Since they came to power, not once among all the stories of cuts, fee increases, impact on the poor, unemployment, broken election promises, coalition murmurings, resignations, riots, Labour party rebuttals etc. etc. etc. - not once - have we heard them talking about the other side of the story.
This is happening because the country has a debt problem so vast that all three parties put debt reduction at their head of their agenda. However, as far as the BBC is concerned it might as well not exist. Have they ever bothered to report on the progress being made against helping the UK out of the problem? Of course not.
Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, was a Conservative at uni and his views ahve probably not changed very much since then. He, like everyone else who works for the BBC, is going to have political views of some sort. I reckon he does a pretty good job.
How should would the critics of the BBC address the alleged left-wing bias? Should they advertise for "Conservative supporter to report on the House of Commons''?
My experience while working in the media is than most people go out of their way to produce a balanced view.
For true bias you only have to look at the Mail, Express, Mirror.
How should would the critics of the BBC address the alleged left-wing bias?
I doubt that you can - it's too deeply ingrained.
I dont believe that anyone actually cares that the BBC has a left-wing bias in the same way that they dont care that the Mirror or Guardian are biased - the problem is that people are forced to pay (on threat of imprisonment) to support the BBC whereas other media outlets fall or survive on their popularity.
In the end changing the funding formula to a subscription-based service is the only viable way forward in the 21st Century.
That's pretty much it. There's no 'left wing bias' at the BBC at all - simply independent journalistic scrutiny - they seem to treat politicians from all sides equally to me.If the Tories and Lib Dems want to win hearts and minds, they'll have to accept that in a democracy, you have people who'll want to scrutinise your policies rather than blindly accept your political taglines and mantras.
In the end changing the funding formula to a subscription-based service is the only viable way forward in the 21st Century.
All that will accomplish is to allow Rupert Murdoch to become the gatekeeper to the BBC. The second any announcement of a voluntary subscription model for the BBC is made, Sky will be straight there, having the BBC behind a paywall would be a massive coup for them, and prices will increase substantially as Sky takes advantage of their monopoly in pay TV and are likely to launch a pay TV service on terrestrial television as well as their existing service on satellite television.
The only people who would support this idea are the Murdoch's for their own vested interest and Sky subscribers who detest the BBC. But be warned, a commercial BBC would shed all of its public service responsibility and television would be dumbed down as a result. If the BBC also carries advertising, it'll accelerate the demise of ITV as advertising revenue becomes even more widespread and harm other broadcasters. If you only have Freeview now and pay the TV Licence, your situation would have people having to pay the "Murdoch Licence" to watch TV, and that'll be a lot more than the TV Licence is now. So the poorest lose out.
I have to wonder. People detest paying a British broadcaster for quality public service content but want to pay far more to an American-Australian media tycoon for dumbed down programming...
As a last word, this spoof posters sums up Murdoch's view of the BBC very nicely:
and prices will increase substantially as Sky takes advantage of their monopoly in pay TV and are likely to launch a pay TV service on terrestrial television as well as their existing service on satellite television.
This obsession with Murdoch is getting quite laughable.
The technology on the close horizon means that anyone can start a TV service - Murdoch will not have a monopoly on anything.
And if Murdoch wants to launch a pay TV service on terrestrial TV then i am sure it will be as succesfull as his ventures with satellite and the print media as he obviously delivers what people want.
The only people who would support this idea are the Murdoch's for their own vested interest and Sky subscribers who detest the BBC.
Well the only people who are against the BBC becoming a voluntarily paid for medium are the usual suspects who wish to keep the last major left/liberal media outlet.
But is that a reason to block progress?
I have to wonder. People detest paying a British broadcaster for quality public service content but want to pay far more to an American-Australian media tycoon for dumbed down programming...
Well that is your view - funny how you are so desperate to prevent other people from voting with their feet and expressing their view
As a last word, this spoof posters sums up Murdoch's view of the BBC very nicely:
In the end changing the funding formula to a subscription-based service is the only viable way forward in the 21st Century.
Yeah, I agree with this.
The obligatory flat-rate TV licence is a disproportional tax on the poor and makes no sense at all. I'm staggered that it's allowed to continue, let alone that it commands support from those that you would expect to take a progressive view on these matters.
