No.10 tells BBC licence fee will be scrapped - Sunday Times

[Fiskey]

Agreed. I stopped watching sky news many years ago. So I was actually shocked when, about a year or so ago, I tuned in one day. They were so much more honest in their approach than the BBC who were so terrified of being actually critical of brexit, that they'd fall over each other trying to make sure the full tory case was heard, and emphasised, time and again.

I can't believe that is your impression. The BBC has brought Brexit into everything since the vote, and has been quite clearly pro remain.

 

[nickm]

I don't understand that as a response?

The bit where this "right wing as could be" organisation publicly called out the PM?

 

[Fiskey]

The BBC did practically nothing to take the Tories to task over Brexit, for the most part they barely acknowledged it compared to other news organisations. Now their chickens are coming to roost, they helped the villains, now the villains have stabbed them in the back.

This article is much closer to my opinion as to how the BBC has been with regards Brexit:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/9537730/bbc-anti-brexit-propaganda/amp/

 

[nickm]

So the BBC's total capitulation to the tories over the last few years, was in vain.

And don't bother with that balance argument. The BBC are very left leaning when it comes to social equality issues. But they openly laugh at policies which don't fit the Thatcherite norm and have for years, willingly parroted the right-wing messages of the day, lifted straight from the gutter press. The refusal to sack Laura K over her performance over the last 8 months, means I don't feel a great desire to fight for the survival of what has been, and still should be, such an important british institution.

The main fault lies with the tories of course, but the BBC should have stood up to them. They would have been supported.

Well, we all know how savvy the Left's media operation is, so it's no surprise to see that lot tacitly supporting the gutting of the only media organisation they could ever be in a position to directly influence in the future. Well done lads! While you're aiming at one foot, why not shoot the other one too?

 

[nickm]

It's not about their political leanings for most people, I've spoken to a lot of people who don't want to pay the licence because they simply don't use it. Let the people do use it pay for it.

Dunno man I never use the health service either. In fact I pay far more in to the government than I get out. Indeed many more people directly benefit from the taxes I pay than I ever do, which is obviously even more unfair. So let the people who use it pay for it!

 

[Grinner]

Dunno man I never use the health service either. In fact I pay far more in to the government than I get out. Indeed many more people directly benefit from the taxes I pay than I ever do, which is obviously even more unfair. So let the people who use it pay for it!

I hate selfish cnuts like you. Just because something doesn't directly benefit you, you can't see the use of it. You don't deserve to be included in society with that kind of attitude.

 

[Flying high]

I can't believe that is your impression. The BBC has brought Brexit into everything since the vote, and has been quite clearly pro remain.

Brexit has been brought into everything, because it could effect.... everything. Pro remain? Don't take the piss! They've been terrified of annoying the extremely vocal minority of brexit supporters whose constant mantra seems to be 'stop going on about brexit', and 'just get it done'.

Just because some people cast their vote and expected, whatever the hell was their own personal vision of brexit, to just be done without fuss, doesn't mean that the BBC reporting on the unfolding shit-show of the next 4+ years means they are pro remain. Honestly, most of them really try to achieve impartiality. But it was like attempting to be impartial reporting on climate change or flat earth thoeries. Of course at times they are going to make brexit supporters look stupid, simply by reporting what they've said. But when the tories are putting out tweets with an innacuracy rate(to put it kindly) of 88%, they simply didn't find time in the day to be correcting it all when they had so much Corbyn bashing to fit in.

 

[ivaldo]

Dunno man I never use the health service either. In fact I pay far more in to the government than I get out. Indeed many more people directly benefit from the taxes I pay than I ever do, which is obviously even more unfair. So let the people who use it pay for it!

Didn't take long for this ridiculous comparison to appear.

 

[caid]

This article is much closer to my opinion as to how the BBC has been with regards Brexit:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/9537730/bbc-anti-brexit-propaganda/amp/

The Sun isn't a good source for laying out an opinion to be honest. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and read the article but I regret it.

 

[Flying high]

Well, we all know how savvy the Left's media operation is, so it's no surprise to see that lot tacitly supporting the gutting of the only media organisation they could ever be in a position to directly influence in the future. Well done lads! While you're aiming at one foot, why not shoot the other one too?

