# BBC Scaremongering again



## selectortone (13 Oct 2021)

The BBC started their 6pm news broadcast tonight, in their headline report about shipping container hold-ups at the port of Felixstowe with the words "Don't panic buy". 

Unbelievable. That really worked with the panic buying at the pumps didn't it? That was totally unnecessary, totally irresponsible, totally manufactured by the media. Now they want to extend that to toys for Christmas. Don't these people have any social responsibility at all? I've been a robust defender of the BBC all my life, not one for complaining, but I have to say, I'm really, really disappointed AGAIN with the BBC.

It'll be toilet rolls again next - You watch.


----------



## Spectric (13 Oct 2021)

This is the latest in marketing strategy, if you want to boost sales to try and recover losses due to covid last year then all you need to do is feed the media with fake news and let them and the broadcasters do the rest, it is a lot cheaper than tv advertising. Now the public being gullable will act like sheep and panic buy. That guy talking about toys for christmas on the news, no not nice shinny new woodworking toys but kiddie toys, showing some plastic thing that the asians have made from our old plastic waste and that it cost him £7 just for shipping and it currently sells for £15 but will soon be going up to cover cost, people will see this and panic buy kids toys and it is the BBC who did the advertising for free under the guise of news.


----------



## D_W (13 Oct 2021)

They're learning the same thing everyone else has learned - it's more profitable to make people upset and try to extend the irritation than it is to avoid it or provide "news", which would be defined as information that you didn't yet know.

I realize it's hard for you to get out of supporting them, but we opted out here by not listening to radio news, not subscribing to cable and not watching any network television news. It's always had a negative bias, but the way it fuels controversy now is too irresponsible, and it's not as if you need to watch or listen to it to see any of it (you literally will get news links in web email at this point - or as reference links off to the side). And they will cover any of the updates that are of any substance (like when the FDA suggests a booster and for what groups, etc, or like yesterday, when the FDA released an alert that people over 60 should stop taking small aspirin to reduce heart attack risk because it increases other risks).


----------



## selectortone (13 Oct 2021)

Spectric said:


> This is the latest in marketing strategy, if you want to boost sales to try and recover losses due to covid last year then all you need to do is feed the media with fake news and let them and the broadcasters do the rest, it is a lot cheaper than tv advertising. Now the public being gullable will act like sheep and panic buy. That guy talking about toys for christmas on the news, no not nice shinny new woodworking toys but kiddie toys, showing some plastic thing that the asians have made from our old plastic waste and that it cost him £7 just for shipping and it currently sells for £15 but will soon be going up to cover cost, people will see this and panic buy kids toys and it is the BBC who did the advertising for free under the guise of news.


Indeed. That doesn't, however, absolve the BBC from their responsibility, as a public service broadcaster, to report the news objectively and not indulge in red-top scaremongering. They are either very naive or complicit. Either way, It's not what I pay my licence fee for.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Oct 2021)

I did see a billboard outside a pub - Drink now, beat the beer shortage.


----------



## hog&amp;bodge (13 Oct 2021)

Mmm think I will go out now and get a frozen turkey,frozen sprouts,frozen..well you get the message.lol


----------



## Cabinetman (13 Oct 2021)

hog&amp;bodge said:


> Mmm think I will go out now and get a frozen turkey,frozen sprouts,frozen..well you get the message.lol


And hope the electricity doesn’t run out lol. Be an early Christmas if it does.


----------



## AdrianUK (13 Oct 2021)

Bought me some of those old fangled strings coated in thick wax last week.

Not due to anything the media put out, rather, because once I heard the statement from the government energy minister that there’d be no energy shortages this winter, I thought, we could be off again on another rollercoaster ride of government induced of fubar, not our fault, it’s behind you, no one told us, and general firefighting.

I say, be prepared, look ahead, plan for the worse….hey, I could be in government….now, where’s those matches


----------



## hog&amp;bodge (13 Oct 2021)

I watched a doc once called "Little Dieter Needs to Fly"
He always had a large blue barrel 220L of honey and the same full of rice.
Due to shortages during the war and he kept it up after the war till he passed away.
Think you could call him an early prepper


----------



## Terry - Somerset (14 Oct 2021)

The media are responsible for creating and perpetuating the problems they report.

In a few weeks the headlines will morph into:

distressed kids upset Santa can't deliver the overpriced, plastic plaything
parents stressed being unable to meet kiddies needs
sobbing mothers only ably to cook nut roasts not turkeys
everyone blaming Brexit - probably even the Brexiteers
why hasn't Boris appointed of a minister for xmas, or fired him/her if already in post


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Oct 2021)

AdrianUK said:


> ...once I heard the statement from the government energy minister that there’d be no energy shortages this winter...


Never believe anything a government says until it has been officially denied.

I've been amusing myself by looking at the other side of BBC's anti - China propaganda - their grey filtration to be precise.


----------



## fixit45 (14 Oct 2021)

It could be that the government is complicit in these stories. Because of lockdown people were not using their cars and transport was at a standstill causing a massive build-up of fuel in storage and a drop in taxes for the government. But when panic buying occurred it meant two things fuel production could start again and the government gets an enormous cash injection.


----------



## alz (14 Oct 2021)

The BBC have done the scare stories over toys to turkeys, now they are on to chicken prices going up 10%.
As a retired journalist, I remember how the BBC was looked on as a pretty pathetic operation that simply lifted most of its regional coverage from the local newspapers. Made one smile when their reports would begin "..the BBC can reveal."
Make it a subscription service and give people the right to choose an unbiased and reliable set-up.


----------



## Stevekane (14 Oct 2021)

ITV were at it as well, 10.00pm news was Gas Shortages, apparently we only have a 1 week reserve compared to other countries 10 weeks in hand, we reley on the ships arriveing with it just in time,,,except their diverting to china.
So dont bother with the frozen turkey etc unless you can cook it over all the wood you've been saving up! In fact there is an idea for a TV program “Your BBQ Christmas Dinner” have the housewives fav Gino and Gorden prancing about ,,,then they would really be “cooking on gas” or possibly not!!
As for toy shortages,,also mentioned for good measure, I have to say that from where Im sitting a tremendous shortage of Chinese plastic rubbish would I think be a positive thing both for people struggling with bills and the planet.
Anyway Im off to “gas up”some balloons,,,Im storeing them with the bathfull of diesel I bought last week,,and the frozen sprouts (which miraculously produce their own gas when eaten)
Merry Christmas,,
Steve.


----------



## ChrisMa (14 Oct 2021)

The BBC (and many other MSM channels) are activists in Social Engineering. They are not the news channels they used to be.

And we are forced to pay for it via the TV license.


----------



## Spectric (14 Oct 2021)

selectortone said:


> Indeed. That doesn't, however, absolve the BBC from their responsibility, as a public service broadcaster, to report the news objectively and not indulge in red-top scaremongering. They are either very naive or complicit. Either way, It's not what I pay my licence fee for.


I think it is a case of an organisation getting to big for it's boots, they now see themselves as more than just "the BBC broadcasting company" and are often biased rather than just a place news and facts are delivered without opinion. The idea of a license fee today is outdated, as has been said before a company or business if viable should be capable of standing on it's own without support and you should not require a Tv license because you own a Tv. This new Sky Tv should open up debate, no dish or aerial so not receiving through transmission over a carrier wave, only via broadband and I assume only Sky channels so how will the BBC look upon this?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (14 Oct 2021)

The licence fee dates from a time 6+ decades ago when ownership of 425 lines was a luxury affordable by only a few. There was no commercial model - how to monetise TV through advertising and sponsorship. There was only one channel.

Fast forward to today - several hundred accessible channels - Freeview, Netflix, Sky, Disney etc. Much of it trivial rubbish, but there are some hidden gems. The only rational for a state funded broadcaster is:

an organ of state control and opinion forming (not an attractive Orwellian thought)
delivery of that which the commercially funded sector is unable or unwilling
The BBC had a reputation for impartiality in news reporting, high quality drama and factual programming. All three have been compromised. There is no remotely convincing rationale for funding second rate, me too, programming.

The license fee serves only to perpetuate outdated broadcasting culture and practise, and should be scrapped. Remaining costs of a much reduced BBC focussed on its unique capabilities should be funded either commercially or through general taxation.


----------



## angelboy (14 Oct 2021)

Spectric said:


> ....This new Sky Tv should open up debate, no dish or aerial so not receiving through transmission over a carrier wave, only via broadband and I assume only Sky channels so how will the BBC look upon this?



This is where the bullshit starts - The BBC still require a TV licence if you're viewing any live broadcast. That's not 'live' as in the events are happening right now, but simply the tv channel broadcasting a feed of shows that are being broadcasted at that moment. So even if Sky is not using a dish or aerial they're still broadcasting live by the definition the BBC use so they can still charge you.

Total bullshit!

I dumped my TV licence last October and only view Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. I'm allowed to watch catch up services from ITV, Channel 4 & 5 as well. I find I still have plenty of things to watch but one thing I don't bother with is the news - and I must say, I'm so much happier for it.


----------



## Jacob (14 Oct 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The licence fee dates from a time 6+ decades ago when ownership of 425 lines was a luxury affordable by only a few. There was no commercial model - how to monetise TV through advertising and sponsorship. There was only one channel.
> 
> Fast forward to today - several hundred accessible channels - Freeview, Netflix, Sky, Disney etc. Much of it trivial rubbish, but there are some hidden gems. The only rational for a state funded broadcaster is:
> 
> ...


Channel 4 seems a good compromise - state funded but independent. But they are planning to privatise it as C4 news is a bit too radical - not overtly but just by serious questioning. It makes up for the very establishment stance of the BBC.
The thought of having them all run for profit is appalling - that's why print media is so bad.


----------



## Spectric (14 Oct 2021)

That is total bullshit but what people have come to expect from the BBC. So the BBC can charge you to watch someone elses channel, they need a radical shakeup so lets start with ditching that license fee. 



angelboy said:


> I'm allowed to watch catch up services


If the BBC can stretch rules then in theory all streamed services are catchup because the signal is not used at the point of being received, it is buffered before being used so you are really watching catchup.


----------



## ivan (14 Oct 2021)

Many years ago when a student on vac work, picking sprouts on a local farm, next to an A road, an ITV crew arrived asking for info on snow blocked roads. After some thought we sent them off to a rail bridge over a deep sunk narrow lane, that often fills with drifted snow. That night, ITV news reported "roads to Thanet blocked" along with pictures of the snow filled bridge. That gives an idea of how news coverage works. Not long before, at school, we examined the same story in every newspaper published that day, to see how the same event spurs different language, and how different types of reader might respond. News has always required a little thought, especially if it stirs up emotions, one of which is panic.

