Whilst coronavirus dominates the news, some other agendas are still being pursued. For example, the Culture Secretary (Oliver Dowden, in case you had never heard of him) is launching an attack on the BBC today and according to Politics Home:
Mr Dowden will also take aim at the BBC's news coverage, flagging Ofcom research which suggests "the perception of news impartiality is currently lower for some public service broadcasting channels than commercial channels like Sky and CNN".
He will say: "Ultimately, if people don't perceive impartiality, then they won't believe what they see and read and they'll feel it is not relevant to them.
"In an age of fake news and self reinforcing algorithms, the need for genuine impartiality is greater than ever."
The comments on the BBC's news output come after a boycott of the broadcaster's flagship Radio 4 news programme, Today.
This is quite extraordinary. Firstly, the BBC is being accused of bias for not airing Tory views when the Tories will not appear upon its programmes. Second, many of those who have doubts about the BBC's impartiality will hold such opinion precisely because they think that it is biased towards the government, and not against it, and yet this is being used as evidence for pro-Tory change. You literally could not make this up.
Welcome to the world of Kafka.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“the BBC is being accused of bias for not airing Tory views” – think you got that wrong – “beliefs” – not views.
Couple of news outlets noted that the majority of memberts of the fatberg’s party don’t “believe” that Co2 emissions are causing the climate disaster.
I guess what Dowden wants is more tory-dolts to appear on the BBC such as Lawson spouting gibberish on the climate disaster.
I sometimes visit the Torygraph to irritate the BTL mob. Most of them are insane, most of them are tory voters and a large proportion fatberg party members.
Thus what Dowden wants is for the BBC to pander to the tory loonies – who constitute much of the membership of the party.
Nice one Mike. Perhaps I should join you in going to the Telegraph’s website and winding the carpet chewing idiots up, but on reflection, I probably have better things to do with my time, and would I really want to depress or enrage myself more than I am already with the state of things by reading screeds of drivel from right wing nutters?
“Most of them are insane, most of them are tory voters”…..is there a correlation there Mike? I do seriously wonder about the mentality of a lot of tory voters, when you conside the damage the Tories have done to the UK, and the fact the so-called Conservative and Unionist party is pursuing actions that make the end of the UK ever more likely.
What will it take for these people to NOT vote for them? I haven’t checked, but I’m willing to bet just about every constituency affected by the floods, at least in England, is a Tory one. And which party has slashed the funding for flood defences for years? And which party do the people who live in these areas keep voting in?
sickoftaxdodgers says:
“I haven’t checked, but I’m willing to bet just about every constituency affected by the floods, at least in England, is a Tory one.”
I haven’t checked either, but I’d just assumed they were all ‘Leave’ constituencies which had incurred the wrath of God. 🙂
Well Andy, the Church of England was always said to be the Tory party at prayer so maybe they see it your way?!!
Mike Parr wrote ““the BBC is being accused of bias for not airing Tory views” — think you got that wrong — “beliefs” — not views.”
Spot on, Mike, the Tories are driven by ideology rather than a desire to serve the needs of the population. We had some delicious p*ss-taking in Scotland recently after Jackson Carlaw (the leader of the Scottish Tories in Holyrood), without a trace of irony, described the SNP as “an evangelical faith-based cult, not a political party.” Almost immediately a Facebook group calling itself SNPCommandments was started and jokers across the land submitted contributions. You can some of them here:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18240421.tory-called-snp-cult—snpcommandments-born/
My favourite, not included in the National’s selection, was:
Thou shalt support thy national fitba’ team, yea even though they play sh*te.
Never a truer word….
One thing I feel strongly about after the BREXIT fiasco and the last election is that I really could not give a damn about the BBC.
As a progressive I feel really let down by them. They have shot their bolt with me. A recent senior manager of theirs said that she felt the BBC was caught between the nations beliefs – that it was our fault apparently for giving them an impossible task to do in trying to be balanced. I watched horrified on Question Time recently as a woman blamed NHS failings on immigrants and was not censured by the presenter (I think that Guardian picked this up the next day).