I actually don't know if I'd want a left leaning government, if it means them having to stoop to the level of the tories over the last 10 years.

I think the U.K. is desperate for a proper change, but the people have to see it for themselves. Otherwise the choice just becomes more of the same. A left-leaning lying dictator, is barely better than a right-leaning lying dictator. And would basically do lasting damage to the leftist cause. Same goes for taking huge donations from big business and shady interests just to 'get your message across'.

 

[Fiskey]

Brexit has been brought into everything, because it could effect.... everything. Pro remain? Don't take the piss! They've been terrified of annoying the extremely vocal minority of brexit supporters whose constant mantra seems to be 'stop going on about brexit', and 'just get it done'.

Just because some people cast their vote and expected, whatever the hell was their own personal vision of brexit, to just be done without fuss, doesn't mean that the BBC reporting on the unfolding shit-show of the next 4+ years means they are pro remain. Honestly, most of them really try to achieve impartiality. But it was like attempting to be impartial reporting on climate change or flat earth thoeries. Of course at times they are going to make brexit supporters look stupid, simply by reporting what they've said. But when the tories are putting out tweets with an innacuracy rate(to put it kindly) of 88%, they simply didn't find time in the day to be correcting it all when they had so much Corbyn bashing to fit in.

I think this opinion is more reflective of your political views than fact. I am a defender of the BBC, but to claim they've been anything other than pro remain is madness in my view.

The IEA is also not impartial, but they do put forward some interesting evidence here: https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analys...porters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/.

 

[Fiskey]

The Sun isn't a good source for laying out an opinion to be honest. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and read the article but I regret it.

I quite like Rod Liddle, although he's a complete nutjob.

 

[Ramshock]

Aye that worked out didnt it?.

 

[caid]

I think this opinion is more reflective of your political views than fact. I am a defender of the BBC, but to claim they've been anything other than pro remain is madness in my view.

The IEA is also not impartial, but they do put forward some interesting evidence here: https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analys...porters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/.

"Most (but not all) panellists were clear – in advance of the referendum – whether they were for Remain or Leave, but our assertions are not absolutely certain. Theresa May, as an obvious example, was for Remain during the referendum campaign but now supports leaving the EU. The analysis therefore created the category “Releavers” to cover government supporters who were on the Remain side in the referendum, but are now backing a government committed to Brexit. We have still categorised Labour politicians as Remain unless they campaigned for Leave."
tbf the vast majority of politicians were against leaving pre referendum, UKIP were the only party that officially supported Brexit. It didn't match the voters and the vast majority of them adjusted their position. So the methodology is just flawed and not representative of how many spoke in favour of or against Brexit. I presume they've used this flawed methodology because using a more sensible one doesn't yield the results they want

 

[sullydnl]

As an outsider looking in, the overwhelming majority of on-air BBC personalities certainly seemed to be pro-Remain, as you would probably expect given how the Brexit vote broke down in terms of demographics. The issue was their difficulty in figuring out what being impartial meant on an issue where an objective look at the facts would see you come down firmly on one side.

It was different in terms of the GE, where even left-wing personalities would often be of a more Corbyn-sceptical bent. But then they could probably argue that given what an absolute disaster he was their scepticism simply reflected the reality of what Labour was facing in the GE. Meanwhile, there are certainly plenty of Tory-sympathetic personalities with Tory-biases within the BBC, as you would expect.

Though focusing on individual biases really misses the bigger issue, which is the culture at the BBC. Typically when both the left and the right accuse an organisation of bias the organisation can then claim that as evidence of their impartiality. In the BBC's case though it seems to be indicative of an institutional desire to avoid mainstream blame or controversy.

 

[Fiskey]

"Most (but not all) panellists were clear – in advance of the referendum – whether they were for Remain or Leave, but our assertions are not absolutely certain. Theresa May, as an obvious example, was for Remain during the referendum campaign but now supports leaving the EU. The analysis therefore created the category “Releavers” to cover government supporters who were on the Remain side in the referendum, but are now backing a government committed to Brexit. We have still categorised Labour politicians as Remain unless they campaigned for Leave."
tbf the vast majority of politicians were against leaving pre referendum, UKIP were the only party that officially supported Brexit. It didn't match the voters and the vast majority of them adjusted their position. So the methodology is just flawed and not representative of how many spoke in favour of or against Brexit. I presume they've used this flawed methodology because using a more sensible one doesn't yield the results they want

They make that clear and then say it's 60% pro remain even if you count the "releavers" as leavers.