Businesses round here are having to put up with delayed / no delivery of goods. There are vast numbers of containers waiting to dock and deliver. Farm slaughter of animals has begun as the fresh meat processors who kill butcher and prepack are running slow, and unpicked veg is being ploughed in. There is a combined covid/brexit problem, which will probably end up with a quiet issuing of more temporary visas for E european workers, or more food imports; it's a govt. decision either way. Our Xmas dinner is already in the freezer.

The licence is for your *TV - *at least in theory. We used to have a radio licence, even if you only listened to radio Luxemburg. The govt wanted to keep tabs on who had comms!

The Beeb is already short of cash, which doesn't help, as it's trying to max on viewers, which as the Sun knows, requires "populist" journalism. I think the World Service (radio) arm of the Beeb is probably the best source of plain news. As a pensioner I grew up with the BBC, and compared with news channels in the USA (we have rellies there) it is still a paragon of virtue. But it's not as good as it was, and the technical stuff is often dumbed down compared to the early days of BBC2. Now paying again, as the free tv perk has gone, only because of some good stuff on BBC4. If that went, so would I, and go streaming only of other channels.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (14 Oct 2021)

The TV license fee is a tax. Based on households it has more in common with council tax than income tax. Unlike both it is not progressive - irrespective of the size of house occupied, or the income enjoyed, all pay the same.

It is the only tax hypothecated for a particular purpose. Collection requires separate systems, registers and enforcment processes. It is an anachronistic legacy and should go as dog licences did in 1988. It is absurd that a licence is need to watch live TV , but not catch up.

The BBC needs to radically revisit is reason for existing. Measuring success on audience size will drive quality down in pursuit of lowest common denominator ratings. 

If it is to be taxpayer funded (preferably out of general taxation) it should engage in that which is arguably in the national interest but not available (sometimes better) from commercial media.


----------



## doctor Bob (14 Oct 2021)

Media still saying fuel shortage down here, total nonsense.
Got lunch from Sainsbury today, fully stocked on everything.
Managed to bag 90 toilet rolls, 5 turkeys (i'm vegan but who cares)


----------



## southendwoodworker (15 Oct 2021)

I don't have a strong view on the BBC TV licence, my family never watch live TV or the news, we don't even have a tv antenna

But one thing I must point out, that having lived in a few countries and travelled extensively to many more, is that BBC is actually pretty good value overall compared to a subscription system which other countries have. Once the licence fee goes and BBC is allowed to have mid-program advertising to help fund themselves, there will be no going back. It's something to be very cautious of because the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

From my foreign perspective:

1) the bcc are somewhat unbiased (all news is biased or sensationalist in some way)
2) advertising on tv is horrible, really really really horrible. Watching a 30 minute program means having to watch 9 minutes of ads, it becomes tiring very very quick
3) that the fee isn't really a lot compared to a basic package from another supplier like sky. the basic packages are generally too lean by design and you're forced in to paying more to see anything of real interest, which I have found to still offer less than what the BBC does for its price
4) if bbc becomes user or advertising funded, it will have to find a profitable audience market. This will mean they will likely become more focussed towards whatever market is most profitable for them, introducing further bias

If the issue is about BBC being biased, just remember all news is biased and always has been. It only really becomes apparent when its bias starts to differ from your own. Our biases change over time, so has our bias changed or has the bbc's bias changed? I don't know.

We all have different biases, and when we find a news source we do like we will perceive it as being neutral, when in reality all it means is that news sources bias just aligns with our own bias at that time.

Whenever we read the news we got to consider whether there is a bias. This grows tiresome, people don't like having to evaluate each and everything they see or hear for truthfulness. As a foreigner, I find the the BBC pretty low effort (which actually is a good thing and something UK deserves a high five for); what I am meaning is that I don't feel that I have to question every word in a BBC article (maybe every tenth word), whereas when reading the Sun, Metro or Guardian I have to spend significantly more effort in reading them because I have to asses every single word.


----------



## southendwoodworker (15 Oct 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The TV license fee is a tax. Based on households it has more in common with council tax than income tax. Unlike both it is not progressive - irrespective of the size of house occupied, or the income enjoyed, all pay the same.
> 
> It is the only tax hypothecated for a particular purpose. Collection requires separate systems, registers and enforcment processes. It is an anachronistic legacy and should go as dog licences did in 1988. It is absurd that a licence is need to watch live TV , but not catch up.
> 
> ...



I think you are spot on with all of what you said there.


----------



## ian33a (15 Oct 2021)

southendwoodworker said:


> I don't have a strong view on the BBC TV licence, my family never watch live TV or the news, we don't even have a tv antenna
> 
> But one thing I must point out, that having lived in a few countries and travelled extensively to many more, is that BBC is actually pretty good value overall compared to a subscription system which other countries have. Once the licence fee goes and BBC is allowed to have mid-program advertising to help fund themselves, there will be no going back. It's something to be very cautious of because the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.
> 
> ...



I agree too, you are spot on.

We also have to remember that almost nothing broadcast on a TV set or streamed via a media player is actually free. Viewers either pay a licence fee, a subscription fee or, indirectly, bundled within the cost of the advertising of anything that they buy online or in the shops. 

The BBC frustrates me at times but being subjected to TV advertising (as an example) frustrates me even more. At a couple of quid a week, its pretty decent value. Also, the licence fee isn't just to pay for the BBC and the people who work there. It also goes toward the cost of transmitting all terrestrial broadcasts to our homes and not just the output from one provider.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2021)

At a couple of quid a week, its pretty decent value ...

Not if you are forced to pay it when you wish to watch something else, it isn't.


----------



## paulrbarnard (15 Oct 2021)

I’m not a fan of the BBC but advertising really frustrates me. I’m close to giving up watching YouTube due to the recent increase in advertising. A few year ago a small percentage of videos were monetised but now you find one or two non skip able adds that you have to endure before discovering that the enticing title and thumbnail leads to 5 minutes of some self important silly person telling you to click subscribe and smash that notification bell accompanied by lots of arm waving and wild gesticulation. At least you can FF past that but then hit their “sponsored by” section where you get the most insincere commentary on products seen anywhere on the planet. But at least you can FF past it. You then hit the mid video advertising which again can’t be skipped. After that you then hit the content you were looking for to discover that the “presenter” actually has no idea at all and you have just lost 10 minutes of your life which you will never get back.
maybe the BBC isn’t quite as bad as we all think.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

The TV licence fee is a “hypothecated tax”. A hypothecated tax is one which is designed to reflect the cost of a particular service or infrastructure. The tax itself does not pay for the service in any direct sense.
"The revenue is collected privately by Capita, an outside agency, and is paid into the central government Consolidated Fund, a process defined in the Communications Act 2003. Funds are then allocated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation. Additional revenues are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions to compensate for subsidised licences for eligible over-75-year-olds."

It wouldn't make the slightest difference if funded by govt. with no licence scheme but a tax rise instead; it's already controlled by govt, with an associated particular form of taxation.
BBC also has a commercial wing, selling programmes and other services.

I think the BBC is brilliant but it is dominated by the upper clarses - quite a lot of posh girls and boys and hence innately establishment biased, *but not driven by profit*. Infinitely preferable to being dominated by Murdoch et al.


----------



## Keith Cocker (15 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> The BBC (and many other MSM channels) are activists in Social Engineering. They are not the news channels they used to be.
> 
> And we are forced to pay for it via the TV license.



It’s a conspiracy


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Infinitely preferable to being dominated by Murdoch et al.




We choose whether to read or watch anything owned by Murdoch or anyone else. If we wish to watch any other live TV we have to pay the BBC tax. That's where it is different, wrong and beyond any justification. Whether it is or isn't good value or biased doesn't even come into it.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> We choose whether to read or watch anything owned by Murdoch or anyone else. If we wish to watch any other live TV we have to pay the BBC tax. That's where it is different, wrong and beyond any justification. Whether it is or isn't good value or biased doesn't even come into it.


Well yes it's illogical and also gives an unfair boost to the independents. Better to fund BBC straight out of taxation, as with other public services


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (15 Oct 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> It’s a conspiracy



That's what the conspiracy theorists want you to think!

On the bias question, I've noticed that pretty much everyone thinks the BBC is biased, which suggests that either the bias varies by programme, or that it's very middle of the road. Or equally shoddy in all directions.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> That's what the conspiracy theorists want you to think!
> 
> On the bias question, I've noticed that pretty much everyone thinks the BBC is biased, which suggests that either the bias varies by programme, or that it's very middle of the road. Or equally shoddy in all directions.


Or maybe tells the truth, which nobody wants to hear?


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Or maybe tells the truth, which nobody wants to hear?



Yes - I meant to encompass that in my reply but failed. Good call.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Well yes it's illogical and also gives an unfair boost to the independents. Better to fund BBC straight out of taxation, as with other public services


Except it isn't a public service.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Except it isn't a public service.


er, yes it is! It's set up and run by the govt.


----------



## selectortone (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Except it isn't a public service.


The BBC is a public service broadcaster whose remit was defined by Lord Reith, its first Director-General as to "_inform, educate and entertain_". As such, I believe it has an obligation to report the news objectively and responsibly, and not indulge in scaremongering down in the gutter with the worst of the tabloids.





__





Public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

selectortone said:


> The BBC is a public service broadcaster whose remit was defined by Lord Reith, its first Director-General as to "_inform, educate and entertain_". As such, I believe it has an obligation to report the news objectively and not indulge in scaremongering down in the gutter with the worst of the tabloids.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What BBC scaremongering did you have in mind?


----------



## selectortone (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> What BBC scaremongering did you have in mind?


Eh? The scaremongering I referred to when I started this thread.


----------



## selectortone (15 Oct 2021)

.... and, paradoxically, I never referred to it as scaremongering when I wrote to them two weeks ago during the fuel shortages complaining that they and the rest of the media were unnecessarily stoking up panic buying. They replied with a template response they were obviously sending out en masse which denied 'scaremongering' (their word). So I'm clearly not the only one annoyed by their lack of objectivity and social responsibility.


----------



## selectortone (15 Oct 2021)

Perhaps I should change my signature to "_It must be true, I saw it on the BBC" _


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

selectortone said:


> Eh? The scaremongering I referred to when I started this thread.


Oh yes! "Don't panic buy"  Actually I did notice it too when I saw the prog.
Dunno it's 6 of one and half doz of the other. Arguably it was a reassuring comment, the facts themselves were scary enough for most! Seems a fairly trivial detail against the bigger picture.
I'd say the BBC wasn't anywhere near scaremongering _enough_ about bigger issues, particularly Climate Change. David Attenborough held back until quite recently - probably about 20 years too late.
We need more scaremongering not less!


----------



## selectortone (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Oh yes! "Don't panic buy" Actually I did notice it too when I saw the prog.
> Dunno it's 6 of one and half doz of the other. Arguably was a reassuring comment, the facts themselves were scary enough for most!


