Is this the beginning of the end of the BBC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The alternative is private broadcasters pushing their agendas. Taken to its logical extreme you end up with a media landscape that looks like the newspaper situation in some Australian cities.
The only true "fair and balanced" media outcome is lots of different players from different political colours. Too much control in either direction is a bad thing IMWPO.

---

Rollo, if the people don't like the political jib of a paper, they wont buy it and you cant make people WATCH TV if they think they are being fed propaganda. Papers and media outlets of all stripes find their market. The thing is, there is this myth some great media god controls all this. There isn't..we the people decide. If Aussie Papers are so dreadfully right wing, then some rich guy with left wing credentials oughta start one. I am sure no one who reads the Guardian needs to be told what its stripe is and they buy it for that reason. Ditto with TV. MSNBC in the US has its viewers as does Fox. The reality is, Fox has 10 times the ratings of MSNBC because they have done a better job of putting out things people want to watch, and that includes people who don't like the political stripe of Fox.

This Myth we need a government owned broadcast outlet to provide balance doesn't fly. I like the BBC, I like the CBC...but I think both are inefficient and bloated government owned entities that do far less with far more than they require and they really are dinosaurs in the 200 channel universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I don't NEED the government to create TV....once upon a time the concept of a national broadcaster made some sort of sense, but not now....

---

Fortunately the BBC is not a government broadcaster. It is funded by public money but remains independent and that is a source of great frustration in some quarters.

I do think that there is a need for the BBC, now more than ever, particularly with the increasing influence of the likes of BSkyB both in terms of international reach and politics. It's like the notion of checks and balances. By all means let the likes of Sky thrive, but checks against their influence must exist and balance must be provided in terms of alternatives.

In the UK the likes of ITV & C4 are struggling and if the BBC are undermined as well then there is the potential for Sky's influence to increase unchecked. That is why, IMHO, it is important that the BBC continues to be a publicly funded broadcaster.

Right, I'll explain this one time and then I'm off for Christmas. I suspect I'm wasting my time, as you'll carry on believing what you want to believe, but I'll try anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

Well we've just had 13 years of them giving Labour an easy time, no matter what blunders they made the Beeb gave them an easy ride.

---

I can puncture that with two words: Hutton Report.

You may recall that the BBC went public and accused the Labour Government of "sexing up" the dossier about Saddam Hussain's WMD capability. It was a brave thing to do, but they were ultimately proven right.

That's just one example for you. You might also argue that going public with the leak from The Telegraph this week was another instance of them putting truth before self-interest, as it meant the one person likely to block the Murdoch BSkyB deal was replaced with a tame Hulture Secretary who will now almost certainly wave the deal through.

Anyway, Question Time. You stated:

Quote:

---

4000 maybe in London and Birmingham but not for small towns, no way 10% of a town apply to go on QT. My town is about 60k so not a chance 4k applied.

---

You are aware that people can travel, right? Not everybody in the audience comes from inside the city walls, they do extend the catchment area to include people from neighbouring communities. I gave you a link to a direct quote from a BBC producer stating that 4000 applicants was a typical figure. If you know better I invite you to provide your source.

Quote:

---

I sent in 6 in total, all 3 left wing applications were accepted all 3 right wing ones ignored - blatant fix. Feel free to work out the odds based on your figures.

---

As I told you, and as is explained in my link, it's nothing to do with "odds". (That said, even if it were, 3 rejections out of ~4000 applications falls well within the margins of pure chance, so your conspiracy theories don't add up).

The audience is selected to provide a balance of genders, backgrounds, professions and - most importantly - political viewpoints. If your "right wing" applications were rejected then chances are they had enough of those already for that episode, or that you failed on other citeria.

QT is one of the BBC's flagship political programmes. If there was, as you suggest, systematic and regular "fixing" of the audience, do you not think that it would have been raised at a high level by now? You're just being paranoid, flinging accusations around with no evidence.

If you dispute this, let's hear your evidence. I shan't hold my breath. Usually when you try to provide links they undermine your own cause.

