FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > FFS BBC!!
FFS BBC!!
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It really annoys me that as the COVID pandemic has progressed, so has the BBC's desire to sensationalise the news increased. Today's news headlines: 1) All persons with a learning disabilty will receive a vaccination because of 'people power. Only then to explain that the vaccination lists will be GP driven, but the government are keen to point out not everyone with a learning disability will be eligible. 2) School children will use summer break to catch up in classes. Only then explain the government have made money available to schools, to consider opening during holdays for catch up lessens. Why are they incapable of reporting the actual facts and not sensationalise the headlines with basically... Lies!!" Pretty much every uk news source, mail express guardian sun independent mirror etc had the same headlines, right and left. I think it pays to read a full article not just the headline. | |||
"Thats the bbc for you. Only have one agenda their own " What exactly is their " agenda"? | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"It really annoys me that as the COVID pandemic has progressed, so has the BBC's desire to sensationalise the news increased. Today's news headlines: 1) All persons with a learning disabilty will receive a vaccination because of 'people power. Only then to explain that the vaccination lists will be GP driven, but the government are keen to point out not everyone with a learning disability will be eligible. 2) School children will use summer break to catch up in classes. Only then explain the government have made money available to schools, to consider opening during holdays for catch up lessens. Why are they incapable of reporting the actual facts and not sensationalise the headlines with basically... Lies!!" officially news programmes are entertainment and need not be factual. so they can say almost any old shit they like. One of the primary reasons i no longer watch their tripe. | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC " BBC- Biased Bigoted, Ch....Mol...(Protectors) 100% Defund this garabage. | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC BBC- Biased Bigoted, Ch....Mol...(Protectors) 100% Defund this garabage. " Compared to say the daily mail or daily express? All news have a none delibrate bias even if they try not too, the bbc at least tries to be none biased The 2 news outlets i mentioned above have a conscious bias and also use sensationalist headlines to attract click bait. | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC BBC- Biased Bigoted, Ch....Mol...(Protectors) 100% Defund this garabage. Compared to say the daily mail or daily express? All news have a none delibrate bias even if they try not too, the bbc at least tries to be none biased The 2 news outlets i mentioned above have a conscious bias and also use sensationalist headlines to attract click bait." Daily Express: Boris Johnson has never done anything wrong Nigel Farage has never done anything wrong Kier Starmer has never done anything right The EU has never done anything right Brexit only has benefits to the UK Nicola Sturgeon has never done anything right Oh, and if you're a celebrity who puts on a pound then prepare to be insulted by the "journalist" and their brain dead readers. Anyone who reads such drivel shouldn't be critical of any other news outlet. | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC BBC- Biased Bigoted, Ch....Mol...(Protectors) 100% Defund this garabage. Compared to say the daily mail or daily express? All news have a none delibrate bias even if they try not too, the bbc at least tries to be none biased The 2 news outlets i mentioned above have a conscious bias and also use sensationalist headlines to attract click bait." what you say is like comparing a burglar with people who break into houses. exactly the same thing, all three mentioned are propoganda machins, i buy into none of them. The BBC does not in my experience try to be non biased. | |||
| |||
"stop watching it if it winds you up that much." Not sure who you are replying to, however im sure most pwople who complained above dont watch and dont contribute. I certainly dont do either. | |||
"stop watching it if it winds you up that much. Not sure who you are replying to, however im sure most pwople who complained above dont watch and dont contribute. I certainly dont do either." it was an open reply to anyone who gets wound up by watching bbc news funnily enough. | |||
"stop watching it if it winds you up that much. Not sure who you are replying to, however im sure most pwople who complained above dont watch and dont contribute. I certainly dont do either. it was an open reply to anyone who gets wound up by watching bbc news funnily enough." fair enough pretty sure all those folk are like me, and ditched that crap long ago. | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC BBC- Biased Bigoted, Ch....Mol...(Protectors) 100% Defund this garabage. Compared to say the daily mail or daily express? All news have a none delibrate bias even if they try not too, the bbc at least tries to be none biased The 2 news outlets i mentioned above have a conscious bias and also use sensationalist headlines to attract click bait. what you say is like comparing a burglar with people who break into houses. exactly the same thing, all three mentioned are propoganda machins, i buy into none of them. The BBC does not in my experience try to be non biased." You have people from all political sides saying this quite often. They can't all be correct. To note especially that just because you don't like something, doesn't make it unbiased. Not holding you as an example as I don't know you, but I will say a huge amount of criticism of the BBC comes from people who wouldn't wouldn't know a legit news source if it bit them on the arse and is spread online by bad faith actors. | |||
"stop watching it if it winds you up that much. Not sure who you are replying to, however im sure most pwople who complained above dont watch and dont contribute. I certainly dont do either. it was an open reply to anyone who gets wound up by watching bbc news funnily enough. fair enough pretty sure all those folk are like me, and ditched that crap long ago." then you should ignore this thread in that case. | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC BBC- Biased Bigoted, Ch....Mol...(Protectors) 100% Defund this garabage. Compared to say the daily mail or daily express? All news have a none delibrate bias even if they try not too, the bbc at least tries to be none biased The 2 news outlets i mentioned above have a conscious bias and also use sensationalist headlines to attract click bait. what you say is like comparing a burglar with people who break into houses. exactly the same thing, all three mentioned are propoganda machins, i buy into none of them. The BBC does not in my experience try to be non biased. You have people from all political sides saying this quite often. They can't all be correct. To note especially that just because you don't like something, doesn't make it unbiased. Not holding you as an example as I don't know you, but I will say a huge amount of criticism of the BBC comes from people who wouldn't wouldn't know a legit news source if it bit them on the arse and is spread online by bad faith actors. " I have witnessed, when i did watch this crap. many occasions of blatant lies, misleading and strange reporting of 'Facts'. | |||
| |||
"Offset against what? BTW, if I just replied to you privately, I am very sorry and a total idiot. " if what you say is true. I blame the BBC, kidding!! and I dont mind the accidental pm, not sure what you are talking about when you say offset? | |||
