More negative BBC news

[SD1too]

Originally Posted by Annfield-East

I think a lot would if the TV licensing system ... was abolished and BBC had to earn its daily bread in the same way as Sky and ITV do.

Hi Paul,

The advantage of the licence fee is that the BBC's output isn't dependent upon pleasing advertisers which always drives down standards and puts programmes for minority interests at risk.

Although the BBC is an institution with all the flaws that brings, if you look at what we get for a relatively modest outlay I say it's a bargain! Compare the licence fee with the taxes we have to pay to run a car; VED plus fuel tax plus insurance, ouch!

Simon

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by Georgies Dad

Even that lot show repeats all the while,we have just paid our fee £157,so we look forward to seeing whats on offer.


I used to love watching the Black and White minstrels,but that is not politicly correct in this day and age.

In its day the Black and White Minstrel Show (which I absolutely loathed) had audiences of around 16 million. Today BBC News at Ten gets about 4 million.


The last Ofcom Report on the BBC says that the BBC news service only scores an audience rating of 56% for Bias. It also states that ITV news is rated better in this regard than audiences rate the BBC.

[MissMoppet]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

Today BBC News at Ten gets about 4 million.

Ah but in those far off days of B & W 12 inch sets with cathode-ray tubes and sitting in darkened rooms, there was BBC1 and ITV and . . . that was about it I think. Would you rather watch Fox News and Farage's goobledegook? (Is he still alive?)


If you've ever watched foreign TV, esp in USA, it's appalling. I think there used to be a ruling that ads should occupy no more than 4 minutes of ads/hour. I recently wrote to OfCom querying that but answer came there none. Yes the Beeb is overstaffed and possibly Lineker is not worth £1000000000000000, but I'd rather watch Auntie - no I'd rather listen to steam radio actually - or read a good book - than most other channels.


Dave

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by SD1too

Hi Paul,

The advantage of the licence fee is that the BBC's output isn't dependent upon pleasing advertisers which always drives down standards and puts programmes for minority interests at risk.

Although the BBC is an institution with all the flaws that brings, if you look at what we get for a relatively modest outlay I say it's a bargain! Compare the licence fee with the taxes we have to pay to run a car; VED plus fuel tax plus insurance, ouch!

Simon

Are you saying we should accept the Flaws? If I am a forced “stakeholder” in something then don’t be surprised if those flaws are identified and criticised.

Since Lockdown I have used Sky, Netflix and Amazon Prime and Netflix in particular has been a lifesaver in these cold dark winter months. My son subscribes and has put us on his account so we pay nothing. I am in two minds as to the value of my Sky subscription and will probably review that in the coming years.

I have a constant news feed from Reuters and Bloomberg on my Mobile such that when I do watch BBC / ITV /Sky news I find all three stilted and frustrating to watch.

And given that I fall into the GHOF category I can see why the younger generation increasingly decide to forgo what we took for granted such as Telephone Land Lines and TV Licences.

They want to view something? They stream it on a device they pay a monthly fee for. Why would they consider paying a fee/tax for a service they find antiquated?

The BBC has real expertise in programme making. If it went to subscription or pay per view it would not only survive but thrive in my view. If it carries on with its head in the sand as it does now, it will not survive especially if not paying the Licence Fee is decriminalised. Future generations will simply not pay.

And why should they?

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by MissMoppet

Ah but in those far off days of B & W 12 inch sets with cathode-ray tubes and sitting in darkened rooms, there was BBC1 and ITV and . . . that was about it I think. Would you rather watch Fox News and Farage's goobledegook? (Is he still alive?)


If you've ever watched foreign TV, esp in USA, it's appalling. I think there used to be a ruling that ads should occupy no more than 4 minutes of ads/hour. I recently wrote to OfCom querying that but answer came there none. Yes the Beeb is overstaffed and possibly Lineker is not worth £1000000000000000, but I'd rather watch Auntie - no I'd rather listen to steam radio actually - or read a good book - than most other channels.


Dave

Totally agree - USA television is truly awful. But even the Americans are moving from that awful Ad-driven-drivel to streamed programmes because they too love the chance to watch a series with no adverts!!

When we watch an American series on Netflix - each episode is about 40 minutes!

That means that on a normal US “network” watchers have to endure 20 min of adverts.

For this point alone - I believe subscription streaming services are the way to go.

[StewartIngram]

I am in the camp that believes the media only looks for headline news. and tend to look for faults/blame of anything that is done, but...technically this Indian statement is correct!
They are starting the BIGGEST vacc campaign, it is bigger that ours, as they have a much larger population than us.

[coolguy]

Originally Posted by SCP440

Yes exactly, it does not matter how well the government are doing they always seem to be negative.

In my view for every negative they should be a positive.

Totally agree. Statistics are a fine example. I would much rather hear that 49 out of 50 people in the UK do NOT have the virus than 1 in 50 does. However, the danger in this is that folk would relax their efforts to comply to beat the virus. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[SCP440]

A perfect example of bad statistics is the appalling death rate. The BBC keep saying we have the highest amount of deaths in Europe, only partially correct. We have a high death rate but we have a lot of people. We are actually the 6th.

If you do it on per head of population which is actually the correct way of doing it Belgium trumps any other country by at about 20% followed by Italy and a couple more before we get to the UK and then the next dozen or so nations are all within a few percent of each other so we are actually doing no worse than many other countries.

What the BBC should be saying is we are doing so much better than many European countries and our vaccination program is one of the best in the world.

The French are in a bad way and a lot of there citizens are sceptical about having a vaccine. That is going to be a big problem going forward. If Boris gets us all vaccinated by the end of this year we can start getting back to normal.

[edwardmk]

There are several interesting books on perceived bias in the BBC. Apparently George Orwell wrote his famous book based on his experiences as a BBC employee. I have an issue with how they are reporting deaths too. My frustration is tempered with hoping they know the data exaggerates the deaths from Covid but believe we all need to be thoroughly scared to get better compliance. Deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid test when the test is giving off many false positives is definitely a political construct to improve compliance. I can forgive them that one.

[MissMoppet]

Originally Posted by SCP440

If Boris gets us all vaccinated by the end of this year we can start getting back to normal.

Sorry but I don't want Boris anywhere near me - let alone with a needle.