For a long time, I have not listened to any broadcaster in order to try to understand the world around me. I have looked to independent means to try to pull the scales out of my eyes. Even last night on Channel 4, the Kathy Newman was asking why should tax payers pay for Coronavirus relief.
I think worrying about the BBC is unnecessary because they are already causing a lot damage with so-called unbiased people like Nick Robinson on air. I am encouraged to listen or watch rich Tories like Matthew Parris and Michael Portillo gobbling up my license fee.
What I watch is discussed and agreed about by highly paid out of touch people who call their kids names like ‘Tarquin’ and ‘Cressida’. The BBC has been playing a high risk game for some time since 2010, constantly looking over its shoulders at its political masters. The Tories – being the Thatcherite extremists that they are – are like all extremists in that they already have everything but always want more – more control, more austerity, more compliance with their world view.
The BBC has made a big mistake. It thought that it could contend with this and it has not. They chose to run with the Devil and seem to have alienated everyone in the process. I hope they survive long enough to put Hilary Mantel’s last book on TV, but after that – so what? I will have lots of good memories of high quality drama and current affairs. But I think the writing on that wall for the BBC was when Thatcher deregulated ITV etc. How can you compete with dross?
Those at the top of the BBC will be OK – they will build new and more profitable careers out of what comes and won’t bat an eyelid since they had no principles in the first place. But for those of us of a more independent nature there is – perversely – the internet and other providers with a social conscience or remit to fill the gap. So be it.
Wither the BBC? Yes, why not?
Because it is the best broadcaster we will ever get
That’s why this really matters
Losing it would be utter madness
I have considerable sympathy with PSR’s discontent with the BBC. There has been much wrong with its management, and content oversight, it seems to me, and I long ago decided to stop contributing via the licence fee and have been assiduous in doing without television at all for all the time I’ve lived by myself and for quite a while before that.
Having said that I don’t wish to see an end to the ethos of public service broadcasting. I’d prefer to see its objectives restated and better maintained. That is certainly what I would wish to see in an independent Scotland.
This government will sell the idea of flogging-off the BBC as a step towards greater independence in the media. They like independent media it can be bought and thus entirely control its output and editorial policy. Media regulation offered as a safeguard to keep broadcasters honest will be of no more substance than a gossamer veil.
Their news coverage in 2019 was worse than ITN or Sky News. Going back they were disgracefully biased in 2014 and more importantly in the run up to the illegal war on Iraq.
But why not reform then?
Wait until they are gone…
I think that we have already lost the BBC Richard. It has gone.
I watched some of their output over Christmas. Yet another reworking of Dracula (rubbish in my view); a dramatisation of a Philip Pullman book (very poor). The BBC is full of luvvies who all have their noses in the trough. How many more times do we have to see David Mitchell on our screens.?
Radio is just as bad where the best they can do is Evan Davis, Mr ex-IFS himself, giggling at HM opposition’s spending plans or other bitchy anchormen interviewing politicians.
I hear people talk in glowing terms about the World Service but the country that produced that idea no longer exists.
No, I am sorry Richard, I’ve had 10 years of listening to the BBC and I have had enough. Stick a fork in them, turn them over: they’re done.
For once we’ll have to disagree
I can state my problem with the BBC very simply. It has nothing to do with the issues that exercise everybody else. So be it. I confess I still use the BBC, because it remains such a central point of public discourse in the public sphere in Britain. There is the problem.
The BBC should not have had its Charter renewed following the Saville-Stuart Hall reports. I consider the Charter renewal a disgrace. ‘Blue Planet’ (or anything else) is just not sufficient atonement for egregious failure on such a scale. Public memory is too short. See Dame Janet Smith Review and Report on Jimmy Savile and the Report of Dame Linda Dobbs on Stuart Hall in connection with their work at the BBC.