| |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC BBC- Biased Bigoted, Ch....Mol...(Protectors) 100% Defund this garabage. Compared to say the daily mail or daily express? All news have a none delibrate bias even if they try not too, the bbc at least tries to be none biased The 2 news outlets i mentioned above have a conscious bias and also use sensationalist headlines to attract click bait. Daily Express: Boris Johnson has never done anything wrong Nigel Farage has never done anything wrong Kier Starmer has never done anything right The EU has never done anything right Brexit only has benefits to the UK Nicola Sturgeon has never done anything right Oh, and if you're a celebrity who puts on a pound then prepare to be insulted by the "journalist" and their brain dead readers. Anyone who reads such drivel shouldn't be critical of any other news outlet. " The Sun version of that is... Boris Johnson has never done nothing wrong  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"we stopped buying news papers and watching main stream news because of all the lies and scaremongering " Shakes you both by the hand. | |||
"Wait till you find out how much we all have to pay to watch this rubbish as well "43p a day | |||
"BBC us going to get worse. They are running scared of this govt as they threatened removing TV Licence. And they have had the ex Daily Mail Editor appointed as their new Director General. " it's going to get worse when neil and murdochs new channels come onstream for the for right wing 'culture warriors' to shout at with outrage and further the air-brushing of truth from our history. | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill" i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately " exactly | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately " Partially true but the BBC does have to justify to Govt why it should retain the TV Licence fee and part of the business case will contain viewing figures for all channels including websites. So while they do not sell advertising space (the price of which is determined by viewing figures/traffic) they still need to drive traffic. | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately exactly" in my opinion it should be a fact based news source, consciously written avoiding spin and and any of the fluff or opinion pieces left entirely to private media - otherwise why bother funding it i dont agree on scrapping it though as then you have the danger of never getting unbiased news again - at least now we have one media company we could impose those rules onto | |||
"Offset against what? BTW, if I just replied to you privately, I am very sorry and a total idiot. if what you say is true. I blame the BBC, kidding!! and I dont mind the accidental pm, not sure what you are talking about when you say offset?" Well, I suppose for people to come to the conclusion that the BBC's reporting is inaccurate, you need a measure for what accurate is and the source of any conflicting reports. Again, not including present company, but a lot of people come to the BBC having already gathered their own "facts" from spurious sources. To be clear, I'm not holding the BBC as a standard bearer for reporting quality. It is clearly an organisation suffering a crisis in parts and I certainly have issue with their reporting myself. | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately exactly in my opinion it should be a fact based news source, consciously written avoiding spin and and any of the fluff or opinion pieces left entirely to private media - otherwise why bother funding it i dont agree on scrapping it though as then you have the danger of never getting unbiased news again - at least now we have one media company we could impose those rules onto " we dont get unbiased news now, so why fund it? | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately exactly in my opinion it should be a fact based news source, consciously written avoiding spin and and any of the fluff or opinion pieces left entirely to private media - otherwise why bother funding it i dont agree on scrapping it though as then you have the danger of never getting unbiased news again - at least now we have one media company we could impose those rules onto " As long as the BBC is beholden to Govt for the licence fee they will never be truly independent. With the ex Editor of the Daily Mail as their Director General they will never be truly unbiased. | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Partially true but the BBC does have to justify to Govt why it should retain the TV Licence fee and part of the business case will contain viewing figures for all channels including websites. So while they do not sell advertising space (the price of which is determined by viewing figures/traffic) they still need to drive traffic." if thats true it’s ridiculous, that should perhaps be a measure of the quality of their programming but shouldn’t be a driver for wether they continue to get license fee to be honest if i had a say in reform i would strip it back to only news and documentaries and reduce the fee in line there will always be a need for an unbiased news source and factual documentaries that other networks might not think are financially worth making so scrapping it is a dangerous move , but why are the general public rather than advertisers paying for the likes of eastenders  | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately exactly in my opinion it should be a fact based news source, consciously written avoiding spin and and any of the fluff or opinion pieces left entirely to private media - otherwise why bother funding it i dont agree on scrapping it though as then you have the danger of never getting unbiased news again - at least now we have one media company we could impose those rules onto we dont get unbiased news now, so why fund it?" because you dint have to bin everything that doesn’t work - it could be reformed for example someone said as long as they are beholden to govt for the fee they wont be unbiased - so change the law that the fee is guaranteed, rises in line with inflation and cant be removed by future govt it would need to be a referendum or something - no requirement to toe the line with future govts solved a condition of this change would be imposing a new charter that news must be credible, fact based reporting, remove their ability to write with bias and spin you could entirely remove entertainment from their channels too - they try to hit too many bases and keep everyone happy just now and compete with the commercial channels when its not really meant to be the purpose of it | |||