 

[Fiskey]

As an outsider looking in, the overwhelming majority of on-air BBC personalities certainly seemed to be pro-Remain, as you would probably expect given how the Brexit vote broke down in terms of demographics. The issue was their difficulty in figuring out what being impartial meant on an issue where an objective look at the facts would see you come down firmly on one side.

It was different in terms of the GE, where even left-wing personalities would often be of a more Corbyn-sceptical bent. But then they could probably argue that given what an absolute disaster he was their scepticism simply reflected the reality of what Labour was facing in the GE. Meanwhile, there are certainly plenty of Tory-sympathetic personalities with Tory-biases within the BBC, as you would expect.

Though focusing on individual biases really misses the bigger issue, which is the culture at the BBC. Typically when both the left and the right accuse an organisation of bias the organisation can then claim that as evidence of their impartiality. In the BBC's case though it seems to be indicative of an institutional desire to avoid mainstream blame or controversy.

I think their issue with the last election is that they are basically Blairite on economic issues but very "woke" on cultural issues. This means they pissed off the Corbynistas with their economic viewpoint while not fully pleasing the Torys, but pissed off the Tories with cultural issues and pro remain bias. This now means they've got everyone gunning for them.

 

[Pexbo]

I can't believe that is your impression. The BBC has brought Brexit into everything since the vote, and has been quite clearly pro remain.

That probably explains why they put a Brexiteer in charge of the QT audience who proceeded to ensure that it was filled with 19 Brexit Gammon per Remainer.

 

[caid]

As an outsider looking in, the overwhelming majority of on-air BBC personalities certainly seemed to be pro-Remain, as you would probably expect given how the Brexit vote broke down in terms of demographics. The issue was their difficulty in figuring out what being impartial meant on an issue where an objective look at the facts would see you come down firmly on one side.

It was different in terms of the GE, where even left-wing personalities would often be of a more Corbyn-sceptical bent. But then they could probably argue that given what an absolute disaster he was their scepticism simply reflected the reality of what Labour was facing in the GE. Meanwhile, there are certainly plenty of Tory-sympathetic personalities with Tory-biases within the BBC, as you would expect.

Though focusing on individual biases really misses the bigger, which is the culture at the BBC. Typically when both the left and the right accuse an organisation of bias the organisation can then claim that as evidence of their impartiality. In the BBC's case though it seems to be indicative of an institutional desire to avoid mainstream blame or controversy.

Thats true but it doesn't help when so many of the senior political journalists and management seem so pro Conservative. Corbyn probably didn't help as I imagine they hated him more than they loved the Conservatives.
Its hard to be impartial on something thats by all objective measures is a bad idea. Thats a good point
Maybe they were impartial overall in their coverage, not sure they were that well equipped to deal with explaining the desire for Brexit or to argue against it. You cant get an economist on or a trade expert to make a logical case for it and their journalists probably weren't that well equipped to pick apart or make a case for the emotional side of it.

 

[caid]

They make that clear and then say it's 60% pro remain even if you count the "releavers" as leavers.

While counting Labour as remainers, despite them having a policy of implementing and campaigning for Brexit throughout the study. They put elected politicians on the show because they were elected. Most on a platform of implementing Brexit. The findings are silly, why not measure how many guests spoke in favour of Brexit vs against? Would that not be a better measure of how many were in favour of implementing Brexit vs against?

 

[2mufc0]

Dunno man I never use the health service either. In fact I pay far more in to the government than I get out. Indeed many more people directly benefit from the taxes I pay than I ever do, which is obviously even more unfair. So let the people who use it pay for it!

Comparing apples and oranges here. As someone has already pointed out it's a stupid comparison.

 

[Tiber]

As an outsider looking in, the overwhelming majority of on-air BBC personalities certainly seemed to be pro-Remain, as you would probably expect given how the Brexit vote broke down in terms of demographics. The issue was their difficulty in figuring out what being impartial meant on an issue where an objective look at the facts would see you come down firmly on one side.

