Is this the beginning of the end of the BBC?

[Rollo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/19/bbc-licence-fee-frozen
The BBC licence fee is to be frozen at the current level of £145.50 for the next six years, a 16% cut in real terms, after the corporation today concluded a bruising round of funding negotiations with the coalition government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/18/bbc-coalition-licence-fee-raid
BBC bosses fear that the coalition government is gearing up for a £500m-plus raid on the licence fee, by forcing the broadcaster to meet the full cost of free television licences for the over 75s.
The benefit – which was introduced by Gordon Brown when he was chancellor – costs £556m, and is currently paid for out of general taxation. But ministers are considering passing the bill on to the BBC as part of this week's comprehensive spending review.

Not content with destroying British industry to the point where it won't function again properly, the last time they were is office, the ****ing Tories have already started on hurting the BBC.

It's a real problem for them. People like Rupert Murdoch have been complaining for years that the BBC's mere existance robs him of his precious profits, and now that he's backed the Tories in the media (and probably with cash behind closed doors), he and people like him will begin to make the institution suffer which will only get worse and probably lead to the government selling it off (that and the NHS if they can ruin that as well).

How many days has this Tory government been in power now? (167 days) Already they've sparked my ire. It's just like being a kid again.
What ever happened to Nick Clegg? Is he a toilet cleaner or personal butt-wiper for Mr Cameron yet?

[Daniel]

The Tories are hoping that by the time it comes to the next election they can bribe people with stuff they've bought with the money they've cut now, that much is obvious......

[Mark]

Although the BBC is to be cherished £145 is too much and they should manage on less. That's not the same as wishing their demise.

[Dave B]

I'm actually surprised that the BBC got away so lightly. Earlier in the week the government were suggesting that they take on the burden on funding licences for the over 75s, which was a policy foisted on them by the previous government and would have effectively made them a benefits provider.

As a bargaining chip the BBC offered to fund the World Service, and this seems to have been accepted. They'll also fund the Welsh language channel S4C. Coupled with the six year freeze on the licence fee they do at least have some degree of certainty over their future funding.

The bigger threat comes not from the neutering of the Beeb; as Mark says maybe it's time they tighened their belts with the rest of us. The problem is the likely rise in the dominance and influence of the Murdoch media empire. He's looking to fully buy out BSkyB, which would give him an unprecidented monopoly in the UK's media that even Silvio Berlusconi would baulk at. It should be noted that on the day he declared his bid, his son James made a "courtesy call" to business secretary Vince Cable. Just saying.

It's sickening to remember that the very first person to meet with David Cameron after he became PM was Rupert Murdoch. The same guy whose newspapers (and, in more subtle ways, his news channel) lobbied for the Conservatives. Lest we forget, the political editor of The Sun is on record (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/04/murdoch-biographer-sun-editor)as saying "It's my job to see that Cameron f***ing well gets into Downing Street".

Ofcom won't be any help: they're being merged with Postcomm and are in any case effectively useless at the best of times, behoven to market forces rather than what is best for the public.

My fear is that deregulation will see Sky News become more like Fox News: overtly biased, shouty, and not particularly accurate. The BBC will (hopefully) always exist to counter Sky, but I suspect they'll be increasingly marginalised and starved of the funds to properly make their voice heard.

Yesterday was a sad day: the BBC, social housing and the armed forces all took a shafting. Today, the announcement of the spending review, will be far worse.

[ArrowsFA1]

The BBC has always been a target for any government, but particularly the Tories. It is a 'public' broadcaster and as such seen as independent from political influence, something that those in power are not keen on. They prefer to work with the likes of Murdoch who are far more effective at shaping public opinion on their behalf.

While I fear for the future of the BBC under this government I'm more concerned about the increasing influence of the Murdoch media empire, not just in the UK but worldwide. Increasingly news has become confused with opinion. Murdoch is pushing a particular view via his "news" outlets and with his increasing dominance in broadcasting comes increased influence and ability to shape and direct opinions. When the Murdoch view coincides with political power we should all be concerned.

