KentVillan Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 minute ago, bickster said: No, I really am not. I don't disagree on your substantive point, MEPs vs MPs is an irrelevance. this thread is on the bias of the BBCs political output and you mentioned something that is an annoyance. The BBC hide behind the "balance" thing but refuse to be transpatrent on things like how they choose panelists for QT Fair enough, yes I get you. I thought we were still debating the stat. Yes, I do think balance is a messy concept, and because it's impossible to reduce to a set of clearly defined rules, it obviously depends on subjective judgment, discretion and trust - which in cynical worlds like politics and the media are not exactly reliable foundations. I'm sympathetic to the BBC. Balance used to mean basically presenting a mix of Labour and Conservative views. Now it means left/right balance, male/female balance, Remain/Leave balance, racial balance, regional balance. It's too complicated, and it's not as if TV producers are statistical gurus who can manage this is a quantifiable way. They're working to a deadline, people drop out at the last minute, they call up their reliable rent-a-gobs. Balance is further complicated because you can apply it on an individual show basis, balance across all its output, and balance in terms of staffing. Women's Hour on Radio 4 will always be for women only. That doesn't mean it fails the balance requirement. The problem is that some of these concepts of balance (particularly gender and race balance) are strongly associated with the Guardianista left, so the BBC ends up looking like it's pushing a lefty agenda, when I think they are really just trying sincerely to be representative of all sections of society. I guess the question is: what is the alternative? An entirely privatised model means a small group of rich people own the truth. Abandon the objective of independence and balance, and you end up with a state propaganda vehicle. And as I've outlined above, transparency might not be the silver bullet, because this stuff is so hard to quantify in a meaningful way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 8, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 8, 2019 36 minutes ago, bickster said: I was merely saying no-one knows the selection criteria as the BBC refuse to be drawn on it I don't even think it's the BBC who decide is it? I read something a while back that said it's all produced and run and filmed and audiences selected by an "outsourced" type of co. rather than the Beeb directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 8, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted July 8, 2019 58 minutes ago, blandy said: "outsourced" type of co. rather than the Beeb directly. That's something that needs to stop too. But yes it's an outside Production Company but they must adhere to the BBC's code of practice and that must be monitored and controlled by the BBC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 8, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour ago, KentVillan said: I guess the question is: what is the alternative? An entirely privatised model means a small group of rich people own the truth. Abandon the objective of independence and balance, and you end up with a state propaganda vehicle. And as I've outlined above, transparency might not be the silver bullet, because this stuff is so hard to quantify in a meaningful way. No, the balance thing just needs retweeking, it's compass is currently way off the mark. The BBC should be free from Government interference and apointments in key positions should not be political appointments made but the government of the day. Outside Production Companies should have no part in the BBCs political content either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour ago, KentVillan said: Abandon the objective of independence and balance, and you end up with a state propaganda vehicle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, bickster said: No, the balance thing just needs retweeking, it's compass is currently way off the mark. The BBC should be free from Government interference and apointments in key positions should not be political appointments made but the government of the day. Outside Production Companies should have no part in the BBCs political content either How do you make a publicly funded institution free from Government interference? The Government of the day controls their budget, so they'll always be able to exert influence by fair means or foul. Reining in the BBC was one of Cameron and Osborne's projects, and you imagine a Corbyn government would also have plans for the BBC. I'm not sure the compass is as far off as you claim. I think the issue is quality rather than ideology. Too much superficial coverage of personalities and short-term controversies, and too much showboating from presenters and journalists. Reminds me of this excellent Charlie Brooker parody: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Measuring 'Balance' at all is ridiculous. It is not quantifiable. I am not sure who to attribute this quote to Quote "We should measure the things that are meaningful, not make meaning of the things we can measure" but it's relevant imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 There was a banner headline the other day - Quote Serial killer's dealer guilty of Grindr murder I'm not suggesting it's biased but even I had to admit the word 'of' is a bit annoying among all the other gold-standard headline words. It's like a Kelvin MacKenzie headline scrabble wet dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) Piers Morgan. Edited July 19, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) On 17/07/2019 at 22:42, VILLAMARV said: There was a banner headline the other day - Serial killer's dealer guilty of Grindr murder I'm not suggesting it's biased but even I had to admit the word 'of' is a bit annoying among all the other gold-standard headline words. It's like a Kelvin MacKenzie headline scrabble wet dream. A bit of a lazy headline in the circumstances though. I'd hope that The S*n went with Srial Killr's Dealr Guilty Of Grindr Murdr as a bare minimum. Edited July 19, 2019 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 So when did rubber bullets get a re-brand? Quote local news outlets captured police shooting non-lethal ammunition at close range and tear gas. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-china-49317261/hong-kong-protests-violence-erupts-in-train-stations missed the memo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 12, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted August 12, 2019 17 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said: So when did rubber bullets get a re-brand? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-china-49317261/hong-kong-protests-violence-erupts-in-train-stations missed the memo It was after they changed to baton rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said: So when did rubber bullets get a re-brand? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-china-49317261/hong-kong-protests-violence-erupts-in-train-stations missed the memo Very much applies here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 5 hours ago, Mic09 said: Very much applies here Though when he says in WW1 it was called shell shock, another way of putting it would be it was often called cowardice, and they shot people for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 1 hour ago, peterms said: Though when he says in WW1 it was called shell shock, another way of putting it would be it was often called cowardice, and they shot people for it... Now it's called "man up" and people are laughed at because of it so not much has changed. People still don't understand psychological issues. The joke is about the language, not the deeper analysis of people's mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 undoubtedly one of the best Carlin bits (of which there are many tbh) imo. I fear peter's re-write might have knocked the pacing a little though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted August 14, 2019 Share Posted August 14, 2019 Quote Elsewhere on the BBC Stacey Dooley Binge watch her hard-hitting documentary series a link on this page 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 18, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted August 18, 2019 The Sunday Times today published their story about what no deal means Gove first of all sends a tweet saying that the government doesn’t normally respond to leaks (like leaks are kidnappers and terrorists!) but by doing so gives credence to the story by admitting it’s true. so the story gathers a bit of pace Gove now needs to go on the telly box so gives a BBC reporter to ask him questions. First question is a doozy and allows Gove to state his case (this bit is ok), it allows Gove to say all he said before and that it was an old document (is it shite that old) and the government has done an awful lot of planning since that document was written (it’s a mater of weeks) The next question from any journalist, and I really mean any should be along the lines of what planning, will there be medicine, can you guarantee that? Well it wasn't, the follow up question was so banal I've forgotten it already. It makes me so angry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts