Defund the BBC.

[maffew]

I don’t have normal tv as arial doesn’t work. Have sky go, Netflix etc. Got worried about them tracing iplayer or whatever as Mrs watches it occasionally & I was worried they could tell through the internet etc so paid it.
Really not sure if I am silly or sensible.

I did it too. Only got a license for the occasional watch of iplayer, they will trace it Im sure so sensible IMO.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Haven't trawled through 11 pages but has anyone mentioned kids programs yet?

BBC ones teach about maths, literacy, history, geography, science. Deal with emotional development. Teach kids fantastic moral lessons.

Other channels are basically glorified toy adverts, interspersed with actual toy adverts.

And if you don't have kids, you presumably still want the kids in the society you live in to have a decent upbringing, right?

 

[larus]

It’s biased it’s staff say so.......

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...stand-why-people-in-uk-voted-to-a4242956.html

I’m sure most on here will now think that he is some ‘foaming at the mouth’, far-right racist gammon as he goes against their liberal, woke ‘group-think’.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I don’t watch the news anymore on either TV. I find the MSM to be extremely biased. I use the BBC website for sport but nothing more.

I want my news to be factual and unbiased. News reporters should not be offering opinions. What the BBC fails to understand is that the majority in the country are not woke, liberal, metropolitan people. There are a vast range of opinions and views, and jsut pandering to the left is alienating many.

For example, after the Brexit vote, any piece of economic data was qualified with “because of Brexit/despite Brexit” (depending if it was positive or negative). That is combing fact with opinion.

I’ve cancelled my TV license - not to save money as I wouldn’t notice it. Purely out of principle at the bias (IMO) of the BBC. Let’s see how woke the BBC would be if it had to be self funding.

Everything has to be sensationalised now. Even sporting fixtures are over-hyped. Weather events are over dramatised as though it’s the end of the frigging world. If there’s a little bit of flooding, the reporters will fins a street, see if they can find the deepest points and stand in that. But when you pan out it’s just a localised bit of flooding (for example).

There's a bit of 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' going on here. I'm a bit of a news addict and feel that the BBC's senior reporters are, across the board, better than anyone else's. Having said that, I watch less news on BBC than I used to - for example, while I will usually tune into the BBC's 10pm news I avoid their earlier bulletins.

And why? For the inverse of your reason really. I am not saying I'm right and you're wrong but the truth is I don't really notice much anti-Brexit bias on the BBC - there's some of it I'm sure but a bigger problem for me is that the BBC appears frightened of offending its political masters, particularly on the issue of Brexit and the wider Cummings project. While Sky News will happily report developing problems - with the Withdrawal Agreement for current example - the BBC's producers will contort themselves into transmitting an absolutely 'balanced' report irrespective of the facts. Typically, before the election, every other BBC vox pop seemed to come from the NE of England - I really can't recall one from one of the many cities of a different persuasion.

Rather than delve into some gritty and controversial issue (as Sky News will, apparently without criticism) the BBC prefers to fill its news reports with documentary reports from South Sudan, content in the knowledge that no one could possibly criticise that.

As I say, I am not trying to start an argument and it may well be another example of only noticing a biased ref when he seems biased against us.

And I agree with you that the MSM print media are biased - the spin levels of papers such as the Mail, Express and Sun are astonishing. Their proprietors know there's money to be made from controversy and division.


One thing I will ask though is is there anyone on this thread prepared to spell the word 'licence' correctly? Perhaps most of the people on here are Americans.

 

[darkwolf666]

Can anyone answer?

Sensible and on the right side of the law! Sorry if that sounds wet...

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I’m sure most on here will now think that he is some ‘foaming at the mouth’, far-right racist gammon as he goes against their liberal, woke ‘group-think’.

Ah, ‘woke’. It’s the new “it’s political correctness gone mad”

 

[Sheebo]

I did it too. Only got a license for the occasional watch of iplayer, they will trace it Im sure so sensible IMO.

It’s one of those where different people say different things without fully knowing...!

 

[Guinness Boy]

The BBC is still biased. Doesn't matter if its the 'least' or not. Its still very biased and should not be. There's still a strong political agenda that's played out in the many examples in this thread.

The BBC news could be a non political force for the good.

Their biased leaning tho is overshadowing their great works they do do. Some good dramas, comedies, nature programs, etc...

Go on then, give us a specific example. Although......

Hardly ever watch BBC TV

Perhaps you just heard about it or something?

