UK Defence Forum

Personally I think the BBC should just stick to documentaries and never ever report news , or political programs and do us all a favour

Defiance wrote:being deliberately misleading or just plain ignorant.

Easily happens when we talk about the media, its over-concentration and the public broadcasting model as a counterweight to that. It is still not on to withdraw from a position or debate started by the person himself, rather than conceding (at least some) of the counterpoints.
- I have my own criticisms of the BBC, e.g. a social re-engineering agenda of its own
- but I can't fault the professionalism of their journalists/ reporters, who by sticking to such standards pre-empt the 'race to the bottom' by the rest of the field... though not anywhere near completely, I must say

Guess who's TV licence just expired at midnight, is refusing to buy another, has detuned tv and detached antennas and tuner boxes ?!

Love BBC news, but cannot see the need for all its other channels to be paid for by the public, same for the radio stations. They have grown too big and perhaps too powerful in voicing opinions. During the Gulf War I relied heavily on the BBC to keep up to date on events around me, because you dont always have the big picture of whats happening around you. Is it worth the licence fee......NO

SKB wrote:Guess who's TV licence just expired at midnight, is refusing to buy another, has detuned tv and detached antennas and tuner boxes ?!

Ha ha good luck

SKB wrote:Guess who's TV licence just expired at midnight, is refusing to buy another, has detuned tv and detached antennas and tuner boxes ?!

Try Parler. I'm sure you'll feel at home.

SKB wrote:I'm British. I do not need to pay a TV Licence Fee, as I do not watch live broadcast television and only watch online streamed pre-recorded videos instead (excluding BBC I-Player).

i haven't bought a licence since around 2008.

The BBC isn't left or right biased. It is liberal biased.

I consider myself to be largely liberal (in the UK sense).

Socially, I believe that consenting adults should be mostly free to do what they like, have sex, take drugs, watch Fox News - as long as it harms no other. I don't know how best to run their lives: I'm liberal.

Economically, I believe that billions of people making tens of billion decisions over what to buy, where and when every day will inevitably lead to a more efficient economic system (and therefore more net wealth and greater happiness) than the wisest (imaginary) economic central planner ever could: liberal.

The BBC is liberal in those senses too. I believe.

When right wing social conservatives (Anne Widdecombe) say the BBC is biased against them they are absolutely correct. It is. The beeb is socially liberal and the politics of social conservatives (generalisation) are not.

When left wingers who believe in a more planned economy (Corbynites) say the BBC is biased against them they are absolutely correct. It is. The beeb is economically liberal and the ideal economy of the average member of momentum (generalisation) is not.

I am not sure that saying that "left and right hate us so we must be doing something right" really cuts it for an organisation that is funded on pain of violence (i.e. literal deprivation of liberty).



But. The more interesting thing is that the BBC's social politics is moving away from being socially liberal. It is becoming increasingly post-liberal. Not the sort of social conservatism that Anne Widdecombe would want of course, but socially illiberal nevertheless. This isn't the BBC's fault per se. Its recruiting grounds are humanities educated, diverse, metropolitans. And they (generalisation) increasingly require from others enforced speech (correct pronouns), active (rather than passive) support for social justice issues, believe in free immigration and large customs unions (Brexit), and they give primacy to climate change over nearly all other policy questions. All of these issues are (rightly or wrongly) more politically controversial than the BBC's biases have been for some time (Miners' strike / unilateral disarmament?).

Unlike the miners' strike etc, these current trends are only going to intensify as more young people are recruited. I can't see an easy way out for the Beeb.

Zero Gravitas wrote:But. The more interesting thing is that the BBC's social politics is moving away from being socially liberal.

While I agree with you, I don't agree with the elaboration - which is far too wide for the 'label'.

I believe in the public broadcasting model (the BBC has perhaps overstepped the scope that needs to be covered to meet such purpose) and have high regards for the BBC/ the staff and their work, but at the same time I disapprove the social re-engineering agenda - which is self-evident for anyone following media in other countries and not held life-time captive to the dichotomy of Murdoch-sprinkled with a couple of-Barclays brothers -on top vs the Beep.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Zero Gravitas wrote:But. The more interesting thing is that the BBC's social politics is moving away from being socially liberal.

While I agree with you, I don't agree with the elaboration - which is far too wide for the 'label'

Fair.

The examples are irrelevant anyway, it’s the illiberal trend that’s the important thing and how the beeb will deal with it. I don’t think it can. It’s just part of the impending culture war that awaits us all.

Zero Gravitas wrote:don’t think it can.

I haven't formed an opinion on that yet, so would be interested to know what the main reason is (for arriving at that conclusion)
- governance?
- cultural inertia (of existing staff, or of new intake collectively)?
... or?

The two most powerful forces in human affairs are shame and inertia (only rarely is it violence - we’re social animals and more peaceable than eg chimpanzees).

Anyway. Whatever their private views it is now effectively impossible for individual producers or managers in the beeb to resist the promotion of some of the ‘woke’ culture war tropes - even if that promotion is in their sphere of influence because of the social stigma such opposition would accrue.

E.g. The whole white fragility narrative literally holds that if a white person resists a focus on equality of outcomes (rather than equality of opportunity) they are a racist. A ‘career limiting decision’ at best.

Are you aware of the editorial complaints unit? They are the internal bastion - AIUI - of what the BBC should and shouldn’t say. As important as your Sue Grey’s in the Civil Service and just as invisible to most people. They have now been overruled twice due to ‘woke’ pressure. See the Naga Munchetty case and the recent incident with a BBC reporter using a racist word on air.

All this is by way of saying that our institutions can no longer hold a line.

