DS Forums

 
 

Can the 17 million who voted leave trust the BBC to report fairly on Brexit ?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 16:28
Ennerjee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,450
That's fine - you may love the BBC.

Why not give people a choice though - why force people to pay the licence? If people don't pay then they are blocked from watching BBC channels but can watch commercial ones for free on freeview. Their choice!
I don't "love" the BBC, far from it. It needs to be kept in line, but then again so does the commercial sector.

I travel a lot and I've seen what unbridled commercialism does to programming. Without the BBC things would be far worse !

Isn't Freeview a BBC set-up anyway? They choose to allow commercial broadcasters to use the service as long as they don't charge for it.

The OP said, "if the BBC is not representing the interests of the people who voted for Brexit then why should they be forced to buy a licence?", but I perceive Sky News not representing the interests of of those who voted for BREXIT either.
Ennerjee is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old Yesterday, 16:29
BRITLAND
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,219
It would be a dream come true to have a Government that will end the licence fee and privatise the BBC and Channel 4. We don't need state owned media which pay 500K of our money to the likes of Gary Lineker and Graham Norton to read autocues, spend tons on the World Service which is irreverent to the UK and trying to start a North Korean service (why why why?), it makes the UK look like a joke on the international stage. Only a far left socialist can justify it's existence in 2017.
BRITLAND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 16:34
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,419
It would be a dream come true to have a Government that will end the licence fee and privatise the BBC and Channel 4. We don't need state owned media which pay 500K of our money to the likes of Gary Lineker and Graham Norton to read autocues, spend tons on the World Service which is irreverent to the UK and trying to start a North Korean service (why why why?), it makes the UK look like a joke on the international stage. Only a far left socialist can justify it's existence in 2017.
Pure nonsense. I've never heard of the BBC making us look like a joke internationally. Where did that idea come from?
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:37
Dingbat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 1,059
Pure nonsense. I've never heard of the BBC making us look like a joke internationally. Where did that idea come from?
Going by what's happening there, I'd say it was LBC, and not the BBC, which is turning into an international joke broadcaster.
Dingbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:10
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
Pure nonsense. I've never heard of the BBC making us look like a joke internationally. Where did that idea come from?
I always had the idea much of the rest of the world's broadcasters were jealous and aspired to be like the BBC. Not embarrased by it.

Also, the licence fee moaners on here act as if the UK's the only country that has one. We aren't, by a long shot. In fact in many countries it's more expensive than ours- and many of those broadcasters have adverts as well.
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:54
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,276
Going by what's happening there, I'd say it was LBC, and not the BBC, which is turning into an international joke broadcaster.
No one forces you to pay £146 for LBC for a year by virtue of switching on a television for 10 seconds.
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:03
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,196
No one forces you to pay £146 for LBC for a year by virtue of switching on a television for 10 seconds.
Funny thing is its the uk governmenthat forces you to pay £146 a year. BBC trust abolished, a TV licence to watch iPlayer and how prices will rise: Tories officially announce Beeb shake-up details
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:20
David_Flett1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,454
Maybe the compulsory licence fee should be abolished - if people think the licence fee is worth it to watch the BBC they will pay for it.

It's a blanket regressive poll tax which hits the poor hardest - a tv may be the only form of entertainment they can afford. But they still have to pay it unless they are over 75 or disabled.

Sky News, Al Jazeera and RT are available on freeview.
The poor are served well by the licence fee even though I would favour the BBC to become mutualised and therefore subscription based the licence fee currently offers a balance alongside commercial FTA. Removing the licence would probably lead to much higher costs for people if privatised and became a service similar to SKY.

You have to look at the overall costs, if the licence fee wasn't there then the poorest and elderly would not have the same value with subscription alternatives costing a great deal more. There are 4 million over 75's for example who would have to find money for monthly subscriptions. Many also overlook the cost of commercial FTA services that cost a great deal more through our shopping basket and household bills.

Funding is a complex issue and unless 20 million people decide to get behind there own service then it will be left to the commercial sector to see how far they can push the costs.
David_Flett1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:27
David_Flett1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,454
The real question that should be asked is how many that voted actually took the time to find out the answers as to how good or bad the EU served them? Many complain about immigration but how many of those actually can come up with a workable solution to the past, present and future circumstancs that have forced the country to depend on immigration. Controlling immigration is an entirely different debate as to the one that was projected by the majority of the media during the referendum debate.
David_Flett1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:39
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,196
Maybe the compulsory licence fee should be abolished - if people think the licence fee is worth it to watch the BBC they will pay for it.

