Anon writes:
Natalie, whoever moderates this site.
The day the left-wing bottom feeders decide to slough off work, whilst promising a summer’s worth of skiving, all the while HOOVERING up licence fee cash from people they threaten and imprison, and this is the best you can do…’Robert Ayers writes to say that you can read an interview with three prominent Iraqi citizens here’…?Caaaaam on, let’s be having you.
**Lady, if you can’t do it, don’t have the time, etc., then step away from the website.
Actually, I am not that interested in the strike. Sure, I think the Beeb is extravagant, that its extravagance is made far worse by its having money on tap from the taxpayer, and that it should be less extravagant. But if the strike ends in complete victory for the management who then go on to make such savings that the licence fee is not only kept static but actually reduced (not that anyone has seriously suggested that’s gonna happen), you know what? I’ll scarcely care. My beefs with the BBC are:
(a) The very existence of a government funded news and entertainment service. Ugh. Only familiarity blinds us to the banana-republic awfulness of this idea. It it should be consigned, along with the idea of government-run newspapers, to the great cat litter-tray of history.
(b) Contrary to its Charter the BBC is not impartial. It’s the Guardian on stilts yet unlike the real Guardian I cannot choose not to buy it.
(c) It justifies taking money by force on the grounds that it promotes the national interest, liberal democratic values and the public good and then affects to be neutral between this country and its enemies and between random killers and their victims.
If one of my fellow posters wants to disagree, that’s fine. Debate is good. If the comments boxes are radioactive with schadenfreude over the strike that’s fine too. For me, though, I am concerned by the waste in the BBC’s budget only in the same way that I am concerned by waste in the NHS or in the schools. It’s a bad thing. But not what I want to blog about.
Surely the strike is a good opportunity to point out to people that we are forced to pay for this monstrousity even when the staff are not working.
The strike is important because it is “…the thing wherein we`ll catch the conscience of the king”.
The BBC is a deeply Political Organization incapable of producing that which it is under charter to produce.
I was Tony Benn giving succour on the picket lines yesterday, not Baroness Thatcher.
Actually the BBC is exactly like the Guardian in everyway.Including funding.
Despite a massive cover price, and government funded advertising, the Grauniad still manages to make a healthy loss.
So how does it stay published. Easy, it belongs to the Manchester Evening News group. It’s mainly working class readership subsidizes the white, rich, lefty middle-crass Guardian.
As usual, the workers get stiffed so that a bunch of commie loving dopes get to force on us the failed, childish, reactionary and immoral policies that have helped make this benighted isle the place it is today.
The Guardian, like the BBC is the welfare state, writ small.
The strike has given us the opportunity to see the faces of the Beeb puppet masters. Rewind 20 or 30 years and one can picture these characters waving CND placards (rather than ‘HANDS OFF THE BBC’ ones) in between stumbling their way to a 2:2 in sociology from Sussex poly.
Still, if these BBC journos and tech-heads output is as great as their employer claims at every available opportunity, they’ll have no trouble finding employment elsewhere. Won’t they?
“The BBC Gravy Train will be terminating at Job Centre Plus. All change, please. All change.”
The BBC is a monstrosity that should be done away with????????
PLEASE tell me what wonderful alternatives you suggest….a number of privately owned, privately funded broadcasters dependent of advertising revenues to keep them afloat – perhaps a fabulously unbiased and impartial network like Murdoch’s SKY? or maybe we need a UK FOX? PLEASE???!!!!!!
The BBC is free in LAW from government influence. Granted, it doesn’t always succeed, and it is not 100% perfect, but by god, it is a damned site better than the alternatives. The BBC remains the most independent news network in the world toady. To do away with it would be a traversty and injustive. Thank god, the vast majority of British public won’t let it happen.
