BBC Scaremongering again

[starlingwood]

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

 

[woodieallen]

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

 

[Adam W.]

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]

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]

It’s a conspiracy

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

 

[woodieallen]

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

None. The closest to factual reporting is the FT.

 

[Bartfatboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Do you think this might be confirmation bias:

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