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Oh dear, your complete moronic post again fails to realise that you don’t need a TV license to listen to the radio, whatever the station. Do keep up gammon.

Do you recognise that if every one defunded the BBC, all the [free] BBC radio stations would no longer be available .....
BBC is funded by TV license fee - stop that and ALL broadcast will cease [not just TV]

Do you like watching/listening to adverts on the TV and radio? Just asking like.

 

[larus]

There's a bit of 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' going on here. I'm a bit of a news addict and feel that the BBC's senior reporters are, across the board, better than anyone else's. Having said that, I watch less news on BBC than I used to - for example, while I will usually tune into the BBC's 10pm news I avoid their earlier bulletins.

And why? For the inverse of your reason really. I am not saying I'm right and you're wrong but the truth is I don't really notice much anti-Brexit bias on the BBC - there's some of it I'm sure but a bigger problem for me is that the BBC appears frightened of offending its political masters, particularly on the issue of Brexit and the wider Cummings project. While Sky News will happily report developing problems - with the Withdrawal Agreement for current example - the BBC's producers will contort themselves into transmitting an absolutely 'balanced' report irrespective of the facts. Typically, before the election, every other BBC vox pop seemed to come from the NE of England - I really can't recall one from one of the many cities of a different persuasion.

Rather than delve into some gritty and controversial issue (as Sky News will, apparently without criticism) the BBC prefers to fill its news reports with documentary reports from South Sudan, content in the knowledge that no one could possibly criticise that.

As I say, I am not trying to start an argument and it may well be another example of only noticing a biased ref when he seems biased against us.

And I agree with you that the MSM print media are biased - the spin levels of papers such as the Mail, Express and Sun are astonishing. Their proprietors know there's money to be made from controversy and division.


One thing I will ask though is is there anyone on this thread prepared to spell the word 'licence' correctly? Perhaps most of the people on here are Americans.

You’re right - it’s all a matter of opinion. I also used to watch a lot of news but now I don’t even bother. I’ll catch up with the main headlines from BBC/Telegraph. I read various websites to get financial/business type news which interests me more than the general stories about minor events.

What alienated me with with BBC was the green agenda (for example, David Bellamy was removed as he disagreed with the Global Warming bias), and the final straw was the Brexit bias. Yes, Farage appeared on Question Time lots, but every panel always has more remainers than Brexit supporters. That cannot be balanced as a higher percentage of the population voted to leave. So, this is again, clear bias. The same applied to Sky, but I don’t have to pay for Sky if I don’t want to. However, if I want to watch live TV (say Sky), I have to pay for the BBC. Fvck that.

 

[maffew]

It’s one of those where different people say different things without fully knowing...!

True. If I thought I would be able to not pay and not get caught I probably wouldnt have. Im conscious of the lengths that the licencing people would go to to try and nobble people they couldnt prove watched bbc at all, but what with email addresses, IP addresses etc Im quite sure it would be quite straightforward nailing most internet watchers without a license. Who knows though

Tbh I only got it for the news when the virus started and will probably stick with it now, its not a bad product. Though pisses me off as the 10 o'clock news doesnt often appear on it till some hours after it finishes I find

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

What alienated me with with BBC was the green agenda (for example, David Bellamy was removed as he disagreed with the Global Warming bias),

I’m sorry, “global warming bias”? Really?

 

[Machiavelli]

The problem is whatever source you use will be biased - I despair at the lack of un-politicised reporting which is what we used to get more of in the BBC years ago.

Everything has become ‘agenda’ driven and a state-funded broadcaster should be clearly unbiased.

Newspapers are privately owned so you’ll choose what you want to read as (most people) want to read things which confirm their opinions.

The two highlighted passages constitute a contradiction, and those that can't identify contradictions tend to be attracted to conspiracy theories.

 

[larus]

Do you recognise that if every one defunded the BBC, all the [free] BBC radio stations would no longer be available .....
BBC is funded by TV license fee - stop that and ALL broadcast will cease [not just TV]

Do you like watching/listening to adverts on the TV and radio? Just asking like.

I very rarely listen to the radio. I listen to music and my music taste is not covered by radio stations (as far as I’ve found anyway). I listen to a lot of metal (various sub-genres).

As for TV, I don’t actually watch a lot. I will watch box-sets/films - but can only watch 1-2 episodes before I’ve had enough. I don’t understand people who can binge for hours - I think their minds must be mush. I also don’t like ‘talent’ shows, reality shows, soaps etc. Dumbed down crap for the imbeciles IMO.