[Dave B]

On a related note I can well envisage the licence fee as we know it being scrapped at the end of this six year period.

Currently you only need one to watch TV "as broadcast" (ie live, or delayed becuase you recorded it as it was broadcast).

Increasingly TV is being delivered by other means. Services like iPlayer and 4OD register millions of views per day, and it's becoming increasingly simply to watch VOD via other devices such as mobile phones and games consoles.

If it wasn't for the fact that I enjoy live sport and watch a fair bit of news, I reckon I could quite legally escape paying the licence fee by taking advantage of such services.

Think back 6 years: the thought of watching TV on your computer or mobile phone wasn't realistic, now we take it for granted. Who can predict where technology will take us 6 years hence?

I would not be in the least bit surprised if the licence fee was replaced with one or more of th following: a tax on individual devices, a tax on internet connections (fixed and mobile), or general taxation.

Interesting, and not necessarily exciting, times ahead.

[Mark]

Yep. Whoever is in power accuses the BBC of being biased against them just because they are more neutral than most give them credit for.

[veeten]

and it's why he reminds me of another media magnate of olden times, William Randolph Hearst.

[BDunnell]

All complaints of bias against the BBC are purely in the eye of the beholder. It is a fine institution, and I would gladly pay £145 a year just for Radio 4 and now the World Service. I mean that quite genuinely.

[Lousada]

If they need to save money, they could start by dropping kickball, speeding cars and other sports the commercial broadcasters would be more than willing to broadcast themselves. Instead they will probably cut the indepth news coverage and the interesting documentaries they now produce :mad:

[Drew]

They should make the Irish pay the licence fee along with how ever many other countries seem to be able to watch BBC without paying for it!

Seriously though, I think the licence fee is more than worth it, most decent tv programmes are made by the BBC in the UK.

[Daniel]

If they need to save money, they could start by dropping kickball, speeding cars and other sports the commercial broadcasters would be more than willing to broadcast themselves. Instead they will probably cut the indepth news coverage and the interesting documentaries they now produce :mad:

Tbh i think they should drop football. Someone else will pick it up and I'm sure they'll do a decent job.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Tbh i think they should drop football. Someone else will pick it up and I'm sure they'll do a decent job.

The BBC shows football? :confused:

I'd happily pay £145 so i can watch F1 without adverts.

[Sleeper]

The BBC shows football? :confused:

I'd happily pay £145 so i can watch F1 without adverts.
Along with the forum and the 5Live comentary its definitely worth it IMO.

[MrMetro]

They should make the Irish pay the licence fee along with how ever many other countries seem to be able to watch BBC without paying for it!

Seriously though, I think the licence fee is more than worth it, most decent tv programmes are made by the BBC in the UK.

well, the BBC need to encrypt the sat signal, as it's on a free to air sat, which technically means anybody is allowed to watch it.

[Dave B]

The cost of preventing the relavitely low number of people who "freeload" (and that includes the RoI, ex-pats in the Costas, and those abroad who circumvent the geolocking on the website) would be prohibitive and gain pretty much nothing.

Plus there are people in the UK quite legally watching the BBC on non-Sky satellite receivers, not all of which have a deccoder slot. They'd be stuffed.

[Dave B]

"[BSkyB's] Average revenue per user, a key metric watched by analysts, grew from £469 to £514 year on year." (source: Guardian, 22 Oct '10 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/22/bskyb-results-news-corp-bid))

Puts the £145.50 licence fee into perspective, doesn't it?

[wedge]

All complaints of bias against the BBC are purely in the eye of the beholder. It is a fine institution, and I would gladly pay £145 a year just for Radio 4 and now the World Service. I mean that quite genuinely.

Wait a minute, newspapers (regardless if they're affiliated to Murdoch or not) aren't struggling with readership?

