Conservative Government on Mission to destroy the BBC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Smokey Joe

Member
Joined
21 May 2021
Messages
420
Location
Grimsby, England
The thing is, unlike ITV which is becoming increasingly left-wing focused (and starting to force this heavily on the viewers through both soaps and ITV Daytime - GMB/This Morning/Loose Women), the BBC remains rather neutral and independent in it's broadcasting, which is a precious thing in this age of bias and one-sided views.
People only see bias when it misses out their view.
The BBC is biased because they typically use only the official story from the authorities, or the source material like a university.
For example here are the main news stories in England today according to BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england
Can you find any story on the page in which there are any conflicting views presented?
Also you can probably see the stories the BBC highlight are often of little importance to the normal person.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
1,841
The Conservatives have history in destroying TV companies that "annoy" them as Thatcher changed the rules on awarding TV licences to kick Thames out after they showed a program that was critical of her. They are clearly doing the same here.

Of course the big advantage with the BBC funding model is that they do not have to pay lip service to advertisers, either by only having programmes that bring in the cash or by threatening to pull their adverts if they do programs that are critical of them.

Also if the BBC had to fund itself then you can say goodbye to most, if not all, regional programming if not written into their contract. Once the ITV companies were allowed to merge it didn't take long for them to merge regional programming (i.e. South West and West franchises running as one).

I wonder, if the BBC started doing programmes on how great the Conservatives are how the decision to cance the licence fee would change.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
1,623
Location
Stevenage
I see there is a bit of dial back now, they are going to look at alternatives, which doesn't necessarily mean they'll get rid of it.
Not a great analogy, but maybe it will be like the 2008 plan to end paper cheques.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-closure-of-the-cheque-system

Are cheques being phased out?​

No. The Payments Council announced on 12 July 2011 that cheques will continue for as long as customers need them. A previously announced target for closing the cheque clearing system by 2018 has been cancelled.
 

75A

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2021
Messages
458
Location
Midlands (ex Brighton 75A)
Also if the BBC had to fund itself then you can say goodbye to most, if not all, regional programming if not written into their contract. Once the ITV companies were allowed to merge it didn't take long for them to merge regional programming (i.e. South West and West franchises running as one).
Regional, don't make me laugh.

BBC think that 'local' news means that things that happen in Lincolnshire, Derbyshire & Nottinghamshire are of interest to someone that lives on the Leicestershire/Warwickshire border.
The nearest City to us is Coventry not Nottingham. To add insult to injury the news is not on HD so every time it comes on we have to change channels to hear the news or see the weather forecast that has no interest or relevance to us.
ITV has much better regional boundaries.
 
Last edited:

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,243
Location
nowhere
The BBC is biased because they typically use only the official story from the authorities, or the source material like a university.
For example here are the main news stories in England today according to BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england
Can you find any story on the page in which there are any conflicting views presented?

Good grief. Being contrarian is not the same as being balanced - if you want to fund conspiracyTV to get Dave from down the pub to disagree with a university study or say that the man who was stabbed to death was actually a paid actor, be my guest...
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,786
Location
Scotland
I, personally, almost never watch the BBC and am not at all convinced I should pay 43p a day for you to do so.
I personally never use schools and am not at all convinced I should pay (whatever percentage of income/council taxes pays for education) a day for others to do so.
 

Ant1966

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
63
Location
RG
Tend to keep out of this sort of topic as it always becomes polarised and I'm on the forum to talk about trains, with other people who like trains, irrespective of their politics. But this story has really got to me, for some reason. There is clearly a debate to be had about the LF as a funding model in a digital age. Theres also an issue with the fact that fewer young people have the same feelings about the BBC as us oldies do. But this isn't the Govt initiating a reasoned debate about any of that. Its an ideological attack, pure and simple. The giveaway is the language; "Grannies going to jail" etc. (really? Show me some examples). The deepest irony in all this is that this is a Govt who have nailed their colours to the mast about how Britain is 'special', 'world beating' etc.; when in reality it's nothing of the sort (we're actually 'quite good' at some stuff and 'not so good' at other stuff, but rarely truly 'world beating'). So now they are looking to destroy one of the very few things that IS genuinely world class. The BBC is respected all over the world and our TV is pretty much the best you'll find anywhere, and actually bloody good value for what we pay. But perhaps more important than that, the Beeb is part of the cultural fabric of this country, in a way we wont even understand until we've lost it.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
No longer here
I personally never use schools and am not at all convinced I should pay (whatever percentage of income/council taxes pays for education) a day for others to do so.
Why does nobody here want to explain why a public broadcaster warrants the same treatment as first level public services like the police and schools? Why, actually, should we all pay for it?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,786
Location
Scotland
Why does nobody here want to explain why a public broadcaster warrants the same treatment as first level public services like the police and schools?
For some of us a relatively independent public broadcaster is a first level public service.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
No longer here
For some of us a relatively independent public broadcaster is a first level public service.
But why? And why does it need to be so large? I get the argument about impartial news and local affairs, but why do we need the entire smorgasbord of the BBC's offering to be paid for by compulsion?
 

