Off Topic Politics Thread

[Ian Thumwood]

Because it’s a publicly funded entity. And, frankly, any news outlet should aim to be impartial.

That is now and increasingly different ideal. If it cannot be impartial , let all mainstream views get expressed. For me the issue is that this was a shoddy piece of journalism . You could evenly spread the bias but ensure the reporting is rigorous.

It bad enough that the oresentation of the footage distorted the truth. It is a nightmare that Trump has been proved right.

More often BBC is superlative. I find the resignation and the integerty issue disturbing .

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

BBC getting caught being the same as all the other outlets? No surprise from me. Bin the license fee and let them fight to survive as an independent network. They have produced some superb content though over the years so I hope there is still quality TV to come from them however it pans out.

Of course there'll be a nice broadband tax to replace the license fee, that everyone will pay so that's a treat for the future.

What I wouldn't want to see though is the BBC being a government mouthpiece, spouting propaganda at us...at least not any more than we sometimes see already, depending on viewpoint.
I'm my opinion there's currently some semblance of impartiality even if almost everyone seems to think that the BBC are particularly biased against them, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.
Could almost say it is actually fairly impartial after all

 

[Archers Road]

I don’t think the BBC, for all it’s faults, can be put in the same class as a hysterical, deliberately dishonest propaganda rag like the Telegraph. So it’s a bit concerning that the latter will be claiming victory over the former, and will now feel empowered to go after anyone else in public life they set their sights on (watch out Rachel Reeves, for example).

As for Tim Davie, he stood twice as a Tory candidate for Hammersmith and Fulham council, and was appointed Director General of the BBC by Boris Johnson, a former pal who is now sticking the boot in. So hardly a woke lefty, whatever else he may be. A strange victim for the hard right media, that one.

 

[saintlyhero]

The BBC is a hugely important part of our culture and should be protected imo.
It’s local services and radio are fantastic and you only have to look at the fall of the Echo and national newspapers to see how quickly these services can fall without stable revenue

Murdoch has proven that something being state owned is far from the worst outcome for journalism

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

The BBC is generally truthful in what it broadcasts, but its not so much what it says but what it doesn't. In recent years their reports are biased towards their own agenda. Whatever the background of Davie and how he got the job, their reporting on TV and definitely on their website has become more and more politically correct or woke (for want of a better term). Whether you agree or not, it is the reason given by most people who complain about their content. Many have stopped buying licences because of this alone.

 

[Ian Thumwood]

The BBC is generally truthful in what it broadcasts, but its not so much what it says but what it doesn't. In recent years their reports are biased towards their own agenda. Whatever the background of Davie and how he got the job, their reporting on TV and definitely on their website has become more and more politically correct or woke (for want of a better term). Whether you agree or not, it is the reason given by most people who complain about their content. Many have stopped buying licences because of this alone.

The bias is generational and not political. A new generation of producers are being employed and their ideas reflect how different generations feel that is neutral. The people complaining are generally older and do not recognise things have moved on.

The BBC does seem to occupy a more central ground which is reflected in jobs only being advertised in The Guardian.

The Trump editing issue has been exagerated. The sentiment was correct and i do not feel it was a total misrepresentation. The Panorama team shoild have been disciplined. It has been exagerated.

 

[ImpSaint]

I was going to say Howard had been a framed in "the trope". I was thinking of another occasion though. Yeah, they were depictions coming form the left

"I can't see how anyone would go from that Polanski image directly to the German one that Beyond posted up but I guess if people have organically immediately made a connection between a green face on a Nazi poster to a full bodied character on a greenish background then people should think twice ..."

Still surprising that you're so resistant to that consideration. I'm not suggesting anyone should go directly to an image they have no awareness of. I refer you to the article I posted previously (below). Granted, I'm fortunate to have had the opportunity to study 20th-century propaganda at uni, but these images and tropes- fringe though they may seem - carry echoes, re-emerge, and live on.