It was different in terms of the GE, where even left-wing personalities would often be of a more Corbyn-sceptical bent. But then they could probably argue that given what an absolute disaster he was their scepticism simply reflected the reality of what Labour was facing in the GE. Meanwhile, there are certainly plenty of Tory-sympathetic personalities with Tory-biases within the BBC, as you would expect.

Though focusing on individual biases really misses the bigger, which is the culture at the BBC. Typically when both the left and the right accuse an organisation of bias the organisation can then claim that as evidence of their impartiality. In the BBC's case though it seems to be indicative of an institutional desire to avoid mainstream blame or controversy.

The BBC left v right politics debate comes up a lot online where many follow their own sides line very closely, but the vast majority of the public barely know who Laura Kuenssberg is and certainly don't care about her alleged political views. My own deep objection to the BBC license fee has nothing to do with politics. Yes its stuffed to the absolute gills with left wingers Labour members, but they also have a few remaining quality journalists like Andrew Neil.

What bothers me is being forced via threat of court to fund things like Strictly and Radio 1 (and 2,3,4,5, 1 extra and whatever else they have these days, its difficult to keep track) Why do the priorities of the BBC include daily Taylor Swift interviews, a hugely bloated website and reality shows about dancing celebrities?

People talk about the supposed 'value' of the BBC. Well I get zero value from Radio 1 or watching some washed up soap star do the Salsa. What value I do find in the BBC is things like regional news coverage which would be overlooked by the national competitors and could be funded by a very significantly reduced license fee - if people want to watch Phil Neville do the can-can then they should be able to do so - either via a subscription or advert supported broadcasting.

 

[Grinner]

So you moan about getting no value from the BBC apart from the things that you value?

 

[Flying high]

I think this opinion is more reflective of your political views than fact. I am a defender of the BBC, but to claim they've been anything other than pro remain is madness in my view.

The IEA is also not impartial, but they do put forward some interesting evidence here: https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analys...porters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/.

"Most (but not all) panellists were clear – in advance of the referendum – whether they were for Remain or Leave, but our assertions are not absolutely certain. Theresa May, as an obvious example, was for Remain during the referendum campaign but now supports leaving the EU. The analysis therefore created the category “Releavers” to cover government supporters who were on the Remain side in the referendum, but are now backing a government committed to Brexit. We have still categorised Labour politicians as Remain unless they campaigned for Leave."
tbf the vast majority of politicians were against leaving pre referendum, UKIP were the only party that officially supported Brexit. It didn't match the voters and the vast majority of them adjusted their position. So the methodology is just flawed and not representative of how many spoke in favour of or against Brexit. I presume they've used this flawed methodology because using a more sensible one doesn't yield the results they want

Caid makes a valid point, but to add that the study was from over 2 years ago and to be fair, I think there probably was a dearth of known leave voters for them to get in at the start, hence Farage being a permanent fixture on QT. Also to back up your point though Fiskey, I think the shock of 3/4 of the population was probably evident for a while after the referendum on the BBC. But the way they have dealt with it since, has not been to analyse brexit, it has been to give a voice to opinions on both sides equally. But this simply wasn't a good enough approach to deal with the lies.

 

[Sweet Square]

Good.

The liberal/left defence of the BBC died off years ago. It's a reactionary institution who's main goal is to keep itself afloat in the short term.

 

[Dobba]

The bit where this "right wing as could be" organisation publicly called out the PM?

You've just missed the bit where they really dragged him over hot coals... by giving him the softball interview he wanted after they categorically ruled it out until he did the Andrew Neil interview.

Will be a shame to see BBC's news output disappear, a true end of an era. I'd have to go to my racist extended family members' Facebook pages if I wanted to see content from Guido Fawkes treated as fact.

 

[MrPooni]

I'm constantly amazed by how much people in Britain don't appreciate how good they have it with the BBC.

British people developing an irrational hatred for an imperfect but globally lauded and respected institution that has had a net positive impact on their lives? Shocking stuff.

 

[diarm]

British people developing an irrational hatred for an imperfect but globally lauded and respected institution that has had a net positive impact on their lives? Shocking stuff.

I should know better!

 

[nickm]

I hate selfish cnuts like you. Just because something doesn't directly benefit you, you can't see the use of it. You don't deserve to be included in society with that kind of attitude.

