BBC News?..... or discussion?

[SideValve]

She was indeed found at fault. They said:
"While we believe the programme contained fair, reasonable and rigorous journalism, we feel that we should have done more to make clear the introduction was a summary of the questions we would examine, with all the accompanying evidence, in the rest of the programme. As it was, we believe the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality."

My comment on that is that yes, she could could have worded it better. I'm sure a lot of people were disgruntled, we know how many complained. We dont, of course, know how many heartly agreed. Either way, she should have worded it more carefully. If nothing else it has added fuel to the Murdoch media's pressure to stifle the BBC.
Its another matter as to whether our only independent news source should be careful of what it says in case it raises the ire of foreign news organisations - no matter what their influence within the government of the day.

I sincerely believe that the BBC is as even handed as it is possible to be. Many people believe it is actually too balanced. And then there is the number of times its quoted as a case of political correctness gone mad.

Regarding the license fee. Yep, its a throwback to its formation in very different times. I wouldn't like to see it depend on subscriptions - I think that would be the death of all the peripheral services they provide, local news, radio, documentaries, archives, educational content as well as being the start of moulding content to match their new audience of those that can afford the fee.
I would also be nervous of it being funded out of general taxation - there is a real danger it would literally become the voice of Government. So, the current model isn't great but it helps to preserve the level of service and the level of independence.

I certainly do not have the view that the BBC can say what it wants as long as it says what I feel. There is that famous quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." So yep, if they (or anyone else for that matter) say something I dont agree with I try to question both why others might agree and why I dont. As a last resort you can always switch channels or turn it off.
The BBC may not be perfect but I am happy that it does its best to give a platform to all sides of arguments and its that level of debate that gives us the opportunity to consider things in the round and make up our minds. I try to make sure I look at stories of interest from as many sources as possible (except those that put up paywalls) and I have to say that while I remain a fan of the BBC I am also often impressed by Sky News, CNN and Reuters. However, the knives are clearly out for the BBC and none of the others could come close to replacing it. That's my opinion, others are of course welcome to theirs :¬)

[SideValve]

I'm sure there are ex-staff who have all sorts of things to say, that is often the way with ex-staff of any company.
In these difficult times it is a shame that they need to spend more money ensuring its output matches our diverse culture, you would have hoped that it was already diverse enough. And its certainly a shame to lose local programming but cuts will have to be made. The number of license fee payers is already dropping and with talk of payment of the license fee not being enforced this will accelerate dramatically.
The BBC remains number one for impartial news coverage, with 51 percent of news consumers naming the BBC as the source they are most likely to turn to. This is up from 44 percent in 2018/19 and far ahead of the next nearest provider. There are however many who, perhaps embracing Thatcher's old saying that there is no such thing as society, resent paying towards something that is for the benefit of all. Daily Express recently ran a poll showing that 97% of its readers backed scrapping the TV licence fee.

I say again that the British Broadcasting Corporation is, in my opinion, perhaps the last truly British great institution. Like everything from British Airways to British Steel it was set up with the best of intentions and was a source of pride to my parents generation and to me. It is the envy of many around the world but it seems that, as the foreign media corporations conspire against it and a very vocal few dont like what it sometimes says, its days are numbered. I guess thats the trajectory Britain has been on for 40 years now I and must learn to live with the fact that while other countries are often proud of their institutions we, one by one, abandon ours.

[mileshawk56]

The problem with the BBC as seen by many is it has deserted "facts" for those catch all, meaningless words "opinion" and "interpretation" Chris.S.

[roverbarmy]

They were at it again this morning, speculating about Verstappen in the F1 race. Just report what happens and stop speculating please BBC!

[wraymond]

You have to have regard to their sources and, more importantly, the choice of the staff and their influences to get an idea of their intentions. This ignores corporate persuasion and so could be considered indicative of the internal BBC market.

The BBC buy newspapers for their reports and the significance of the pure numbers that disseminate their contents to avid BBC hierarchy and general staff is a vital indicator as to their preferred direction of travel.

For instance, the newspapers bought and then sold to staff or distributed freely internally for circulation to all staff and directors are as below. The old adage of ‘follow the money’ prevails, at least so far as BBC expenditure and support goes...

The BBC’s newspaper facilities for staff:

Copies bought: Guardian 225 daily Observer 150 daily Mail on Sunday 140 Sunday

Annual expenditure: Guardian £150,000 . Observer £20,000. Mail on Sunday 120,000.

Papers’ national circulation (daily) Guardian 100,000. Observer 120,000. Mail on Sunday 900,000.

Draw one’s own conclusions and then consider the latest cover-up over salaries’ disclosure. Or not .

The figures given for over the table salaries are one thing. The real amounts to cover additional payments for other BBC productions, which are paid by confidential Service Companies regulations to offshore accounts are quite another and are kept secret. These under-counter jobbies can be several times greater than those published, depending on the “Stars” perceived value.

Consider this concealment behaviour by a state-sponsored behemoth and the extraction by law of inordinate funds from the public and then try any justification of it.

We, the so-called licence payer, are funding a left-wing horribly biased news organisation not a million miles away from Izvestia or Pravda. It’s an Empire, what a controversial term to use.

[SideValve]

Sorry guys but I disagree. I seem to be the only one! I'd like to say thank you to the mods for letting this thread run. Usually anything remotely political gets closed which I think is a shame as a frank exchange of views can help understanding in these increasingly tribal times.

Personally, I am thankful we have a public funded corporation that does its best to provide a balanced critique of our govt. and, if you can remember that far back, was just as critical when Labour were in power. The day it starts spouting unquestioning propaganda in favour the government of the day then, and only then, can it be compared to Pravda.

Until then, whilst it may not be perfect, it is the single most respected news outlet and one we Brits can be very proud of.

Its a shame, that following a long and concerted campaign by the right-wing, often foreign owned media, we will probably lose it.

[Phil th Barrow]

One day we will get th truth not a Agenda...

As for th self adulation, imaginary rock star persona of Laura Kuenssberg ..... Delusional and Hilarious all at th same time..

[SideValve]

Interesting discussion on the subject on Radio 4 today


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000nmcm