| |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Partially true but the BBC does have to justify to Govt why it should retain the TV Licence fee and part of the business case will contain viewing figures for all channels including websites. So while they do not sell advertising space (the price of which is determined by viewing figures/traffic) they still need to drive traffic. if thats true it’s ridiculous, that should perhaps be a measure of the quality of their programming but shouldn’t be a driver for wether they continue to get license fee to be honest if i had a say in reform i would strip it back to only news and documentaries and reduce the fee in line there will always be a need for an unbiased news source and factual documentaries that other networks might not think are financially worth making so scrapping it is a dangerous move , but why are the general public rather than advertisers paying for the likes of eastenders "Trust me that is totally true. The approach is used to support increases in the licence fee and discussions about older people getting the licence for free. There has over the years been some debate about whether the BBC should continue to produce entertainment and drama. Generally the argument goes that the BBC finances more niche programming that wouldn’t be commercially viable for other companies. The licence fee is not sufficient to cover all the cost of financing the niche material so BBC Enterprises is allowed to sell rights abroad and plough back in those profits. That means that as well as the niche programming the BBC has to produce more mainstream “hits” that will appeal to foreign audiences (to sell). | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately exactly in my opinion it should be a fact based news source, consciously written avoiding spin and and any of the fluff or opinion pieces left entirely to private media - otherwise why bother funding it i dont agree on scrapping it though as then you have the danger of never getting unbiased news again - at least now we have one media company we could impose those rules onto As long as the BBC is beholden to Govt for the licence fee they will never be truly independent. With the ex Editor of the Daily Mail as their Director General they will never be truly unbiased."  | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately exactly in my opinion it should be a fact based news source, consciously written avoiding spin and and any of the fluff or opinion pieces left entirely to private media - otherwise why bother funding it i dont agree on scrapping it though as then you have the danger of never getting unbiased news again - at least now we have one media company we could impose those rules onto we dont get unbiased news now, so why fund it? because you dint have to bin everything that doesn’t work - it could be reformed for example someone said as long as they are beholden to govt for the fee they wont be unbiased - so change the law that the fee is guaranteed, rises in line with inflation and cant be removed by future govt it would need to be a referendum or something - no requirement to toe the line with future govts solved a condition of this change would be imposing a new charter that news must be credible, fact based reporting, remove their ability to write with bias and spin you could entirely remove entertainment from their channels too - they try to hit too many bases and keep everyone happy just now and compete with the commercial channels when its not really meant to be the purpose of it " I like your thinking except - it will be for the Govt of the day to make those legislative changes and they won’t because all Govts want BBC to be beholden to them. The BBC are a Govt department in all but name. | |||
| |||
"Thats the bbc for you. Only have one agenda their own " What agenda is that exactly? | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC " Good luck with gb news | |||
" Not holding you as an example as I don't know you, but I will say a huge amount of criticism of the BBC comes from people who wouldn't wouldn't know a legit news source if it bit them on the arse and is spread online by bad faith actors. " Good point, there's a common belief that the BBC is wholly infiltrated by socialists, yet many of their notable presenters/journalists are Conservatives (Andrew Neill, Jeremy Pacman and Laura Kuenssberg). I remember a brilliant interview where Andrew Neill was interviewing Ben Shapiro, the infamous but bright right wing commentator. Shapiro quickly developed a persecution complex and put it down to Neill's left wing beliefs..he subsequently had to apologise and admit he'd been made a fool of! | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately " Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. " thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money | |||
" Not holding you as an example as I don't know you, but I will say a huge amount of criticism of the BBC comes from people who wouldn't wouldn't know a legit news source if it bit them on the arse and is spread online by bad faith actors. Good point, there's a common belief that the BBC is wholly infiltrated by socialists, yet many of their notable presenters/journalists are Conservatives (Andrew Neill, Jeremy Pacman and Laura Kuenssberg). I remember a brilliant interview where Andrew Neill was interviewing Ben Shapiro, the infamous but bright right wing commentator. Shapiro quickly developed a persecution complex and put it down to Neill's left wing beliefs..he subsequently had to apologise and admit he'd been made a fool of!" If you criticise the gmnt on any way you are now considered a socialist apparently . | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money " They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. | |||
| |||
"stop watching it if it winds you up that much. Not sure who you are replying to, however im sure most pwople who complained above dont watch and dont contribute. I certainly dont do either. it was an open reply to anyone who gets wound up by watching bbc news funnily enough. fair enough pretty sure all those folk are like me, and ditched that crap long ago." How do you know they are not better than you recall? | |||
" Not holding you as an example as I don't know you, but I will say a huge amount of criticism of the BBC comes from people who wouldn't wouldn't know a legit news source if it bit them on the arse and is spread online by bad faith actors. Good point, there's a common belief that the BBC is wholly infiltrated by socialists, yet many of their notable presenters/journalists are Conservatives (Andrew Neill, Jeremy Pacman and Laura Kuenssberg). I remember a brilliant interview where Andrew Neill was interviewing Ben Shapiro, the infamous but bright right wing commentator. Shapiro quickly developed a persecution complex and put it down to Neill's left wing beliefs..he subsequently had to apologise and admit he'd been made a fool of!" There's a political schism between the news and non-news output of the BBC and often the criticism is disingenuously based upon the overall perception of it as an organisation rather than the "political bias" of the news service. BBC News is clearly, evidently, being run by Conservative-supporting (and particularly hard Conservatives at that) journalists whereas the luvvie lefties and communists are off being woke in the entertainment section. And yes, there has always been a typical "lean" towards the politics of the government but never as overtly as this. It's all part of the fictional culture wars that's being pushed upon us rather feverishly by RW elements of social media. Ultimately, like so much politics lately, a lot of the supposed substance of this debate is being pushed by people operating in bad faith. | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news." If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. | |||
| |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Partially true but the BBC does have to justify to Govt why it should retain the TV Licence fee and part of the business case will contain viewing figures for all channels including websites. So while they do not sell advertising space (the price of which is determined by viewing figures/traffic) they still need to drive traffic. if thats true it’s ridiculous, that should perhaps be a measure of the quality of their programming but shouldn’t be a driver for wether they continue to get license fee to be honest if i had a say in reform i would strip it back to only news and documentaries and reduce the fee in line there will always be a need for an unbiased news source and factual documentaries that other networks might not think are financially worth making so scrapping it is a dangerous move , but why are the general public rather than advertisers paying for the likes of eastenders "But you also pay for Coronation Street etc, it’s your pounds that buy the goodies that are advertised which sponsor the shows, directly or indirectly. Whilst I admit that you obviously have a choice to buy or not to buy whereas the licence fee is all but enforced it isn’t so different. Not sure why I am paying for Pooch Perfect though... | |||