Actually, believe it or not, it’s not compulsory to pay the licence fee. I don’t – and despite the constant hectoring of the TV Licencing Authority, whose screwed-up letters make great playthings for my cat, I’m not breaking any law. I just don’t have a television any more. I have radio but that’s not subject to a fee any more, and besides the radio doesn’t demand my undivided attention so I can get a life.
Perhaps you could consider that option!
Hilary,
We have a left wing version of Fox News called the BBC. Maybe the license fee should pay for both networks?
The BBC could just go subscription and not run any adverts at all. If it’s as good as you say then the BBC won’t lose any customers, and the UK will jail and fine less people. Win-Win.
The BBC strike speaks for itself – as does the absurd prominence that the BBC itself gives it. No need for the organisers of this blog to go overboard on it.
ITN seem to be having a field day. Their chief political correspondent was the only one with cojones during the election, and now they are able to point out in their news the huge costs at the BBC. Average wage there is £39,000 apparently – and double that to allow for accommodation and other overheads. That is way excessive for a lot of the second-rate hacks they employ.
Sacking 10,000 would be a far better deal, but would still not bring the BBC within the same benchmarks for staffing levels that other broadcasters achieve.
Hopefully the strike will run and run, making people more and more fed up with the BBC. At some point the Government may even start looking at the Chrter arrangements again.
Hilary, ITN is an example of the alternative and has been for 50 years
Hilary
Wishing something dont make it so.
BBC News is “trusted” because like a mantra it is often repeated. Trusted it may be but deserving of that trust it is not.
Given the logic of your position, why then does the BBC not go the whole hog and monopolize newspaper production funded by a compulsory and dedicated tax?.
Hilary
Sky/Fox may be biased, and probably are. But the basic fact remains that we are not FORCED to pay for them, unlike ‘our’ good old BBC.
At least The Guardian, The Mail and other news organisations etc wear their colours on their sleaves. The difference is that the BBC is supposed to be impartial, which it is clearly NOT (even by its own admission!!!).
The BBC is a Dinosaur, this £2.5+ billion pound monstrosity (which costs the British tax-payer the equivalent of Somalia’s annual GDP) is a gross waste of money.
I can’t help but feel that our comrades at the BBC are shooting themselves in the foot by striking.
Do they expect sympathy for their cosy inbreed existance?
It will just highlight the fact we do not need the BBC anymore, as there are a vast array of alternatives. It seems as though the BBC feels they are still the only broadcaster in Britain.
The only remotely useful service is the BBC Online, however, costing £75 million pounds a year to run is clearly appalling value for money.
It is just not true to say “The BBC remains the most independent news network”
Anon in the first post of this thread summed it up. The people who think the BBC is so great are welcome to pay for it. Given the choice (which I’m not) my money would go elsewhere.
Kay-offs at the BBC?-Now their entering the world of normal people.
Perhaps some of them will start their own media businesses–and really learn.
Natalie – I LOVE YOU – BIG BEAR HUG
“The BBC is free in LAW from government influence. Granted, it doesn’t always succeed, and it is not 100% perfect, but by god, it is a damned site better than the alternatives.”
That’s the classic defence, but it doesn’t work. Being independent of the Government doesn’t make you free of a particular ideological position.
If someone wants a broadcasting organization that takes the BBC’s current ideological positions then it’s open to them to fund it themselves. NPR in the US is pretty much what Americans call “liberal” but it is funded by its listeners and sponsors, not by tax money.
Fox, on the other hand, is what Americans call conservative, and it’s funded by its advertisers.
You are free to use either one of them, but you are not forced by law to fund either of them.
NPR is actually funded by the US government as well — just not fully funded. That’s where the listeners come in.
” NPR is actually funded by the US government as well — just not fully funded. That’s where the listeners come in.”
Thanks for the correction. Maybe we’ve found one more thing to fix 🙂
Natalie –
I agree with you that the strike is of little consequence.