 

[DJ NOBO]

This is an interesting article about Bbc news reporting and political bias.
It takes a few paragraphs to get going .


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....e-to-end-the-vitriolic-attacks-on-the-bbc/amp

 

[Deano's Invisible Pants]

I don’t watch the news anymore on either TV. I find the MSM to be extremely biased. I use the BBC website for sport but nothing more.

I want my news to be factual and unbiased. News reporters should not be offering opinions. What the BBC fails to understand is that the majority in the country are not woke, liberal, metropolitan people. There are a vast range of opinions and views, and jsut pandering to the left is alienating many.

For example, after the Brexit vote, any piece of economic data was qualified with “because of Brexit/despite Brexit” (depending if it was positive or negative). That is combing fact with opinion.

I’ve cancelled my TV license - not to save money as I wouldn’t notice it. Purely out of principle at the bias (IMO) of the BBC. Let’s see how woke the BBC would be if it had to be self funding.

Everything has to be sensationalised now. Even sporting fixtures are over-hyped. Weather events are over dramatised as though it’s the end of the frigging world. If there’s a little bit of flooding, the reporters will fins a street, see if they can find the deepest points and stand in that. But when you pan out it’s just a localised bit of flooding (for example).

The BBC is not perfect and I agree that the “despite Brexit” quotes are an example of engrained assumptions. That said, BBC news is criticised by both those on the left and the right. Personally, I think it’s pretty neutral.

By comparison, C4 with Jon Snow is overtly left-leaning (perhaps comparable to The Guardian or Independent), while I find Sky to lean to the right. Outside of the UK, Sky News inAustralia is strongly right leaning - like its sister channel Fox News in the US.

Regardless of my own politics, I want to switch on the news and hear balanced coverage - critical of either side when necessary. For all its faults, I suspect the Beeb comes closest to providing this.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[larus]

The two highlighted passages constitute a contradiction, and those that can't identify contradictions tend to be attracted to conspiracy theories.

No, it’s really not complicated, unless you are ‘trying’ to smart and twist my words.

I expect a state-funded broadcaster to be unbiased. Deal with facts, call-out the government/opposition. Challenge the vested interests. However, I don’t expect the new reader to be expressing their own opinions, or quantifying facts with things like “Because of Brexit/Despite Brexit”.

Then, my next point is that for non state-controlled media (i.e. privately controlled), these will be biased towards the owners stated objectives.

It’s really not complicated. Maybe you should try to look at the point someone is making rather than fitting something to your own prejudices.

 

[Machiavelli]

The same BBC who many on the 'left' claim are right wing biased and their political correspondent is Johnson's slut.

I like the BBC, they piss everyone off. Which means they are doing something right.

They simply don't fit folk's narrative.

I think the BBC news output do their best to achieve the unachievable which is to provide impartial, independent output -- the claim that BBC News is biased has gained a head of steam of late from the right, alongside nonsense like the MSM. But where there is some legitimacy to the critique from the right is that the BBC is culturally metropolitan, and there is a big divide that's opened up between the provinces and the metropoles in recent years. But, then again, the metropoles tend to be populated by younger, better educated, more open and tolerant people, whereas the provinces are not.

 

[larus]

I’m sorry, “global warming bias”? Really?

I will make one short reply to this and I don’t want this to become a global warming thread.

Yes, the planet has warmed slightly.
Yes, CO2 has increased.
Yes, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
CO2 has increased from (approx) 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere.
The 97% of scientists figure is garbage - there’s no such survey been carried out.

Water vapour is much more potent greenhouse gas.
The models continually overstate the warming effect based on CO2, based on the output/observations for the last 30 years.

Should we protect the planet? Yes.
Should we stop pollution? Yes.
Should we stop plastic waste? Yes.

Do I believe that a 1 part in 10,000 increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is going to destroy the planet? No.
CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm (compared to the current 405 ppm) and the planet did OK.
We are currently still in an ice-age. (An ice age is defined as when the planet has ice at both poles and mountain glaciers).

Climate changes all the time.

And, I won’t reply on this anymore as this is a BBC licence fee thread.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No, it’s really not complicated, unless you are ‘trying’ to smart and twist my words.

He wasn’t twisting your words. You posted two completely contradictory sentences. To do so, says something about the poster.