The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Either way, bizarre that they encouraged him to not only present a view on his personal socials but whilst representing the BBC in this case, and censored him for criticising the government here. 

I dunno if they encouraged him, but they certainly didn't censor him for it. It is bizarre as you say, but then again the Gov't thinks it suits them to have this taking all the headlines. I'm far from sure they're right.

[HKP90]

5 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Sums it up nicely in layman's terms.

 

Bang on. As usual.

[tinker]

7 minutes ago, Xann said:

I'm in London, my local news isn't 4K. You get a slate and a countdown to when the regular TV starts again.

Also 4K everything is overkill. Bandwidth should be scaled accordingly, if you're paying for finite resources?

Birmingham's getting a beefed up media presence. It's being sorted by someone that isn't old school BBC. That's the now.

I'm told that if you're looking to work at the BBC in the coming years? Then Birmingham, being scaled up, is a better bet than London, being scaled down.

Your news is in HD, isnt it? I was using 4k as an example of what an amateur can film in.

Birmingham  being scaled up isn't hard from where it is now , and Steve Knight has pushed the BBC into investing more money into the Midlands and has plans to bring private studios into the area. Salford BBC has money dripping from it. 

[AvonVillain]

Fair play to TalkSport. They're not reveling in the situation today, but have acknowledged what's happening in a pretty classy way (which I wasn't expecting).

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

But if said experts don't really care, and/or aren't pushing agendas on all arguments equally, why would they be bothered to argue with equal vigour on them? 

To pretend they are would equally imbue bias.

I don't quite get your point (sorry). My perception is that, for example, there's a lot of false "balance" - not so much on this issue nowadays, perhaps, but as an example or two - Climate change it's long been established that 95%+ of the scientific community on climate change has identified and accepted the man made component of it, and that it is real. For ages the BBC for the sake of "balance" would have one of the 95%+ on and then also have some nutter from a Tufton Street thinktank, or right wing policy group on to "discuss" the facts. More recently, they often put business and/or CBI type people on to talk about the economy or strikes or etc., but rather less often have a Union bod, or similar to represent the side of it from a worker's perspective. If they do have a Union bod on, the questioning is often (probably rightly) quite rigorous, but wrongly harks back to the 1970s as a starting point. The CBI bod, not so much.

But regardless, experts do care (in their field). It's part of the reason they have become experts, because of their innate interest in their subject. Pick and topic, and you can find an expert(s) on it who care a great deal and would happily discuss their knowledge in their area of expertise. Sorry if I've missed your drift.

 

[bickster]

If you want to discus waiting times at the GP Surgery, there's a baby eating thread just for that. It has nowt to do with the BBC

 

 

[markavfc40]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't quite get your point (sorry). My perception is that, for example, there's a lot of false "balance" - not so much on this issue nowadays, perhaps, but as an example or two - Climate change it's long been established that 95%+ of the scientific community on climate change has identified and accepted the man made component of it, and that it is real. For ages the BBC for the sake of "balance" would have one of the 95%+ on and then also have some nutter from a Tufton Street thinktank, or right wing policy group on to "discuss" the facts. 

 

I think that is a major issue at the BBC. They want to be seen to be balanced and as you say on things like climate change will have a lifelong expert in the field on one side and some right wing nut job from a right wing think tank, under the name of an organisation that could make you think otherwise, and give them equal weight. It happened a lot with Brexit.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, markavfc40 said:

I think that is a major issue at the BBC. They want to be seen to be balanced and as you say on things like climate change will have a lifelong expert in the field on one side and some right wing nut job from a right wing think tank, under the name of an organisation that could make you think otherwise, and give them equal weight. It happened a lot with Brexit.

This also goes back to what Maitlis was disciplined for

In theory she was disciplined for stating her opinion but what she actually stated was obvious. Cummings broke lockdown rules, it was obvious to everyone except the local police force (yeah right) that he did. There really wasn't any ambiguity about it.

[HKP90]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't quite get your point (sorry). My perception is that, for example, there's a lot of false "balance" - not so much on this issue nowadays, perhaps, but as an example or two - Climate change it's long been established that 95%+ of the scientific community on climate change has identified and accepted the man made component of it, and that it is real. For ages the BBC for the sake of "balance" would have one of the 95%+ on and then also have some nutter from a Tufton Street thinktank, or right wing policy group on to "discuss" the facts. More recently, they often put business and/or CBI type people on to talk about the economy or strikes or etc., but rather less often have a Union bod, or similar to represent the side of it from a worker's perspective. If they do have a Union bod on, the questioning is often (probably rightly) quite rigorous, but wrongly harks back to the 1970s as a starting point. The CBI bod, not so much.