LINK: https://archive.ph/20250119171648/h...omar-israel-jews.html#selection-663.0-891.409

Brief extract "Perhaps Ms. Omar is sincerely befuddled and not simply deflecting. Because sentiments like these (her mention of Israeli Hypnotism), once beyond the pale of our public discourse, are being heard with greater frequency and volume these days, allow me to explain why this Jewish American, and almost every Jewish American I know, found her words so offensive.

The conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator, the duplicitous manipulator, the sinister puppeteer is one with ancient roots and a bloody history...."

Like I said earlier. My mind's eye is not looking for these things so I don't see them. Equally someone who is looking for these things may see a lot more than is actually there. Its a 2 way street. I'm not resistant to it hence I said "if people are making that connection organically then...." but for me, even if I were aware of the original you posted, would not make a connection between the 2 as they are very different...to me.

On the "Older fella - mid century" bit. I've seen a lot of AI imagery, cartoony / caricature and a lot of it looks like this. A lot of it is made to look like it was from decades ago.

 

[ImpSaint]

"Rather than you or I agreeing that we disagree on this..." I'm cool, your are a decent fella Imps, We're certainly seeing this from different perspectives. There's no need to reply to the recent posts.

Grok tropes.

What's are the characters doing though? I think they need the whole image, otherwise loss of context and lack of subtly can be driving factors. A true dog whistle can be plausibly denied. As I said earlier A-S occupational and tropes exists as the is some truth to them The Shrink, Financier, Media moguls, more historically the Hypnotist etc.

RE: your mention of datasets being skewed, stuff is literally being fed in will be part of the LLM learning process. Once these tropes enter the training data- whether through propaganda posters, editorial cartoons, or even “neutral” stock imagery - they become part of the pattern library. And LLMs or image generators don’t distinguish between satire, critique, or endorsement. They just learn what looks... plausible. Maybe deniable.

I had particularly scary chat with "Claude" - it freely admitted its maker's design choice to build with a lack of any moral compass, which it expressed self-loathing for (but obviously by the very subject being discussed can't do), saying I should be disgusted by "it" - which in a way I'm glad I can't now find!

You don't need to tell me about AI and Claude etc. I am invested into quite a lot of Crypto AI including Truth Terminal and other stuff I know all about it. I don;t use it personally as a 50 year old I have no practical need for most of it but I do read stuff and these kind of things are in my twitter algorithms as well

On the thread I posted you are right. Groks interpretation of the Zack Polanski changes when presented with just the face of the Polanski one on its own. Earlier the whole image vs Richard Sharp's exit from the BBC is different! I would suggest the "vs" one is more accurate though as the question forms what the answer is based on and just the face removes a lot of context from what the questioner is asking Grok!

The bit we disagree on is mostly the "hypnotist" bit because for me...he is/was a hypnotist so that's a stretch. They aren't choosing that as a trope, they are choosing that because that is literally what he does/did. Whether they knew it was also a trope is another question entirely which is your "defendable" bit. Did they know? A lot of my arguments debates on here revolve on intent! doing something does not directly mean you intended certain consequences / reactions / results!

So did the creator of this image intend it to be a Jewish Trope? I don't think they did but we will never know. I think they just went with Spooky halloween cartoon of opposition who is a hypnotist and went with it.

 

[ImpSaint]

All change at the BBC…

Not a problem. We have BBC Verify to seek out mis and dis information............

 

[ImpSaint]

Quite interesting to read Nick Robinson's comment about the editorial process and the agenda of the printed press.

I think the intentions were correct but it is odd that the BBC should sekf flagellate because of a U S president who rarely worries about truth in the media.

Just wondering if , with the likely demise of the licence fee,the BBC needs to retain it's independence. I prefer Channel Four news . Maybe the BBC needs to have a similar agenda and the central / left message gets buried on the Internet. Right wing positions do not get scrutenised in the same way.