[Dave B]

Wait a minute, newspapers (regardless if they're affiliated to Murdoch or not) aren't struggling with readership?
They all are. In September 2010, the best performing paper was down 2% year-on-year. The "quality" daily papers are suffering even more, down approximately 13 - 16% year-on-year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/page/2010/abcs2010

Of course what those figures don't show is whether or not the readership is migrating to online versions. The e-ABCs are hopelessly unreliable, depending on unique visitors. That's not a fair comparison: if I visit A's website every single day for hours at a time, my visit carries the same weight as if I visit B's website just once and immediately leave.

[Garry Walker]

It's sickening to remember that the very first person to meet with David Cameron after he became PM was Rupert Murdoch. The same guy whose newspapers (and, in more subtle ways, his news channel) lobbied for the Conservatives. Lest we forget, the political editor of The Sun is on record (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/04/murdoch-biographer-sun-editor)as saying "It's my job to see that Cameron f***ing well gets into Downing Street".

You seem to have a problem with that, but do you also have a problem with leftie papers promoting their idols?
Were you bothered by many parts of US media when they kept hyping Obama during the election process?

[Rollo]

I definately have "a problem with leftie papers promoting their idols", namely because in Australia, there aren't any.
For the whole of Australia, the only two groups of major circulating newspapers are Fairfax Ltd, and News Corporation. That's it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the freedom of the press, but when all other voices are eventually snuffed out entirely, how truly free is it?

[Garry Walker]

I agree wholeheartedly with the freedom of the press, but when all other voices are eventually snuffed out entirely, how truly free is it?

You know how people opposed to obama felt then.

[Rollo]

Did FOX News, the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal decide to close down?

[Dave B]

While I fear for the future of the BBC under this government I'm more concerned about the increasing influence of the Murdoch media empire, not just in the UK but worldwide. Increasingly news has become confused with opinion. Murdoch is pushing a particular view via his "news" outlets and with his increasing dominance in broadcasting comes increased influence and ability to shape and direct opinions. When the Murdoch view coincides with political power we should all be concerned.
Our joke of a Business Secretary, Vince Cable, has "declared war on Murdoch" according to leaked reports from the Telegraph today. (Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/21/vince-cable-rupert-murdoch); Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8217253/Vince-Cable-I-have-declared-war-on-Rupert-Murdoch.html))

On the face of it, this is good news as it's likely to mean the deal for him to take full control of BSkyB is dead in the water. However with this revelation coming hot on the heels of Cable's criticism of key Conservative policy, it's far more likely that he'll be kicked into the long grass and replaced with someone who'll rubber-stamp the deal.

[Edit, in genuine "you couldn't make it up" news, Sky News reported that Cable had already resigned. Trouble was, it wasn't true - they were duped by a fake Twitter account. Quality journalism at its best.... :rolleyes: ]

Look forward to the UK's version of Fox News (Fair and Balanced my foot) anytime soon. :s

[Dave B]

PS: The irony of a satellite broadcaster being attacked by someone called Cable hasn't escaped me...

[Eki]

Week ago, my cable TV operator made previously free BBC World Service a part of a pay TV plan. I'm very disappointed, but if they think I'm going to pay, they are sadly mistaken. I didn't pay for live Formula 1, and I'm not going to pay BBC World Service.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The thing that makes the BBC great is that it has succeeded to be relvent where most public broadcasters are not. That said, commericial sponsors and having some sponsorship of broadcasts could supplement what the BBC does. Ya...commercials helping subsidize the BBC. It is how the CBC in Canada does business. Hockey Night in Canada and some of their more popular shows subsidize the rest of the programming lineup. While the Fed's here give them money, the fact is, it has only subsidized the bloated bureaucracy that does NOTHING to create better and more relevant TV.

In the case of the BBC, I have no idea if there is waste or not, but the idea that people PAY a license fee to keep it alive in the modern era is rather quaintly socialist and old fashioned. Let the BBC put out some broadcasts and get commercial ad money for them and then take less from the government. Novel eh? Capitalism...it works...what a thought!