Well, actually, I'm not surprised at all by that...
For my own bit, I'd have no hesitation in taking out a subscription for BBC programming. I agree that they have a left-wing leaning, but their political coverage is the *absolute best* in my view.
Newsnight, This Week, Question Time, The Daily Politics - all superb, all unmissable, and all light-years ahead of anything Sky put out. I find Sky's 'on-the-ground' reporting slightly better than the Beeb's, but, other than that, the BBC trumps them in all areas.
Im not sure of the significance of "bye bye BBC" as the title. This is hardly news that BBC staff are all left-wing or liberal. For the past decade or so the BBC advertise jobs in the Guardian, that speaks for itself
The reason for that is the Telegraph closed its media jobs section. Get the Telegraph to bring it back the BBC will resume advertising in it. Simples.
From this article, sounds like the govt has been leaning on the Beeb. Maybe Naughtie was right about Mr Hunt ....
The Guardian advocates that nothing must ever be cut.
The BBC exist on a tax transfusion to keep it going, i think its fairly obvious that the beeb hate the tories and the right in general, for idealogical reasons of course!
How can the BBC have a left-wing bias when two of their three most political personalities were very closely affiliated with the Thatcherite Conservative party?
I heard Andrew Neil was a personal assistant or adviser to Mrs Thatcher. Nick Robinson is a former Young Conservative head.
Not sure of the way David Dimbleby votes though.
Surely if you have a former Young Conservative manager as the chief political editor at BBC news then you are not going to get a left-wing bias?
Not in politics or current affairs they do have a fair few Conservative voters and supporters. Jeremy Clarkson probably being the most high profile of all the BBC's Conservative personalities!
Since they came to power, not once among all the stories of cuts, fee increases, impact on the poor, unemployment, broken election promises, coalition murmurings, resignations, riots, Labour party rebuttals etc. etc. etc. - not once - have we heard them talking about the other side of the story.
This is happening because the country has a debt problem so vast that all three parties put debt reduction at their head of their agenda. However, as far as the BBC is concerned it might as well not exist. Have they ever bothered to report on the progress being made against helping the UK out of the problem? Of course not.
BBC bias? Your betcha. Shocking, really.
Probably because you haven't been listening to them properly. Or you don't realise that they are stating facts. if what the government say aren't facts then the BBC will state what the correct facts are.
This obsession with Murdoch is getting quite laughable.
The technology on the close horizon means that anyone can start a TV service - Murdoch will not have a monopoly on anything.
And if Murdoch wants to launch a pay TV service on terrestrial TV then i am sure it will be as succesfull as his ventures with satellite and the print media as he obviously delivers what people want.
And with Sky's monopoly, whichever pay TV startups have come about since have either struggled against Sky, have gone off to Ofcom to ask them to make Sky wholesale their services or have gone to the wall attempting to take Sky on directly (thinks ITV Digital). They are a powerful brand in the UK and no-one can touch them.
If Sky does decide to launch a pay TV service on digital terrestrial television, Sky will have up to 84.7% of the pay TV market. If Tesco had a share like that in the supermarket sector, they'd be up in front of the competition commission before their feet could touch the ground.
Well the only people who are against the BBC becoming a voluntarily paid for medium are the usual suspects who wish to keep the last major left/liberal media outlet.
But is that a reason to block progress?
You'll find that individuals who value competition and a fair deal for consumers are those who are against this proposal, because of the danger that Sky will use it to gain a major advantage over the competition.
In the past, the BBC has always used encryption from NDS Group (49% owned by News Corporation and also used by Sky) for its domestic services, and considering that, I would believe that Sky would be the ones nominated to administer any subscription service tied in with their existing packages.
Well that is your view - funny how you are so desperate to prevent other people from voting with their feet and expressing their view
People are free to express their view, but if the danger is likely to be a monopoly, a major reduction in public service broadcasting and significantly increased costs for many people, very few will benefit.
yes, well - we already know that your your political allegiance is behind your views...
You know, the funny thing is, I don't actually support Labour, but then again, when has Labour been a voice for the left wing? Not since the 80s, I'd bet.