Ant1966

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
63
Location
RG
Why does nobody here want to explain why a public broadcaster warrants the same treatment as first level public services like the police and schools? Why, actually, should we all pay for it?
Its a good question AlterEgo, and a fair one. My view: its obviously not an essential public service like police and schools. Its probably more in line with things like Public parks, and libraries, and swimming pools etc. Important for the wellbeing of the nation, but not essential. (was pretty useful at educating our kids during the pandemic mind you) My contention is firstly that its actually very important to who we, as the UK are. And secondly that its actually very good value for money. Take a look at this (produced by that well known loony left organisation Ernst and Young, for those of you always hunting for 'bias') https://www.smallscreenbigdebate.co.../204587/international-perspectives-on-psb.pdf
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,814
Location
Croydon
My simple view is that without the BCC and its lack of adverts there would be far far more adverts on Commercial TV. They would not have to compete with any ad free channels if the BBC were gone.

My experience of other countries leads me to believe this.

In America my friend would miss parts of broadcasts where they were being simultaneously streamed on more than one channel - if his local channel had an advertising break then the stream continued and he missed a part !.

In Asia I have seen news articles that are very obviously biased by whoever is paying for the advertising. My parallel is HiFi in the UK where reviews of products vary from one magazine to another depending on if the manufacturer is advertising in the magazine.

I agree the BBC needs a sort out (periodically) but you do not know what you have got till it has gone.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,786
Location
Scotland
Because the example given to us by our cousins across the pond shows that media completely controlled by the private sector results in hyper-politicisation of public discourse. Not to mention the number of adverts is excessive - at least 15 minutes in every hour, sometimes more!
And why does it need to be so large? I get the argument about impartial news and local affairs, but why do we need the entire smorgasbord of the BBC's offering to be paid for by compulsion?
Because it's a major contributor to the public good. As @Ant1966 says it's on the same level as public parks, swimming pools, libraries, etc. they aren't essential to the basic functioning of the country, but they go a very long way towards providing a better quality of life to the public as a whole. I haven't personally used my public library recently, but I have no problem with my tax pounds being used to fund them as a benefit to society generally. I'd have no problem with an income tax increase instead of a TV licence fee, but as we all know once money disappears into the general fund it will be used for whatever purpose the government feels like (e.g. illegally funnelled directly into the pockets of Tory donors) rather than being ring-fenced for a specific purpose.
 

Ant1966

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
63
Location
RG
Good grief. Being contrarian is not the same as being balanced - if you want to fund conspiracyTV to get Dave from down the pub to disagree with a university study or say that the man who was stabbed to death was actually a paid actor, be my guest...
Exactly. "Now we hope you enjoyed that episode of 'The Blue Planet'. By way of balance; here's a member of the Flat Earth Society..."
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
The BBC have been in the crosshairs of the Tory party for a long, long time; certainly since the Falklands crisis. The fallout from that was covered in the book Gotcha!: The Government, The Media and The Falklands Crisis. The BBC learnt from that and toe-d the government line during the miners strike, a legacy that continued with their enthusiastic cheerleading for invading Iraq in pursuit of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. Allied to this was, of course, the somewhat peculiar circumstances surrounding some BBC correspondents coverage of the death of Dr David Kelly.

We can also add their scandalous covering up for J*mm* S*v*l*, yet contrast this with their pursuit of Cliff Richard over a non-event.

The BBC is far from wart free and needs to be fully audited to discover exactly how it’s income and expenditure are accounted for, before we consider continuing with the equivalent of a poll tax that bears no relation to levels of consumption of output, or ability of people in straitened circumstances to pay.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,786
Location
Scotland
The fallout from that was covered in the book Gotcha!: The Government, The Media and The Falklands Crisis. The BBC learnt from that and toe-d the government line during the miners strike, a legacy that continued with their enthusiastic cheerleading for invading Iraq in pursuit of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. Allied to this was, of course, the somewhat peculiar circumstances surrounding some BBC correspondents coverage of the death of Dr David Kelly.
I've always said that the fact that both the Right and the Left accuse the BBC of the most extreme bias says that they're probably pretty balanced on the whole.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
2,709
I've always said that the fact that both the Right and the Left accuse the BBC of the most extreme bias says that they're probably pretty balanced on the whole.