The fundamental failings of management within the BBC, which allowed this failure to unfold and persist over a long period cannot simply be avoided or fudged, and were in my opinion, in the strict sense of the word, unforgivable. I suggest people take the painful step of reading at least some of the content of the reports before forming a judgement of the institution. I do not wish scapegoats. The institution failed. I consider the failure irreparable. By all means take it down and make a fresh start, but a point must be reached in all things that institutions cannot be allowed rules of supererogation over basic human values, simply in order to survive the consequences of what they do, or worse, because people just like the programmes. This should be non-negotiable.
Period.
The BBC is not just one management from one era
It’s a corporation where management can be changed
Why remove a key element in our broadcasting because some managers were undoubtedly negligent?
Almost every large company should be shut on that basis
I might point out that if you were indeed right that “It’s a corporation where management can be changed” it is striking that few managers in fact appeared to pay any price for the failure, and indeed senior management appeared to excuse itself from responsibility, including to a Parliament Select Committee. I think you are wrong; the failure was institutional. If you were right, then I see no evidence that your solution actually worked. Perhaps I missed something significant, but I would wish to see the evidence.
On the general point of institutional failure, we might have expected that one product of the Saville catastrophe (quite beyond general institutional “negligence” I might add), we would be able to record and expect would be a fresh, nuanced, human sensitivity to unfairness, prejudice or ingrained bad practice in the BBC. What have we seen? Samira Ahmed had to take the BBC to Court to win herself and women some justice in the payment of female presenters.
I rest my case.
They’ve almost all gone now…
Sorry Richard, I do not wish to be gratuitously severe, but “almost all gone now” doesn’t cut it. I see this is as an institution that has a systemtic and deeply ingrained culture that does not stand up to close scrutiny, and fails to learn from experience or adapt with sufficient speed or wisdom. Constantly revisiting abject failure is unacceptable. The problem is the institution.
Then change the people
What do you want instead? A wholly Murdoch owned press? That is what you will get
Is that better?
Your last question is rhetorical. I do not believe you think I want wall-to-wall Murdoch. I am not prepared to give up what I believe are fundamental standards that should apply to a public service and have failed, for political reasons. This is not ‘fixable’ and a fudge isn’t good enough.
I think I have already pointed out that your solutions have failed; you have not, I think provided any evidence of success to contradict me. Nor have you provided a transparent and testable method the public can rely on that sufficient change of culture could be demonstrated publicly. This is a failed institution that does not deserve to survive; and we simply heve to trust that it will all work out for the best, in the best of all public serve worlds. But of course it just isn’t the best of all possible worlds. It is a failed institution. No thanks.
So what do you suggest?
Because wall to wall Murdoch is what we will get
Be careful what you wish for
I think we may have exhausted this, and our differences over the matter, unfortunately remain.
“Be careful what you wish for”. I think about issues before I write, and while I do not possess the vanity to believe I have nothing to learn, I can see no reason to change my opinion here. I understand the consequences you fear. I understand the fear we all have about Brexit; about this Government; about a Johnson-Patel-Cummings Government. I can see no alternative for Scotland, to ending the Union. So be it. These are not matters I could possibly believe will be fixed by the British state; this British state. I cannot fix the unfixable. Am I missing something? I doubt it.
But what do you want to replace the BBC?
What would be better?
And how?
Isn’t it fair to ask that?
Yes. I think it is very difficult in the age of social media to forge a new public service broadcaster; with a clear vision of what it is trying to achieve for the public realm. The BBC was always a fudge; spun cleverly by the man Churchill wittily described as the ‘Wuthering Height’, John Reith.
In Scotland, which is, of course much more instinctively Reithian than anybody seems to realise, a new Reithian public service Scottish Broadcasting Corproration is easily thinkable. The BBC has made serious misjudgments in serving Scotland (quite separate from Saville) that have left it bereft of the friends hre it requires. A new Reith-model public service broadcaster however, represents much more what we are in Scotland (even the inherent authoritarianism) then anyone in Scotland would ever wish to admit, and what we can quite easily do.