How can "Don't panic buy" be a reassuring comment? Everyone knows that as soon as anyone mentions panic buying in the media, a certain section of the British public goes berserk, empties supermarket shelves, petrol stations or whatever, and creates shortages for the rest of us. Thank god there's no way of storing large volumes of gas domestically, or the pipes in the street would be empty.


----------



## ian33a (15 Oct 2021)

selectortone said:


> .... Thank god there's no way of storing large volumes of gas domestically, or the pipes in the street would be empty.



My wife complains that I store large volumes of gas and, rather too regularly, expel it at bed time.


----------



## hairy (15 Oct 2021)

An article in the UKMSM by a long standing reporter was talking about Aus and it's lock down possibly being helped by a "more complicit" media. I thought it surprising that someone who has reported with bias in a place of bias acknowledged that the MSM is/was and forever shall be so. He also mentioned vitamin D which was surely taking things too far?

I totally do not understand Sky selling a whole TV when Amazon and the Fire stick is all that's needed for £25. No dish fair enough, but replacing your TV to do so? Why don't Sky have a free Fire type stick to get you into paying £50 a month? Bargain.

I'd quite like to pay for impartial world and domestic news. I wonder how impartial the BBC actually was back in the day?


----------



## John Brown (15 Oct 2021)

How does anybody think things would work if the licence fee is dropped? More annoying childish advertising? How would a subscription work? I guess it'd be another set top box or something. I don't know what percentage of the population rely on terrestrial live broadcasts. 
I personally like the BBC, and don't begrudge the licence fee, but I can understand the opposite viewpoint. I just don't see any easy solution to making it a subscription service.
It could have been done when digital terrestrial broadcasting was introduced. By now, we could have had the necessary decryption hardware present in all TV sets and set top boxes.
That didn't happen, or did it? Does every TV or set top box have a slot for a Conditional Access Module (as I seem to remember they were called)?

Just interested in possible solutions, not in the politics.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> How does anybody think things would work if the licence fee is dropped? ....


No change - it would be paid for by government just the same, but the money would come from increased taxation instead of the licence fee.


----------



## John Brown (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> No change - it would be paid for by government just the same, but the money would come from increased taxation instead of the licence fee.


I can understand that, Jacob, but the people who object to the current licence fee would probably also object to that. I am asking about how a transition could occur to a subscription service.


----------



## selectortone (15 Oct 2021)

I'm happy to pay my TV licence for a service that informs, educates and entertains as per its remit as a public service broadcaster. My dad was in the RAF and I spent a lot of my childhood overseas and I have a lot of affection for the BBC. The BBC world service continues to be respected the world over as an objective and impartial news source.

What I object greatly to (if you'll all forgive me harping on about it) is the apparent abdication of social responsibility by BBC News. They must know what effect the words 'panic buying' have, so why start their flagship 6pm programme on BBC1 with them if not for sensationalism?


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> I can understand that, Jacob, but the people who object to the current licence fee would probably also object to that. I am asking about how a transition could occur to a subscription service.


Channel4 could be the model. Highly successful, commercial, independent, but publicly owned by us, the state.
Threatened with sell-off at the moment, for no good reason.




__





Subscribe to read | Financial Times


News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication




www.ft.com





The usual way to privatise is simply to sell things off, which would probably mean breaking it up too. Then as they fail bring them back into public ownership after enough confusion and bad service/mismanagement has occurred, as with energy and rail.


----------



## Rustic Mike (15 Oct 2021)

alz said:


> The BBC have done the scare stories over toys to turkeys, now they are on to chicken prices going up 10%.
> As a retired journalist, I remember how the BBC was looked on as a pretty pathetic operation that simply lifted most of its regional coverage from the local newspapers. Made one smile when their reports would begin "..the BBC can reveal."
> Make it a subscription service and give people the right to choose an unbiased and reliable set-up.


I used to love the bbc back in it halcyon days, I now have cancelled my license with them and have not missed it in the last twelve months at all and we are going out tonight for a lovely Thai meal with the money we’ve saved they are total rubbish now.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (15 Oct 2021)

hairy said:


> I totally do not understand Sky selling a whole TV when Amazon and the Fire stick is all that's needed for £25. No dish fair enough, but replacing your TV to do so? Why don't Sky have a free Fire type stick to get you into paying £50 a month? Bargain.



The Sky telly is more revenue for them, better integration of service (no vulnerability to issues betwixt Sky box and 3rd party display) , and a stronger lock-in to the service. 

I'm not sure it makes sense for the consumer, except if it's screen-as-a-service and part of your overall subscription, in which case its easy to ignore as just a monthly cost, but for Sky it's genius.


----------



## ian33a (15 Oct 2021)

FWIW, I find channel 4, in the main, fairly hopeless as a TV broadcaster. I have a degree of respect for their news and use it, somewhat, as a balance to what I get from the BBC but many of the other shows, I find, to be below average at best. 

I also find that the station is plastered with irritating advertising. For me, it doesn't represent great public service broadcasting.

I don't find the BBC to be perfect, but better than many stations that I have seen both in the UK and dotted around the globe. And no, I wasn't featured on this : 

Not The Nine O'Clock News - Points of View - YouTube


----------



## hairy (15 Oct 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> The Sky telly is more revenue for them, better integration of service (no vulnerability to issues betwixt Sky box and 3rd party display) , and a stronger lock-in to the service.
> 
> I'm not sure it makes sense for the consumer, except if it's screen-as-a-service and part of your overall subscription, in which case its easy to ignore as just a monthly cost, but for Sky it's genius.


I think it shows Sky have absolutely no idea what to do. McDonalds don't sell cars to promote drive thru? National Trust selling shoes, and only allowing those with their shoes in? They profit from content not hardware, their hardware just facilitates what they sell. If their TV had software to block anyone using anthing else like NetflixAmazonYouTube whatever they will limit uptake even further. I would bet they will persuade some folks to buy one who don't want the hassle of choosing, but I also bet it will be a dead duck very soon.


----------



## southendwoodworker (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> We choose whether to read or watch anything owned by Murdoch or anyone else. If we wish to watch any other live TV we have to pay the BBC tax. That's where it is different, wrong and beyond any justification. Whether it is or isn't good value or biased doesn't even come into it.



I hear and understand with what you are saying, which if I read right is: "if i don't use the service, regardless value, why should I pay for it?"

From my limited understanding, there is the choice not to use it and therefor not to pay for it by simply telling them you don't watch live tv.

Technically it isn't a tax though - this is an important distinction. A tax is mandatory, a licence allows you to opt out, which you can. That is a good thing about the licence.

If the licence was centrally funded by tax, it would make opting out of it impossible. And people would probably get worked up about it more (rightly or wrongly) as they'd feel it isn't good value or that they don't use it.

Ultimately I see the gripes around bbc and how they are being funded as purely academic argument around payment method. The underlying issue is that people don't want to pay it because they don't use it or think it's a bad service. Any public service is like that and will always be like that. The alternative is either full privatisation or a user pays system, which will introduce horrid advertising and introduce further bias, making the public service worse for all. With the licence people do still have the choice. 

If the discussion is around the payment, it invariably relates to a persons perception of quality and value of a service, and whether it is worth the price paid. The "bias" of the news service as what people factor consider when measuring quality and value. They are all kind of linked together. 

I think the problem overall is very hard to answer fairly for everyone, the current solution isn't ideal, but then on the other hand all other solutions introduce other types of problems which are just as bad. It seems like maybe the licence is the best of all the bad potential solutions, and is fair enough for the majority of people.


----------



## southendwoodworker (15 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> How does anybody think things would work if the licence fee is dropped? More annoying childish advertising? How would a subscription work? I guess it'd be another set top box or something. I don't know what percentage of the population rely on terrestrial live broadcasts.
> I personally like the BBC, and don't begrudge the licence fee, but I can understand the opposite viewpoint. I just don't see any easy solution to making it a subscription service.
> It could have been done when digital terrestrial broadcasting was introduced. By now, we could have had the necessary decryption hardware present in all TV sets and set top boxes.
> That didn't happen, or did it? Does every TV or set top box have a slot for a Conditional Access Module (as I seem to remember they were called)?
> ...



I think there are four possibilities:
- subscription service
- paid centrally from tax
- commercial entity which uses advertising to fund itself
- licence scheme

subscription service: would just be a pain in the bum to administer, there would have to be set top boxes, decoders, whatever, and all the admin cost and wastage having deal with that

paid centrally from tax: it would prevent people from opting out of paying it who don't use it, make it biased as its funding will be tied closer to political whims

commercial entity: this is the worse solution, ads are really the worst thing ever, it is a race to the bottom

licence scheme: what we have at the moment, people can opt out. not as bad as the other options in my opinion.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

You've missed the Channel4 option - it's an independent commercial operator but state owned. Seems to work fine and isn't obviously biased .


----------



## southendwoodworker (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> You've missed the Channel4 option - it's an independent commercial operator but state owned. Seems to work fine and isn't obviously biased .



how does that roughly work?


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

southendwoodworker said:


> how does that roughly work?











Channel 4 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2021)

southendwoodworker said:


> I hear and understand with what you are saying, which if I read right is: "if i don't use the service, regardless value, why should I pay for it?"
> From my limited understanding, there is the choice not to use it and therefor not to pay for it by simply telling them you don't watch live tv.



That is exactly the point. If you watch live TV other than the BBC you still need a BBC licence. The BBC licence might have been perfectly fair when the BBC was the only channel, but that was decades ago.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (15 Oct 2021)

hairy said:


> I think it shows Sky have absolutely no idea what to do. McDonalds don't sell cars to promote drive thru? National Trust selling shoes, and only allowing those with their shoes in?



Are Sky preventing customers from using 3rd party displays, or preventing their telly from viewing other content sources?


----------



## flying haggis (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> At a couple of quid a week, its pretty decent value ...
> 
> Not if you are forced to pay it when you wish to watch something else, it isn't.


bit like being forced to buy a copy of the times when you only wanted the daily express (other "newspapers" are available)


----------



## flying haggis (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> It wouldn't make the slightest difference if funded by govt. with no licence scheme but a tax rise instead; it's already controlled by govt, with an associated particular form of taxation.


except that if the bbc was govt funded directly you can be sure that the amount of money they were given would NEVER be enough in their eyes and would be a lot lot more than they get now from the outdated licence fee


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

flying haggis said:


> except that if the bbc was govt funded directly you can be sure that the amount of money they were given would NEVER be enough in their eyes and would be a lot lot more than they get now from the outdated licence fee


It is already funded directly. See previous post. "Hypothecated" just means a tax collected to match the cost of a service. It all goes into the Consolidated Fund and comes out of it again, it doesn't go into a separate biscuit tin and it's all controlled by government.


