BBC, Alastair Campbell and that dossier.

[Drogue]

I disagree. I am glad we still have a television and radio channels that do not have to put on adverts. Having adverts would mean they have to bow to the sort of programs that get high ratings, like soaps, instead of intelligent programs that do not. They would have to sell out, in effect, and we would not get the quality of programming we get at the moment. I care more about what I watch than any bias, considering relatively few programs are politics ones. Indeed, their flagship politics program, Newsnight, is headed by a staunch Tory. Whether or not it has bias, I want to keep the BBC funded as it is. It is the only way we can get decent, high quality programs, instead of bowing to the lowest common denominator, such as 5 and ITV do, especially. £100 per year is not too much to ask IMHO, and pensioners and the very poor get them free (IIRC - not so sure about the poor).

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Clear Skies


Eek...
*hides under sofa*
My gran's a Campbell, I think. But IIRC we have blood from the other side, too.

Oh, don't sweat. I don't go around beating them to death.

I'm just reluctant to invite them round for a meal.

No Drogue, the poor get nothing in the way of a rebate for a TV license - although the elderly and disabled do.

The blind get the cheapest TV licenses. How geneous of the BBC.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Drogue
I disagree. I am glad we still have a television and radio channels that do not have to put on adverts. Having adverts would mean they have to bow to the sort of programs that get high ratings, like soaps, instead of intelligent programs that do not. They would have to sell out, in effect, and we would not get the quality of programming we get at the moment. I care more about what I watch than any bias, considering relatively few programs are politics ones. Indeed, their flagship politics program, Newsnight, is headed by a staunch Tory. Whether or not it has bias, I want to keep the BBC funded as it is. It is the only way we can get decent, high quality programs, instead of bowing to the lowest common denominator, such as 5 and ITV do, especially. £100 per year is not too much to ask IMHO, and pensioners and the very poor get them free (IIRC - not so sure about the poor).

I partially agree but also we're funding soaps, antique shows and people to have their house redecorated shows.

Whats the problem with license payers paying (say 10 quid a year) towards the news/docu programs and selling advertising for the rest? Why should we pay 100 per year so Ross Kemp et. al. can live on easy street playing the same character in different (inane) shows?

[Dauphin]

The BBC may be independent due to its unique method of funding, but to I do not find any of its programmes better than those presented by commercially driven competitors. All the BBC does is replace political bias with 'underdog' bias or with the bias of individual presenters/journalists.

Shows like Newsnight are wonderful programmes, but I find Sky News its equal.

[Solly]

I am glad we still have a television and radio channels that do not have to put on adverts. Having adverts would mean they have to bow to the sort of programs that get high ratings, like soaps, instead of intelligent programs that do not. They would have to sell out, in effect, and we would not get the quality of programming we get at the moment.

The lack of adverts is a plus, but those can be got rid of by having pay-per-view programming.

A public broadcasting corp should provide what the mass public wants - if that is trashy Big Brother and Popstar copies then so be it.

There are plenty of intelligent programmes out there if you look for them, rather than expecting to press the 1 digit on the remote control and expecting the state to provide one for you.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boddington's
A public broadcasting corp should provide what the mass public wants - if that is trashy Big Brother and Popstar copies then so be it.

I disagree, public broadcasting should endeavour to provide programming that is not already easily available to the public.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The BBC, like every other public service, should provide the sevice that it's public charter dictates. In the BBC's case, that means taking into account the Reithian principles it's always had.

Two points to consider. Every government I can remember has complained that the BBC is biased against it. I think that's a really good thing.

Secondly, when it comes to being trusted by the public, the BBC rates far higher than any post-war government (and any other organisation, other than the NHS). Any political party attempting to take it on is taking a real risk.

[Solly]

Two points to consider. Every government I can remember has complained that the BBC is biased against it. I think that's a really good thing.

The BBC shouldn't have to provide opposition to the current government. There are actually other political parties that are able to do that.

Secondly, when it comes to being trusted by the public, the BBC rates far higher than any post-war government (and any other organisation, other than the NHS). Any political party attempting to take it on is taking a real risk.

As you stated, Labour is only doing what other governments have done.

This, for me, is the first BBC vs government scenario I'm aware of. I don't know how legitimate other complaints were, but this one is fair game for Labour. The BBC stepped over the line, and were blatantly against the British army's efforts from day one.

[*End Is Forever*]

You can say what you want, but i would not want to debate with Campbell. Did any of you see him on Channel 4 News ripping Jon Snow to shreds? The man is a genius, and knows it, which is probably part of the problem...

No, he's a smart operator, but he's not a genius.

Do you know why he ripped Jon Snow to shreds? Because he consistently denied requests for interview, and then showed up halfway through the programme and agreed to go on air, leaving Snow with about two minutes to think up the questions with no pre-preparation and no notes.

Smart, but not a genius.

And remarkably I agree with Alex.

[*End Is Forever*]

This, for me, is the first BBC vs government scenario I'm aware of. I don't know how legitimate other complaints were, but this one is fair game for Labour. The BBC stepped over the line, and were blatantly against the British army's efforts from day one.

Political parties have complained of BBC bias for as long as the BBC has existed (and that goes for figures within all political parties). However, for the first time a news provider has actually stood up to the bullying and intimidation used by Campbell et al to keep the media in check, and the toys have come out of the pram.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Boddington's
This, for me, is the first BBC vs government scenario I'm aware of. I don't know how legitimate other complaints were, but this one is fair game for Labour. The BBC stepped over the line, and were blatantly against the British army's efforts from day one.

This is nothing compared to the Thatcher years, when BBC and Channel 4 news used to get raided by the Special Branch and MI5 under the pretext of upholding the Official Secrets Act.

[Solly]

Well the BBC or any other media outlet aren't going to respond to a feather and nicely worded letter.

[lightblue]

I don't think the BBC is exactly in opposition. They report the news fairly objectively, and i can see how that might be seen as a problem when the government is trying to "spin and control" everything. I'd rather have a slightly critical public broadcasting service than say the subservient attitude of the italian broadcasters with regards to Berlusconi (although there the main issue is Berlusconi's ownership of half the stations in the country).

And to be honest, at the moment there's no real opposition in parliament for a number of reasons.
One, the Labour majority is so large that whatever Tony wants, Tony gets.
Two, I can name about 4-5 Shadow Cabinet members, and i consider myself fairly well informed. Up until very recently there could be weeks gone by before you heard anything from the Conservatives. I suppose it doesn't help that Labour under Blair is basically softcore Thatcherism, forcing IDS and co to go much further right than they want to oppose effectively. And seeing as they have to capture the center to win an election, they are not trying to hard I think.

[Solly]

It has been said by some that Blair is more Thatcherite than Thatcher..

[C0ckney]

i would say that labour's first term was 'the best conservative government we've had in years' but in their second term we've seen a lot of their nasty socialist policies coming to the fore.