But regardless, experts do care (in their field). It's part of the reason they have become experts, because of their innate interest in their subject. Pick and topic, and you can find an expert(s) on it who care a great deal and would happily discuss their knowledge in their area of expertise. Sorry if I've missed your drift.

 

OK let me put it another way. The BBC (and others) are obliged to give equal amounts of time to party political broadcasts. That is considered fair and equal. They do not have to ensure that those broadcasts address equally the same political points. The editorial content of the broadcasts is up to the parties, to push whatever their agenda is focused on. This is, however, considered unbiased programming.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, markavfc40 said:

I think that is a major issue at the BBC. They want to be seen to be balanced and as you say on things like climate change will have a lifelong expert in the field on one side and some right wing nut job from a right wing think tank, under the name of an organisation that could make you think otherwise, and give them equal weight. It happened a lot with Brexit.

Yeah, though I think (only from my watching, I haven't done any analysis) that they've actually stopped false balance on Climate change. On Brexit, I didn't tend to watch or listen to much of their coverage, as it was mostly, collectively, just a load of madness being given airtime from various sides.

I think overall, they've kind of lost their confidence to do their thing. Perhaps it's not a surprise that the relentless attacks on them, their own,  er, own goals and so on plus the political stuff at the top have led to that, but it is a shame.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HKP90 said:

OK let me put it another way. The BBC (and others) are obliged to give equal amounts of time to party political broadcasts. That is considered fair and equal. They do not have to ensure that those broadcasts address equally the same political points. The editorial content of the broadcasts is up to the parties, to push whatever their agenda is focused on. This is, however, considered unbiased programming.

Nope. still not seeing it. Firstly, they're not oblige to give equal time. the time is allocated by party size, I think - so Tories get more than Greens or Lib Dems, for example.

The content of the heavily flagged as party political broadcast is not considered unbiased at all - it's, as I say, flagged up as specifically not unbiased.

The overall result of channels (as you say not just the BBC) showing the Party adverts is considered by the law to be "fair", but not unbiased (because it is clearly biased in favour of larger parties) I accept.

[markavfc40]

Another example of the double standards/can of worms that has been opened.

 

[leemond2008]

I am actually really looking forward to watching MOTD tonight, I haven't watched it in years because I can't stand Lineker and his cronies, just give me highlights of todays games with replays of key moments without listening to them lot chatting shit for half of the run time.

[HKP90]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

Nope. still not seeing it. Firstly, they're not oblige to give equal time. the time is allocated by party size, I think - so Tories get more than Greens or Lib Dems, for example.

The content of the heavily flagged as party political broadcast is not considered unbiased at all - it's, as I say, flagged up as specifically not unbiased.

The overall result of channels (as you say not just the BBC) showing the Party adverts is considered by the law to be "fair", but not unbiased (because it is clearly biased in favour of larger parties) I accept.

Equal in the sense that it is representative. Would you say any of the above points prove bias on the part of the bbc? 

The BBC have no choice regarding the time given to the PPBs, just as they have no choice oh what points, and with what vehemence  'experts'  speak when asked to provide comment on the issues of the day.

The point you make on climate change advocacy, I agree with you, but without the opposing viewpoint, do you think that the bbc would be seen to be unbiased? Quite the opposite. They would be seen as a left wing mouthpiece, because the left wing traditionally care more about that subject.

Same with the cbi and the right wing.

They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I don't, however, think trying to find alternative viewpoints, regardless of popularity shows inherent bias. Challenging a viewpoint to test it's rigour is, in my understanding, journalism.

 

[trekka]

I suppose MOTD2 likely to be off tomorrow too. 

 

 

[Xann]

9 minutes ago, tinker said:

Your news is in HD, isnt it? I was using 4k as an example of what an amateur can film in.

National news HD, London news SD.

You get ambient sounds of children playing on the HD channels when local programs are on.

 

Amateur broadcasters usually have one channel and it's quite straightforward.

Youtube, who have plenty of resources, deals with matters such as transcoding for their users.

Lots of streams for lots of devices, perhaps with regional audio and geo locking gets complex.

I worked for a satellite news gathering team until the contract vanished overseas in a puff of Brexit, btw.

 

14 minutes ago, tinker said:

Birmingham  being scaled up isn't hard...

It's getting some love now, focus is shifting from Salford cos it's built.

Since Salford the BBC got in an outsider as technical lead.

He's not London or Salford centric, or Oxbridge or white.

The revolution is being planned at Wood Norton, in Worcestershire.

[MakemineVanilla]

There have been several cases of individuals being banned from football punditry for expressing the wrong opinion, but most of those had outraged factions from the wokery or the left.

The Lineker thing would seem to be the first time that someone approved of by the left has been rebuked and sanctioned.