----------



## southendwoodworker (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> That is exactly the point. If you watch live TV other than the BBC you still need a BBC licence. The BBC licence might have been perfectly fair when the BBC was the only channel, but that was decades ago.



Genuine question: does the bbc licence fund infrastructure that the other providers use to deliver the signal to you? If so, the licence seems fair, if not, I understand your perspective.


----------



## Droogs (15 Oct 2021)

The Licence is NOT for permission to watch the BBC but for permission to OPERATE a device capable of receiving broadcast transmissions by what ever means from a transmittiing station operating according to a prepublished schedule. If something is published to be broadcast at 8pm from sky/bbc/Euronews/R1/CapitalFM etc and you use a device to observe that broadcast as it is transmitted then you require a licence. If all you do is use hulu/netflix/nowtv on demand services you do not require a licence.


----------



## Cordy (15 Oct 2021)

With all the hype in the media about possible shortages over the festive season resulting in panic buying,

I suggest that it might be a good idea for men to bring their Christmas shopping forward to the 23rd December


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2021)

southendwoodworker said:


> Genuine question: does the bbc licence fund infrastructure that the other providers use to deliver the signal to you? If so, the licence seems fair, if not, I understand your perspective.



"Alongside the BBC Charter is an agreement between the BBC and the government under which the government agrees to pay to the BBC out of money provided by Parliament sums up to an amount equal to the net licence revenue. In return, the BBC agrees to do a number of things including not spending the money on a TV, radio or online service which is wholly or partly funded by advertisements, subscription, sponsorship, pay-per-view or any other alternative means of finance.
In other words, at the heart of the funding arrangements for the BBC, there is a deal. The BBC gets the proceeds of the licence fee and in return it agrees not to compete with other broadcasters for funding from advertising or subscription.
If there were no such deal and, say, the BBC took advertising, the balance of supply and demand in the sale of advertising airtime would change. Prices would fall and the revenue of ITV, Channel Four and other advertising-funded broadcasters would also fall - that was the lesson taught by the Peacock Report in 1986 on financing the BBC.
Peacock showed that if the BBC were to take advertising, an increase in the volume of television advertising would lead to a decline in advertising expenditure and losses for ITV."


----------



## Trainee neophyte (15 Oct 2021)

What offends me most about the BBC is the outright lying. They are merely a propaganda outlet for the UK government, which wouldn't be quite so bad except that the UK government is an insane, warmongering monster (I don't mean Boris, who couldn't find his arris with both hands and and map, but the entire "establishment" that exists to profit from war.

Example du jour: I watched the BBC world news bulletin about Lebanon and the sniper chaos, and it was reasonably clear that Hezbolla was responsible, if not directly accused (fog of war and all that). I do a bit of reading, and quickly discover that it was actually a right wing Christian group responsible, diametrically opposed to Hezbolla. Also not mentioned it's that insane Empire Viceroy, Victoria Newland, just happened to be in the country - obviously handing out her trademark cookies and snipers just the way she did in the Ukraine. Clearly purely coincidental and not worth reporting.

That was just yesterday's offering - standard slanted, propaganda fare; business as usual. An MP stabbing today - I wonder what slanted reporting, ommissions and outright lies will be part of the coverage? Even worse, they could be entirely factual and honest, and I wouldn't believe a word of it because their credibility is in shreds.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> What offends me most about the BBC is the outright lying. They are merely a propaganda outlet for the UK government, which wouldn't be quite so bad except that the UK government is an insane, warmongering monster (I don't mean Boris, who couldn't find his arris with both hands and and map, but the entire "establishment" that exists to profit from war.
> 
> Example du jour: I watched the BBC world news bulletin about Lebanon and the sniper chaos, and it was reasonably clear that Hezbolla was responsible, if not directly accused (fog of war and all that). I do a bit of reading, and quickly discover that it was actually a right wing Christian group responsible, diametrically opposed to Hezbolla.


How do you know that is true? (I've no opinion either way)


> Also not mentioned it's that insane Empire Viceroy, Victoria Newland, just happened to be in the country - obviously handing out her trademark cookies and snipers just the way she did in the Ukraine. Clearly purely coincidental and not worth reporting.


But that would be another story?


> That was just yesterday's offering - standard slanted, propaganda fare; business as usual. An MP stabbing today - I wonder what slanted reporting, ommissions and outright lies will be part of the coverage? Even worse, they could be entirely factual and honest, and I wouldn't believe a word of it because their credibility is in shreds.


They have an establishment bias - Laura Kuenssberg being number one - Corbyn would never get a fair hearing. But otherwise generally fairly neutral, in a boring and unsatisfactory way.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> How do you know that is true? (I've no opinion either way)


And there's the rub: do we believe Aunt Beeb because she tells us repeatedly she is right and honest and fair and impartial, or do we believe other, foreign news services who are therefore untrustworthy by defininition but have diametrically opposite imformation? Or do you try and apply logic: why did Hezbolla kill their own protestors? How do they gain from that? 


Jacob said:


> But that would be another story


It would be integral to the current "story": Ukrainian protestors killed by snipers, Lebanese protestors killed by snipers, and the connecting link is Victoria Newland - government change using violence and murder, as practiced by US "special" agencies. By the way, I tell _stories_ to children, and they often contain fantastical, made up events. Give me provable, verifiable facts over opinion and "stories" any day.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2021)

I wonder why the BBC hasn't said that the murderer (alleged, but they're not looking for anyone else) of Sir David Amess is Somalian? They are rather choosy, aren't they? If he were a British, white, heterosexual middle aged male they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I wonder why the BBC hasn't said that the murderer (alleged, but they're not looking for anyone else) of Sir David Amess is Somalian? They are rather choosy, aren't they? If he were a British, white, heterosexual middle aged male they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.


Other way around I think.
Find an evil-doing black person, muslim, Romanian, traveller, immigrant, unemployed mother on benefits, etc and the tendency is to shout it from the roof tops that these people are evil.
But in fact in general terrorism in UK and USA is a far more serious threat coming from the white right-wing nutter fringe.
The BBC has to be a bit discrete in order not to over-excite the right-wing loons.
In any case it's too soon to start the blame game.
Amess seemed a very harmless, well meaning and amiable chap (for a tory) and it's a very sad event.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2021)

I could have written your reply for you and saved you the bother.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I could have written your reply for you and saved you the bother.


Similarly with Jo Cox - you could blame the BNP etc for their influence on unstable minds but you wouldn't collectively blame the people of Kilmarnock. The slow-burning hatred that led Thomas Mair to murder Jo Cox
Hope that helps.


----------



## doctor Bob (15 Oct 2021)

Whatever happened, whoever did it, it's an absolute tragedy. It really stopped me in my tracks today, he was just doing his job, apparently he was quite good at it, well liked and a good family man. Whatever your politics, it's irrelevant, a man was killed doing his job. I think the level of threat is understandable in the forces or police but an MP, it now seems like a very dangerous job given the 3-4 previous attacks.


----------



## woodieallen (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Similarly with Jo Cox - you could blame the BNP etc for their influence on unstable minds but you wouldn't collectively blame the people of Kilmarnock. The slow-burning hatred that led Thomas Mair to murder Jo Cox
> Hope that helps.


Oh. come on, Jacob.. A Guardian article ? That's simply bias but in a different direction. 

Talking about the bias of broadcasters, if you *really* want to see bias then look no further than the hand-wringing, virtue-signalling folk at Channel 4 News.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Oh. come on, Jacob.. A Guardian article ? That's simply bias but in a different direction.


Fairy factual I thought


> Talking about the bias of broadcasters, if you *really* want to see bias then look no further than the hand-wringing, virtue-signalling folk at Channel 4 News.


So the right don't like C4news?
Good to know, I always thought C4news was fairly intelligent. 
Being accused of "virtue signalling" is a commendation - it means they are irritating the right people. 
I guess that's why they are being privatised.


----------



## woodieallen (15 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Fairy factual I thought.....


Whether or not it is factual is dictated by ones own predisposition to accept whether it is or is not fact.

That you like Channel 4 only shows that 'confirmation bias' is alive and kicking !


----------



## starlingwood (15 Oct 2021)

If they privatised the BBC tomorrow and introduced a subscription service fee of say £13.25 per month would you pay for it?


----------



## woodieallen (15 Oct 2021)

Without hesitation. Compared to the money one pays for Prime, Netflix etc it's a bargain. All personal preference, of course.


----------



## Adam W. (15 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Oh. come on, Jacob.. A Guardian article ? That's simply bias but in a different direction.
> 
> Talking about the bias of broadcasters, if you *really* want to see bias then look no further than the hand-wringing, virtue-signalling folk at Channel 4 News.


What do you suggest as an unbiased alternative to both then ?


----------



## starlingwood (15 Oct 2021)

Me too. The idea is of being forced to pay it is archaic but I do think the BBC is well worth the license fee. Only news channel I can 100%trust. If I hear of a news story breaking my first go to news source is always the BBC.


----------



## gregmcateer (16 Oct 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> It’s a conspiracy



Yeah, like the sprouts making us pay for the roads, street lights, fire brigade, hospitals.... even if we don't use them!


----------



## woodieallen (16 Oct 2021)

Adam W. said:


> What do you suggest as an unbiased alternative to both then ?


None. The closest to factual reporting is the FT.


----------



## Bartfatboy (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Infinitely preferable to being dominated by Murdoch et al.


Spot on and I totally agree. It doesn’t seem to matter how much your “subscription” is with all the other suppliers, you always seem to have to pay extra to see the content you’re after or get it ad free.


----------



## 1steven (16 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> We choose whether to read or watch anything owned by Murdoch or anyone else. If we wish to watch any other live TV we have to pay the BBC tax. That's where it is different, wrong and beyond any justification. Whether it is or isn't good value or biased doesn't even come into it.


You can opt out from the bbc I did six years ago, all legal.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

BBC not been scaremongering enough in the past.
Monday should be a test when they comment on govts net zero carbon strategy report coming out, which is already rumoured to be inadequate.


----------



## ChrisMa (16 Oct 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> It’s a conspiracy



Of course it isn't !

That's just shallow thinking. But to think that news outlets do not have a corporate level agenda would be very naive.

They all clearly decide what information to give the public (scaremongering in the OPs case) and how that information is presented. There are many who will simply listen to their message without questioning their motive.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Whether or not it is factual is dictated by ones own predisposition to accept whether it is or is not fact.


Wrong. If it's a fact it's a fact and nothing can change it. You are thinking of "opinions"


> That you like Channel 4 only shows that 'confirmation bias' is alive and kicking !


You obviously don't know what "confirmation bias" is.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Oct 2021)

In fairness to the BBC, they're dealing with a public who, on hearing there's a serious respiratory disease, rush out to buy vast quantities of toilet paper. How do you cater for such a public? How do you 'edit' the news in such a way that silly people won't act in a silly way? 