[Bolton Midnight]

Serves them right for being so cosy with Labour.

Question Time with its hand picked lefty audience, BBC News not attacking Labour over its incompetence over the last 13 years.

Ch4 news is far more neutral.

In these hard times we all need to tighten our belts and that should include the public sector regardless of how they feel they are exempt for some unfathomable reason - welcome to the real world.

[MrMetro]

Serves them right for being so cosy with Labour.

Question Time with its hand picked lefty audience, BBC News not attacking Labour over its incompetence over the last 13 years.

Ch4 news is far more neutral.

In these hard times we all need to tighten our belts and that should include the public sector regardless of how they feel they are exempt for some unfathomable reason - welcome to the real world.

I find it funny that you criticise Labour, yet since Blair took control, Labour have had more in common with the Torys than the original Labour Party

[ArrowsFA1]

Serves them right for being so cosy with Labour.
:laugh:

A familiar refrain from the government, and it's good that, regardless of which party is in power, accusations of bias are frequently heard. If they weren't then the BBC wouldn't be doing its job properly.

If the Tories have their way then the BBC is eventually likely to be weakened, broken up, and sold off so that their chum Rupert can step in and influence the media in any way he seems fit.

[Bolton Midnight]

:laugh:

A familiar refrain from the government, and it's good that, regardless of which party is in power, accusations of bias are frequently heard. If they weren't then the BBC wouldn't be doing its job properly.



I can't recall the Beeb ever being pro Tory, hardly surprising in view of what a bunch of lefties are employed by the Beeb.

The time has come for reality to bite Aunty Beeb on the bum, hope it hurts like hell, bunch of pinkos have nobody but themselves to blame for their wasteful spending and left wing love in.

[Dave B]

I can't recall the Beeb ever being pro Tory, hardly surprising in view of what a bunch of lefties are employed by the Beeb.

You're entitled to an opinon, of course, but the statistics don't agree:


Sky News displays the strongest political bias of any major UK news broadcaster, according to a survey conducted by TheMediaBlog.co.uk, the full results of which will be published later this week.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64 per cent) said Sky News displays a clear pro-Conservative bias in its reporting

....

Channel 4 and the BBC meanwhile faired far better - seen as being largely impartial on balace.


Source: http://themediablog.typepad.com/the-media-blog/2010/04/uk-media-bias-bbc-channel-4-sky-itv-politics-brown-cameron-clegg-230270410.html April 2010

[ArrowsFA1]

...hardly surprising in view of what a bunch of lefties are employed by the Beeb.
Who? Basil Brush :laugh:


A SUN investigation has unearthed an alarming BBC bias against the Tories in the run up to the Election.

THE Basil Brush Show featured a school election with a cheat called Dave wearing a blue rosette.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898713/Sun-unearths-alarming-smears-against-Tories-by-state-owned-BBC.html

[Dave B]

Right, have I understood this correctly?

Vince Cable can't now rule on a Murdoch buy-out of Sky because he's no longer impartial. Fair enough. So Jeremy Hunt will now make the decision.


Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.

"We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment

The source? Hunt's very own website.
http://www.jeremyhunt.org/newsshow.aspx?ref=452

So exactly how is he any more impartial? :s

[Bolton Midnight]

Ch4 news is far more neutral.

Now I wonder who said that, oh yes me, silly me.

I don't watch Sky News.

[Bolton Midnight]

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

[Dave B]

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview
Stone me, is that the best you can do? Headline aside, let me read you the actual quote from Thomson:



In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

Now it is a completely different generation.

1979.

And you criticise me for using figures from 2006?

:rotflmao:

[Dave B]

Further reading and the article actually undermines your own point:


Indeed, some say that because of the BBC's paranoia about being seen as left-wing, it tacks to the other side. Thompson chuckles at the notion of a "double- or triple-bluff". But David Cameron was certainly given an easy ride in opposition, and the BBC's political coverage - like that of Sky - appeared even to be willing on a Cameron-led government during the intense days of coalition talks.