In terms of your analysis of what is wrong, I agree with (b) and (c) but not (a), or rather I am not sure (a) is relevant. The BBC is certainly not a government mouthpiece as Tony Blair has learnt to his cost. It has its own agenda. Are you saying you object to any publicly funded news and entertainment service?
David Field
It is a statist notion to have publicly-funded broadcasting. Any such broadcaster ends up being :
1 inefficient and overmanned (an axiomatic consequence of living on Other People’s Money, money it has not earned)
2 arrogant and preachy
3 biased in the sense of having (like any organisation) its own political agenda – an agenda that is not properly tested against public acceptance.
The BBC did not exist, we as a nation would not be rushing to invent it. It is a throwback, an historical anomaly. And it is abusing the privileged position it has been granted. Yes – GRANTED – not earned.
“Are you saying you object to any publicly funded news and entertainment service?”
YES! We object to entertainment funded by the threat of jailing those who would rather not pay.
Subscription is a much more efficient way of collecting funding. The BBC rejection of freedom of choice to fund it just shows the BBC has no confidence that people would willingly pay for it’s output.
The fact that the BBC has its own agenda is exactly what one would expect from the phenomenon of producer capture. One of the most undesirable effects with state-owned media, as with state-owned anything, is that after a while they do not *even* perform useful functions for the government.
Another example might be Margaret Thatcher’s national curriculum. I do not think the government has any business to specify a national curriculum. But all Thatcher wanted was a fairly harmless summary of the Kings-n-battles type stuff every kid should know. Producer capture ensured that this slightly repressive tool turned in her hand and cut her. The educational establishment moulded it to its own agenda.
As a fairly hard-core libertarian / minarchist, yes, I do object to any publicly funded news and entertainment service. However, as with a lot of things, I object with different degrees of vehemence according to circumstances. Some state bodies should be abolished yesterday. Others should be abolished over a period of years with a carefully thought out plan to mitigate any bad effects on individuals. If the BBC was what it claimed to be it would be in the second category.
I thoroughly disagree that if the BBC did not exist, we as a nation would not be rushing to invent it.
Having been in the same room as somebody watching ‘Celebrity Love Island’ last night, the inescapable conclusion is that the broadcast market in is perpetuating the great British downward intellectual spiral with drastic consequences for us all.
The scandal is that despite its vast budget the present BBC is incapable of providing much that’s an improvement from the commercially funded dross (although the freely available radio output is far better).
I am in agreement with Cockney – a quick glance at the other tv output available (with the occasional exception of C4) leaves me in no doubt that we need the BBC that its output is of much hugher quality than a lot of the ‘infotainment’ available elsewhere, and that without, we’d be much more susceptible to being fed ONE ideological line – because profit-making monoplies will be freed up to dominate the news markets. Having studied both sides of the argument, those who attack the BBC as pro-establishment, gov mouthpiece, as well as those who argue quite the opposite – that it is ‘looney left’ or pursuing a leftist anti-war agenda (knocked from both sides!) I can only conclude that in an enormous effort to maintain standards, give a balanced account of events and opinion, the BBC cannot please all the people all the time.
Hilary
In effect, you have enough of a brain to be turned off by low quality tv, but you’re too lazy to get off your arse and do something interesting. Because you can’t be bothered to move from the tv you think it right that that state uses force to get me to pay for it.
I propose a deal: I’ll pay for your tv licence if you pay for my books.
What a strange response!
Not that it is particularly relevant to the debate – but I rarely watch tv and am referring in the most part to radio output. Sadly, as a postgraduate student I spend most of my time reading and researching and have little time for tv watching. I am studying this debate as part of an academic assignment, and am therefore very interested in your views – although I must admit I find your tone disingenuous and not altogether helpful. In creating an arena for debate on this subject I rather think that an opnness to ideas and a genuinely enquiring attitude is far more interesting than a narrow, one-sided perspective. I find it a bit odd that these message boards tend to be dominated by several people who shre precisely the same views as one another – rather than discussion or debate there seems to be a tendancy to congratulate one another’s concurrence and react with ill-considered disdain to any challenge.