I don't know whether Lineker has a clause in his contract which prevents him expressing his opinions, but it seems likely that his suspension has followed the requisit employment law.

His opinion seems very measured and not entirely innacurate, as despite the myth, the country didn't do anything to help Jews in the 1930s, and the government even restricted Jews from fleeing to Palestine; and put those who were here in camps.

Obviously the government are to blame for the Lineker issue, because of the strong language they have used to appease their disillusioned voters.

The BBC have long been socially liberal (Cathy Come Home, Garnett etc.) but mostly on the side of business when it came to the labour disputes of low status workers; they have become increasingly zealous about the former, over the last decade or so.

 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Equal in the sense that it is representative. Would you say any of the above points prove bias on the part of the bbc? 

The BBC have no choice regarding the time given to the PPBs, just as they have no choice oh what points, and with what vehemence  'experts'  speak when asked to provide comment on the issues of the day.

The point you make on climate change advocacy, I agree with you, but without the opposing viewpoint, do you think that the bbc would be seen to be unbiased? Quite the opposite. They would be seen as a left wing mouthpiece, because the left wing traditionally care more about that subject.

Same with the cbi and the right wing.

They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I don't, however, think trying to find alternative viewpoints, regardless of popularity shows inherent bias. Challenging a viewpoint to test it's rigour is, in my understanding, journalism.

 

No. It's not their decision.

They do have a choice on what points and with what vehemence experts speak about when asked to comment. "can I just stop you there, Professor. Now, other guest, what's your answer to that?" They do it often, particularly if the presenter has done the groundwork. They don't just get someone on and set them off - they talk to them first about how the little session will go and how long it will last and who they'll be speaking to and which broad points they want to cover etc.

Good question - they shouldn't worry about whether  they will be seen as unbiased or biased by individuals, because that way leads to failure to cover subjects - "if we cover the immigration bill, Braverman/UKIP/The Mail/whoever will call us biased, so we won't cover it". It applies to any/all subjects including climate change. Their job is not to please this or that sector, but to report and cover neutrally, Worrying about perceptions of bias is a slippery slope to essentially appeasing certain groups or interests.

!

They are, yes, to an extent. They shouldn't try to find find alternative viewpoints based on popularity, it should play no part. WHat they als shouldn't do, though is put an expert (for one side of an argument) against a non-expert for the other side - like "here's a woman with a PhD in Climate science who has studied Climate change for 30 years and here's Dominic Lawson whose Father was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and who runs a right wing think tank". One tells you facts, one tells you ideological and is unable to address the facts because they deny or don't understand them.

Yes, it's part of journalism.

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There have been several cases of individuals being banned from football punditry for expressing the wrong opinion, but most of those had outraged factions from the wokery or the left.

The Lineker thing would seem to be the first time that someone approved of by the left has been rebuked and sanctioned.

I don't know whether Lineker has a clause in his contract which prevents him expressing his opinions, but it seems likely that his suspension has followed the requisit employment law.

Who's been banned by the BBC football for expressing the wrong opinion?

Not sure Lineker is approved of by "the left", either. Some stuff he's said has been, some hasn't been popular with "the left".

ALl the reporting says that he has no such clause, that the BBC wanted to insert one (PFK) on Friday and he refused to accept that and was told not to turn up for work. It's probably legal so far, but I doubt they can legally pot him for it, because there's no breach of contract/code of conduct.

[HKP90]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. It's not their decision.

They do have a choice on what points and with what vehemence experts speak about when asked to comment. "can I just stop you there, Professor. Now, other guest, what's your answer to that?" They do it often, particularly if the presenter has done the groundwork. They don't just get someone on and set them off - they talk to them first about how the little session will go and how long it will last and who they'll be speaking to and which broad points they want to cover etc.

Good question - they shouldn't worry about whether  they will be seen as unbiased or biased by individuals, because that way leads to failure to cover subjects - "if we cover the immigration bill, Braverman/UKIP/The Mail/whoever will call us biased, so we won't cover it". It applies to any/all subjects including climate change. Their job is not to please this or that sector, but to report and cover neutrally, Worrying about perceptions of bias is a slippery slope to essentially appeasing certain groups or interests.

!

They are, yes, to an extent. They shouldn't try to find find alternative viewpoints based on popularity, it should play no part. WHat they als shouldn't do, though is put an expert (for one side of an argument) against a non-expert for the other side - like "here's a woman with a PhD in Climate science who has studied Climate change for 30 years and here's Dominic Lawson whose Father was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and who runs a right wing think tank". One tells you facts, one tells you ideological and is unable to address the facts because they deny or don't understand them.

Yes, it's part of journalism.

Good debate by the way. 

I love how on VT we can all express opinions and have these debates without the name calling/anger etc you get on other platforms.