" If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. " this is my gripe more than the impartiality , i was just suggesting things that could deal to that point because a few have raised it my problem is they no longer report news responsibly- they have jumped on the clickbait bandwagon that the people making money off it have you cant tell someone they aren’t allowed to compete in their market but then judge them on their ability to compete - that just doesn’t work . so if the driver of the clickbait crap is to show numbers that are competitive then scrap that metric , or scrap the fee and let them compete instead | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Partially true but the BBC does have to justify to Govt why it should retain the TV Licence fee and part of the business case will contain viewing figures for all channels including websites. So while they do not sell advertising space (the price of which is determined by viewing figures/traffic) they still need to drive traffic. if thats true it’s ridiculous, that should perhaps be a measure of the quality of their programming but shouldn’t be a driver for wether they continue to get license fee to be honest if i had a say in reform i would strip it back to only news and documentaries and reduce the fee in line there will always be a need for an unbiased news source and factual documentaries that other networks might not think are financially worth making so scrapping it is a dangerous move , but why are the general public rather than advertisers paying for the likes of eastenders
But you also pay for Coronation Street etc, it’s your pounds that buy the goodies that are advertised which sponsor the shows, directly or indirectly. Whilst I admit that you obviously have a choice to buy or not to buy whereas the licence fee is all but enforced it isn’t so different. Not sure why I am paying for Pooch Perfect though..."the bbc was established when there was very little choice for tv (im not old enough to know if it was once the only choice) so that was pretty much your only route to access for entertainment programme - thats not been the case for a long long time, time has moved on, there are numerous free channels available now so there is no longer a public service requirement for the bbc to produce entertainment shows was my point - i know we all pay for ads indirectly i just dont think entertainment should be funded from the public purse | |||
| |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. " So ino the bbc are too critical of the gmnt? | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. So ino the bbc are too critical of the gmnt?" It's not the role of a NEWS programme to be critical or to praise the government, the opposition or any other body,organisation or person, it's only role is to report the news using only facts. If a media organisation wishes to run an opinion piece they have programmes for that such as panorama, dispatches etc. As I have said the bbc arent any worse than the rest of the media whether that's broadcast or print. You constantly poke fun at the Express and mail which is fair enough as they are comics, yet YOU love the guardian because they support YOUR view, they might be more subtle but are just as biased. | |||
| |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. So ino the bbc are too critical of the gmnt? It's not the role of a NEWS programme to be critical or to praise the government, the opposition or any other body,organisation or person, it's only role is to report the news using only facts. If a media organisation wishes to run an opinion piece they have programmes for that such as panorama, dispatches etc. As I have said the bbc arent any worse than the rest of the media whether that's broadcast or print. You constantly poke fun at the Express and mail which is fair enough as they are comics, yet YOU love the guardian because they support YOUR view, they might be more subtle but are just as biased." Well..in what way have they criticised the gmnt? When they report the news ,they seem to do it in a factual manner.They certainly dont do opinion pieces on the news Surely that only happens when they invite guests on? What have they reported which ismt a fact but is opinion? | |||
"It really annoys me that as the COVID pandemic has progressed, so has the BBC's desire to sensationalise the news increased. Today's news headlines: 1) All persons with a learning disabilty will receive a vaccination because of 'people power. Only then to explain that the vaccination lists will be GP driven, but the government are keen to point out not everyone with a learning disability will be eligible. 2) School children will use summer break to catch up in classes. Only then explain the government have made money available to schools, to consider opening during holdays for catch up lessens. Why are they incapable of reporting the actual facts and not sensationalise the headlines with basically... Lies!!" Unless I'm missing something..how is no 2 a lie? School.choldten will use the summer to catch up..and ..that's what's happening? | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. So ino the bbc are too critical of the gmnt? It's not the role of a NEWS programme to be critical or to praise the government, the opposition or any other body,organisation or person, it's only role is to report the news using only facts. If a media organisation wishes to run an opinion piece they have programmes for that such as panorama, dispatches etc. As I have said the bbc arent any worse than the rest of the media whether that's broadcast or print. You constantly poke fun at the Express and mail which is fair enough as they are comics, yet YOU love the guardian because they support YOUR view, they might be more subtle but are just as biased. Well..in what way have they criticised the gmnt? When they report the news ,they seem to do it in a factual manner.They certainly dont do opinion pieces on the news Surely that only happens when they invite guests on? What have they reported which ismt a fact but is opinion? " I'm not sure whether you're just trying to wind people up or cant see the wood for the trees, if you cant see the constant opinions that the reporters give then you are truly blind, I catch a very occasional glimpse of the news as I long ago git fed up of the reporters trying to be the star of the show, for once look at what they say, it's two second of a fact then it's a long diatribe of why THEY think it's wrong, how often will they say info is from " a source" or the bbc has learned or we have seen a document, none of that is fact its speculation, very little is 100% accurate most complete nonsense, look at the cliff richard thing, not one fact but they decided he was guilty, they decide the story and find "facts" that fit and ignore any that disprove their story. | |||
