News4 mins ago
Is The Bbc In Breach Of It's Charter?
The interesting thing here is that Marr's hectoring, interrupting interview is posted by who it was. There has been a general election since then but the Tory-hating BBC is, if anything getting worse.
My solution is to put the BBC back in the real world and let them make their output encrypted and paid by for by the people who actually want to view their output and abolish the TV licence.
Then the unionised ranks of the BBC would no longer be trapped in the straightjacket of their charter that includes an obligation to be politically neutral and they would be able to finally confirm what most of us know already, namely that they are totally owned by and biased in favour of the Labour party.
The majority of the UK who voted in the way we did at the last election would no longer be obliged to fund a politicizied metropolitan left-wing pseudo-intellectual cult that is every day trying to change the way we think, and instead open the door for a more honest media coverage of the politics of our country.
If you bought the car you wanted to buy, and then the dealer said "by the way you won't be able to take it on the road until you've bought this other car" you would laugh and accuse him of being corrupt. But yet that is the anachronistic relationship the BBC has grown fat and complacent with for far, far too long.
My solution is to put the BBC back in the real world and let them make their output encrypted and paid by for by the people who actually want to view their output and abolish the TV licence.
Then the unionised ranks of the BBC would no longer be trapped in the straightjacket of their charter that includes an obligation to be politically neutral and they would be able to finally confirm what most of us know already, namely that they are totally owned by and biased in favour of the Labour party.
The majority of the UK who voted in the way we did at the last election would no longer be obliged to fund a politicizied metropolitan left-wing pseudo-intellectual cult that is every day trying to change the way we think, and instead open the door for a more honest media coverage of the politics of our country.
If you bought the car you wanted to buy, and then the dealer said "by the way you won't be able to take it on the road until you've bought this other car" you would laugh and accuse him of being corrupt. But yet that is the anachronistic relationship the BBC has grown fat and complacent with for far, far too long.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Colmc54. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// The interesting thing here is that Marr's hectoring, interrupting interview is posted by who it was. //
Not sure what that means? Possibly a reference to Sajid Javid. I cannot really agree with your assessment of a BBC bias, especially based on that interview.
The job of independent journalists (not ones aligned to political parties like the Daily Mail or Daily Mirror) is to hold politicians to account no matter what their political allegance. Reading the Daily Mail which is highly biased in favour of the Conservatives, and then viewing the output of the BBC, you will see a vast difference. Comparing the Mail view and the BBC view is a very bad comparison. The Mail is there to promote the Conservative Party. The BBC News is there to make sure politicians do their job properly and fairly. At the moment the Conservatives have all the power, so journalists such as Marr will naturally be concentrating their skills on Conservative Government Ministers. Not because they are anti-Tory, but because the people in power need to be scritinised. T
he national press in the UK is highly biased. Non are Independent of Party allegiance. So it is left to the BBC to ask Javid difficult questions, because most of the press will just toady to him.
The BBC Trust is responsible for the Governance of the BBC. Its first Chairman was Lord Grade (a Conservative Peer). Followed by Chris Patten, former Conservative Minister. The present Chairman was recommended by Javid himself.
Not sure what that means? Possibly a reference to Sajid Javid. I cannot really agree with your assessment of a BBC bias, especially based on that interview.
The job of independent journalists (not ones aligned to political parties like the Daily Mail or Daily Mirror) is to hold politicians to account no matter what their political allegance. Reading the Daily Mail which is highly biased in favour of the Conservatives, and then viewing the output of the BBC, you will see a vast difference. Comparing the Mail view and the BBC view is a very bad comparison. The Mail is there to promote the Conservative Party. The BBC News is there to make sure politicians do their job properly and fairly. At the moment the Conservatives have all the power, so journalists such as Marr will naturally be concentrating their skills on Conservative Government Ministers. Not because they are anti-Tory, but because the people in power need to be scritinised. T
he national press in the UK is highly biased. Non are Independent of Party allegiance. So it is left to the BBC to ask Javid difficult questions, because most of the press will just toady to him.
The BBC Trust is responsible for the Governance of the BBC. Its first Chairman was Lord Grade (a Conservative Peer). Followed by Chris Patten, former Conservative Minister. The present Chairman was recommended by Javid himself.
I regularly hear these bias claims usually from right wing supporters unhappy that their views are not given an easy ride, but yet to detect clear evidence.
There are plenty of commercial TV companies out there. Such lowest common denominator competition is not what the BBC is about. It would be ludicrous to degrade them to such.
There are plenty of commercial TV companies out there. Such lowest common denominator competition is not what the BBC is about. It would be ludicrous to degrade them to such.
Mushroom25,
The Mail has supported the Conservatives in every General Election since the war, even 1997 when the Sun and Times deserted them. Its Conservative bias is well documented. The DMG's primary function is to make money. It produces news products. Most of those are aimed at Conservative supporting members of the public who purchase its newspapers, or view its website. It keeps its readship loyal by feeding them stories they want to read. And the Daily Mail is a direct competitor to the BBC in the news marketplace, so any curtailing of the BBC's activities will potentially be a financial boost for DMG, so their views on the matter will be tainted anyway.
Obversely, a newspaper such as the Daily Mirror is courting a different readership, and it delivers news that is vastly different than the Mail. But both are heavily biased, and neither is at all impartial.
The BBC is supposed to be impartial. But that is a very difficult thing to deliver. Impartiality is quite subjective. It depends on the person that is Judging the BBC to be impartial too, and nobody is.