It's a blanket regressive poll tax which hits the poor hardest - a tv may be the only form of entertainment they can afford. But they still have to pay it unless they are over 75 or disabled.

Sky News, Al Jazeera and RT are available on freeview.
Well its news to me that disabled people dont pay tv licence
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:50
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
Well its news to me that disabled people dont pay tv licence
News to millions of other disabled people too.
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:25
david16
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Central Belt
Posts: 12,268
The Daily Mail/Mail On Sunday, The Sun, Sky News, Telegraph and The Express are all 100 times more partial than the BBC News will ever be, yet somehow people think that the BBC News are the only partial or by far the most partial of all the UK press.

All the other press I've mentioned have taken the far right hard Brexit stance from day 1. How does that make them all impartial? Yet the BBC cops it for just simply reporting the news.
david16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:30
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
A world where impartial means agreeing with me.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:35
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
The Daily Mail/Mail On Sunday, The Sun, Sky News, Telegraph and The Express are all 100 times more partial than the BBC News will ever be, yet somehow people think that the BBC News are the only partial or by far the most partial of all the UK press.

All the other press I've mentioned have taken the far right hard Brexit stance from day 1. How does that make them all impartial? Yet the BBC cops it simply for just reporting the news.
Because "impartial" means agreeing with them. So as all the souces you've quoted are pro-brexit, then the brexiters don't see them as being biased. But when the BBC try and be impartial and report on the parts of the story they don't like, then that makes them "biased". Basically whether they're biased or not depends on whether they're telling them what they want to hear.
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:46
david16
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Central Belt
Posts: 12,268
A world where impartial means agreeing with me.
Proving the point, just because a press shares all the same viewpoint as you doesn't make them impartial.

I highly doubt that the nasty press shared every viewpoints of virtually the whole 100% the 17.1 million of why they all voted to leave the EU. But they all took a stance for 50.1% or more to vote to leave the EU. That is partiality.

The BBC on the other hand never tries to to get the electorate to vote one way or another at elections and referendums. That is impartiality.
david16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:50
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
That's fine - you may love the BBC.

Why not give people a choice though - why force people to pay the licence? If people don't pay then they are blocked from watching BBC channels but can watch commercial ones for free on freeview. Their choice!
...because the BBC is a public service and like all public services all should contribute for the benefit of all...after-all, we all contribute to the commercial sector don't we, albeit, indirectly.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:53
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
It would be a dream come true to have a Government that will end the licence fee and privatise the BBC and Channel 4. We don't need state owned media which pay 500K of our money to the likes of Gary Lineker and Graham Norton to read autocues, spend tons on the World Service which is irreverent to the UK and trying to start a North Korean service (why why why?), it makes the UK look like a joke on the international stage. Only a far left socialist can justify it's existence in 2017.
Oh dear. What a depressing post...presumably a British citizen criticising the best of British? You watch the commercial sector if you have the patience. Remember, each time you switch Channel 5 on, I am contributing to the content you are watching indirectly.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:01
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
A world where impartial means agreeing with me.
Absolutely spot on. As a regular viewer of BBC News and Current Affairs content, I see all sides getting the same treatment in a fair and balanced way. Tories, Labour The Dems and The Nationalists. It is why I choose the BBC over all other provides. I am not interested in partial news. I want to see all sides reflected.

Some appear to have a real problem with their own views being challenged, questioned and criticised. It's a sad state of affairs.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:21
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,730
Absolutely spot on. As a regular viewer of BBC News and Current Affairs content, I see all sides getting the same treatment in a fair and balanced way. Tories, Labour The Dems and The Nationalists. It is why I choose the BBC over all other provides. I am not interested in partial news. I want to see all sides reflected.

Some appear to have a real problem with their own views being challenged, questioned and criticised. It's a sad state of affairs.
I do not think the BBC is fair and balanced as regards news. There is a clear editorial stance that governs coverage. Sometimes news does not happen on the BBC yet is found on many other outlets. It also tends to concentrate on specific issues in depth, or to death, whilst ignoring much else that is happening. There is a tendency to highlight reports' conclusions without even casting a sceptical eye over the content and methods if it is from a favoured source. Ignoring too often those not from favoured sources.
The recent obituaries over the Christmas period where all but family pet dogs were asked for opinions of the deceased in endlessly rolling programmes of music producers, band members, ex lovers, fans and people in the street were realistically a disgrace.