"It really annoys me that as the COVID pandemic has progressed, so has the BBC's desire to sensationalise the news increased. Today's news headlines: 1) All persons with a learning disabilty will receive a vaccination because of 'people power. Only then to explain that the vaccination lists will be GP driven, but the government are keen to point out not everyone with a learning disability will be eligible. 2) School children will use summer break to catch up in classes. Only then explain the government have made money available to schools, to consider opening during holdays for catch up lessens. Why are they incapable of reporting the actual facts and not sensationalise the headlines with basically... Lies!!" Not lies just headlines because they then tell the story as it is | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. So ino the bbc are too critical of the gmnt? It's not the role of a NEWS programme to be critical or to praise the government, the opposition or any other body,organisation or person, it's only role is to report the news using only facts. If a media organisation wishes to run an opinion piece they have programmes for that such as panorama, dispatches etc. As I have said the bbc arent any worse than the rest of the media whether that's broadcast or print. You constantly poke fun at the Express and mail which is fair enough as they are comics, yet YOU love the guardian because they support YOUR view, they might be more subtle but are just as biased. Well..in what way have they criticised the gmnt? When they report the news ,they seem to do it in a factual manner.They certainly dont do opinion pieces on the news Surely that only happens when they invite guests on? What have they reported which ismt a fact but is opinion? I'm not sure whether you're just trying to wind people up or cant see the wood for the trees, if you cant see the constant opinions that the reporters give then you are truly blind, I catch a very occasional glimpse of the news as I long ago git fed up of the reporters trying to be the star of the show, for once look at what they say, it's two second of a fact then it's a long diatribe of why THEY think it's wrong, how often will they say info is from " a source" or the bbc has learned or we have seen a document, none of that is fact its speculation, very little is 100% accurate most complete nonsense, look at the cliff richard thing, not one fact but they decided he was guilty, they decide the story and find "facts" that fit and ignore any that disprove their story. " I'm simply asking for evidence. I only listen to the bbc news on The radio and watch clips on the tele ,and I've yet to much evidence of this opinion pushing. They are certainly light years away from the commercial stations. Do you honestly think the likes of gb news will he remotely impartial? All journalists get their information from a source..where else would they get it from? Thats how news works. I'm fairly sure they are also subject to quite robust scrutiny. Certainly more than the newspapers. | |||
| |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. So ino the bbc are too critical of the gmnt? It's not the role of a NEWS programme to be critical or to praise the government, the opposition or any other body,organisation or person, it's only role is to report the news using only facts. If a media organisation wishes to run an opinion piece they have programmes for that such as panorama, dispatches etc. As I have said the bbc arent any worse than the rest of the media whether that's broadcast or print. You constantly poke fun at the Express and mail which is fair enough as they are comics, yet YOU love the guardian because they support YOUR view, they might be more subtle but are just as biased. Well..in what way have they criticised the gmnt? When they report the news ,they seem to do it in a factual manner.They certainly dont do opinion pieces on the news Surely that only happens when they invite guests on? What have they reported which ismt a fact but is opinion? I'm not sure whether you're just trying to wind people up or cant see the wood for the trees, if you cant see the constant opinions that the reporters give then you are truly blind, I catch a very occasional glimpse of the news as I long ago git fed up of the reporters trying to be the star of the show, for once look at what they say, it's two second of a fact then it's a long diatribe of why THEY think it's wrong, how often will they say info is from " a source" or the bbc has learned or we have seen a document, none of that is fact its speculation, very little is 100% accurate most complete nonsense, look at the cliff richard thing, not one fact but they decided he was guilty, they decide the story and find "facts" that fit and ignore any that disprove their story. I'm simply asking for evidence. I only listen to the bbc news on The radio and watch clips on the tele ,and I've yet to much evidence of this opinion pushing. They are certainly light years away from the commercial stations. Do you honestly think the likes of gb news will he remotely impartial? All journalists get their information from a source..where else would they get it from? Thats how news works. I'm fairly sure they are also subject to quite robust scrutiny. Certainly more than the newspapers." Off in and the law which is subject to the cannons of journalism. | |||
"They have to create headlines to make people watch the news, so many have given up watching the news due to this but instead of reporting fact they seem be more sensational, I blame the move to 24 news programming they have to find stuff to fill i disagree, creating headlines to get people reading is for w commercial enterprise which is why i understand the other media outlets do it despite it bugging me everywhere there is no profit to be made from traffic on the bbc sites so there is zero need for clickbait - they should be reporting the news responsibly and accurately Which is exactly their role however it's not what happens in practice if they dont get a decent audience figure they know the government of the day will say what is the point of the bbc. If you want to see how things have changed watch some news from the time the beeb started through the decades to the present and see how its changed, ITV are no better cant comment on sky, bbe world news channel is better being less sensational, all newspapers are the same, it's the world we live in, everything is hyperbole. thats why i think reform is needed - the world has changed since the BBC was set up , we can’t keep running it how we did back then and the govt can’t keep looking at it with a historical mind set either either it returns to a factual impartial media source and we write some laws to make sure the funding is protected to keep the govt impartiality or we scrap the license, let them compete with the commercial media companies and let them fund themselves in the same way right now we are paying for something that is not fit for purpose or achieving its objective and thats when it is a waste of money They wouldn't last 5 minutes competing with the likes of sky. For all their faults, they at least try to remain objective (hence criticism from both sides) They still produce a quality service and will be sorely missed when we are left with the likes of gb news. If you think they( or ITV etc) produce a quality service look at news programmes from the time they started, it used to be news these days they all give you their interpretation of events and their opinion of what the government has done wrong, there is a place for that but is most definitely not in a NEWS programme. So ino the bbc are too critical of the gmnt? It's not the role of a NEWS programme to be critical or to praise the government, the opposition or any other body,organisation or person, it's only role is to report the news using only facts. If a media organisation wishes to run an opinion piece they have programmes for that such as panorama, dispatches etc. As I have