[Bolton Midnight]

Have you ever watched Question Time? The audience is hand picked, now if that isn't biased I don't know what is.

I sent in several applications to be in the audience every single one that showed left leanings (pro EU, ethnic, anti war) was accepted and every single right wing (pro war anti EU white) was ignored.

Pinkos, hope they enjoy the cuts - not before time.

[Dave B]

Have you ever watched Question Time? The audience is hand picked, now if that isn't biased I don't know what is.

Yes, I watch it regularly. The government of the day always seems to be criticised, whichever side of the House they sit. The reason the audience is hand-picked is precisely to ensure a reasonable balance of political view, social and economic standing, gender and race.


I sent in several applications to be in the audience every single one that showed left leanings (pro EU, ethnic, anti war) was accepted and every single right wing (pro war anti EU white) was ignored.

Every single one? They get tens of thousand of applications for each edition, with only a couple of hundred making the cut, and yet "every single one" of yours slipped through provided you ticked the right boxes. Something doesn't ring true here. How many are we talking about?

Edit: for accuracy, my figures are incorrect but broadly in proportion. This article (http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2010/02/11/behind-the-scenes-at-bbc%E2%80%99s-question-time/)explains that 150 people are picked from a typical 4000 applicants for each show.

[Eki]

The thing that makes the BBC great is that it has succeeded to be relvent where most public broadcasters are not. That said, commericial sponsors and having some sponsorship of broadcasts could supplement what the BBC does. Ya...commercials helping subsidize the BBC. It is how the CBC in Canada does business. Hockey Night in Canada and some of their more popular shows subsidize the rest of the programming lineup. While the Fed's here give them money, the fact is, it has only subsidized the bloated bureaucracy that does NOTHING to create better and more relevant TV.

In the case of the BBC, I have no idea if there is waste or not, but the idea that people PAY a license fee to keep it alive in the modern era is rather quaintly socialist and old fashioned. Let the BBC put out some broadcasts and get commercial ad money for them and then take less from the government. Novel eh? Capitalism...it works...what a thought!
Yes, it works so well that the BBC will be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and show only reality shows, game shows and TV shopping network like other channels financed by ads.

[Bolton Midnight]

Yes, I watch it regularly. The government of the day always seems to be criticised, whichever side of the House they sit. The reason the audience is hand-picked is precisely to ensure a reasonable balance of political view, social and economic standing, gender and race.

Every single one? They get tens of thousand of applications for each edition, with only a couple of hundred making the cut, and yet "every single one" of yours slipped through provided you ticked the right boxes. Something doesn't ring true here. How many are we talking about?

Edit: for accuracy, my figures are incorrect but broadly in proportion. This article (http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2010/02/11/behind-the-scenes-at-bbc%E2%80%99s-question-time/)explains that 150 people are picked from a typical 4000 applicants for each show.

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.

No they hand pick it to make sure the left wing bods get an easy ride and are made to look better.

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.

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.

[Dave B]

Out at the mo but I will explain it to you tomorrow but you clearly dnt understand how selection process works, nothing to do with odds.

[Bolton Midnight]

I know how it works already, if they have an audience of 150 they bin all the right wing ones and pick 150 pro left wing applications.

Very unlikely that they would ignore all 3 right wing applications and pick all 3 left wing ones if it was random.

[Dave B]

It's NOT random that's exactly the point. You're embarrassing yourself. Explain in full tomorrow I promise.

[Bolton Midnight]

It's NOT random that's exactly the point. You're embarrassing yourself. Explain in full tomorrow I promise.

No I am not, stop being so up yourself.

They hand pick it to ensure a massive left wing majority. You clearly haven't watched the show, if you had you see that the selection process is working as the questions do not match the general feeling of those that text in messages. The texters are more representative of UK as a whole, the audience isn't.