In the news report, Sophie Raworth said: “Don’t panic buy, but do plan ahead for Christmas, that is the message to shoppers from a global shipping boss who has warned that a shortage of HGV drivers is having a knock-on effect on ports around the UK...
Felixstowe is the biggest, it has 50,000 containers waiting to be collected, and ships are having to wait up to 10 days to unload.”
Context is important. I won't be panic buying, but I will be planning ahead.

I have little time for the BBC's news, far too unquestioning, but I don't think they should have to avoid reporting a serious message because some people are silly. What we really need is to address the silliness.


----------



## alz (16 Oct 2021)

Enjoyed reading the debate on the BBC - which, as a retired journalist, I still consider an appalling and biased set-up.
But I think the basic fact is that if you want the BBC service then subscribe to it, if not rely on the more reliable and informative alternatives.
The BBC is not "a public service" anymore, and as dated as a dog licence. Choice is a basic right surely?


----------



## John Brown (16 Oct 2021)

Which brings me back to the question nobody has answered. How do you shift to a subscription service without forcing viewers to have another set top box?


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> The BBC (and many other MSM channels) are activists in Social Engineering. They are not the news channels they used to be



thats true….they are scared of the govt and are now too weak to hold the govt to account.

Laura Kuenssberg is a Boris sycophant now


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Oct 2021)

Spectric said:


> and are often biased rather than just a place news and facts are delivered without opinion


Im really not sure the BBC is biased, I thinks it’s used as a political football.

Both the right and left accuse the BBC of bias.


----------



## selectortone (16 Oct 2021)

Chris152 said:


> In fairness to the BBC, they're dealing with a public who, on hearing there's a serious respiratory disease, rush out to buy vast quantities of toilet paper. How do you cater for such a public? How do you 'edit' the news in such a way that silly people won't act in a silly way?
> 
> In the news report, Sophie Raworth said: “Don’t panic buy, but do plan ahead for Christmas, that is the message to shoppers from a global shipping boss who has warned that a shortage of HGV drivers is having a knock-on effect on ports around the UK...
> Felixstowe is the biggest, it has 50,000 containers waiting to be collected, and ships are having to wait up to 10 days to unload.”
> ...


I understand your point Chris. The problem is, the media just have to use the words 'panic buying' in connection with anything, no matter the context, and within hours crazy-eyed people are emptying supermarket shelves and fighting in the aisles over the last remnants. Its a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I was discussing this with my son in law, who is a journalist who works for Reading university. He says that a behavioural psychologist there doesn't do interviews on panic buying 'for fear if making it worse'.

To be fair to the BBC, I wrote to them and they asked me to film a video clip which was included on their Newswatch programme this morning (on iplayer if anyone's interested, fast forward to 3:30). The response from the editor of BBC News was pathetic though. Completely danced around my point.


----------



## John Brown (16 Oct 2021)

alz said:


> Enjoyed reading the debate on the BBC - which, as a retired journalist, I still consider an appalling and biased set-up.
> But I think the basic fact is that if you want the BBC service then subscribe to it, if not rely on the more reliable and informative alternatives.
> The BBC is not "a public service" anymore, and as dated as a dog licence. Choice is a basic right surely?


What's wrong with the idea of a dog licence, by the way?


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Oct 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> Whatever happened, whoever did it, it's an absolute tragedy. It really stopped me in my tracks today, he was just doing his job, apparently he was quite good at it, well liked and a good family man. Whatever your politics, it's irrelevant, a man was killed doing his job. I think the level of threat is understandable in the forces or police but an MP, it now seems like a very dangerous job given the 3-4 previous attacks.



I hate it when people say “oh all politicians liars…useless blah blah”

I didn’t know about David Amess as a politician but having heard what people say, he was clearly was dedicated to public service and an MP that worked hard for his constituency.

A terrible tragedy for the family, I believe one of his daughters is getting married in December.


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> That you like Channel 4 only shows that 'confirmation bias' is alive and kicking



Do you think this might be confirmation bias:


woodieallen said:


> bias of broadcasters, if you *really* want to see bias then look no further than the hand-wringing, virtue-signalling folk at Channel 4 News


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Being accused of "virtue signalling" is a commendation - it means they are irritating the right people


the phrases virtue signalling, woke etc are all part of the phoney culture war used by the right.

”forget about people going hungry because we’ve dropped UC by £20, hey quick…….look over there…..some stuff about unisex toilets and pronouns”


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

alz said:


> Enjoyed reading the debate on the BBC - which, as a retired journalist, I still consider an appalling and biased set-up.
> But I think the basic fact is that if you want the BBC service then subscribe to it, if not rely on the more reliable and informative alternatives.
> The BBC is not "a public service" anymore, and as dated as a dog licence. Choice is a basic right surely?


It is a public service. I agree the licence is dated, it might as well come out of general taxation instead of being a special tax form of it's own.
What are the 'more reliable and informative alternatives' in your opinion?
Depends what you mean by biased. A bit establishmentarian perhaps but if you want scaremongering and violent bias you look at MSM.


----------



## John Brown (16 Oct 2021)

Displaying your virtues is completely contrary to the spirit of these forums.
We like to show off our vices.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2021)

1steven said:


> You can opt out from the bbc I did six years ago, all legal.


Not if I wish to watch other live TV, I can't. How many times does this need repeating?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> the phrases virtue signalling, woke etc are all part of the phoney culture war used by the right.
> 
> ”forget about people going hungry because we’ve dropped UC by £20, look over there…..some stuff about pronouns


We haven't. We stopped paying the temporary extra.


----------



## Jameshow (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> It is a public service. I agree the licence is dated, it might as well come out of general taxation instead of being a special tax form of it's own.
> What are the 'more reliable and informative alternatives' in your opinion?
> Depends what you mean by biased. A bit establishmentarian perhaps but if you want scaremongering and violent bias you look at MSM.
> 
> View attachment 119760


The fact that a migrant murdered a MP might just confirm the DM bias???

Also can you back up your statement that rightwing terrorist us as much a threat to UK as Islam inspired terrorist? How many have been murdered by RW terrorists in the UK over the past 20 yrs?? 1?? Islamic inspired terrorists 94?


----------



## Chris152 (16 Oct 2021)

selectortone said:


> To be fair to the BBC, I wrote to them and they asked me to film a video clip which was included on their Newswatch programme this morning (on iplayer if anyone's interested, fast forward to 3:30).


Good on you (just watched)! I also think it's a great thing that a progamme like that exists - most media doesn't have to try to account for itself on a regular basis. Tbh I could write in most days to take issue with the 6pm news on BBC, but prefer to try to forget for the sake of my sanity and look elsewhere for better accounts and analysis.


----------



## TRITON (16 Oct 2021)

Jameshow said:


> The fact that a migrant murdered a MP might just confirm the DM bias???


Where did you get that from ?. Thus far the killer has been identified as a British national of Somali heritage.
Boris Johnson is a British national of American heritage, Prince Philip was a British national of Greek heritage.


----------



## ChrisMa (16 Oct 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> the phrases virtue signalling, woke etc are all part of the phoney culture war used by the right.
> 
> ”forget about people going hungry because we’ve dropped UC by £20, look over there…..some stuff about pronouns



Hmm ...

Woke is a "badge of honour" invented and promoted by the left.

Virute signalling is certainly a phrase of the right, often used to mock but also used to highlight hipocrites.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

Jameshow said:


> The fact that a migrant murdered a MP might just confirm the DM bias???


Exactly. They'll leap on it. Not so enthusiastic about condemning the extreme right for the last MP murdered. Jo Cox, in case you have forgotten.


> Also can you back up your statement that rightwing terrorist us as much a threat to UK as Islam inspired terrorist? How many have been murdered by RW terrorists in the UK over the past 20 yrs?? 1?? Islamic inspired terrorists 94?


Well there was an Irish problem a bit back, maybe you have forgotten.
In the USA right-wing violence is a much bigger threat than "terrorism" as such, notwithstanding 9/11.
Plenty to go on here if you really want to know:








Terrorism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org












Terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




.
In any case even if this person was black, Somali, Muslim, communist, woke, etc it has little bearing on the fact that he is a psychopathic nutter just like Thomas Mair, though the background details may well have been a trigger. The word "terrorist" gets bandied about a bit too easily.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> Hmm ...
> 
> Woke is a "badge of honour" invented and promoted by the left.


Not so much a badge of honour - just a comment in the fact that half the population seem to be asleep and unaware of so many issues, from climate change down, though there aren't quite so many sceptics about nowadays - maybe because the climate is changing.


> Virute signalling is certainly a phrase of the right, often used to mock but also used to highlight hipocrites.


But it only means anything to the right so it doesn't highlight anything. And why not just denounce them as hypocrites if that's what they seem to be?


----------



## ChrisMa (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> But it only means anything to the right so it doesn't highlight anything. And why not just denounce them as hypocrites if that's what they seem to be?



I've heard so many talk about "unbelievers" being asleep. A simplistic left-wing term attempting to mock those who have a different opinion.

... because virtue signaling is a more accurate description of what they are doing. Hypocrites is a wide description and too vague.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> I've heard so many talk about "unbelievers" being asleep. A simplistic left-wing term attempting to mock those who have a different opinion.


No it's more about being wrong about, misinformed or unaware of issues, typically a symptom of reading the Daily Mail et al


> ... because virtue signaling is a more accurate description of what they are doing. Hypocrites is a wide description and too vague.


So you say. But it identifies the user as a right wing simplest and nobody takes any notice.


----------



## ChrisMa (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> No it's more about being wrong about, misinformed or unaware of issues, typically a symptom of reading the Daily Mail et al


Your replies make my point beautifully ... thank you for that. Always right and nobody can have a different opinion.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> Your replies make my point beautifully ... thank you for that. Always right and nobody can have a different opinion.


What point? I see no point.
It's not about opinions it's about facts. They are not the same thing.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (16 Oct 2021)

The BBC go to great lengths to be "impartial" in their output. This is not the same as "balanced" as a quick read (lots of flannel, not much objectivity) of the charter explains:

Impartiality -section 4

Taken simplistically - every opinion counts. Unsurprisingly most of us inevitably find a large part of their output at odds with our personal views.

BBC are driven by the fear they may be considered "partial". They strain to ensure all religions, views, ethnicity, gender, disabiities, ages etc are represented. They are re-assured that no one can then complain, and must therefore compliant with the very highest of standards.

The society underpinning BBC behaviours is actually experienced by no-one - it represents only a statistical expression of every variant in society. Their output suffers as all media output from the priorities and editorial policy adopted - they are just "unique" to the BBC.

They only tend towards the analytical in their "reality check" content and seek to quantify the relevant and objective. In this they mirror the FT who normally report very objectively - for them the story is the raw data on which financial judgements are made.