Ssssssshhhhhhh! You're not meant to say that, old chap! The 'official' line on here is that the Beeb is a model of neutrality!
On a more serious and obvious note: we don't have to pay for Murdoch's media...we do have to pay for the BBC. If I had to pay for the likes of Sky, then I'd want them to be impartial as well.
So I don't have to pay for right wing bias, but I do have to pay for left wing bias. Is that fair?
If Murdoch had his way then he'd take over all media on this planet.
So your point doesn't really stand as if he got his way, you would only have the same choice that you face with the BBC: either getting your news and media through one man/corporation/company or being totally ignorant and not paying any attention to the news or media at all.
One does get the vague impression that the BBC and its employees see themselves as untouchable, apparently having a "god" given right to exist come what may.
There is also the impression that some jobs are almost "inherited" by the likes of the Dimblebys and the Snows of this world, and a few other BBC employees who follow in their parents footsteps being employed by the BBC. Rather like going down the pit in days gone by.
Time to up their game and ditch the ITV1 type output, cut the number of channels, and return to producing high quality intelligent content that will educate and entertain and also challenge the viewer. Leave the Strictly Come Dancing and various mindless game shows etc. to ITV where getting large numbers of morons is exactly what they aim for to sell airtime.
The BBC have to provide programmes for *ALL* tastes, hence why they produce brainless bullshit like Total Wipeout etc.
I don't get what people are moaning about when they mention these kind of shows being on the BBC. The BBC has always had a history of brainless entertainment shows. Generation Game, Late Late Breakfast Show, Noel's House Party etc.
This doesn't apply to the BBC however, but the BBC still has to have due impartiality, it's written into their service licences. This, for example, is the BBC News channels licence:
Although I would like to see the license fee scrapped and for the BBC to compete like everyone else.
Then how would they provide the niche audience programmes they are supposed to produce out of advertisers money?
Niche programmes for niche audiences get niche audiences. Niche audiences do not interest advertisers and so they do not advertise in that programmes' slot.
Plus, I hate advertising of all kinds. I find it extremely annoying when I'm watching something I really enjoy and suddenly adverts interrupt it. I don't even like skipping through the adverts as that provides a disturbance.
And I don't like watching TV programmes online because TV programmes are programmes for television sets, and should be viewed in that way. Not on a computer i.e. a different device.
If Murdoch had his way then he'd take over all media on this planet.
So your point doesn't really stand as if he got his way, you would only have the same choice that you face with the BBC: either getting your news and media through one man/corporation/company or being totally ignorant and not paying any attention to the news or media at all.
A tad melodramatic, wouldn't you say? Next you'll be telling me Murdoch's planning world domination from a secret hollowed out volcano type lair:rolleyes:.
Why does it have to be two extremes? i.e Put up with the Beeb's bias or accept Murdoch as god emperor? Let's cut the drama and suggest that the Beeb should and could do more to enforce neutrality across their programming in accordance with their charter. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
As I said in an earlier post, television is actually pretty good by and large, but radio is a completely different ball game, sadly.
This doesn't apply to the BBC however, but the BBC still has to have due impartiality, it's written into their service licences. This, for example, is the BBC News channels licence:
The trust also does reviews into impartiality on a wide range of services and topics, not just news.
Thanks for the links as I didn't know most of that! As I don't get Sky though I can't personally judge how impartial they truly are. Having said that, Sky is always getting accused of being right wing on here (perhaps with some justification) so I wonder how stringent these rules really are.
Well the only people who are against the BBC becoming a voluntarily paid for medium are the usual suspects who wish to keep the last major left/liberal media outlet.
But is that a reason to block progress?
How can you call wiping out a different political agenda to yours "progress"? It's not even democratic.
Why shouldn't we have major liberal/left-ing outlets? (and no, the BBC is not biased for all the reasons given above). Your comment seemed to imply we shouldn't have a major left-wing/liberal media outlet.
As usual, the right wingers show up their own selfish interests. Left-wingers are not selfish. We stick up for a respected international broadcaster that is free from party political or proprietary bias or control, that had made huge advancements in the development of broadcasting technology, that has trained some of this countries best technicians and electronic engineers, and that makes programmes that wouldn't even get a second thought at a commercial channel's commissioning editor's meeting.