said the bbc arent any worse than the rest of the media whether that's broadcast or print. You constantly poke fun at the Express and mail which is fair enough as they are comics, yet YOU love the guardian because they support YOUR view, they might be more subtle but are just as biased. Well..in what way have they criticised the gmnt? When they report the news ,they seem to do it in a factual manner.They certainly dont do opinion pieces on the news Surely that only happens when they invite guests on? What have they reported which ismt a fact but is opinion? I'm not sure whether you're just trying to wind people up or cant see the wood for the trees, if you cant see the constant opinions that the reporters give then you are truly blind, I catch a very occasional glimpse of the news as I long ago git fed up of the reporters trying to be the star of the show, for once look at what they say, it's two second of a fact then it's a long diatribe of why THEY think it's wrong, how often will they say info is from " a source" or the bbc has learned or we have seen a document, none of that is fact its speculation, very little is 100% accurate most complete nonsense, look at the cliff richard thing, not one fact but they decided he was guilty, they decide the story and find "facts" that fit and ignore any that disprove their story. I'm simply asking for evidence. I only listen to the bbc news on The radio and watch clips on the tele ,and I've yet to much evidence of this opinion pushing. They are certainly light years away from the commercial stations. Do you honestly think the likes of gb news will he remotely impartial? All journalists get their information from a source..where else would they get it from? Thats how news works. I'm fairly sure they are also subject to quite robust scrutiny. Certainly more than the newspapers. Off in and the law which is subject to the cannons of journalism." offcom | |||
"i know we all pay for ads indirectly i just dont think entertainment should be funded from the public purse" The BBC 'entertainment' output is generally exceptional. Programmes are often commissioned and developed which wouldn't find an outlet in organisations which have a commercial imperative. | |||
| |||
"Its a sad reality we have to day. We all grew up with the BBC and its output over the years has been world beating. Its sports and entertainment coverage beats all the other hands down and the vast majority of the most popular TV shows of all time are the Beeb's. But sadly this was all a cover up. A distraction if you will to lure people into trusting the blatant propaganda and lies that are spewed out daily by its (I use the term here lightly) 'news' department. The BBC 'news' is there to push certain agendas and narratives and nothing more. It certainly does not inform the viewer of all the facts in a sober, analytical and impartial manner we would realistically expect. I for one basically disregard any BBC news these days as its often so far from the actual truth it beggar's belief. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating or even just plain wrong may I politely correct you by saying both members of my family and very close friends have worked for the BBC and it was they that first alerted me to this. They know this happens because they were the ones that used to do it. Like I say its a shame as the BBC should and could be the wonderful institution it sells itself as. But I urge anyone to think very carefully before renewing their (soon to be more expensive) TV licence. For me personally the debacle over the likes of Savile alone will mean I will never financially support the BBC ever in my lifetime again. But it is your choice if you wish to watch live TV. If you do then, yes, you need a licence. PS - there is a LOT you can watch without one. And I mean a LOT. " BBC news is total shit and I usually avoid it but the BBC do produce some good programmes as well as educational ones. Given a choice I would do away with the licence though as they should be capable of funding themselves, not us taxpayers funding overpaid fatcat BBC executives. The problem with saying not to watch the BBC on you TV or Tablet is that if you don't have a license and are caught with a devise in your home that can stream the BBC you are liable for prosecution, and the explanation of I don't watch the BBC doesn't wash. Better to scrap the license it's archaic. | |||
"Thats the bbc for you. Only have one agenda their own What exactly is their " agenda"?" To create fear and panic | |||
"Thats the bbc for you. Only have one agenda their own What exactly is their " agenda"? To create fear and panic" Are you afraid of your own shadow, Shad0w? | |||
"That’s the BBC ( Biased Broadcasting Company ). I hate it with a passion. News Night is another one of their shite shows. # DefundTheBBC " Broadcasters Buggering Children | |||
| |||
"Thats the bbc for you. Only have one agenda their own What exactly is their " agenda"? To create fear and panic" And why would the bbc did that exactly? | |||
"I don’t understand why this apparent government agenda mouthpiece is constantly under attack from the current government who seem to be keen on dismantling this mouthpiece. Apart from flogging it to their cronies & taking the money, it makes no sense to me." Know one thing, claim another?. | |||
"Its a sad reality we have to day. We all grew up with the BBC and its output over the years has been world beating. Its sports and entertainment coverage beats all the other hands down and the vast majority of the most popular TV shows of all time are the Beeb's. But sadly this was all a cover up. A distraction if you will to lure people into trusting the blatant propaganda and lies that are spewed out daily by its (I use the term here lightly) 'news' department. The BBC 'news' is there to push certain agendas and narratives and nothing more. It certainly does not inform the viewer of all the facts in a sober, analytical and impartial manner we would realistically expect. I for one basically disregard any BBC news these days as its often so far from the actual truth it beggar's belief. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating or even just plain wrong may I politely correct you by saying both members of my family and very close friends have worked for the BBC and it was they that first alerted me to this. They know this happens because they were the ones that used to do it. Like I say its a shame as the BBC should and could be the wonderful institution it sells itself as. But I urge anyone to think very carefully before renewing their (soon to be more expensive) TV licence. For me personally the debacle over the likes of Savile alone will mean I will never financially support the BBC ever in my lifetime again. But it is your choice if you wish to watch live TV. If you do then, yes, you need a licence. PS - there is a LOT you can watch without one. And I mean a LOT. BBC news is total shit and I usually avoid it but the BBC do produce some good programmes as well as educational ones. Given a choice I would do away with the licence though as they should be capable of funding themselves, not us taxpayers funding overpaid fatcat BBC executives. The problem with saying not to watch the BBC on you TV or Tablet is that if you don't have a license and are caught with a devise in your home that can stream the BBC you are liable for prosecution, and the explanation of I don't watch the BBC doesn't wash. Better to scrap the license it's archaic. " Exactly. And - right on cue - we just hear that the BBC is now planning on introducing a £4 a month subscription only service in USA & Canada. Wow! Another massive home goal! | |||
