pointed out today.
The people calling for the BBC to be cancelled don’t care about the reporting the BBC gets wrong.
They care about the reporting the BBC gets right.

 

[icowden]

As James O’Brien pointed out today.
The people calling for the BBC to be cancelled don’t care about the reporting the BBC gets wrong.
They care about the reporting the BBC gets right.

He also made the very cogent point y that when the Panorama Doc was made, no-one would have conceived that there would be any actual challenge to the idea that Trump organised an insurrection.


View: https://x.com/LBC/status/1987840785639981228?s=20

 

[cookiemonster]

https://bylinetimes.com/2025/11/11/bbc-bias-memo-lobbyist-trump-tech-giants/

 

[Xipe Totec]

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?

"Unbiased, factual journalism".

 

[AuroraSaab]

The appointing to BBC higher management of those with previous political connections didn't start under Boris Johnson. Those with ties to Labour have also held influential posts. If the BBC is to regain its position as a trusted news outlet it needs more independent directorship from someone determined to ensure greater balance in reporting, rather than letting staff bias lead the way.

And no, I have no idea who that could be as anybody who has worked for any flavour government in any capacity seems destined to be regarded as a political plant.

 

[Xipe Totec]

It would appear that the anointed government-in-waiting no longer needs the BBC's relentless platforming & promotion.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ls-out-of-bbc-film-amid-trump-speech-edit-row

 

[Beebo]

The appointing to BBC higher management of those with previous political connections didn't start under Boris Johnson. Those with ties to Labour have also held influential posts. If the BBC is to regain its position as a trusted news outlet it needs more independent directorship from someone determined to ensure greater balance in reporting, rather than letting staff bias lead the way.

View attachment 11002


And no, I have no idea who that could be as anybody who has worked for any flavour government in any capacity seems destined to be regarded as a political plant.

Andrew Neil is a joke if he thinks he isn’t biased.
He presented a political programme for years whilst simultaneously being the editor of The Spectator. Then left BBC to set up GB News.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Andrew Neil is a joke if he thinks he isn’t biased.
He presented a political programme for years whilst simultaneously being the editor of The Spectator. Then left BBC to set up GB News.

But that's not the point AS (or andrew Neil) was making.
Neil was pointing out that there have been political appointments at the BBC for a long time.