[Eki]

Week ago, my cable TV operator made previously free BBC World Service a part of a pay TV plan. I'm very disappointed, but if they think I'm going to pay, they are sadly mistaken. I didn't pay for live Formula 1, and I'm not going to pay BBC World Service.
Now they are sending the Japanese NHK World and some South Korean channel for free instead. Great.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, it works so well that the BBC will be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and show only reality shows, game shows and TV shopping network like other channels financed by ads.

Why is a national broadcaster necessary in the first place? High standards of quality will find niches in the private channels. We have 200 plus channels on my TV right now and some of the stuff created to fill this 200 channel universe is very much what you would like. 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....

[Bolton Midnight]

ITV and Channel 4 manage quality programmes yet they aren't funded that way so that whole argument falls at the first hurdle.

I like the BBC on the whole but it isn't above cuts / reality / shake up.

[Rollo]

Why is a national broadcaster necessary in the first place?

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.

[Mark in Oshawa]

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.

[ArrowsFA1]

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.

[Dave B]

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.


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:


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.


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:

[Bolton Midnight]

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?

[Mark]

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

[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.

[Daniel]

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.....

[Bolton Midnight]

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

[MrMetro]

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

[Bolton Midnight]

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.

[Daniel]

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.
See the problem is that what is essential for you is not essential to me and vice versa.

[Bolton Midnight]

See the problem is that what is essential for you is not essential to me and vice versa.

No not really

I don't use meals on wheels for example but can see how it is an essential service, unless Big Society volunteers are willing to do it for exes only.

But these departments for example

British Monarchy
British National Space Centre
Environment Agency
Equal Opportunities Commission
Equality and Human Rights Commission
European Consumer Centre for Services
European Ombudsman
Racial Equality, Commission for
Resilience, UK (Civil Contingencies Secretariat)
Women's National Commission
Child Support Agency
Civil Contingencies Secretariat
Culture, Media and Sport, Department for
Stabilisation Unit

all these could go or at be massively reduced and it wouldn't be drastic, folk wouldn't die, the country wouldn't be any the worse off for not having all the bureaucrats shuffling bits of paper amongst themselves at our expense.

This is the sort of crap that Labour massively increased for no reason other than to massage the unemployment figures, buy votes and try and make the economy look a bit better despite the fact they were keeping they were burying the fact we were in the worst peace time financial mess ever.

[ArrowsFA1]

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

parasites
That would be the world of £25bn worth of tax avoidance in the last year alone :p : Such a fine example to all of us.

You do such a good job of representing this Tory government's attitude towards those it represents. Well done.

[AndySpeed]

Environment Agency

Would love to know who you think would be calling the public, giving out advice in advance of likely flood events.

Who would be giving out permits for the abstraction of water in stressed areas? If it was totally privatised so much would be overlooked.

[Bolton Midnight]

Would love to know who you think would be calling the public, giving out advice in advance of likely flood events.

Who would be giving out permits for the abstraction of water in stressed areas? If it was totally privatised so much would be overlooked.

As ever, read what is written

that department could be cut down or is that all they do 52 weeks a year?

Even little things like dropping temperature in all offices to 18 would save a fortune, but these parasites would grizzle, strike etc.


That would be the world of £25bn worth of tax avoidance in the last year alone :p : Such a fine example to all of us.

You do such a good job of representing this Tory government's attitude towards those it represents. Well done.

Have you any comprehension how much tax and NI revenue his firm brings in to the UK, a down sight more than all these worthless parasites do as they bring in zilch not a single ****ing penny they just take, he's quite entitled to avoid what he does, more in fact. Odd how rentamob didn't barricade Tesco as they avoid far more than Top Shop do, ahh but I was forgetting silly me, they gave loads of back handers to Labour didn't they. Blair was even offered or given a job by Tesco when he stepped down as chief liar and murderer.

[BDunnell]

As ever, read what is written

that department could be cut down or is that all they do 52 weeks a year?

Even little things like dropping temperature in all offices to 18 would save a fortune, but these parasites would grizzle, strike etc.