It is for rUK to find its own solution; I do not pretend to understand fully what is happening in England, but it should be possible to create a viable public service broadcaster; Channel 4 (which provides sufficient credibility and independence in its news) offers a model; but that is something I do not feel well placed to judge.
Thanks John
Appreciated….
Firstly PSR, nice to see you back. I hope all is not too bad with you? Although I usually find myself in agreement with you, as on Richard’s post from the Electoral Reform Society, and your comments on the uselessness of Labour, I’m going to have to totally disagree with you on this one.
The Beeb IS actually between a rock and a hard place, given the polarisation of British society that’s been going on, thanks to social media, inequality, and the Brexit disaster. That senior BBC manager was right. As for QT, bear in mind that its not made by the Beeb, but by Mentorn, an independent production company. The problem is that the BBC contacts it out instead of making it in-house. Blame the trend for outsourcing anything in the public sphere that’s been pushed by the Tories and New Labour for decades for that, not the BBC.
If, as a progressive, you think the BBC going would be good you’re making a huge mistake. In fact, you’re allying yourself with the worst type of hard right extremist, such as Cummings, who has no interest in any kind of broadcasting unless it’s propaganda supporting their political viewpoint, the aim of which is simply to brainwash the ‘people’ into believing whatever agenda Cummings and his ilk (and he has equivalents on the hard left of course) are pushing. You see the same attitude at work in the right’s attack on the Civil Service. Cummings wants to replace it with a politicised US style CS, much as he wants to destroy the BBC and replace it wirth some right wing **** like Fox News.
No thanks, give me the BBC with Reith’s injunction to ‘inform, educate and entertain’. Of course its not perfect, but show me any human institution that is. And I’d trust the BBC to try and get at the truth a damn sight more than many UK politicians, and most of our newspapers.
And I’m sorry, but if you think you’re going to do better with the internet than the BBC you are wrong. Given how FB isn’t even prepared to take down political lies, and the extent to which the web has been used by extremists to spread their poison, it’s no replacement for a properly funded public service organisation with trained journalists properly researching a story.
Personally, R4 is worth the price of the licence fee alone. The BBC is one of the few world class organisations the UK has left. If it goes, this country will be in even worse mess than it is already. Be careful what you wish for PSR.
I agree with you….there is much I do not like about the BBC
But I am a million miles from wanting rid of it
Or wanting major restructuring of it
If I’m not mistaken, even with outsourced programmes, there is still a BBC editor/executive producer in charge.
This is clearly just a method of control. The BBC are a massive electoral asset for the Tories and their backers so there is no chance they will make any drastic changes.
It’s institiounal bullying to keep BBC execs and senior editors in line so the coverage of the 2019 election remains the norm.
I agree. The BBC is a valuable national asset. It’s one of the world’s most prestigious brands, hugely respected in most countries. Over the decades the BBC World Service has been a reliable source of information & inspiration for millions of people.
It’s just going through a rough patch and needs to be objectively re-evaluated by a truly independent group (Commission?) made up of journalists, digital ‘experts’, media professionals, ordinary citizens and anyone who could make a positive contribution. But no politicians! I don’t think it should compete with commercial media but focus on what it has historically done best. Clearly it needs to be slimmed down and re-constructed to meet the needs of the next 50 years. In spite of its gradual decline in impartiality and some programming quality, I don’t believe there is a comparable service in the world that delivers such a comprehensive range of tv, radio and digital services. I’ve been told that its outside broadcasting technology is the global benchmark. And, once you get beyond the news page, its website is a unique source of information and education.
In a nutshell, it could – and should – be simply the most respected global broadcasting service, representing the best of British creativity & responsible journalism – disciplines in which the country is still a world class player. Last point – it should be free, like education should be, and forever beyond the reach of political ideology. I don’t have the exact figures handy but I believe its current total budget is around the £5 billion mark. It could probably deliver a better service for considerably less, without putting any strain on the nation’s finances. It’s a perfect vehicle /investment with which to develop and strengthen our soft power.