I've often heard that argument, but the real issue is that the BBC (and many news broadcasters, GBNews being the exception) do not challenge either Government or Opposition spokesmen to the same extent on a topic. Further, the broadcasters used to report facts - now they are more opiniated. A classic is climate change debate - has it ever been fully established that it is a real concern; there is never any contrary view offered.

With regards to the main programmrs, yes the BBC does excel at some programmes, as do other channels - Killing Eve, Downton etc.(yes I know Downton is ITV, but I did say other broadcadtrts as well) If they are so good, why are they not funded by overseas sales or by putting on a pay channel? Likewise, programmes with high salaried presenters should either have their costs trimmed, or again be on a pay channel if they are so good. There is a lot of waste at the BBC- I'm sure W1A was probably close to the mark - and I think it was said that the BBC sent more people to the Seoul Olympics than we sent competitors.

Some of the radio programmes could turn commercial if they were in sufficient demand.

Some programmes will never make money, but there is a need for them - the News being a case in point, but these programmes should be limited to the I nform, Educate Entertain original principles of the BBC. These should be funded by a smaller licence fee, but the skill is in defining which programmes these are, the amount of airtime they should get, and how to ensure that they are honest and not biased. Inevitably, these will be a smaller number of programmes and channels than currently exist.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
6,226
Subscription TV for BBC could only work if it could only be received via the internet. A large proportion of existing sets can only receive a signal via, for example, Freeview. Many parts of UK do not have access to reliably fast broadband, and it will be at least several years before nationwide coverage is available. And people are not going to want to throw away perfectly good TV sets prematurely just to satisfy some political party.

But - BBC costs could be reduced, starting with the numbers of management staff, and ceasing to pay excessive fees to some presenters. They should consider is it really necessary to broadcast for 24 hours per day -- would an overnight TV shutdown be desirable (say from 00:30 until 06:30)?

Could BBC Radio be cut to the bare desirable "factual channels", i.e. Radios 4, 5, Local Radio & World Service?, leaving music to other organisations?

Would a payment from central tax funds be feasible - but including infallible guarantees about interference from governments or civil service?

I definitely think that we need to retain some residual form of BBC, or we could end up with subscription-only Americanised rubbish as the majority TV content.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,786
Location
Scotland
There is a lot of waste at the BBC- I'm sure W1A was probably close to the mark - and I think it was said that the BBC sent more people to the Seoul Olympics than we sent competitors.
That is true, but it's not an argument for removing its main funding source completely.
 

Paul Jones 88

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2020
Messages
446
Location
Headcorn
Even BBC children's programmes have taken a massive down turn, watching with my grand daughter last week and thinking that these shows are absolutely awful compared to the children's programmes I watched as a child in the 70s.
Saturday night is generally a good night to turn off the telly and get out a book.
BBC is just the same old rubbish going round and round on a yearly cycle, SCD, McIntire, Mrs Brown, etc.
Once great shows like Dr Who turned into preaching lefty rubbish written by communists.
Question of Sport totally munted, awful.
I would never pay for such rubbish, it'd be like paying good money for food that causes the runs.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,549
Location
Yorks
Could BBC Radio be cut to the bare desirable "factual channels", i.e. Radios 4, 5, Local Radio & World Service?, leaving music to other organisations?

No. Music shouldn't be left to the commercial channels, with a circulation of the top ten and loud, grating adverts every ten minutes.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
1,439
Frankly all of this making stuff for other channels such as Netflix and Britbox etc needs to be knocked on the head straight away. Everything they produce should first and foremost go to their terrestrial channels (which aren't exactly overburdened with fresh content as it is).

By all means flog things to other channels when license fee payers have had a chance to see them, but not before.

What content are you thinking of that the BBC is making that's going straight to other platforms? I'm not aware of such a thing happening.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
4,291
Location
Scotland & London
What content are you thinking of that the BBC is making that's going straight to other platforms? I'm not aware of such a thing happening.

Then you've missed the fact that BBC Three has existed in a streaming-only mode for approaching six years with only a small portion of its output making its way to terrestrial broadcast.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,786
Location
Scotland
Then you've missed the fact that BBC Three has existed in a streaming-only mode for approaching six years with only a small portion of its output making its way to terrestrial broadcast.
But that's not 'other platforms' though is it, really. It's going to the licence-fee supported iPlayer. And it was a highly contentious decision at the time given that BBC Three had much higher viewership than BBC Four.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top