----------



## selectortone (16 Oct 2021)

Impartiality and social responsibility are two entirely different things. As a public service broadcaster they have an obligation to consider the effect their words might have. I know I keep banging on about it, but more knowledgeable people than me agree that as soon as the media use the words 'panic buying' it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The BBC go to great lengths to be "impartial" in their output. This is not the same as "balanced" as a quick read (lots of flannel, not much objectivity) of the charter explains:
> .......


BBC "impartiality" was a disaster as far as climate change was concerned. Every view expressed from the experts had to be countered by comment from some abject twerp such as Nigel Lawson.
They framed the whole debate as if between equals; more or less the whole scientific community set against isolated opinionated nutters. It really slowed down debate and public awareness until only recently when David Attenborough got the green light to out spell out the facts. Too late.
But was this BBC's fault? They have been under constant pressure and reduced funding for many years


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> In any case even if this person was black, Somali, Muslim, communist, woke, etc it has little bearing on the fact that he is a psychopathic nutter just like Thomas Mair, though the background details may well have been a trigger. The word "terrorist" gets bandied about a bit too easily.


Do the police bandy it about a bit too easily?

Sir David Amess, one of the country’s most respected parliamentarians, was stabbed to death as he met constituents at his regular Friday surgery in a Baptist church in Leigh-on-Sea in what police are treating as a terror attack. ...
Counter-terror police are leading the investigation into the attack. In a statement on Friday night, the Metropolitan Police said the investigation has "revealed a potential motivation linked to Islamist extremism".


----------



## Spectric (16 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> Woke is a "badge of honour" invented and promoted by the left.


Woke is just a fashion statement, a way that a nobody who cannot accept they are nothing more than a grain of sand in a desert in the grand scheme of things tries to be a somebody and stand out. Social media has played a very bad role in this arena where people can leave reality behind and not even have to look human, just their interpretation of. Just like these stupid pro nouns, wokyism is just a load of dogs dangly bits, for millenia nature has produced males and females with some miswired that become right angles but the basis has always been just the two sexes. These woky types need to accept that they owe their very existance to a vagina and womb combo, without them they would not be here, and when you look at "a life" in it's most simplistic then it is just a journey between two holes, one you come out of and the other one they put you in.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Do the police bandy it about a bit too easily?
> 
> ......


Yes. What difference does it make if he was left wing, right wing, 7th day adventist, ex boy scout? He is a dangerous psychopathic nutter and they come in all flavours.
Thomas Mair was said by judge to have been "inspired by white supremacism" and "terrorist" but would it have made any difference what tag you put on this psychopath?
Perhaps I'm wrong, come to think UK "white supremacists" murdered Stephen Lawrence and others.
And Group lists 96 'racist killings' since Lawrence


----------



## Chris152 (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> BBC "impartiality" was a disaster as far as climate change was concerned. Every view expressed from the experts had to be countered by comment from some abject twerp such as Nigel Lawson.
> They framed the whole debate as if between equals; more or less the whole scientific community set against isolated opinionated nutters.


Agree completely, they seem repeatedly to abdicate responsibility by using an 'x says this, y says that' format, sacrificing a quest for the truth. Still way better than the polemical* nonsense much of the media has to offer tho.
*propagandist, better.


----------



## alz (16 Oct 2021)

Sky Glass is pointing the way ahead by having reception not through aerials/dishes but by internet. Develop a set-up that provides a means of deleting BBC would suit me perfectly.


----------



## woodieallen (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Wrong. If it's a fact it's a fact and nothing can change it. You are thinking of "opinions"You obviously don't know what "confirmation bias" is.


Jacob, just because someone posts something that doesn't accord with your own dogma doesn't mandate that you dismiss it by suggesting that 'you don't know...blah...blah..blah'


----------



## woodieallen (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Wrong. If it's a fact it's a fact and nothing can change it. You are thinking of "opinions"You obviously don't know what "confirmation bias" is.


I was referring to the Guardian link that you gave. 90% opinion and Guardian-speak, 10% fact.


----------



## woodieallen (16 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> ..... it has little bearing on the fact that he is a psychopathic nutter....


Evidence, please.


----------



## Jacob (17 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Evidence, please.


If you don't understand it look up the definition of the word 'psychopathic'.


----------



## Oakay (17 Oct 2021)

Much as I like the BBC, to trust 100% is a bit much. They are certainly not immune from bias, and like most of British Media, and culture, a bit too cosy to the US for my liking.


----------



## Keith Cocker (17 Oct 2021)

selectortone said:


> I'm happy to pay my TV licence for a service that informs, educates and entertains as per its remit as a public service broadcaster. My dad was in the RAF and I spent a lot of my childhood overseas and I have a lot of affection for the BBC. The BBC world service continues to be respected the world over as an objective and impartial news source.
> 
> What I object greatly to (if you'll all forgive me harping on about it) is the apparent abdication of social responsibility by BBC News. They must know what effect the words 'panic buying' have, so why start their flagship 6pm programme on BBC1 with them if not for sensationalism?



Because if they didn’t they would be accused of “covering it up” and being biased in favour of government.


----------



## 1steven (17 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Not if I wish to watch other live TV, I can't. How many times does this need repeating?


I don’t watch live television so it works of me.


----------



## GregW (17 Oct 2021)

Adam W. said:


> What do you suggest as an unbiased alternative to both then ?



Don’t watch TV PROGRAMMING at all.

News you can get from other sources which like facts more than gov narrative propaganda 









The Uncensored Truth


The Light is an independently distributed truthpaper, exposing corruption and crimes by governments, corporations and individuals.




thelightpaper.co.uk


----------



## GregW (17 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> What's wrong with the idea of a dog licence, by the way?



Any LICENCE is a gov control. As more government control, less ad less personal responsibility, which leads to generation of gov dependent idiots…


----------



## 1steven (17 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> Don’t watch TV PROGRAMMING at all.
> 
> News you can get from other sources which like facts more than gov narrative propaganda
> 
> ...


Thankyou will give it a go.


----------



## Jacob (17 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> Any LICENCE is a gov control. As more government control, less ad less personal responsibility, which leads to generation of gov dependent idiots…


What about driving licences?
Gun licences?
thelightpaper is interesting - it's like Viz comic but humourless. Does it come from the same people? "Deep satire"?  




__





viz comic on the vaccine - Google Search






www.google.com


----------



## GregW (17 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> What about driving licences?



What about it? Should I point out one/two examples how common regulations fir public safety became gov money making licensing business?

I don’t see any drink driving brits getting stopped and controlled Friday/Saturday night on the way back from pubs/clubs?

Aaa I know, possibly DVLA it’s to leach money on fines for everyone else who actually care to have driving licence, because I see plenty of in face blind drivers who should not to drive car.


----------



## Jacob (17 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> What about it? Should I point out one/two examples how common regulations fir public safety became gov money making licensing business?
> 
> I don’t see any drink driving brits getting stopped and controlled Friday/Saturday night on the way back from pubs/clubs?


I don't either. It's fairly rare nowadays because they are more likely to get caught and also to lose their licences. What point are you trying to make?


> Aaa I know, possibly DVLA it’s to leach money on fines for everyone else who actually care to have driving licence, because I see plenty of in face blind drivers who should not to drive car.


Right! Have you got one yourself?


----------



## GregW (17 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> I don't either. It's fairly rare nowadays because they are more likely to get caught and also to lose their licences. What point are you trying to make?
> Right! Have you got one yourself?



I have trained to commune on public road. That’s The Law.

Don’t deviate from subject of “Gov licensing” to “being trained how to comply with the law”.
As Anarchist I believe Gov wants everyone to forget its place in 3 side devision of power.
That is done by non-education of children of their place in society and responsibility it takes to be a member of a nation. indoctrination that we are under government control, like licensing for pets for £££. If you want to compare both, please introduce 2 week intensive training HOW TO CARE FOR PETS to get licence to pet owner.

How far government will go to let common sense to die to be able to increase control of it’s employer?? (Refers to Government role assign by the will of a nation, to govern services for the nation, not to control and restrict the nation to fit their current plans of increasing of a control)


----------



## John Brown (17 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> I have trained to commune on public road. That’s The Law.
> 
> Don’t deviate from Gov licences to being trained how to comply with law.
> As Anarchist I believe Gov want everyone to forgot it’s place in 3 side devision of power.
> ...


I think you may have a point about some sort of training for prospective dog owners.


----------



## RobinBHM (17 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> Displaying your virtues is completely contrary to the spirit of these forums.
> We like to show off our vices.


I love a naked vice Phwarr


----------



## GregW (17 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> I think you may have a point about some sort of training for prospective dog owners.



Would be enough to implement it in an education….


----------



## GregW (17 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> What about driving licences?
> Gun licences?
> thelightpaper is interesting - it's like Viz comic but humourless. Does it come from the same people? "Deep satire"?
> 
> ...




So when you stop conflicting gov licence with training how to comply with law, than you will see a massive difference.

As Anarchists I believe ALL should be trained, as part of common knowledge. Knowledge builds individual, and it’s most effective to combat individual fear of unknown.
Fear creates behaviours, and a very need for licensing of ppl without they basic knowledge.

Who would benefit? Not government


----------



## RobinBHM (17 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> Virute signalling is certainly a phrase of the right, often used to mock but also used to highlight hipocrites



its a phrase used to close down debate.

we live in a nasty culture of MSM and social media stirring up division and hate.

here’s some examples:

”people on benefits are scroungers, withering smartphones and 50” TVs”

”refugees coming here by boats are just lazy spongers coming here to live off our money”

”teachers are lazy”

”doctors are lazy”


as soon as anybody challenges this nasty nonsense, the “virtue signalling” label comes out.


----------



## RobinBHM (17 Oct 2021)

ChrisMa said:


> Woke is a "badge of honour" invented and promoted by the left.



says the Daily Mail………


----------



## AlanY (17 Oct 2021)

1steven said:


> You can opt out from the bbc I did six years ago, all legal.


I have not watched any BBC programme or any 'live' tv programme since 2016. They are all sheyet. Also, do not use BBC internet offerings or streaming services. Cannot stop the license fee, though, 'cos my wife insists on watching BBC gardening programmes.


----------



## MikeK (17 Oct 2021)

I removed several posts as a one-time effort to keep this thread open.


----------



## Spectric (17 Oct 2021)

Lets pull this back onto it's tracks, so how do you see the BBC reporting on COP26 regarding climate issues. There will be a lot of talking as always but what about that dirty word called action. A good starting point for them does not need to be " what are you going to do" but rather "what are you going to stop doing" because it looks like the USA are still seeking oil and gas reserves, we still have a proposed coal mine on the table and now looking at a new prototype nuclear plant. So soon all you will get from the news is COP26 for a while.