The Mail has supported the Conservatives in every General Election since the war, even 1997 when the Sun and Times deserted them. Its Conservative bias is well documented. The DMG's primary function is to make money. It produces news products. Most of those are aimed at Conservative supporting members of the public who purchase its newspapers, or view its website. It keeps its readship loyal by feeding them stories they want to read. And the Daily Mail is a direct competitor to the BBC in the news marketplace, so any curtailing of the BBC's activities will potentially be a financial boost for DMG, so their views on the matter will be tainted anyway.
Obversely, a newspaper such as the Daily Mirror is courting a different readership, and it delivers news that is vastly different than the Mail. But both are heavily biased, and neither is at all impartial.
The BBC is supposed to be impartial. But that is a very difficult thing to deliver. Impartiality is quite subjective. It depends on the person that is Judging the BBC to be impartial too, and nobody is.
What a terrible week for the Islamic Broadcasting Corporation. 1,000 non-jobs disappeared. £600million to pay for 75+ licences.
And now Greece. I haven't heard them this shell-shocked since election night. They've been cheerleading for the plucky Greeks and their Socialist government all year. But now it's dawned on them that the bigger Socialist project(EU) is in danger of unravelling( not to mention the millions in bribes they receive)
They've started pushing the 'lazy Greeks' meme this morning. Stand by for nothing but bad news from Greece for the foreseeable future.
And now Greece. I haven't heard them this shell-shocked since election night. They've been cheerleading for the plucky Greeks and their Socialist government all year. But now it's dawned on them that the bigger Socialist project(EU) is in danger of unravelling( not to mention the millions in bribes they receive)
They've started pushing the 'lazy Greeks' meme this morning. Stand by for nothing but bad news from Greece for the foreseeable future.
New Judge,
Since 1922 successive Government have seen the need for a public service broadcaster. It gives politicians the power to set the national agenda and project their view on the nation and abroad. The BBC is the instrument that disseminates the Governments power and as such is an important tool for them.
It is for that reason that I doubt there will be any major changes. I cannot see the politicians scrapping the BBC and handing Mr Murdoch or Mr Rothermere the power to shape the news agenda.
Going into the future, there are possibilities for the BBC to be funded differently, that cost the tax payer less or nothing. But whatever happens, ypu can be sure that the politicians will still control it, and it will not be a fully commercial enterprise.
I also doubt the ability of commercial companies to replace like for like, the BBC's output. There are many services that the BBC provide that could not possibly generate revenue commercially. They have to be subsidised from somewhere.
Since 1922 successive Government have seen the need for a public service broadcaster. It gives politicians the power to set the national agenda and project their view on the nation and abroad. The BBC is the instrument that disseminates the Governments power and as such is an important tool for them.
It is for that reason that I doubt there will be any major changes. I cannot see the politicians scrapping the BBC and handing Mr Murdoch or Mr Rothermere the power to shape the news agenda.
Going into the future, there are possibilities for the BBC to be funded differently, that cost the tax payer less or nothing. But whatever happens, ypu can be sure that the politicians will still control it, and it will not be a fully commercial enterprise.
I also doubt the ability of commercial companies to replace like for like, the BBC's output. There are many services that the BBC provide that could not possibly generate revenue commercially. They have to be subsidised from somewhere.
No individual newspaper is a particular asset to the country. One can replace another at any time. As private companies they are all doing their, 'profit at all costs, quality second', bit. Not remotely comparable to the BBC. One can not reasonably compare the two.
Whilst it is an complicating anomaly that the license is to be allowed to receive all over the air TV, yet the money funds the public's TV company, it is still the case one does to have to pay, one can choose to watch no TV. But as I've stressed elsewhere, it would make more sense to fund national establishments from general taxation and have done with it.
Whilst it is an complicating anomaly that the license is to be allowed to receive all over the air TV, yet the money funds the public's TV company, it is still the case one does to have to pay, one can choose to watch no TV. But as I've stressed elsewhere, it would make more sense to fund national establishments from general taxation and have done with it.
Commercial TV companies rely on advertiseng revenue to fund their larger-than-BBC budgets, Joe Public pays for this advertising whether he watches commercial TV or not. Similarly to a large extent for the Daily Mail.
And like OG, I have yet to see clear EVIDENCE of left-wing bias from the BBC (for example on a recent Have I Got News For You, Milliband and Farage took a real beating but Cameron hardly got a mention).
What the Tory supporters still seem unable to come to terms with is that it is the Tory party who are now in power, they run the country for goodness sake, so it is inevitable they will get more coverage for Government blunderings. But the harsh spotlight of publicity, the output of which the Tory supporters so delightfully wallowed in when the Government was a Labour one, now seriously upsets them. Aaaah, poor dears.
And like OG, I have yet to see clear EVIDENCE of left-wing bias from the BBC (for example on a recent Have I Got News For You, Milliband and Farage took a real beating but Cameron hardly got a mention).
What the Tory supporters still seem unable to come to terms with is that it is the Tory party who are now in power, they run the country for goodness sake, so it is inevitable they will get more coverage for Government blunderings. But the harsh spotlight of publicity, the output of which the Tory supporters so delightfully wallowed in when the Government was a Labour one, now seriously upsets them. Aaaah, poor dears.
////The Mail may be classed as a Tory paper, but when it comes to criticising the Tory government or any Tory minister it goes not shirk from the task.////
Of course it doesn't, as I described some time ago, the Mail has more Labour readers than the Guardian. http://
Of course it doesn't, as I described some time ago, the Mail has more Labour readers than the Guardian. http://
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
If Planes Are Safe Then Why Do...
ChatterBank12 mins ago
If You Wanted Confirmationour...
News16 mins ago