I am unsure how I have given the impression that I ‘cannot be bothered to get off my arse’ – in fact I am trying to gain a balanced overall view of many of the competing and conflicting opinions on this subject in order to reach a more informed and considered conclusion. It is unfortunate that in the process I find myself in receipt of personal insults which ifnothing else are based on so very little grounding are vaguely amusing, if, an unnecessary distraction.
I am however, very interested to hear considered views and arguments regrding both the BBC’s partilaity/impartiality and the legitimacy of the licence fee. If I articulate a line that onflicts with your own that is because – and I will freely admit, it has been my belief that the BBC represented a valuable and independent network that is the envy of many other countries (precisely because they lack an equivalent). I am, if you like, throwing them out to be shot down…devils advoctae , whatever you ant to call it. If I challeneg your view, its because I look forward to having mine challenged too. I find many of the arguments here to be rather reactionary and without qualification however. I understand the basic libertarian argument and the discomfort felt about being compelled to buy a TV licence – indeed in many ways I symapthise with this argument, at least theoretically, however, in practice and the the enormous weight of evidence about the laternatives (ie, other countries, other UK networks etc) I tend to think it is in ourbest interests to support and maintain the BBC. I am fully in favour of holding them to account – and certainly concerned about possible government-gagging, but to dismantle the organisation wholly, in my mind, would be to abandon what is a valuable, if not perfect, body.
I thought you might be interested in some of the following links, which demonstrate a diverse arry of viewpoints on the topic of BBC bias – many make compelling arguments and cite credible sources as evidence of BBC bias. The interesting point for me is that some make credible arguments that the BBC is institutionally leftist, and ‘in bed’ with the left – ie following an anti-war agenda, and promoting a Lib Dem agenda, othrs accuse the BBC of failing to give voice to the anti-war movement and adopting a ‘government line’. In both cases a selective collection of reports appear to demonstrate both. I realise that if you hold the view that the very concept of a publicly funded news network is a de facto bad thing – accusations of bias from either side might appear largely irrelevant. However – I do think that the volume of evidence and opinion to supprt both sides of the bias argument demonstrates how very unclear the real situation is. Can they all be right? Can they all be wrong? Or perhaps, just perhaps, the BBC walks a very tight line in an effort to remain balanced?
I’d be interested in your views.
I’m sure you have come accross a lot of these links before, but in the interests of being honest about where I am finding all this stuff I’ll post a few.
For articles about the BBC reliance on offical, government sanctioned sources – and a tendancy to ‘toe the labour party line’ see: http://www.spinwatch.org (many articles by David Miller – who sees the BBC often operating as a government propoganda machine.
For many articles relating to the BBC’s failure to give voice to anti-war coalition and adopting a tacit pro-war agenda see http://www.medialens.org
For work on the BBC’s apparent anti-war bias, – see Robin Aitken’s forthcoming work – Taking sides: Bias at the BBC
For argument that BBC is anti-war – see Gerald Kaufman’s article on the Hutton Inquiry: ‘BBC anti-war bias’ at http://news.scotsman.com
for more on the perceived anti-war bias see http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog
I could go on and on…there is a lot out there….but I won’t. As I said, I’m sure you have come accross many of these before in any case.
An example of two counterpoints.
Panorma’s feature ‘The Case Against Saddam’. An in depth documentary that looked at Saddam’s despotism uncompromisingly. Taken alone – a prime example of journalism that seems to support the coalition invasion.
Adam Curtis’ The Power of Nightmares’. A three-parter that undermines the case for invasion and the ideology accompanying the war on terror. Taken alone – an apparent attack on the Blair-Bush line.
Taken together…? A balance of views?