----------



## hairy (17 Oct 2021)

I think the BBC have a public duty to look in great detail at Boris's vice


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Oct 2021)

Everyone has


RobinBHM said:


> its a phrase used to close down debate.
> 
> we live in a nasty culture of MSM and social media stirring up division and hate.
> 
> ...



but it also works in the opposite direction, some on the left think all right wing minded people have just bought and sold a few shares over the pandemic and brexit era and made millions and would give anyone down on their luck another kicking.
Truth is most people left middle or right wing don't really worry about politics, most are just decent people getting on as best they can during difficult times. I can't remember the last time I chose to discuss politics with friends, far more interesting things to talk about.


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Oct 2021)

With regard to TV, I watch much more sport, netfix, amazon prime now than terrestrial TV.
My viewing in the last 10 years has changed completely, the BBC is dead in the water if it doesn't change, my 21 year old son probably hasn't watched a BBC progamme for ten years.


----------



## woodieallen (17 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> If you don't understand it look up the definition of the word 'psychopathic'.


Now you're playing your usual stance of trying to deflect the line of discussion. You know very well that I was asking you for evidence that this or that person was 'psychopathic' as you described them. So where is the evidence to support your statement, please.


----------



## woodieallen (17 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> I have trained to commune on public road. That’s The Law.
> 
> Don’t deviate from Gov licences to being trained how to comply with law.
> As Anarchist I believe Gov want everyone to forgot it’s place in 3 side devision of power.
> ...


Can someone please translate this for me ?


----------



## GregW (17 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Can someone please translate this for me ?



Shocking, even for my Polish dyslexia 
I corrected the poor grammar, as much, as I can.


----------



## RobinBHM (17 Oct 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> my 21 year old son probably hasn't watched a BBC progamme for ten years


I bet he watches Strictly on the QT


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Oct 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I bet he watches Strictly on the QT



I blame his parents for overdosing him on "teletubbies", "postman pat" and "the night garden" when he was a kid


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> With regard to TV, I watch much more sport, netfix, amazon prime now than terrestrial TV.
> My viewing in the last 10 years has changed completely, the BBC is dead in the water if it doesn't change, my 21 year old son probably hasn't watched a BBC progamme for ten years.


My son is 20 - he doesn't watch the BBC at all and doesn't know anyone amongst his friends who does either. It rather makes nonsense of the BBC's use of announcers/spokesmen/interviewers who use a hybrid of Jafaikan and estuary English as an attempt to get down wiv the yoof.


----------



## ian33a (17 Oct 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> It rather makes nonsense of the BBC's use of announcers/spokesmen/interviewers who use a hybrid of Jafaikan and estuary English as an attempt to get down wiv the yoof.



.... I thought the BBC had started employing foreign announcers and this was the reason why I couldn't understand what they were saying. I may try listening in again now.


----------



## MadMental (17 Oct 2021)

starlingwood said:


> Me too. The idea is of being forced to pay it is archaic but I do think the BBC is well worth the license fee. Only news channel I can 100%trust. If I hear of a news story breaking my first go to news source is always the BBC.


You would trust the BBC after the bias that the BBC sprouted about Brexit . This is the same company that put people in jail for not having money to pay for a licence . Sky broadcast BBC we pay Sky why does bbc claim from Sky .They are a looney left dsrputal company whos news reports should be ignored as its to one sided. Cant wait till there defunded its old draconian rules that has no point in existance in this day and age.


----------



## J-G (17 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Can someone please translate this for me ?


Very unlikely.


----------



## Jacob (17 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Now you're playing your usual stance of trying to deflect the line of discussion. You know very well that I was asking you for evidence that this or that person was 'psychopathic' as you described them. So where is the evidence to support your statement, please.


Is being boring and feebly sarcastic your usual stance?
Do you have any evidence that this person was not a psychopath?


----------



## TRITON (17 Oct 2021)

MikeK said:


> I removed several posts as a one-time effort to keep this thread open.


Well stick it in the controversial thread section and we can bleat to our hearts content. Think of it as an expansion of the US 1st amendment. Should keep the forum owners happy


----------



## powertools (17 Oct 2021)

I think that it would be a good idea for people to be careful what they wish for.
Just maybe the time is not far off when the tv licence will be scraped in favour of a licence for all devices that have access the internet.
Just saying.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Oct 2021)

BBC audience under 30 has slumped over the last few years with most younger folk opting for social media, news feeds, Netflix, Sky and other on demand channels.

The BBC is left with older audiences brought up on a diet of limited channels, quality drama, factual, and authorative news. Older viewers outnumber young by a factor of 2:1. 

BBC are not stupid - they know that their older audience will diminish over time as the grim reaper does his work.

In an effort reverse decline, they have made the decision to "revitalise" their output - cue the young, culturally diverse, gender equalised, virtuous etc. I'm not convinced it is working - but perhaps their efforts will bear fruit over the next few of years. 

It is evident part of their older audience feel alienated and uninterested. They are becoming more tech savvy and changing behaviours to mirror the early adopter younger audience.

In a media market place with several dozen of broadcasters (good and poor) all trying to secure an audience, the BBC has no chance of dominating the airwaves as they once did. It needs to specialise in that at which it excels and drop the rest.


----------



## 1steven (18 Oct 2021)

AlanY said:


> I have not watched any BBC programme or any 'live' tv programme since 2016. They are all sheyet. Also, do not use BBC internet offerings or streaming services. Cannot stop the license fee, though, 'cos my wife insists on watching BBC gardening programmes.


Put your foot down


----------



## 1steven (18 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> So when you stop conflicting gov licence with training how to comply with law, than you will see a massive difference.
> 
> As Anarchists I believe ALL should be trained, as part of common knowledge. Knowledge builds individual, and it’s most effective to combat individual fear of unknown.
> Fear creates behaviours, and a very need for licensing of ppl without they basic knowledge.
> ...


Thing is Greg its Ok to give people the tools to do the job but sometimes the people are not the right material


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2021)

1steven said:


> ....
> 
> BBC are not stupid - they know that their older audience will diminish over time as the grim reaper does his work.
> .....


Younger audiences diminish in time too, but later.
Actually the population proportion of older people is higher nowadays, as the NHS does its work.
The viewing figures maybe just reflect greater availability of alternatives, not the decline of BBC.


----------



## Thingybob (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Younger audiences diminish in time too, but later.
> Actually the population proportion of older people is higher nowadays, as the NHS does its work.
> The viewing figures maybe just reflect greater availability of alternatives, not the decline of BBC.



Got no time for all this talk got an Ark to finish for 2022 just a rumour i heard


----------



## gregmcateer (18 Oct 2021)

Binary you're wrong, I'm right doesn't sit well with me. 
So this lightpaper website - not dismissing it out of hand and also not believing all it says at face value - (seems that's the wisest approach with it and all media providers). 
But having had an admittedly brief look at it - who writes it? Who funds it? Who fact checks it?
I ask, because there seems to be general trend to declare MSM, (esp BBC), either govt stooges or some left wing conspiracy, despite the fact that MSM journalists are in the public eye and are prepared to put their names and reputation against their reports. 

I remember my late FIL used to read the Times, guardian, sun and occasionally the mail - crazy spend, but at least he got a spread of bias


----------



## D_W (18 Oct 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> despite the fact that MSM journalists are in the public eye and are prepared to put their names and reputation against their reports.



The advice to read a group is better than reading one (The latter is a variation of verisimilitude). But journalistic standards aren't really that high, and maybe they've never been. It's almost like any other profession - there are standards, and professionals will sometimes get really indignant about adhering to them, and seemingly later, do something that obliterates them and then pass it off as necessary. Journalism has a huge dose of "I'm going to report what should be rather than what is" sometimes. The same kind of idealism that Jacob holds on to. 

I've seen the same in other professions - sticky obnoxious insistence on standards sometimes (even where they are immaterial) and then seemingly easy dismissal of applying them in another situation where the issue is material. Quite often for company or personal or boss benefit. As real-time data is available about the popularity of stories and formulas used in constructing them, it's under greater threat now (the ideal "unbiased news" ) than ever. 

I agree with your statement that critics often have lower standards by a factor of 10 or 100 (my words), and it's popular to get credibility by disagreeing, but there is a burden of proof, and also a burden of a better idea if one is loaded with opinions. Bernie Sanders is absolutely filled with opinions about what should be. He is intentionally incapable of putting any of it in play - it's on us to push news sources to provide what is rather than saying what isn't coming from someone else.


----------



## D_W (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Younger audiences diminish in time too, but later.
> Actually the population proportion of older people is higher nowadays, as the NHS does its work.
> The viewing figures maybe just reflect greater availability of alternatives, not the decline of BBC.



Older people are a less desirable demographic for advertisers. It's both a current and future issue in the eyes of finance staff, editorial and advertising - the desire is to see current and especially future applicability to the most desirable demographics. The category is often referred to as 18-49 here. 

It's interesting when you watch the off channels here (we have a whole gaggle of actual networks, but then each will have 1-5 free digital channels that go with it. When you watch the "Grit" channel, which is mostly 1950s-1970s westerns and war movies, you get nothing but catheter, tardive dyskenesia (must be really profitable meds for that right now - a new area of Rx treatment) and medicare enrollment commercials from services paid to get people to enroll in medicare or certain medicare coverages. 

And flex seal.


----------



## alz (18 Oct 2021)

Don't think the "older generation" is committed to the BBC anymore. Remembering the quality of the programmes that was once produced by the BBC, it's sad to see the rubbish screened now.
Even the former staff admit the whole service has dumbed-down its content....and as for making old folk pay the licence. There should be a petition to Parliament demanding the BBC finance itself commercially like any other business.
Or maybe each government should being out a daily State Newspaper that the public has to pay for?


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2021)

Don't people find all the moaning about BBC and other stuff a bit wearing? Is there a bit of a moaning syndrome virus going around? 
It's what gave us Brexit in many ways - even more to moan about!
BBC seems fine to me, a bit establishmentarian and timid, good, bad, indifferent quality, as usual. Could be financed straight from tax, the licence is a bit redundant I think.


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

1steven said:


> Thing is Greg its Ok to give people the tools to do the job but sometimes the people are not the right material



Everyone is a good material…
If they not, they have been failed by adults to show them how to grow before they become independent adults.
(Most aren’t adults in their 30’…)

How common is the common sense, in common sense in things… something went very horribly wrong with generation X, so since generation Z most can’t hold screw driver in more than two fingers…….


----------



## RobinBHM (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Don't people find all the moaning about BBC and other stuff a bit wearing? Is there a bit of a moaning syndrome virus going around?
> It's what gave us Brexit in many ways - even more to moan about!
> BBC seems fine to me, a bit establishmentarian and timid, good, bad, indifferent quality, as usual. Could be financed straight from tax, the licence is a bit redundant I think.


