The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Xann]

49 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

This is why the BBC is not fit for purpose. Privatise it, at least then it will not have pretend what it's bias is and we wouldn't have to attempt to hold it to a standard that it will never again reach.

Man, the script is written already on that one. 

 

Oh dear, it's broken, we must privatise it.

Roll on a few years

Oh my, it's worse than ever and the profits have been salted off to tax havens.

 

This is the nailed on stuff.

[Dodgyknees]

3 minutes ago, Xann said:

Man, the script is written already on that one. 

 

Oh dear, it's broken, we must privatise it.

Roll on a few years

Oh my, it's worse than ever and the profits have been salted off to tax havens.

 

This is the nailed on stuff.

Murdoch is waiting to purchase it, then it will definitely improve!

[Dr_Pangloss]

There's very little that's special about the BBC to warrant public funding. Public owned media is a dated concept.

[markavfc40]

We aren't too far away are we from the BBC and NHS being entities that we just reminisce about. It is disgraceful what we have allowed the Tories to do to our institutions.

[Xann]

2 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

There's very little that's special about the BBC to warrant public funding. Public owned media is a dated concept.

You're speaking Tory without an accent there.

[Dodgyknees]

14 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

There's very little that's special about the BBC to warrant public funding. Public owned media is a dated concept.

Sorry, I disagree.

The fact the BBC is failing is because the Tories want to sell it off - piece by piece - to the likes of Murdoch.

We need the BBC of old, not to get rid because push Eton clearings in the woods have ruined yet another good thing.

[Ingram85]

6 minutes ago, avfcDJ said:

Sorry, I disagree.

The fact the BBC is failing is because the Tories want to sell it off - piece by piece - to the likes of Murdoch.

We need the BBC of old, not to get rid because push Eton clearings in the woods have ruined yet another good thing.

Bingo. Spot on. The grand Tory master plan is working. 

[Dodgyknees]

know a person who works for Bobs Big Chess boards. He came across something which needed research, some interesting new chess pieces which would make for an interesting development, people would want to know. So he went to his boss and said "wow look!" And his boss then put him onto designing draughts pieces a month later.

Edit. Oops, sorry wrong thread.

Edited November 24, 2019 by avfcDJ

[bickster]

John Sweeney's Twitter talking about this was posted upthread but this, his letter to OfCom really should be read. If it's true it's quite shocking

Quote

John Sweeney

 

November 4 2019

 

PRIVATE AND IN CONFIDENCE

 

To the Chief Executive, OfCom,

 

Dear Ms White, 

 

I am writing to you as a reluctant whistle-blower to ask for a thorough investigation into BBC News and Current Affairs in regard to, firstly, a number of films relating to the far-right, Russia and Brexit that were not broadcast, secondly, films that were broadcast but were improperly compromised and, thirdly, a number of senior journalists who have been allowed to compromise BBC editorial values by taking financial inducements or benefits in kind. 

 

At the outset I should say that I have been informed, entertained and educated by the BBC my whole life. I worked for the BBC for 17 years and left last month and I feel grateful to many of my extraordinary colleagues who do great work for the public good. I pay the license fee and passionately believe in the BBC’s mission. 

 

It is exactly because of that belief that I feel compelled to share what I know from the inside of BBC News and Current Affairs. BBC management, led by Director-General Tony Hall, has become so risk-averse in the face of threats from the far-right and the Russian state and its proxies that due impartiality is being undermined and investigative journalism is being endangered. Films have been not broadcast or enfeebled. Senior journalists have taken money or benefits in kind from Big Tobacco, a dodgy passport-selling company, and proxies for the Russian state.  

 

My concerns centre on the following programmes or films: 

 