Apologies if this is a bit wishy-washy but it’s too big a topic to go into detail. One could easily end up writing a(nother) lengthy thesis. It’s rare that I go into Union Jack mode but the BBC reaches parts that most other UK institutions don’t!
You and I are on a wavelength here
I realise that the other UK broadcasters — ITV and Channels 4 and 5 — have a public service element to their remit when it comes to news, but I don’t think you can say you support the idea of public service broadcasting and not pay the licence fee.
Ralph Cunningham says:
” but I don’t think you can say you support the idea of public service broadcasting and not pay the licence fee.”
I don’t think there’s a philosophical conflict there. There are many things I support, and would love to contribute to the financing of, but I can’t afford a subscription to them all, or indeed more than a small few of them.
I don’t condone enjoying the service and evading the licence fee. There are other ways the BBC could be funded directly by government from the public purse, for example which would be more cost effective than the clart of running a licencing department and expensively pursuing and prosecuting (some) non-payers. Enforcement is very lax I gather and probably because it is not cost effective.
I do not want the BBC to disappear however I cannot watch or listen to it’s news and current affairs programmes.
Employees of companies ultimately owned by entities registered in secrecy jurisdictions (journalists) are gathered together to discuss, on a daily basis, the headlines in the media produced by those same employees.
Said discussions are always detail light, balance consists of ensuring that whatever, say, the Mail or Telegraph says is addressed by another “journalist”, someone who depends for a living on the media merry go round.
As a result the “centre ground” moves steadily towards the right; such that we are able to witness the daily erosion of the public sector to such an extent that it cannot cope with existential crisis.
This cannot be addressed by journalists. We need programmes based on detailed analysis, statistical evidence.
When did the BBC devote a programme, say, to the segmental analysis of GDP so that rewards accruing to labour and rewards accruing to capital could be properly discussed or one explaining why it s OK to create £430 billion
for one purpose but not for another. Or how my regional hospital trust can bring forward a £60 million accumulated deficit, look forward to adding to it in the ensuing year and yet be expected to deal with the demands of the public.
The coronavirus crisis should be a wake up call for the BBC.
I long ago gave up the Today programme
I still want the BBC to be there
Oh I don’t know Richard. Like you, I stopped listening to the Today program, not because John Humphrey annoyed me, but because I simply couldn’t stand listening to the Brexiters lies and bull****, or the stupid comments of Leave voters.
But now that PM Cummings has ordered his underlings to boycott Today I find it far more bearable. Without any of the liars and fools this government is composed of getting airtime, the program seems to have more time for people who are actually worth listening to!
I might have to try again!
“I haven’t checked either, but I’d just assumed they were all ‘Leave’ constituencies which had incurred the wrath of God. ”
He He Andy. If so, this isn’t the first bad consequence of voting to leave the EU that Leavers will suffer. The British car industry which thrived as a result of EU membership is going………..Sunderland Leave voters take note.
Some of the things that have affected the viability of building petrol, diesel or even hybrid cars in Sunderland:
1. Regional governments ( e.g. Scotland/ London ) announcing that they will ban new vehicles from 2030 while the central government says that they will ban them but just from a later date
2. The EU signing a trade agreement with Japan ( falsely called a free-trade agreement )
3. The diesel emissions scandal
4. Uncertainty surrounding Brexit ( because for the last 4 years now, there has been serious campaigns to still be an EU member (i.e. to be in an organisation whose biggest budget item is subsidies to large farmland owners ).
But hey, why not make a dig at leave voters in Sunderland. It makes the Brussels centralisers feel good to make the snipes, and feeling good about one’s opinions seems to be what it’s about here.