I don’t like the phrase, but for short hand the concept of the ‘purity spiral’ is about right. If there is a degree to which human affairs are cyclic then we are now moving (in the west) away from ever greater freedom to what I (as a liberal) see as a more repressive time.

In order to guarantee equality of outcome the state or its agencies need to gather to themselves enormous power over the lives and preferences of individuals. Many people, particularly young people cannot see the risks in this. Why should they? Blair is ancient history to them let alone East Germany.

The BBC is just one of the more obvious canaries in the coal mine. I can’t see that this process can be stopped except by a populist (neo-faragist?) revolution (the result of which would probably be even worse than the purity spiral symptoms it would be birthed to tackle). It will take two generations at best before the inevitably bad outcomes of the current trends are accepted as common sense again.

Zero Gravitas wrote:the concept of the ‘purity spiral’ is about right

The soundbites are getting golden - for this one too

And, yes, that would be v good in shorthand

Tim Davie, the new Director-General of the BBC gives his introductory speech:
Text: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speec ... serve%20us.

SKB wrote:Tim Davie

It's going to be difficult to complain about left-wing BBC bias with a former Conservative activist, candidate and local party deputy chairman running it, but I'm sure you'll manage.

After years of steady growth, BBC Licence fees payers were down 37k last year and latest figures show it down 250k this year.

Looks like many of those people saying they’d had enough meant it.

Zero Gravitas wrote:down 250k this year.

The revenue they get from OAP's over 75 will make up for that loss of income. They need to seriously take a look at how they can function in the future.

bobp wrote:

Zero Gravitas wrote:down 250k this year.

The revenue they get from OAP's over 75 will make up for that loss of income. They need to seriously take a look at how they can function in the future.

It won't make them any money, the government withdrawing its funding of over 75's television licences will at best be revenue neutral, but most likely will result in a drop in income due to the negative sentiment that certain parts of the print media have encouraged in their readers by falsely blaming the BBC for the government deciding in 2015 to withdraw its subsidy of the licence fee for over 75's in 2020 despite committing to maintain it in both its 2015 and 2017 election manifestos.

Ohh, no... I'm off then
"If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, don't express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or 'controversial subjects'.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing."

Hmm, actually I don't work for theBBC, or anything of the kind. Even more 'actually' .... NOT for anyone
[ wiping sweat off the forehead emoticon - insert here - BUT there is none available]

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Ohh, no... I'm off then
"If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, don't express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or 'controversial subjects'.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing."

Hmm, actually I don't work for theBBC, or anything of the kind. Even more 'actually' .... NOT for anyone
[ wiping sweat off the forehead emoticon - insert here - BUT there is none available]

I spent two decades working in politically restricted post and it was frustrating as Hell. The only reason I'm not in one now is an HR oversight.

The new social media policy isn't unreasonable. You can't just post "opinions my own" or something similar if you have a public facing position and are in a position of potential influence.

RichardIC wrote:You can't just post "opinions my own" or something similar if you have a public facing position and are in a position of potential influence

To be honest, you can't really post what you want in large parts of the private sector either. Most large companies now actively track employee's posts and put you through vetting (usually via external companies) before you join them, which includes checks that you aren't posting anything "offensive" (any definition of "offensive" being entirely their own). It's not as restrictive, obviously, as it is anyone connected with sensitive public posts, but it's still there.

The big thing for most is "reputational damage", rather than national security, and in this case, I think it's just the BBC not only finally catching up with something that is becoming standard practice, but also waking up to the fact that controversial social media posts by high-profile members of their staff can reflect badly on the BBC and its reputation.

In today's news:
"BBC monologues trying to “catch the audience’s attention” should not contain journalists’ personal views on political scandals, Ofcom has told the broadcaster in the wake of Emily Maitlis’s controversial Newsnight comments"
Well: It was a scandal... at least that much conceded

The next case (comments by another presenter, on a different matter) is likely to head into the same process
- let's first see if the complaints tally to the 24,ooo; the counting only just started

For me, the worst aspect of the changes in the British media over the last 20-30 years, is the blurring of the line between news and editorial. Newspapers and TV are, of course, correct to have an "editorial line" - that's what distinguishes them from their competitors, but the gradual change to news reporting, to include "reaction" (i.e. opinion) as opposed to factual recounting of events has moved a significant part of news reporting across the line into editorial.

There was a time when the crackling strains of "Lillibolero" coming across the ether (admittedly, not the most astute theme tune choice ever made by the BBC, due to its association with the Glorious Revolution, etc, etc - it was however, extremely recognisable and easy to pick out amongst the crackle) was the closest you got to a guarantee that you were finally going to get to the truth of whatever events had happened in whichever far-flung parts of the globe that you lived in. I don't believe that the same can be said today (or maybe I'm just more cynical)

Caribbean wrote:the worst aspect of the changes in the British media over the last 20-30 years, is the blurring of the line between news and editorial. Newspapers and TV are, of course, correct to have an "editorial line" - that's what distinguishes them from their competitors, but the gradual change to news reporting, to include "reaction" (i.e. opinion) as opposed to factual recounting of events has moved a significant part of news reporting across the line into editorial.

I could not have put it better, and would probably have taken twice as many lines anyway.

Gone are the days when "We draw the picture; you colour it"
was not only an apt advertising phrase, but also true/ believable.
... and brought in sales, too. 'Click bait' had already been invented, though in printed media it does not go under that name.

I think people will start to desert the BBC in droves.

Which is not good, as I am firm believer in a broadcasting model (Roosevelt's National Radio is still going strong, though the "Radio" in it might play a minor role.

A new approach to controversial issues: blank them out?

Umpteen entries on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/northern_ireland trivial and less trivial matters, but not a word on the Belfast High Court hearing, which enters Day2 (of 4)