Have you any comprehension how much tax and NI revenue his firm brings in to the UK, a down sight more than all these worthless parasites do as they bring in zilch not a single ****ing penny they just take, he's quite entitled to avoid what he does, more in fact. Odd how rentamob didn't barricade Tesco as they avoid far more than Top Shop do, ahh but I was forgetting silly me, they gave loads of back handers to Labour didn't they. Blair was even offered or given a job by Tesco when he stepped down as chief liar and murderer.

I find it quite remarkable that, in this and other threads, you continue to argue with us despite the fact that you must realise yourself to be intellectually inferior. Read your poorly-punctuated rants, and then read what people like Arrows post. You might see what I mean.

[ArrowsFA1]

...he's quite entitled to avoid what he does, more in fact.
I fundamentally disagree that anyone is "entitled" to avoid paying tax and by advocating such action, or doing nothing about it, a dangerous precedent is being set.

[Bolton Midnight]

Avoidance is perfectly legal, why pay more, if the foolish civil servants leave loopholes then any decent account will spot them.

I don't pay a penny more than I have to, and begrudge paying that as I know the government will only waste it.

But slightly connected, I do think that some means of paying your winter fuel allowance, free eye tests etc back into the system should be set up. I believe in America many deliberately over pay their taxes to help the country (although rather strangely anything you over pay is tax deductible).

[Daniel]

Environment Agency

folk wouldn't die

So if people weren't warned about flooding and got caught in flooding they somehow magically wouldn't die? :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

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.....

I guess you missed them roasting George W for the bailouts at the end of his tenure. Or the heaps of abuse he took when he first took office and invited Teddy Kennedy in to give input on his education bill? How about the abuse the commentators gave him over Rumsfeld's tenure in how he mismanaged Iraq? Fox is critical, but if you only listened to some people, you wouldn't know that. Fox isn't the BBC, make no mistake, but they are not exactly stupid. close to 40% of their viewers vote Democrat or are independents. It isn't just the network of mouth breeders and whackjobs...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh yes..and one more thing Daniel. The day MSNBC goes after Obama for being too liberal will be the first day....

The only difference between MSNBC, and FOX? Viewers....only the most hardcore left of center voters seem to show MSNBC any loyalty.

In Canada or the UK, public broadcasters tend to be neutral and left of center. I don't quarrel with their political stance, I watch both but I do object being told I must fund them as if THEY are somehow the only credible news sources on the dial. In the USA, publically funded PBS exists, but they get their own donations, and survive on that basis. FOX, MSNBC, the big 3 Networks and CNN offer various slants on news, and anyone from Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh can find a place to get their news, and while I may not always like the slant, at least figure out what the hell is going on.

In most countries, private media takes this responbility seriously. IN any democratic society, media is often flowing back and forth looking for a unique audience. No one network is going to corner all the viewers, and that leaves opportunity for other voices. If you are a Labour supporter in the UK, I am sure someone will be advocating your political slant with his news broadcast if there was no BBC. Just like someone will be spouting off the Tory line or maybe something in the middle. In America, the only reason Fox gets ripped, is because for many years, the media made a big show of pretending they didn't have a bias, and the reality is a lot of excellent books have pointed out there was a bias in TV media in the US all along, some of it going both ways. FOX just has been a little more obvious, and people reacted. They are the number one network in the US because most of the others have tried to occupy the left to mushy middle of the political spectrum, and outside of the odd voice on CNN, conservative commentators were all driven out. Beck was a CNN guy. Tucker Carlson ( a knob to be sure) was CNN. George Will is never on with another Conservative on ABC, and he and John Stossel were the only conservatives on that network. Stossel is more libertarian anyhow and is on Fox, along with Geraldo, and Alan Colmes, two guys who are NOT in any way conservative. Ditto for Juan Williams...

In short, the Americans have proven you cover the political spectrum in media quite easily in a free society without government controlled broadcasters. In a nation where free speech is supposed to be treasured, in media saturation I would argue the US has media voices all over the spectrum.