• Our Panorama on far-right activist Tommy Robinson which should have been broadcast in February or March this year. It had fresh information on Robinson’s links with German far right sources and there was potential to explore how Robinson was being indirectly funded by Kremlin money. Robinson set out to intimidate the BBC. Not broadcast. 
• Our Newsnight investigation into Lord Mandelson which caused him to change his House of Lords’ register recording money he got from a Russian company connected to the mafiya. After a direction intervention by Mandelson’s friend, then BBC Head of News, James Harding, the investigation stopped. Not broadcast. 
• Our Newsnight investigation into the dubious connections between former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale MP and Dmitri Firtash, the pro-Kremlin oligarch currently fighting extradition to the United States. Not broadcast.
• Our Newsnight investigation into Henley & Partners, a dodgy passport-selling firm which sought to silence Daphne Caruana Galizia before she was assassinated. Outside a H & P event in London I was physically assaulted by security for the Maltese PM. Inside a BBC presenter was doing a paid corporate gig for H&P. Not broadcast.
• A Newsnight investigation into the pro-Russian sympathies of Labour spin doctor, Seumas Milne. Not commissioned. Not broadcast. 
• A Panorama on Roman Abramovich: made and completed. I did not work on this but know of it. Not broadcast. 
• A BBC News investigation into Brexit funder Arron Banks. I did not work on this but know of it. Not broadcast. 

 

Please note that roughly in the same time frame BBC News – not Current Affairs - did broadcast investigations into Cliff Richards and Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan on the basis of a fantasist. Both investigations should never have been broadcast. 

 

The BBC did broadcast films I made that were weakened by management. They include:

 

• A series of Newsnight films into Arron Banks, the man who helped fund Brexit and Nigel Farage. Some were broadcast but the strength of the journalism was enfeebled by management. One, exploring Nigel Farage’s worries about Mr Banks’ connections to Russia, was not broadcast. A second, on Katya Banks and how she came to the United Kingdom, was not broadcast. 
• A Panorama on Russia called Taking On Putin. This was broadcast last year. In the course of making it the acting head of the BBC Moscow bureau told our Panorama team to leave the bureau though we had sensitive rushes on us and were being pursued by Moscow police. He then informed the Foreign Ministry that I had been filming without a press pass. Not giving me a press pass is a routine piece of administrative harassment by the Russian state. Our fixer was forced to leave Russia for good. It felt like our BBC Moscow colleagues saw the Kremlin as their friend and us as the enemy.

 

...

John Sweeny Blog

More of the letter on the blog

[Dodgyknees]

Yep, it all needs investigation. 

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

There's very little that's special about the BBC to warrant public funding. Public owned media is a dated concept.

Genuine question, do you genuinely believe that or are you just pitching an argument?

Do you really think we’d be better served for news and public service if we just went over to corporations and billionaires providing the service?

Personally, I think the BBC could be stripped back a lot. I don’t see the need for Strictly or Eastenders etc., but neutral news and educational stuff is needed as much now as ever. It’s currently noticeable by its absence.

[Dodgyknees]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Genuine question, do you genuinely believe that or are you just pitching an argument?

Do you really think we’d be better served for news and public service if we just went over to corporations and billionaires providing the service?

Personally, I think the BBC could be stripped back a lot. I don’t see the need for Strictly or Eastenders etc., but neutral news and educational stuff is needed as much now as ever. It’s currently noticeable by its absence.

The BBC would be split up and sold off. 

Regional news would be sold off - and there would be massive cost cutting in order to create a profit. We would likely lose a lot of what we have locally.

Radio would be cut up and sold off.

The national BBC news studios would be used by Murdoch, or whoever buys, and won't produce high quality investigative journalism, just as the Sun or Mail don't. Sure, the BBC doesn't, but we lose a lot more via privatisation. 

BBC worldwide would be butchered. 

BBC TV would be sold off in chunks.

Basically we would see the BBC mutilated for profit. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Genuine question, do you genuinely believe that or are you just pitching an argument?

Do you really think we’d be better served for news and public service if we just went over to corporations and billionaires providing the service?

Personally, I think the BBC could be stripped back a lot. I don’t see the need for Strictly or Eastenders etc., but neutral news and educational stuff is needed as much now as ever. It’s currently noticeable by its absence.

Half and half really.

I like the idea of what the BBC is supposed to stand for, I like the idea of neutral news and the educational stuff free from of advertising but I personally do not think the news on the BBC has ever been especially neutral. There's been complaints about it for as long as I can remember. 

I genuinely think changing media consumption and the myriad of sources of news, information and education means that a public funded broadcaster becomes less necessary but I'm probably in my own bubble here. I'm not one to be that motivated to conserve institutions which may have run their course in some ways. That said perhaps I've just being 'fatigued' by the BBC and how it has clearly descended into a more explicit farce than it ever has been, which has weakened my desire for it to stick around.

I do appreciate you presenting an argument rather than trying to make out that I'm some sort of Tory (which I'm absolutely not). 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss

[Dodgyknees]

1 minute ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Half and half really.