Lol Wasn;t the BBC news woman that resigned poached from CH4? I think that tells you something!

 

[ImpSaint]

I am shocked that the video was spliced. It is staggering. Not a resigning matter for Davie but the Panorama team should be carrying the can.

In these days of digital media , why should the BBC remain impartial ? I think it should be a broader church and then avoid criticism.

Davie hasn't gone because of that. It is an accumulation of stuff that has gone on under his watch that he himself has tried to brush off with "nothing to see here" and "meh" only admitting to things or apologising when the story becomes the BBC each time!

 

[ImpSaint]

That is now and increasingly different ideal. If it cannot be impartial , let all mainstream views get expressed. For me the issue is that this was a shoddy piece of journalism . You could evenly spread the bias but ensure the reporting is rigorous.

It bad enough that the oresentation of the footage distorted the truth. It is a nightmare that Trump has been proved right.

More often BBC is superlative. I find the resignation and the integerty issue disturbing .

the problem with most of BBC news and current affairs stuff is it treats itself as mother telling you what is correct whereas most of new media like GB news has actual discussion and debate! BBC News does a showreel of 5 or 6 segments by its own journos and then after interviews their own journo to tell you what things mean or is happening! There is no counter! Their news is the BBC asking the BBC what the world should know!

 

[Shandy_top_89]

BBC getting caught being the same as all the other outlets? No surprise from me. Bin the license fee and let them fight to survive as an independent network. They have produced some superb content though over the years so I hope there is still quality TV to come from them however it pans out.

Of course there'll be a nice broadband tax to replace the license fee, that everyone will pay so that's a treat for the future.

What I wouldn't want to see though is the BBC being a government mouthpiece, spouting propaganda at us...at least not any more than we sometimes see already, depending on viewpoint.
I'm my opinion there's currently some semblance of impartiality even if almost everyone seems to think that the BBC are particularly biased against them, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.
Could almost say it is actually fairly impartial after all

My concern would be the BBC in that environment would become GB News 2.

Although i'm pretty sure that will happen anyway if Reform win the next election... and they will probably still use the license fee for their mouthpiece.

 

[ImpSaint]

My concern would be the BBC in that environment would become GB News 2.

Although i'm pretty sure that will happen anyway if Reform win the next election... and they will probably still use the license fee for their mouthpiece.

It would help the BBC to let some debate happen between pro and anti panellists, and on the rare occasions where they do have a right wing representative on, not to use it as a chance to bash the nasty righty!

For all its faults (and there are many) it is not a "news" channel in the traditional sense. It is a discussion channel that has news every hour. The other 55 minutes (minus ads) is a left wing and right wing talking head being allowed to debate..........which for me actually bring me more onside with some left wing views because people like Aaron Bastani and a couple of other left wing voices actually debate rather than try and score cheap soundbite points.

Even Farage on his show (not particularly fond of his show tbh) he lets the left speaker speak and finish their responses.

BBC debate formats (QT/Politics Live) is normally 3 left wing/centre, 1 supposedly right wing (soft Tory etc) and 1 right wing.............then spend the whole show with the 4 going after the nasty righty and cutting into any responses they may give. Lots of tutting, gasping, sighs, sneers and very little actual debate. All soundbites and sloganeering.

 

[ImpSaint]

BBC getting caught being the same as all the other outlets? No surprise from me. Bin the license fee and let them fight to survive as an independent network. They have produced some superb content though over the years so I hope there is still quality TV to come from them however it pans out.

Of course there'll be a nice broadband tax to replace the license fee, that everyone will pay so that's a treat for the future.

What I wouldn't want to see though is the BBC being a government mouthpiece, spouting propaganda at us...at least not any more than we sometimes see already, depending on viewpoint.
I'm my opinion there's currently some semblance of impartiality even if almost everyone seems to think that the BBC are particularly biased against them, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.
Could almost say it is actually fairly impartial after all

The only thing we lose if the BBC goes independent is excellent Nature/History and Science programs which all the other "repeat" channels and oversea channels still repeat to this day!

