I remember being annoyed by a Question Time where everything Raab and Farage said was widely clapped and cheered - but was told "it was because lots if people favour Brexit" rather than the audience being biased. They could still have been hard-left Brexiteers like John McDonnell I suppose - but the point is, you only get riled by something when it goes against the grain of course. Also remember the stink Brown kicked up about the BBC broadcasting his "bigot" speech, they didnt broadcast that because they were pro-Tory but because it was newsworthy.
People need to get their news from all across the spectrum. If you rely on a single source, you're basically trusting that they will be telling the truth all the time. No side does that.
Just a thought on the subject of impartiality at work. I don't think joining a union means that much to the members themselves. It usually just means you're happy to pay towards having the union in your corner if you should ever need it, and you don't think too much about it unless you do. I've never joined a union myself, so I'm not speaking personally, just from knowing quite a lot of Civil Servants through my wife. She was in the Civil Service for the final 9 years of her working life. She didn't join the union. So, the fact that the BBC has many people in a union doesn't mean they all vote Labour or all have Labour sympathies. Clearly many will be, but some will be strongly Conservative, too. You just have to keep reminding the staff that they need to try very hard to be professional and impartial - if nothing else, just to differentiate themselves from the commercial media organisations owned by one or two people who use their companies to drive their business agendas and appoint staff (at higher levels) who will drive that through and get rid of people that don't comply.
You complained about the fact that the BBC always had a Labour representative 'telling you why they are wrong' after a government quote, but seem not to realise that the same happens in reverse. The BBC doesn't have a 'side'.
What about the cynical way this was used by Labour? Be honest - irrespective of the subject, the very first vote after the Tory/DUP agreement was reached was ALWAYS going to be voted according to the agreement, and was doomed to failure. Surely if this was something Labour actually wanted to happen, it would not have been tabled as the first vote. Throw something less central into the mix first, let the two sides of the agreement secure their position, then bring in the more important stuff. I really can't help but read this as sheer cynical political posturing, scoring points at the expense of the public sector workers who hoped this was a vote that would fall for their side.
Agreed. It's hard work and sometimes feels impossible. I quite like the New York Times writers when they're reporting on events in Europe. Generally factual. Odd to see ourselves through another pair of eyes in that way. I've no idea if they're good, bad or indifferent when it comes to domestic US affairs.
Which is irrelevant to my political stance. I see it as I see it. Yes, they do. At least the people who are working there and implementing political program policy do. I'm sure that as a supporter of one of the main parties, it's not so simple to view it objectively, but do try...
Yeah, right. The BBC choose ComRes, that produces a massively left wing biased audience for an important election debate, and the subsequent defence is "whoops..."
Of course people working for the BBC have political biases (of all colours), but their broadcasts are required to be impartial. The BBC as an institution does not take sides. My point about quote and counter-quote is a simple one to acknowledge, but you seem to just see what you want to see. Objective? I think not.
Well no. As someone who didn't vote for any major political party, I will look at the policies each time. This time round, I couldn't align myself with any main party enough to give them my vote, so voted for an Independent centrist candidate. I think that the campaign run by the Conservatives was the worst, most inept one I can recall. I also think that the way social media was used by them failed to understand the impact it can have and alienated the youth vote, driving them into Labour's hands. Someone really should teach them how the digital world works. I think the campaign run by Labour was utterly abhorrent - orchestrated character assassinations via social media, combined with promises that they couldn't possibly deliver on, all 'paid for' by criminalising the wealthy. Corbyn could have distanced himself from the more hate-fuelled elements of it, but not a sound. I think the Lib Dems proved themselves not even worthy of being a protest party any more, given the divide over the EU and that even with that, they couldn't secure more votes. UKIP are dead in the water. And that's a really good thing. Greens can't shake off the 'tree-hugger' image enough to be relevant to anyone with a proper job, house, and understanding on how the world actually works. So I have no affiliations. I see good and bad (mostly bad) on all sides of the spectrum. With regard to how the BBC reports politics (either deliberately, by default, or by accident) there's a left-leaning side to it. There simply is. Just as the Mail and Sun are right-leaning, the Mirror and Guardian are left-leaning, Fox is stupidly Republican, CNN is Democrat, etc. etc. I know that the charter demands impartiality. I agree that the BBC will always strive for this. I just don't think they have been doing that well in achieving it.
1. Compete. The BBC does compete, and has been strongly criticised in the past for moving popular programs to compete with stuff put out by ITV. They've used their dominant position and public funding to try to undermine a competitor. 2. Adverts. The BBC does advertise. 24 Hour News is punctuated by endless repeats of BBC programs. It's not much better than Sky in that respect. Commercials are a lot less of an issue on channels these days, because a lot of viewers record and fast forward. 3. Arts. The BBC produce some good programs (they are not exclusive in that respect). This could be hived off if the BBC was broken up. 4. The "Rupert Murdoch has an agenda" argument just doesn't work. The BBC has a huge agenda - it's part-Blairite, part-liberal, pro-EU. Stroller has complained in the past that it was prejudiced against Corbyn. I think there was truth in that, because Corbyn threatened the Labour Blairites. However, now he's shown he might be able to deliver a Labour government, the BBC are noticeably more favourable to him. By their coverage of Glasto, you'd think Jez was Mick Jagger. It always makes me laugh when the left say - oh, the BBC is against us too...but we'll put up with it. Ah, yes, of course they will...
The brief the BBC gave ComRes was clear. It's a matter of record. The ComRes response when criticised was clear. That's a matter of record. Now you're using irony to suggest that the BBC had a secret brief, (unwritten perhaps?), which asked ComRes to deliver a biased audience and then take the blame for it afterwards? Really? Project Conspiracys'R'Us continues, then. For all its flaws, and there are many, the BBC is loved and cherished by the British public.
That sums it all up for me. People we rely on, front line staff, people who risk their own lives to save others, People who care and look after us or relatives of ours doing jobs that we all take for granted. There won't be one person on here who doesn't know someone who has had to use our public services at some point in their lives. Seeing the cheering at the pay cap staying was disgusting, embarrassing, selfish, rude and very disrespectful.
Like I said above - that first vote was always going to be won by the Tory/DUP alliance. You'd hope that knowing this, Her Majesty's opposition would have chosen not to make the vote such a politically sensitive one. However, it appears they are still in campaign mode, where cynically scoring political points is more important than actually doing the job properly...
Of course it does... because we see and hear what we want to see and hear... and if both sides do that, it suggests the Corporation is much more even handed that you care to believe. Adverts - the BBC trails BBC programming, to inform it's consumers what is available - and yes, it competes for ratings because high ratings carry huge value with programme makers, talent, rights holders, commissioned production companies, broadcasters, licensees, overseas broadcast markets, commercial competitors, and the government itself. Arts - yes they do don't they, much of which would never be commissioned because it has limited audience appeal to the commercial channels So Murdoch doesn't have an agenda? Fine, happy for you to believe that, we'll agree to differ. And if May or any of her cabinet would care to turn up at Glasto (or anywhere for that matter where the public had the opportunity to show their opinion of her) I'd happily get the popcorn out and watch that, but I would imagine you would still complain about bias, for the opposite reason!
All it's done in my eyes is make the government look even worse. Suppose it's more votes for Labour next time round.
