The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Chindie]

Quote

Emails and messages were shown to the Guardian amid concern among some BBC insiders that the corporation has been too cowed by the government in recent years.

...

The email, sent to correspondents at just after 6pm on the day lockdown was announced, was labelled: IMPORTANT ADVISORY – language re broadcast. “Hi all – D st are asking if we can avoid the word ‘lockdown’. I’m told the message will be that they want to keep pushing people to stay at home but they are not talking about enforcement at the moment,” it said.

...

In another WhatsApp message from Sunday 24 October 2021, a senior editor asked journalists to make coverage more critical of Labour after a complaint from No 10.

...

Another leaked message showed the BBC shying away from a story that was potentially damaging to the then prime minister, although there is no evidence of any pressure from Downing Street.

In an email, a senior editor congratulated correspondents for staying away from the subject of Jennifer Arcuri after the American tech entrepreneur gave an interview to a newspaper in October 2020 appearing to confirm an affair with Johnson, following allegations that he used his position as London mayor to secure favourable treatment for her.

...

The message to political correspondents from 17 October 2020 said: “[XXX] did a wonderful job last night keeping us away from this story. I’d like to continue that distance. It’s not a story we should be doing at this stage. Please call me if you’re asked to.”

Shocking... Well not that shocking

[Genie]

Imagine how low their approval ratings would be if they didn’t have the BBC on speed dial pumping out their propaganda for them?

Edited March 17, 2023 by Genie

[MakemineVanilla]

I suppose the question is: have the BBC gone full free-speech absolutist now?

 

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I suppose the question is: have the BBC gone full free-speech absolutist now?

 

And the answer would be "no, of course they haven't".

[AVFC_Hitz]

Unless Angus Deayton comes back and deep throats a goat 

[Xela]

15 hours ago, AVFC_Hitz said:

Unless Angus Deayton comes back and deep throats a goat 

Subscribed.

[VILLAMARV]

On 15/03/2023 at 06:40, KentVillan said:

anyway:

Looking at that tweet the problem word for me is the 'BUT'

Press play on the clip and it's not actually said.

Whoever Dierdre Heenan is she could have used quotation marks properly and then the context changes massively.

It's still a programme thats rotten to the core. Just for real reasons.

[Rolta]

12 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Looking at that tweet the problem word for me is the 'BUT'

Press play on the clip and it's not actually said.

Whoever Dierdre Heenan is she could have used quotation marks properly and then the context changes massively.

It's still a programme thats rotten to the core. Just for real reasons.

Does it change the meaning at all? It did happen—it was a one off. The second clause definitely seems to be doing the work of a 'but'. We use ellipsis a lot in spoken language. More so than in writing.

[MakemineVanilla]

I think the worst thing about the TV licence is that you have to pay money to the BBC, even if you only watch the commercial channels.

The BBC's function seems to be to indoctrinate the public with the views, not necessarily held by either of the main parties but by the unelected establishment.

With there being so many alternative media sources now, the BBC can't really claim to filfil that function any longer.

Socialists have to accept that ever since commercial channels first appeared, the working-class have much preferred their content to the BBC's - as pointed out by Richard Hoggart, the Reithian principles were mostly rejected by the working-class.

The working-class are actually subsidising the middle-class with their licence payments, just like their lottery money goes to the Royal Opera to subsidise the price of tickets.

 

[VILLAMARV]

13 minutes ago, Rolta said:

Does it change the meaning at all? It did happen—it was a one off. The second clause definitely seems to be doing the work of a 'but'. We use ellipsis a lot in spoken language. More so than in writing.

I was just trying to add a different point to those already stated. As others have said it's a precis of the events delivered as a legal disclaimer.

Friends of his have said "it did happen, it was a one off"

Friends of his have said "it did happen, BUT it was a one off"

And to me, yes there's a difference. One is a statement. The other is the same statement yet containing an exceptionalising conjunction.

Using ellipsis would have been fine BUT she didn't.

 

[sidcow]

16 hours ago, AVFC_Hitz said:

Unless Angus Deayton comes back and deep throats a goat 

What's all that stuff under your chin Angus? 

A goatee. 

[KentVillan]

53 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I think the worst thing about the TV licence is that you have to pay money to the BBC, even if you only watch the commercial channels.

The BBC's function seems to be to indoctrinate the public with the views, not necessarily held by either of the main parties but by the unelected establishment.

With there being so many alternative media sources now, the BBC can't really claim to filfil that function any longer.

Socialists have to accept that ever since commercial channels first appeared, the working-class have much preferred their content to the BBC's - as pointed out by Richard Hoggart, the Reithian principles were mostly rejected by the working-class.

The working-class are actually subsidising the middle-class with their licence payments, just like their lottery money goes to the Royal Opera to subsidise the price of tickets.

 

The thing is, a lot of the supposed indoctrination the BBC does, according to pricks is stuff like

A woman commentating on football

A black person presenting kid’s TV

A radio show about a gay musician

Edited March 18, 2023 by KentVillan

[Rolta]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The working-class are actually subsidising the middle-class with their licence payments, just like their lottery money goes to the Royal Opera to subsidise the price of tickets.