I like the idea of what the BBC is supposed to stand for, I like the idea of neutral news and the educational stuff from of advertising but I personally do not think the news on the BBC has ever been especially neutral. There's been complaints about it for as long as I can remember. 

I genuinely think changing media consumption and the myriad of sources of news, information and education means that a public funded broadcaster becomes less necessary but I'm probably in my own bubble here.

I do appreciate you presenting an argument rather than trying to make out that I'm some sort of Tory (which I'm absolutely not). 

I understand why you are pissed with the BBC, but the only reason it's not doing its job is because it isn't allowed to. Journalists are not given the time to look into things which need investigating. I probably seem like I hate the BBC, but I really don't, I LOVE the BBC - and this is why I am critical. It's the most wonderful resource for all you have mentioned, but the direction it has taken means the public are being deliberately misinformed - and this, the trust in BBC is falling.

You have every right to feel how you do, I just don't think splitting it up and selling it off to the privatised corrupt media will solve that. 

[Xann]

7 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I do appreciate you presenting an argument rather than trying to make out that I'm some sort of Tory (which I'm absolutely not). 

Yeah, sorry. Could have made a general point. Didn't need to ping that straight back at you.

The context of you being you notwithstanding, your post IS the doctrine of the Evil Right.

[Dr_Pangloss]

17 minutes ago, Xann said:

Yeah, sorry. Could have made a general point. Didn't need to ping that straight back at you.

The context of you being you notwithstanding, your post IS the doctrine of the Evil Right.

Edit

Edited November 24, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss
Can't be arsed

[LakotaDakota]

Strange how nobody is mentioning this guy....

Oh i forgot, Tories are bad.

 

 

Corbyn seems to like him but i guess he probably would

 

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by LakotaDakota

[Dodgyknees]

17 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Strange how nobody is mentioning this guy....

Oh i forgot, Tories are bad.

 

 

Corbyn seems to like him but i guess he probably would

 

 

Yep, they edited that really well.

That is absolutely nothing like what happened and you know it. 

The BBC have, again, edited footage which promotes Johnson as a stronger character.

Notice nobody is complaining about the man who said he was scared of socialism. 

Calm yourself down and read what was said 

Edited November 24, 2019 by avfcDJ

[markavfc40]

40 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Strange how nobody is mentioning this guy....

Oh i forgot, Tories are bad

No one would argue that all parties are planting people in audiences.

The bigger issue is that the BBC, which is meant to be impartial, is showing clear bias towards the Tories and has gone as far as editing footage to make the prat leading them look better.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Half and half really.

I like the idea of what the BBC is supposed to stand for, I like the idea of neutral news and the educational stuff free from of advertising but I personally do not think the news on the BBC has ever been especially neutral. There's been complaints about it for as long as I can remember. 

I genuinely think changing media consumption and the myriad of sources of news, information and education means that a public funded broadcaster becomes less necessary but I'm probably in my own bubble here. I'm not one to be that motivated to conserve institutions which may have run their course in some ways. That said perhaps I've just being 'fatigued' by the BBC and how it has clearly descended into a more explicit farce than it ever has been, which has weakened my desire for it to stick around.

I do appreciate you presenting an argument rather than trying to make out that I'm some sort of Tory (which I'm absolutely not). 

It’s a mixed bag for me. I think the BBC is truly bloated now and whilst I understand it has to be relevant to all so it needs to host new music and it needs to have a twitter account and be watchable on phones, it doesn’t need to be the leviathan in every field.

Perversley, I think part of the reason it is now so hotly contested as being establishment biased, it because we can now all communicate around it. All those nasty foreign corps and megalomaniac owners, from Murdoch to that replicant bloke that owns facebook, they’ve inadvertently given us ways of communicating directly. For many, this means swapping memes from Tommy Robinson and Herr Farage. For some, it means actually fact checking.

So the BBC are to some extent victim of pandering to a tory establishment agenda at the same time as it can be most easily proven.

Sad thing is, the majority couldn’t give a shit anyway. They don’t want neutral news and a chance at education. They want their prejudices confirmed and they want Mrs Browns Boys. They’d happily pay virgin or sky £40 a month for this as the license fee is an expensive rip off.

Incidentally, by neutral I don’t mean pro Labour. I mean vastly less opinion.