"Its a sad reality we have to day. We all grew up with the BBC and its output over the years has been world beating. Its sports and entertainment coverage beats all the other hands down and the vast majority of the most popular TV shows of all time are the Beeb's. But sadly this was all a cover up. A distraction if you will to lure people into trusting the blatant propaganda and lies that are spewed out daily by its (I use the term here lightly) 'news' department. The BBC 'news' is there to push certain agendas and narratives and nothing more. It certainly does not inform the viewer of all the facts in a sober, analytical and impartial manner we would realistically expect. I for one basically disregard any BBC news these days as its often so far from the actual truth it beggar's belief. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating or even just plain wrong may I politely correct you by saying both members of my family and very close friends have worked for the BBC and it was they that first alerted me to this. They know this happens because they were the ones that used to do it. Like I say its a shame as the BBC should and could be the wonderful institution it sells itself as. But I urge anyone to think very carefully before renewing their (soon to be more expensive) TV licence. For me personally the debacle over the likes of Savile alone will mean I will never financially support the BBC ever in my lifetime again. But it is your choice if you wish to watch live TV. If you do then, yes, you need a licence. PS - there is a LOT you can watch without one. And I mean a LOT. BBC news is total shit and I usually avoid it but the BBC do produce some good programmes as well as educational ones. Given a choice I would do away with the licence though as they should be capable of funding themselves, not us taxpayers funding overpaid fatcat BBC executives. The problem with saying not to watch the BBC on you TV or Tablet is that if you don't have a license and are caught with a devise in your home that can stream the BBC you are liable for prosecution, and the explanation of I don't watch the BBC doesn't wash. Better to scrap the license it's archaic. Exactly. And - right on cue - we just hear that the BBC is now planning on introducing a £4 a month subscription only service in USA & Canada. Wow! Another massive home goal! " So people shouldnt be made to pay for the bbc..but they also shouldnt charge people to watch their output? | |||
"I don’t understand why this apparent government agenda mouthpiece is constantly under attack from the current government who seem to be keen on dismantling this mouthpiece. Apart from flogging it to their cronies & taking the money, it makes no sense to me." While the tories will always have their right-wing press mates (Murdoch et al) to act as their PR wing, they cannot always rely on the BBC to do so, as fine a job as it is doing at the moment to bury news they don't want us to hear (e.g. a few seconds on Hancock's law-breaking vs several minutes on the latest in royal/celeb world). So the logical thing is to make sure that when they next find themselves in opposition, there is no state broadcaster to be the mouthpiece for whoever is in government at that point. | |||
"I don’t understand why this apparent government agenda mouthpiece is constantly under attack from the current government who seem to be keen on dismantling this mouthpiece. Apart from flogging it to their cronies & taking the money, it makes no sense to me. While the tories will always have their right-wing press mates (Murdoch et al) to act as their PR wing, they cannot always rely on the BBC to do so, as fine a job as it is doing at the moment to bury news they don't want us to hear (e.g. a few seconds on Hancock's law-breaking vs several minutes on the latest in royal/celeb world). So the logical thing is to make sure that when they next find themselves in opposition, there is no state broadcaster to be the mouthpiece for whoever is in government at that point." Sounds contradictory still to me,so a seemingly discredited medium that does the work for them, but not reliably or not as reliably as the right wing press, needs to be neutered just in case they switch sides...and this doesn’t show an evenhanded approach? The lefties say it’s right wing, the right wing says it leftie. I don’t subscribe to the belief that if you upset everyone then you must be doing things right....could be that you are just flat wrong. | |||
"I don’t understand why this apparent government agenda mouthpiece is constantly under attack from the current government who seem to be keen on dismantling this mouthpiece. Apart from flogging it to their cronies & taking the money, it makes no sense to me. While the tories will always have their right-wing press mates (Murdoch et al) to act as their PR wing, they cannot always rely on the BBC to do so, as fine a job as it is doing at the moment to bury news they don't want us to hear (e.g. a few seconds on Hancock's law-breaking vs several minutes on the latest in royal/celeb world). So the logical thing is to make sure that when they next find themselves in opposition, there is no state broadcaster to be the mouthpiece for whoever is in government at that point. Sounds contradictory still to me,so a seemingly discredited medium that does the work for them, but not reliably or not as reliably as the right wing press, needs to be neutered just in case they switch sides...and this doesn’t show an evenhanded approach? The lefties say it’s right wing, the right wing says it leftie. I don’t subscribe to the belief that if you upset everyone then you must be doing things right....could be that you are just flat wrong." Not contradictory at all; they want to control the news output, so what better way to do that than sell the medium off to your mates. | |||
 | |||
"I don’t understand why this apparent government agenda mouthpiece is constantly under attack from the current government who seem to be keen on dismantling this mouthpiece. Apart from flogging it to their cronies & taking the money, it makes no sense to me. While the tories will always have their right-wing press mates (Murdoch et al) to act as their PR wing, they cannot always rely on the BBC to do so, as fine a job as it is doing at the moment to bury news they don't want us to hear (e.g. a few seconds on Hancock's law-breaking vs several minutes on the latest in royal/celeb world). So the logical thing is to make sure that when they next find themselves in opposition, there is no state broadcaster to be the mouthpiece for whoever is in government at that point. Sounds contradictory still to me,so a seemingly discredited medium that does the work for them, but not reliably or not as reliably as the right wing press, needs to be neutered just in case they switch sides...and this doesn’t show an evenhanded approach? The lefties say it’s right wing, the right wing says it leftie. I don’t subscribe to the belief that if you upset everyone then you must be doing things right....could be that you are just flat wrong." They have been going after it for years.They see it as too critical (boris swerving that interview before the election) They are clearly looking to give Murdoch more influence. Check out the meetings they had with him a few months ago. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I have lost interest with any British broadcasting news, the bias and drivial it just bores me. CNN News all day for me " Ah right  | |||