For example you said there's a left-wing bias, and when asked for proof provided an interview which said that there was.... in 1979!

Prior to that you claimed that "you have to be black or disabled to work for the BBC" and yet, when challenged you provided a list of four such people on a channel featuring hundreds of people every day.

In fact, the pattern seems to be that you spout some theory with no evidence, then I or someone else to all the legwork to prove you wrong. That's not now intelligent debate should work: you make the allegation, you back it up.

Anyway, I'm out of here for Christmas. I may pop in now and again, but don't expect full answers to anything. Enjoy the festive season. I'm sure we're both looking forward to a white Christmas, but maybe in completely different ways... :dozey: :s anta:

Ahh yes if in doubt play the race card, thus things can remain unbalanced and full of reversed prejudice as now.

The audience is biased, you only have to compare what they say and clap vs what the texters send in to show it is biased.

Pushing coincidence to have 3 minority winners and 3 majority ignored. That in itself is proof enough.

Hutton Whitewash: The Beeb named Dr Kelly next thing he dies in suspicious circumstances yet you claim there's no love in between Labour and the BBC. But anyroad, why didn't the BBC really clobber Labour over its mishandling of the economy?

Labour loved the BBC? Don't make me laugh. Tensions between them and the government has never been greater than under Blair.

Well the fact is that a broadcaster, whether publically funded or not should and has the duty to question and be critical of whomever is in power. Private broadcasters do that. I am not going to pretend to know the total media situation in the UK, I don't live there. I quite LIKE the BBC, but they are a drain on the public purse, through the license fee's all TV owners in the UK pay, or from the treasury.

IN Canada The CBC is operated much the same way, and they take public money and compete with the private broadcasters for the rights to pro sports, driving up the cost of the TV property. I am sure the leagues involved love it, and the IOC is saying thank you to the CBC for making a bid for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver so the private sector could over pay to get the deal.

It is not for the government to fund or designate any media to promote fair and balanced broadcasting or media coverage. The alleged fairness is often tempered by pc thoughts and agendas, and the potential for government tampering is there in the coverage.

In a 200 channel universe, with many competing media outlets of all political shadings, a publically funded monster broadcaster really isn't that required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Well the fact is that a broadcaster, whether publically funded or not should and has the duty to question and be critical of whomever is in power. Private broadcasters do that. I am not going to pretend to know the total media situation in the UK, I don't live there. I quite LIKE the BBC, but they are a drain on the public purse, through the license fee's all TV owners in the UK pay, or from the treasury.

IN Canada The CBC is operated much the same way, and they take public money and compete with the private broadcasters for the rights to pro sports, driving up the cost of the TV property. I am sure the leagues involved love it, and the IOC is saying thank you to the CBC for making a bid for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver so the private sector could over pay to get the deal.

It is not for the government to fund or designate any media to promote fair and balanced broadcasting or media coverage. The alleged fairness is often tempered by pc thoughts and agendas, and the potential for government tampering is there in the coverage.

In a 200 channel universe, with many competing media outlets of all political shadings, a publically funded monster broadcaster really isn't that required.

---

TBH Mark in O, with all due respect you're talking crap. Since when do cretins like Fox question a government when it's a republican one? Having the BBC around helps to "keep the b@stards honest" (I stole that quote btw) and means that no media outlet with a vested interest can have a hold over opinion.

Corporate TV does what corporate TV wants and corporate media will support whoever is going to give corporate media the easiest time.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12066537

see how they cover these much needed cuts, heaps of emotive language used, highlighting only frontline services cuts etc

Tough titties - welcome to the real world where the private sector has been for the last two years

parasites

What may I ask would you also like to Privatise, Bolton Midnight? Police, Fire service perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronRooster92

What may I ask would you also like to Privatise, Bolton Midnight? Police, Fire service perhaps?

---

Nope, as they are essential services, I'd like non essential stuff scrapped altogether not privatised.

Although am sure jails could be made to pay for themselves.