EDit. I do however support the existence of the BBC and its funding through a license fee.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:47
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,469
I do not think the BBC is fair and balanced as regards news. There is a clear editorial stance that governs coverage. Sometimes news does not happen on the BBC yet is found on many other outlets. It also tends to concentrate on specific issues in depth, or to death, whilst ignoring much else that is happening. There is a tendency to highlight reports' conclusions without even casting a sceptical eye over the content and methods if it is from a favoured source. Ignoring too often those not from favoured sources.
The recent obituaries over the Christmas period where all but family pet dogs were asked for opinions of the deceased in endlessly rolling programmes of music producers, band members, ex lovers, fans and people in the street were realistically a disgrace.

EDit. I do however support the existence of the BBC and its funding through a license fee.
Yet every time specifics are quoted the case against the BBC collapses. Look at the most recent one where someone cited as bias the fact that a newish FTSE 250 company's results were given less prominence than the those of an established FTSE 100 company that's considered a bellwether.

Why you consider obituaries disgraceful is bizarre.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:02
BRITLAND
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,219
Oh dear. What a depressing post...presumably a British citizen criticising the best of British? You watch the commercial sector if you have the patience. Remember, each time you switch Channel 5 on, I am contributing to the content you are watching indirectly.
I'm more of a Netflix guy as well as Amazon Prime Video. I couldn't care about Channel 5 and their content as I'm not required to pay them £145 for switching a TV on.

And the BBC the best of British? Lord I hope not! If that is the case then I'm leaving ASAP and I hope some other country nukes the UK. Any county that resembles the far left socialist/communist BBC and it's far left supporters doesn't deserve to breathe oxygen. There's a reason why Americans executed those on the far left of the political spectrum in the 1950s.
BRITLAND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:10
Nick1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North London
Posts: 15,448
The government want the BBC to be puppets
Along with parliament (both houses), the civil service, judiciary.
Nick1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:14
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
I'm more of a Netflix guy as well as Amazon Prime Video. I couldn't care about Channel 5 and their content as I'm not required to pay them £145 for switching a TV on.

And the BBC the best of British? Lord I hope not! If that is the case then I'm leaving ASAP and I hope some other country nukes the UK. Any county that resembles the far left socialist/communist BBC and it's far left supporters doesn't deserve to breathe oxygen. There's a reason why Americans executed those on the far left of the political spectrum in the 1950s.
Are you indeed. Well I'm not. I'm not interested at all in American companies who don't contribute a thing to our British creative arts sectors never-mind their complete lack of public service.

Re: Channel 5. Whether you care about Channel 5 is irrelevant. You are required to fund their content if you buy certain products. Fair?

Yes the BBC is far and away the best of British. Broad UK quality content all free from ads. Reflect on this, if it wasn't for the BBC, the commercial sector (and I include your Netflixes and Amazons) would be far worse.

It's not very patriotic of you to take that tone regarding the BBC. As a British citizen, I take great offence at your tone. I see you are doing more of the 'the BBC challenges the views I believe in therefore it's biased' business. Well done. The BBC is balanced.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:18
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
I do not think the BBC is fair and balanced as regards news. There is a clear editorial stance that governs coverage. Sometimes news does not happen on the BBC yet is found on many other outlets. It also tends to concentrate on specific issues in depth, or to death, whilst ignoring much else that is happening. There is a tendency to highlight reports' conclusions without even casting a sceptical eye over the content and methods if it is from a favoured source. Ignoring too often those not from favoured sources.
The recent obituaries over the Christmas period where all but family pet dogs were asked for opinions of the deceased in endlessly rolling programmes of music producers, band members, ex lovers, fans and people in the street were realistically a disgrace.

EDit. I do however support the existence of the BBC and its funding through a license fee.
I totally disagree with you re: the News. It's first rate. The only source I value and trust.

I take it you are referring to George Michael. Coverage was entirely appropriate. He was a huge British recording artist. Hugely successful and very popular. Given that the Christmas period is usually quiet news wise...

I am pleased to see that you support the licence fee funded BBC though...as all UK citizens should.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:31
burneside
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Isle of Dogs
Posts: 2,137
I totally disagree with you re: the News. It's first rate. The only source I value and trust.

I take it you are referring to George Michael. Coverage was entirely appropriate. He was a huge British recording artist. Hugely successful and very popular. Given that the Christmas period is usually quiet news wise...

I am pleased to see that you support the licence fee funded BBC though...as all UK citizens should.
Why should they? Just because you say so? I used to be supportive of the BBC, now I would happy to see its demise.
burneside is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26.