If you don’t like it here please don’t call again
Your comments are exactly the level of stupidity I expect from Leavers. They fit into the usual catogeries:
1) Dishonesty – the main reason the UK car industry is now dying IS Brexit, not the problems with diesel emissions, or proposals to phase out internal combustion engines by such and such a date. Given the importance of the seamless movement of parts around the EU to operations like Nissan, leaving the single market makes their operations far less economically viable, or not viable at all. As a result, UK car plants are either closing altogether, or not receiving the massive investments being made by manufacturers as they switch to electric vehicles. That’s being made in their plants in the EU. So, over time, the (highly succesful) foreign owned UK car industry will wither and die. Thanks to Leave voters like those in Sundderland.
2) Nonsensical – “Regional governments ( e.g. Scotland/ London ) announcing that they will ban new vehicles from 2030 while the central government says that they will ban them but just from a later date” What on earth are you talking about? There is no regional London government; its the government for the whole of the UK i.e it IS the central government.
3) Blame shifting – aka refusing to take responsibility for the negative consequences of your moronic Brexit. Its all the fault of Remainers trying to “sabotage” Brexit apparently. No, the whole Brexit process, from the fraudulent Leave campaign to the ludicrous behaviour of the UK government ever since is the responsibility of Leavers, fair and square. One of the reasons firms like Nissan are and will be leaviing the UK is reputation for dishonesty and incompetence the UK now has abroad as a result of Brexit.
4) Bogus accusations of elitism – Leavers trying to make out that those of us who tried to stop Brexit are part of some imagined ‘Brussels elite’ trying to thwart the ‘will of the people’. The truth is that the real elite that is controlling the UK are the super rich hard right Brexit backers who’ve conned enough of ‘the people’ into voting for a project planned, financed and directed by the super rich hard right so they can benefit from avoiding proper regulation, avoid paying tax, and impose a hard right libertarian ultra free market regime on the UK.
You, Sol Campbell, are a guillible fool.
I publish because I agree
Thanks STD – my sentiments precisely. You saved me the time of responding
Look fellas, I’m sorry to appear to be on the same wavelength as Cummings and Co but I assure you I am not.
We don’t have to have a nationalised broadcaster in my view. All it needs is better regulation, the sort of regulation that The Courageous State could produce for ALL broadcasters.
Where has the BBC been in the debate about MMT? Tax? Nowhere in my view. It has offered little support to these ideas and chosen to go along with the orthodox view. The BBC is also riven with people who are far too orthodox for our own good.
They are all too often entertainers, driven no doubt by viewing figures who think that if they let the hard news programmes let the Government off the hook, then they’ll be left alone to be creative with their output which having used the publicly funded BBC to get established, they then piss off to a private channel and make themselves millionaires.
The BBC has also exemplified to me the problem with the entertainment industry in general: in order to be popular or accepted, broadcasters have to level down – it is the tyranny of popularity I’m afraid based on viewing figures and advertising revenue. This is in part created by the internet culture where people literally create themselves online. This has led to a reduction in deference to institutions like the BBC – it does not carry the weight it used to do. Only regulating across all providers will sort this out.
Sure, BBC 4 has given me Spiral (the Parisian cop series – brilliant), BBC2 – loads of good memories, documentaries, BBC3 (RIP) – some really great comedy shows (but Channel 4 has still done those as a commercial station) and then there is BBC1 which I seldom watch anymore except when Wolf Hall was on which was vintage BBC – just stellar! The BBC coverage of the 6 Nations (no adverts) will be missed.
Even local BBC is biased – how often have I heard and seen local BBC journalists and disc jockeys haranguing or having a go at their local councils repeating Neo-liberal public choice theory gripes? Too often.
I do wonder at times if all this started with New Labour and the Iraq war – Blair and Campbell really went for the jugular with the BBC on that one and its effects are still reverberating around the corporation. Their defence of Iraq was – well indefensible. Thanks Tony.
Yes – there will be a glimmer of a smile from me when I hear ‘outraged of Tunbridge Wells’ moaning about having to access The Archers behind a pay wall – but tough shit baby – you should have thought about that before you voted! It is these people who need to be careful of what they voted for – not me.