Paying something that benefits the country as a whole, even those who don't like it, is quite selfless.
I see that no UK-originated commercial channel is producing UK-originated children's content. The BBC is. Which is important unless you want the nation's children to be educated and entertained by some shyte from a country that is well-known to have a very sub-standard and ignorant education system.
Comments
You angle is not very acute, is it?:)
Meaning?
How should would the critics of the BBC address the alleged left-wing bias? Should they advertise for "Conservative supporter to report on the House of Commons''?
My experience while working in the media is than most people go out of their way to produce a balanced view.
For true bias you only have to look at the Mail, Express, Mirror.
... or Guardian.
I doubt that you can - it's too deeply ingrained.
I dont believe that anyone actually cares that the BBC has a left-wing bias in the same way that they dont care that the Mirror or Guardian are biased - the problem is that people are forced to pay (on threat of imprisonment) to support the BBC whereas other media outlets fall or survive on their popularity.
In the end changing the funding formula to a subscription-based service is the only viable way forward in the 21st Century.
Says the screaming left winger.....LOL>
The only people who would support this idea are the Murdoch's for their own vested interest and Sky subscribers who detest the BBC. But be warned, a commercial BBC would shed all of its public service responsibility and television would be dumbed down as a result. If the BBC also carries advertising, it'll accelerate the demise of ITV as advertising revenue becomes even more widespread and harm other broadcasters. If you only have Freeview now and pay the TV Licence, your situation would have people having to pay the "Murdoch Licence" to watch TV, and that'll be a lot more than the TV Licence is now. So the poorest lose out.
I have to wonder. People detest paying a British broadcaster for quality public service content but want to pay far more to an American-Australian media tycoon for dumbed down programming...
As a last word, this spoof posters sums up Murdoch's view of the BBC very nicely:
http://www.mydavidcameron.com/posters3/bbc1
This obsession with Murdoch is getting quite laughable.
The technology on the close horizon means that anyone can start a TV service - Murdoch will not have a monopoly on anything.
And if Murdoch wants to launch a pay TV service on terrestrial TV then i am sure it will be as succesfull as his ventures with satellite and the print media as he obviously delivers what people want.
Well the only people who are against the BBC becoming a voluntarily paid for medium are the usual suspects who wish to keep the last major left/liberal media outlet.
But is that a reason to block progress?
Well that is your view - funny how you are so desperate to prevent other people from voting with their feet and expressing their view
yes, well - we already know that your your political allegiance is behind your views...
Yeah, I agree with this.
The obligatory flat-rate TV licence is a disproportional tax on the poor and makes no sense at all. I'm staggered that it's allowed to continue, let alone that it commands support from those that you would expect to take a progressive view on these matters.
Well, actually, I'm not surprised at all by that...
For my own bit, I'd have no hesitation in taking out a subscription for BBC programming. I agree that they have a left-wing leaning, but their political coverage is the *absolute best* in my view.
Newsnight, This Week, Question Time, The Daily Politics - all superb, all unmissable, and all light-years ahead of anything Sky put out. I find Sky's 'on-the-ground' reporting slightly better than the Beeb's, but, other than that, the BBC trumps them in all areas.
Regards,
Cypher
Perhaps their idea of neutrality differs somewhat from the dictionary defination.:D
The reason for that is the Telegraph closed its media jobs section. Get the Telegraph to bring it back the BBC will resume advertising in it. Simples.
The Guardian advocates that nothing must ever be cut.
The BBC exist on a tax transfusion to keep it going, i think its fairly obvious that the beeb hate the tories and the right in general, for idealogical reasons of course!
It is exactly because it is neutral that it must be defended at all costs.
I heard Andrew Neil was a personal assistant or adviser to Mrs Thatcher. Nick Robinson is a former Young Conservative head.
Not sure of the way David Dimbleby votes though.
Surely if you have a former Young Conservative manager as the chief political editor at BBC news then you are not going to get a left-wing bias?
Not in politics or current affairs they do have a fair few Conservative voters and supporters. Jeremy Clarkson probably being the most high profile of all the BBC's Conservative personalities!
Because we see quite a bit of right wing bias in it.