My mistake for trying to give youse idiots some credit for what I thought was an obvious hyperbole in reply to a specific post. My point was precisely about the value of public service.

 

[nickm]

Comparing apples and oranges here. As someone has already pointed out it's a stupid comparison.

Why? You think the tories think so? You think many tories don’t see the BBC and say the NHS as parts of the same “problem”? You are very naive if you don’t.

 

[Adzzz]

No reason for the taxpayer to sustain the BBC, it has successful worldwide shows which it already tenders out - it has for all intents and purposes annoyed everyone at home (i.e. the taxpayer) in several different ways, left, right, up and down. It is an extremely antiquated service and frankly, deserves the chop.

Good luck to it no longer charging poor people (who they will prosecute - and all the others who can afford it but shouldn't have to pay for it) 150+ quid a year to watch things other than the BBC.

It won't be missed.

 

[The Boy]

Are you saying that Andrew Neil would not have treated Corbyn in the same way?

No not at all, I’m sure Corbyn would have been treated in exactly the same way, that’s the point.

Everyone in the UK feels as though they own the BBC to certain extent and there fore have the right to have an opinion on it, which is absolutely right given the funding method. But my point of view is that regardless of whether you watch, listen or click on it, it is great value for money. It offers one the most highly regarded news services world wide and some of the country’s most popular programming. On top of that it offer vital services on a local level that are just not commercially viable but which many people rely on.

Comparing it to Netflix disregards all the other services outside of TV that the BBC offers, it’s worth pointing out that an annual subscription to the Times and Sunday Times, the paper that broke this story, is almost twice the cost of the license fee, though like the Netflix comparison that’s not exactly a like for like comparison either.

The print media is almost universally anti BBC as it offers online news, free at the point of delivery that is superior too and far more popular than their own digital offerings. To lose that I think would be to lose something that makes the UK stand out against the rest the world.

EDIT I forgot to add though a huge chunk of license fee goes to the BBC it also helps pay for free sat and free view, S4C, broadband roll out across the UK, commercial local TV services and local government journalists.

 

[Flying high]

No not at all

Seems I missed the point you were making.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[DOTA]

They gambled on supporting Boris and hoping he'd spare them.

License fee is an institution that needs to die. You cannot demand folk pay for something only a few middle class people value.

 

[Adzzz]

No not at all, I’m sure Corbyn would have been treated in exactly the same way, that’s the point.

Everyone in the UK feels as though they own the BBC to certain extent and there fore have the right to have an opinion on it, which is absolutely right given the funding method. But my point of view is that regardless of whether you watch, listen or click on it, it is great value for money.

Who cares? A rolex is fantastic value for money but I can opt out of buying it without being put in prison or fined.

 

[DOTA]

It's by and for FBPE sorts who think the poor should fund their costume dramas.

It is irrecoverably dominated by oxbridge grads who think we should definitely take climate change seriously but not in a way that effect their kid's inheritance.

If it dies, it should not be mourned, as much as I like Attenborough and Pointless.

 

[The Boy]

Who cares? A rolex is fantastic value for money but I can opt out of buying it without being put in prison or fined.

I reckon the BBC is better value than a Rolex!

 

[The Boy]

As someone who’s worked there for 17 years as well as other companies and organisations, there’s no more inefficiency at the BBC than there is at various commercial set ups, it comes from the odd bad decisions that get made everywhere. The difference at the Beeb is that there is a culture of understanding that it is public money and most people I have worked with are very aware of this. The bolded bit above is a lazy argument, apart from the big feck up DMI, the BBC is generally careful with money and even DMI stemmed from a sensible decision to digitise all the BBC assets.

Just realised this was my 1000th post, very pleased to have notched it up defending the BBC!

Something I'm very happy to be known for.

 

[Tony Babangida]

The BBC is great. Won’t be surprised if the conservatives wreck it, as they do with all British infrastructure. The country is fecked.

 

[Smores]

I'm really surprised how many are absolutely fine with this but maybe i shouldn't be because greater consideration to a little bit of money in the pocket does tend to win over the bigger picture.

The government that closed parliament because it was inconvenient and avoided election scrutiny now wants to 'reform' the judiciary and media. Nothing to see here though.