No – look – madness or not, it’s got to go. Yes we will disagree. Assets can turn liabilities – and this last 10 years the BBC has become one – a liability against justice, fairness and innovation – a better world. It is guilty as charged and must pay the price
PSR out.
@Pilgrim.
Again I sympathise with your objections and criticisms to the staus quo,and recent history vis a vis the BBC, but the market will not offer a solution.
A government like the one we have now wishes for total control of public information sources and breaking the BBC will be one more (and very major) step in that direction.
So you are right. There is disagreement here. You may not be on the Cummings’ wavelength but you give succour to the ambition by default. I’m a little dismayed you don’t see it that way, I think once you would have.
Agreed Andy. As much as I often agree with you PSR, and sympathise with your plight as a public sector wotker (being in the same boat myself), you’re wrong on wishing the BBC to disappear. As Andy points out, by doing so, whether you mean to or not, you are aiding Cummings and his government in their plan to control the UK media, and get rid of anything intelligent and good in UK public life.
I’m not disputing you have some points about the BBC, but no way do they justify your abandonment of it, and what, at its best, it brings to this country.
I’m sorry, but like a lot of the left in the UK, you are going along with the right’s agenda by being too critical of our institutions due to your general disillusionment with UK politics. I don’t blame you for the disgust you feel at our rotten politics, but giving up the fight against the right entirely and going along with their nihilism isn’t going to help anyone except them.
Agreed
I think part of the problem with the BBC is their paucity of coverage of news from around the world. For instance, their coverage of the refugee crisis vis a vis Turkey as an example has been totally lacking but most of all their constantly irritating reiteration that they are covering ALL the latest news and sport which can never be possible. The use of ‘anytime soon’ when ‘yet’, or saying nothing at all would suffice, drives me to distraction.
I would suggest that part of the issue is the shortage of funds given that the licence fee has not been uprated to reflect inflation and this ‘government’ has been placing responsibilities on them that should be funded through the public purse instead.
What ever our criticisms, the BBC sets a standard which compels those, who wish to compete for our viewing, have to strive for. Long may it continue.
Lots of the current language of journalism everywhere is deeply irritating
It’s not just a BBC issue
But a market with proper oversight and regulation might Andy which is what I thought we were about here. We do not need to own the BBC. We just need to give it its remit via licenses.
Why is Farage allowed on LBC (was it LBC?). That should not be allowed.
This Government already has total supportive coverage from the media anyway and they are doing well out of it. I don’t know what their beef is to be honest.
@Pilgrim
“Why is Farage allowed on LBC (was it LBC?). That should not be allowed.”
Why not? As far as I’m aware he is a private citizen free to work for whomsoever will pay him. Figure out a regulation that stops him which doesn’t also exclude somebody you think should be there and I’ll consider your plea for ‘regulation’, Regulation is a joke. A fantasy.
I don’t think MPs should be moonlighting on newspaper columns though, and taking part in celebrity TV programmes.
As to the government’s beef with the BBC it’s just free market ideological BS. And the BBC did expose some of their more egregious propaganda for the lies they were in the run up to the last election. In politics as elsewhere in life spite is motivation enough.
Andy – my point is that the Tories are well supported to the point where I do not know how they are a threat from the BBC given that they are so good at manipulating the internet and their usual hack mates where it seems most of their votes come from. The Tories over-state the impact of the BBC on their popularity I feel.
As for Farage being on LBC, the argument you offer about regulation is the same weak argument I hear in relation to regulating any market these days ‘Oh we just can’t do it’. Well I put it to you that we have not tried. Nor are we likely to because we too often blur the lines in the name of entertainment and content just as we blur the lines in trading derivatives and other areas of life where free market values have crept in.
I’m sorry that my animosity to the BBC dismays you – it dismays me – but there are other sources where citizens can get away from the orthodox bullshit that the BBC and others ram down our throats tautologically day in, day out to the point where we seem unable to think of things differently. No wonder it is so bloody hard to change things.