I agree, I know the BBC is an outdated model, but we should be proud of the BBCs contribution to this great country.

after all the BBC gave us Bob the builder and the Teletubbies.... David Attenborough with his amazing planet earth series


----------



## RobinBHM (18 Oct 2021)

alz said:


> it's sad to see the rubbish screened now


I cant say I know -I never watch TV, I tend to just have a DVD box set on the go.

I tend to watch sky news and the sky evening papers


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I agree, I know the BBC is an outdated model, but we should be proud of the BBCs contribution to this great country.
> 
> after all the BBC gave us Bob the builder and the Teletubbies.... David Attenborough with his amazing planet earth series



Teletubbies turn toddlers into alien, while later Bob asking his work equipment to do work for him 
No wonder that we got workplace proportion of 4 spaced out managers on one labourer these days


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I cant say I know -I never watch TV, I tend to just have a DVD box set on the go.
> 
> I tend to watch sky news and the sky evening papers



I read tones of books… if I’m not working…..
How about internal struggle and self esteem evolution, while struggling with reality of situation the one was faced with regardless of being well prepared all went to dust. Great examples how to avoid self pity when live becomes serious  

DUNE
Cristal Singer


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2021)

Andy Pandy never did me any harm.


----------



## doctor Bob (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Don't people find all the moaning about BBC and other stuff a bit wearing? Is there a bit of a moaning syndrome virus going around?
> It's what gave us Brexit in many ways - even more to moan about!



Hang around with real people, it's the internet which creates online moaners, seems better face to face.


----------



## doctor Bob (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Andy Pandy never did me any harm.



Yehbut you never saw what he said about you behind your back!!!! I've never forgiven him for calling you "a D------- o-- tw--"


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Andy Pandy never did me any harm.




Similar to REKSIO teaching children how to deal with problems of normal life situations 



https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnnn7IZ5LWEpmzbOvHzHZQIMPxcGnWUQ6


----------



## woodieallen (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Is being boring and feebly sarcastic your usual stance?
> Do you have any evidence that this person was not a psychopath?


Stop being your predictable self. Just rewind and actually answer my original question. You claimed he was a psychopath. I asked you for evidence to support that. You sidestepped and did the usual Jacob-evasion-shuffle when you're called out. It's called trolling.


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Is being boring and feebly sarcastic your usual stance?
> Do you have any evidence that this person was not a psychopath?￼





woodieallen said:


> Stop being your predictable self. Just rewind and actually answer my original question. You claimed he was a psychopath. I asked you for evidence to support that. You sidestepped and did the usual Jacob-evasion-shuffle when you're called out. It's called trolling.


You are getting to be a bit predictable! Did you answer my question? I forgot to look. 
What were you calling me out about?
How is the weather in your neck of the woods? How many beans make five?


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> Similar to REKSIO teaching children how to deal with problems of normal life situations
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnnn7IZ5LWEpmzbOvHzHZQIMPxcGnWUQ6



Stop fighting  chill and watch more REKSIO


----------



## gregmcateer (18 Oct 2021)

I just this moment stuck the telly on - BBC showing an interesting and deeply saddening piece about the online misogyny and racism taking place.
Bloody BBC kowtowing to the woke brigade complaining about online hate


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> I just this moment stuck the telly on - BBC showing an interesting and deeply saddening piece about the online misogyny and racism taking place.
> Bloody BBC kowtowing to the woke brigade complaining about online hate




“Fuel to a fire” it a basics of TV PROGRAMMING 
That is the reason, purpose of it’s creation.
To feed programs to public 

PS. Anarchist joke 
- Do you know why Mein Kampf is banned?
- so every time current politicians speak, don’t have to say they steal-quote the author of such


----------



## gregmcateer (18 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> “Fuel to a fire” it a basics of TV PROGRAMMING
> That is the reason, purpose of it’s creation.
> To feed programs to public
> 
> ...



Ah! So the online faceless anarchists etc self regulate the racists and misogynists - phew! That IS a relief.


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> Ah! So the online faceless anarchists etc self regulate the racists and misogynists - phew! That IS a relief.



Turn it off. Sorted. Tell everyone to look on it, and turn it off from the same reason. Ignore it.
I want to have free choice to see who is racist, and how it looks today. When censorship starts, there starts covering of a an issue.
Do you think I was suppressed when after Brexit vote start having fascist comment aloud? No. I responded, and everyone laughed from fascist 

On what point words of stupid become assault on weak? 

Why to TV promote racism contributors? Why monetise YouTube channels with racist videos?
Report it instead.
Every single time main stream media mention sensational information, all trolls fallow it and infect with it other trolls  like TikTok does.

example: When BBC start lie about Anonymous hacking 2006 and million mask movement, Dot4 group was mentioned. In retaliation BBC web was defaced for 24h with information that Dot4 group likes to receive apology for lies and misinformation. Instead BBC run news about apocalypse starting on 4Chan  4Chan existed 20 years, no one cares. Dark web was there end will be. No one cares. These who knows, are there since 1990 

HOWEVER thanks to BBC advertisement, over 4 million trolls tried to join into 4Chan forum to find what BBC was bragging about


----------



## gregmcateer (18 Oct 2021)

WTAF. 
I'm utterly lost now. I think it's time I left the wormhole for some fresh air.


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2021)

Just been watching episode 3 BBC Two - Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution, Series 1, Episode 1
Deeply fascinating historical documentary I'm going to buy the boxed set if there is one!


----------



## Blackswanwood (18 Oct 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> BBC audience under 30 has slumped over the last few years with most younger folk opting for social media, news feeds, Netflix, Sky and other on demand channels.
> 
> The BBC is left with older audiences brought up on a diet of limited channels, quality drama, factual, and authorative news. Older viewers outnumber young by a factor of 2:1.
> 
> ...



That’s a good summary in my view.

I feel the BBC have a very difficult balancing act to perform and are probably the most scrutinised broadcaster in the U.K.


----------



## Blackswanwood (18 Oct 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> I just this moment stuck the telly on - BBC showing an interesting and deeply saddening piece about the online misogyny and racism taking place.
> Bloody BBC kowtowing to the woke brigade complaining about online hate



I have not seen the programme but there is an interesting article on the BBC News website about it and it appears to be a quality piece of journalism.


----------



## GregW (18 Oct 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I have not seen the programme but there is an interesting article on the BBC News website about it and it appears to be a quality piece of journalism.


Could you drop link pls


----------



## John Brown (18 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> Could you drop link pls


Do you have a TV licence?


----------



## Blackswanwood (18 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> Could you drop link pls


I get abuse and threats online - why can't it be stopped? I get abuse and threats online - why can't it be stopped?


----------



## John Brown (18 Oct 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Now you're playing your usual stance of trying to deflect the line of discussion. You know very well that I was asking you for evidence that this or that person was 'psychopathic' as you described them. So where is the evidence to support your statement, please.


What evidence would you accept?
The man stabbed another human several times, for no apparent reason. Where I live, that is not regarded as normal behaviour, and would suggest psychopathic tendencies, but as with all mental conditions, it's hard to prove. There isn't a simple test, some sort of psychopath litmus paper, that can be used. The defence will plead some sort of mental aberration, the prosecution will try to demonstrate some sort of cold blooded intent. Let's just hope none of us have to serve on that jury.


----------



## GregW (19 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> Do you have a TV licence?



I have to have TV licence to read online articles too ?  wow


----------



## GregW (19 Oct 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I get abuse and threats online - why can't it be stopped? I get abuse and threats online - why can't it be stopped?



Thanks. Very main stream media style. Did not disappointed in missing sexism, gender equality of outcome, and Sex Island adverts  

PS. another prove that Spartans would throw out from cliff most of winging people, after they made fly all these abusers for lack of basic social skills.


----------



## John Brown (19 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> I have to have TV licence to read online articles too ?  wow


Probably not. But the licence fee does fund BBC radio and web content also, as I understand it.


----------



## Keith Cocker (19 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Andy Pandy never did me any harm.




I liked Muffin the Mule


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Oct 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> Hang around with real people


you mean there are still real people.


----------



## John Brown (19 Oct 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> you mean there are still real people.


Not me. I'm definitely just a computer simulation.


----------



## doctor Bob (19 Oct 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> you mean there are still real people.



I'm sure you are joking, I think us lot of a gen


John Brown said:


> Not me. I'm definitely just a computer simulation.



Me as well, and I'm also John Brown and Jacob and many others......................


----------



## GregW (19 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> Probably not. But the licence fee does fund BBC radio and web content also, as I understand it.



So what happened with the millions from adverts?


----------



## Blackswanwood (19 Oct 2021)

GregW said:


> Thanks. Very main stream media style. Did not disappointed in missing sexism, gender equality of outcome, and Sex Island adverts
> 
> PS. another prove that Spartans would throw out from cliff most of winging people, after they made fly all these abusers for lack of basic social skills.



Sorry I'm really struggling to follow what your point is.


----------



## Spectric (19 Oct 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> BBC kowtowing to the woke brigade complaining about online hate


We all hear about climate change threatening our very existance, global warming causing more and more adverse weather and increasing tension between the powers of east and west but we seem to be overlooking the trogan horse in the room which is the very serious threat from wokyism. This is like woodworm or fungal mould that slowly eats into and decays our very existance from within and is diminishing our levels of common sense and inteligence, taking us back to when we thought the earth was flat and alchemist could turn metals into gold. Once a civilisation no longer believes reality and accepts what it sees then extinction must follow.


----------



## John Brown (19 Oct 2021)

Spectric said:


> We all hear about climate change threatening our very existance, global warming causing more and more adverse weather and increasing tension between the powers of east and west but we seem to be overlooking the trogan horse in the room which is the very serious threat from wokyism. This is like woodworm or fungal mould that slowly eats into and decays our very existance from within and is diminishing our levels of common sense and inteligence, taking us back to when we thought the earth was flat and alchemist could turn metals into gold. Once a civilisation no longer believes reality and accepts what it sees then extinction must follow.


Right ho!


----------



## Thingybob (19 Oct 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> I liked Muffin the Mule


Dont go there (this belongs in the joke thread )


----------



## Jacob (19 Oct 2021)

Spectric said:


> We all hear about climate change threatening our very existance, global warming causing more and more adverse weather and increasing tension between the powers of east and west but we seem to be overlooking the trogan horse in the room which is the very serious threat from wokyism. This is like woodworm or fungal mould that slowly eats into and decays our very existance from within and is diminishing our levels of common sense and inteligence, taking us back to when we thought the earth was flat and alchemist could turn metals into gold. Once a civilisation no longer believes reality and accepts what it sees then extinction must follow.


Yes I'm trying to give it up. I'd rather be in a coma like the anti-wokists!


----------



## MikeK (19 Oct 2021)

This thread has run its course.


----------