 

This is such a misleading statement, and goes quite well with the rest of your post, which does seem to be full of generalisations and ommissions depending on which one suits you in each specific moment. For example, the ommission in the bit I bolded: 'their lottery money' has gone to (according to their figures) 670,000 different projects. 20% of their money goes to the arts. I benefitted from some of that myself back in the day, and I definitely wasn't the Royal Opera.

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing/where-the-money-goes

Look in your local area:

https://www.lotterygoodcauses.org.uk/good-causes

Edited March 18, 2023 by Rolta

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I think the worst thing about the TV licence is that you have to pay money to the BBC, even if you only watch the commercial channels.

The BBC's function seems to be to indoctrinate the public with the views, not necessarily held by either of the main parties but by the unelected establishment.

With there being so many alternative media sources now, the BBC can't really claim to filfil that function any longer.

Socialists have to accept that ever since commercial channels first appeared, the working-class have much preferred their content to the BBC's - as pointed out by Richard Hoggart, the Reithian principles were mostly rejected by the working-class.

The working-class are actually subsidising the middle-class with their licence payments, just like their lottery money goes to the Royal Opera to subsidise the price of tickets.

 

Out of curiosity, how would you define working class, and is it possible for them to have a 4 year old Vogue on the drive?

For all the imperfections of the BBC, the alternative is to leave ‘news’ and information in the hands of Murdoch, GB News, and Musk and they are all patently hoping to drag us down to a hate filled toilet of a life.

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Out of curiosity, how would you define working class, and is it possible for them to have a 4 year old Vogue on the drive?

For all the imperfections of the BBC, the alternative is to leave ‘news’ and information in the hands of Murdoch, GB News, and Musk and they are all patently hoping to drag us down to a hate filled toilet of a life.

Yes, but my argument was that people who prefer the commercial channels should not be expected to subsidise the BBC for those who do like it.

I made the link with Lottery tickets because low-income groups are more likely to buy them, than the less-desperate middle-classes.

I know we are all refined culture vultures on VT but there are a lot of people who have never been to a gallery, or been to see a concert of classical music, who are being "taxed" for the benefit of those who like such things and enjoy a better standard of living.

£970.9 million went to the Government in Lottery Duty 2022.

Sorry, but I was thinking like a socialist.

[KentVillan]

9 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Yes, but my argument was that people who prefer the commercial channels should not be expected to subsidise the BBC for those who do like it.

I made the link with Lottery tickets because low-income groups are more likely to buy them, than the less-desperate middle-classes.

I know we are all refined culture vultures on VT but there are a lot of people who have never been to a gallery, or been to see a concert of classical music, who are being "taxed" for the benefit of those who like such things and enjoy a better standard of living.

£970.9 million went to the Government in Lottery Duty 2022.

Sorry, but I was thinking like a socialist.

£970m works out at £18 per adult in the UK, for something that you aren’t obliged to play.

I get your point that it works out as a net transfer of wealth from working class to middle class communities, but it’s relatively minor (compared with, say, VAT or vehicle tax), and it’s voluntary.

Lottery funding also goes towards things like football pitches, community sports centres, food banks, etc.

A state funded public broadcaster is a good idea IMO. That then has to be funded with tax or it becomes a commercial broadcaster. Whichever way that tax is structured, some people will pay for it who don’t watch it. Not sure there’s an obvious solution to the problem, other than to make the BBC as accessible / interesting / useful as possible to as wide a spectrum of society as possible.

My guess is the vast majority of the population use the BBC for something several times a week. Polls routinely show that it’s one of the most trusted brands in the UK. That’s why the Tories in cahoots with the Murdoch media have devoted so much time to attacking it.

[chrisp65]

35 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Yes, but my argument was that people who prefer the commercial channels should not be expected to subsidise the BBC for those who do like it.

I made the link with Lottery tickets because low-income groups are more likely to buy them, than the less-desperate middle-classes.

I know we are all refined culture vultures on VT but there are a lot of people who have never been to a gallery, or been to see a concert of classical music, who are being "taxed" for the benefit of those who like such things and enjoy a better standard of living.

£970.9 million went to the Government in Lottery Duty 2022.

Sorry, but I was thinking like a socialist.

Don’t we then start to head down a road of wondering why I have to contribute to anything I don’t use?

Libraries would be the next obvious target after the BBC. I haven’t been in a library for years and there’s nothing in there I can’t get from Jeff Bezos.

Rather than asking who’s having to pay for it that possibly doesn’t use it. Perhaps an alternative question is who gains from removing it?

[bickster]

32 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Sorry, but I was thinking like a socialist.

You absolutely were not

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You absolutely were not

Oh, yes I was!

[MakemineVanilla]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Don’t we then start to head down a road of wondering why I have to contribute to anything I don’t use?

Libraries would be the next obvious target after the BBC. I haven’t been in a library for years and there’s nothing in there I can’t get from Jeff Bezos.

Rather than asking who’s having to pay for it that possibly doesn’t use it. Perhaps an alternative question is who gains from removing it?

You are a relatively well-off middle-class person - I was expressing a concern that it is the worst off who are subjected to a tax which the government knows affects them the most, and then  spends it on opera and the ballet, who boast about it on their website.

I think taxes which fall on the poor and the precariat are unfair.