"I don’t understand why this apparent government agenda mouthpiece is constantly under attack from the current government who seem to be keen on dismantling this mouthpiece. Apart from flogging it to their cronies & taking the money, it makes no sense to me. While the tories will always have their right-wing press mates (Murdoch et al) to act as their PR wing, they cannot always rely on the BBC to do so, as fine a job as it is doing at the moment to bury news they don't want us to hear (e.g. a few seconds on Hancock's law-breaking vs several minutes on the latest in royal/celeb world). So the logical thing is to make sure that when they next find themselves in opposition, there is no state broadcaster to be the mouthpiece for whoever is in government at that point. Sounds contradictory still to me,so a seemingly discredited medium that does the work for them, but not reliably or not as reliably as the right wing press, needs to be neutered just in case they switch sides...and this doesn’t show an evenhanded approach? The lefties say it’s right wing, the right wing says it leftie. I don’t subscribe to the belief that if you upset everyone then you must be doing things right....could be that you are just flat wrong. They have been going after it for years.They see it as too critical (boris swerving that interview before the election) They are clearly looking to give Murdoch more influence. Check out the meetings they had with him a few months ago." Indeed I am fully aware how the tories have gunned for the BBC for a long time, That Woman was never a fan, but whilst I understand the wish to crush, I still don’t see how it’s right wing bias is manifested. It does seem pretty even handed. It does some odd things to avoid looking like bias, such as givin oxygen to Farage when he led a minority party but got as much airtime (sometimes) as the big players...but again I understand tying oneself in knots to appease. | |||
"I don’t understand why this apparent government agenda mouthpiece is constantly under attack from the current government who seem to be keen on dismantling this mouthpiece. Apart from flogging it to their cronies & taking the money, it makes no sense to me. While the tories will always have their right-wing press mates (Murdoch et al) to act as their PR wing, they cannot always rely on the BBC to do so, as fine a job as it is doing at the moment to bury news they don't want us to hear (e.g. a few seconds on Hancock's law-breaking vs several minutes on the latest in royal/celeb world). So the logical thing is to make sure that when they next find themselves in opposition, there is no state broadcaster to be the mouthpiece for whoever is in government at that point. Sounds contradictory still to me,so a seemingly discredited medium that does the work for them, but not reliably or not as reliably as the right wing press, needs to be neutered just in case they switch sides...and this doesn’t show an evenhanded approach? The lefties say it’s right wing, the right wing says it leftie. I don’t subscribe to the belief that if you upset everyone then you must be doing things right....could be that you are just flat wrong. They have been going after it for years.They see it as too critical (boris swerving that interview before the election) They are clearly looking to give Murdoch more influence. Check out the meetings they had with him a few months ago. Indeed I am fully aware how the tories have gunned for the BBC for a long time, That Woman was never a fan, but whilst I understand the wish to crush, I still don’t see how it’s right wing bias is manifested. It does seem pretty even handed. It does some odd things to avoid looking like bias, such as givin oxygen to Farage when he led a minority party but got as much airtime (sometimes) as the big players...but again I understand tying oneself in knots to appease." I think they do strive to be impartial but there have been numerous instances of right bias,Corbyns mock up on newsnight, the qt audience,kunsberg, Robinson etc Personally I just think they are trying to placate the gmnt but if anyone serously thinks the bbc is left wing,they dont know the meaning of the word | |||
| |||
"If you're wondering how the right-wing bias is manifested, just go to the BBC website and see if you can find any coverage (let alone critique) of Buckland's excuses for the tories' law-breaking in awarding PPE contracts to their chums. " Can you show which law they broke ? Remember we have been through this before, breaking a law and something being unlawful are very different things. | |||
"If you're wondering how the right-wing bias is manifested, just go to the BBC website and see if you can find any coverage (let alone critique) of Buckland's excuses for the tories' law-breaking in awarding PPE contracts to their chums. Can you show which law they broke ? Remember we have been through this before, breaking a law and something being unlawful are very different things." Because that's the really important bit. | |||
"If you're wondering how the right-wing bias is manifested, just go to the BBC website and see if you can find any coverage (let alone critique) of Buckland's excuses for the tories' law-breaking in awarding PPE contracts to their chums. Can you show which law they broke ? Remember we have been through this before, breaking a law and something being unlawful are very different things. Because that's the really important bit. " I think you will find it is the most important bit. | |||
"If you're wondering how the right-wing bias is manifested, just go to the BBC website and see if you can find any coverage (let alone critique) of Buckland's excuses for the tories' law-breaking in awarding PPE contracts to their chums. Can you show which law they broke ? Remember we have been through this before, breaking a law and something being unlawful are very different things. Because that's the really important bit. I think you will find it is the most important bit." Course it is. | |||
"If you're wondering how the right-wing bias is manifested, just go to the BBC website and see if you can find any coverage (let alone critique) of Buckland's excuses for the tories' law-breaking in awarding PPE contracts to their chums. Can you show which law they broke ? Remember we have been through this before, breaking a law and something being unlawful are very different things. Because that's the really important bit. I think you will find it is the most important bit. Course it is." Glad you agree. Details and facts are always important, headlines can be very misleading | |||
| |||
"Not sure if anyone has noticed, but there has been this virus thing about for a few months now and a couple of the news outlets may have mentioned it. But if you missed it, don't panic as its old news now, its so last year.. The news now revolves around a national past time of sticking needles into as many old people as you can in a day.. And its quite surprising how popular this has become, even more popular than the previous British past time of getting pissed at the pub.. It was fun at first but like anything, you can have too much of a good thing and I've seen more needles stuck into old people than the number of pins in a Mexican voodoo doll of Donald Trump... So when someone offers something a bit different, they are going to run with it, even if its as boring as a plain sponge cake.. But if you add a bit of icing, sprinkle some hundreds and thousands, suddnely your boring story has all the appeal of Mary Berry after a vagiaplast op.. So there you have it, a boring post with a bit of sensationalism.. " 
And now a rainbow but no unicorn. | |||
"I'm not a fan if the BBC. It's an outdated service that should be subscription based and we can choose if we want to pay for it or not. I think I can live without Homes under the Hammer and news coverage for Daily Mail readers. " Hahaha, Perfect wat to put it. | |||
| |||
| |||