Left wing claim it's right-wing biased, right wing claim vice versa.
Surely that's being unbiased and politically impartial?
Probably because you haven't been listening to them properly. Or you don't realise that they are stating facts. if what the government say aren't facts then the BBC will state what the correct facts are.
If Sky does decide to launch a pay TV service on digital terrestrial television, Sky will have up to 84.7% of the pay TV market. If Tesco had a share like that in the supermarket sector, they'd be up in front of the competition commission before their feet could touch the ground. You'll find that individuals who value competition and a fair deal for consumers are those who are against this proposal, because of the danger that Sky will use it to gain a major advantage over the competition.
In the past, the BBC has always used encryption from NDS Group (49% owned by News Corporation and also used by Sky) for its domestic services, and considering that, I would believe that Sky would be the ones nominated to administer any subscription service tied in with their existing packages. People are free to express their view, but if the danger is likely to be a monopoly, a major reduction in public service broadcasting and significantly increased costs for many people, very few will benefit. You know, the funny thing is, I don't actually support Labour, but then again, when has Labour been a voice for the left wing? Not since the 80s, I'd bet.
If Murdoch had his way then he'd take over all media on this planet.
So your point doesn't really stand as if he got his way, you would only have the same choice that you face with the BBC: either getting your news and media through one man/corporation/company or being totally ignorant and not paying any attention to the news or media at all.
The BBC have to provide programmes for *ALL* tastes, hence why they produce brainless bullshit like Total Wipeout etc.
I don't get what people are moaning about when they mention these kind of shows being on the BBC. The BBC has always had a history of brainless entertainment shows. Generation Game, Late Late Breakfast Show, Noel's House Party etc.
Again, that's the BBC staff's own opinion, just like the opinions of people here who claim it has a left-wing bias.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/
This doesn't apply to the BBC however, but the BBC still has to have due impartiality, it's written into their service licences. This, for example, is the BBC News channels licence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/service_licences/tv/2010/bbc_news_channel_may10.pdf
The trust also does reviews into impartiality on a wide range of services and topics, not just news.
Then how would they provide the niche audience programmes they are supposed to produce out of advertisers money?
Niche programmes for niche audiences get niche audiences. Niche audiences do not interest advertisers and so they do not advertise in that programmes' slot.
Plus, I hate advertising of all kinds. I find it extremely annoying when I'm watching something I really enjoy and suddenly adverts interrupt it. I don't even like skipping through the adverts as that provides a disturbance.
And I don't like watching TV programmes online because TV programmes are programmes for television sets, and should be viewed in that way. Not on a computer i.e. a different device.
A tad melodramatic, wouldn't you say? Next you'll be telling me Murdoch's planning world domination from a secret hollowed out volcano type lair:rolleyes:.
Why does it have to be two extremes? i.e Put up with the Beeb's bias or accept Murdoch as god emperor? Let's cut the drama and suggest that the Beeb should and could do more to enforce neutrality across their programming in accordance with their charter. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
As I said in an earlier post, television is actually pretty good by and large, but radio is a completely different ball game, sadly.
Thanks for the links as I didn't know most of that! As I don't get Sky though I can't personally judge how impartial they truly are. Having said that, Sky is always getting accused of being right wing on here (perhaps with some justification) so I wonder how stringent these rules really are.
How can you call wiping out a different political agenda to yours "progress"? It's not even democratic.
Why shouldn't we have major liberal/left-ing outlets? (and no, the BBC is not biased for all the reasons given above). Your comment seemed to imply we shouldn't have a major left-wing/liberal media outlet.
As usual, the right wingers show up their own selfish interests. Left-wingers are not selfish. We stick up for a respected international broadcaster that is free from party political or proprietary bias or control, that had made huge advancements in the development of broadcasting technology, that has trained some of this countries best technicians and electronic engineers, and that makes programmes that wouldn't even get a second thought at a commercial channel's commissioning editor's meeting.
Paying something that benefits the country as a whole, even those who don't like it, is quite selfless.
I see that no UK-originated commercial channel is producing UK-originated children's content. The BBC is. Which is important unless you want the nation's children to be educated and entertained by some shyte from a country that is well-known to have a very sub-standard and ignorant education system.