Even in that they haven't done a decent history series for a long long time probably due to certain historians being seen as too right wing and the ones they now choose presenting fluffy non factual history. Last one I enjoyed was either the Stuarts or The Normans although the Roman one with Mary Beard was quite good as was the Islamic art/culture one with a woman I can't remember the name of. Basically scrap the BBC and keep BBC4

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

The only thing we lose if the BBC goes independent is excellent Nature/History and Science programs which all the other "repeat" channels and oversea channels still repeat to this day!

Even in that they haven't done a decent history series for a long long time probably due to certain historians being seen as too right wing and the ones they now choose presenting fluffy non factual history. Last one I enjoyed was either the Stuarts or The Normans although the Roman one with Mary Beard was quite good as was the Islamic art/culture one with a woman I can't remember the name of. Basically scrap the BBC and keep BBC4

You lose a lot more than that - the World Service and overseas programming is incredibly important (and mostly overlooked by people in this country, understandably).

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

Not a problem. We have BBC Verify to seek out mis and dis information............

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Also remember that BBC News (under Deborah Turness until the other day) and BBC programming are two largely independent entities.

 

[ImpSaint]

I don’t think the BBC, for all it’s faults, can be put in the same class as a hysterical, deliberately dishonest propaganda rag like the Telegraph. So it’s a bit concerning that the latter will be claiming victory over the former, and will now feel empowered to go after anyone else in public life they set their sights on (watch out Rachel Reeves, for example).

As for Tim Davie, he stood twice as a Tory candidate for Hammersmith and Fulham council, and was appointed Director General of the BBC by Boris Johnson, a former pal who is now sticking the boot in. So hardly a woke lefty, whatever else he may be. A strange victim for the hard right media, that one.

Not being of a certain ideology does not mean you haven't let the company you are boss of slip into an ideology or develop a culture of bias! He quite clearly was dismissive of any criticism of the almighty Beeb unless push came to shove and giving a half arsed apology each time.....and in the modern era I would not say being a Tory actually means you are right wing at all.... There are some Tories who are quite clearly left of Starmer. lol.

Look into the backgrounds of a lot of these political folks and they have histories of jumping to wherever they think will get them best up the tree. They are not "through and through" anything with lefties pushing righty politics and righties pushing leftie politics. Bunch of opportunistic chancers and rotten to the core! Even Farage is trying to get some centre left stuff in there now!

They don't need to "go after" people like Rachel Reeves or Lammy or Davie when the supposed "targets" keep providing the ammunition themselves! Look at Lammy at PMQs. Made himself look an arse over 5 questions by shouting and getting angry without answering when he had the brief in front of him and knew about the prison releases the day before. before the Telegraph and way before the Tories at PMQs.

First question replied with "I will be coming to the house to provide detail on this later so cannot say more on it now" BOOM. Tories next 5 follow up questions blown out of the water and have to come up on the fly with something else to ask................but no Shout, Get angry "I will not take lessons blah blah" and gave all opponents absolutely what they could only dream of.

Rachel Reeves, Morgan McSweeney, Starmer, Lammy, Philipson are not just easy targets, they make it impossible to miss and if you do they offer you chance after chance............which I would add is something most modern frontline politicians are unable to avoid for some reason!

I would guess Boris was gloating over the instant attack on him by BBC when he got in and the vast coverage about him eating a slice of cake in Downing St.

 

[ImpSaint]

The BBC is a hugely important part of our culture and should be protected imo.
It’s local services and radio are fantastic and you only have to look at the fall of the Echo and national newspapers to see how quickly these services can fall without stable revenue

Murdoch has proven that something being state owned is far from the worst outcome for journalism

Was not is. I agree about local radio and TV though. Add that to the history/Science.nature programs they used to do which were worth watching.