Another example:
the letter sent by Blair to Dyke,Sambrook and Davies requesting the BBC refrain from taking such an anti-war line has been cited by many as evidence that the BBC are and were underpressure to ‘get the anti-war voice off the airwaves’. Sambrooks subsequent memo to his journalists asks them to make sure that pro-war callers and writers-in are given equal airtime ‘to ensure balance and fairness’.
Another letter, from Stephen Whittle (editorial policy) asks BBC journalists to ensure the anti-war voice is given a balanced hearing (“we must reflect significant opposition to allow the arguments to be heard and tested’. This has been cited as evidence that the BBC tried to undermine the coalition line.
Taken together?……
Hilary | 25.05.05 – 3:11 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
Hilary
Now THAT woud have been a decent opening. I’ve read your (I think) two short, previous comments which simply stated the ‘BBC is good’, or something similar.
Yes, the BBC is biased strongly in a liberal left direction. This site alone contains a large archive of examples. People do post here to defend the BBC but I have noticed that they rarely, if ever, post examples of where the BBC is biased to the right.
Regarding the licence fee, the quality or otherwise of the output is irrelevent. The state requires all residents of the UK to seek permission in order to own a tv. That alone is wholly contradictory with the idea of an open, liberal society.
Further, it requires residents to pay for this permission. If such a regime did not exist but were proposed today it would be laughed at. Funds raised then go wholly towards a state-owned broadcaster. The idea that we need a state-owned broadcaster in 2005 is truly ludicrous.
You can draw the parallels with food, newspapers and a million other goods. The state does not provide food nor newspapers, nor does it require that you pay for permission to buy food or newspapers.
So, for my part, the notion that I must pay the state for permission to own a tv is too ludicrous to put up with. I won’t do it. If people want the BBC they can pay for it themselves.
Technology gives us hundreds of channels on a subscription basis. Even some BBC channels are available on this basis. If people want them they pay for them. If they want food and newspapers they DO pay for them themselves.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
Hilary
I was responding to your post two above.
The BBC/government spat over Iraq is a red herring here. The BBC takes a consistent liberal, left-wing, anti-US/capitalism/UK/Israel line. Blair’s actions on Iraq pulled government policy into line with the Bush administration’s policy (in fact, US government policy since Clinton’s time) and we know what the liberal left think of that.
As far as the BBC is concerned on Iraq Blair had stepped out of line and was fair game himself. In the greater scheme of things, however, it was nothing more than a family squabble.
Hilary
One other thing.
We don’t need a vast amount of evidence anymore to conclude that the BBC is liberal.
John Humphrys confirms that himself:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/08/bbc_presenter_h.html
In response to the first of your two posts, I think it depends very much on what you consider to be left and right, both in Uk party politics and on the international level. If by a ‘liberal line’ you mean failing to address or give equal credence to Tory policy and the like – I am unsure – after all during the recent election campaign equal airtime was given to the two major parties, and despite the Beeb’s apparent ‘love-affair with the Lib Dems’ the third ascendent party again received rather less than a third of airtime. If you consider the coalition Blair-Bush agenda to be on the ‘right’ (I must admit I do tend to) there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the BBC actually spent far more time relaying the official mesage than other networks. See the Cardiff University Study – content analysis that reveals that the BBC gave far less aurtime to anti-war reps than C4, ITN, 5 and even Sky. Neverthelss, the tone of many broadcasters does indeed appear to adopt a leftist tone. Perhaps the distinction is between an institutional leftism (which I find questionable) and the individual journalists – which seems more feasible – again this raises the question of editorial responsibility a la Hutton. It goes on……
Anyway, as I suspected, if your opinion is that a publicly-funded broadcaster is a bad idea full stop – I guess you do find this stuff a ‘red herring’. It’d be only relevant to someone who (like me I will admit openly) thinks the BBC should be maintained – but needs to be monitored and held to account.
On the second post:
I do take your point, and the concurrent views of many others that the idea of a state endorsed, publicly funded media outlet seems at least in theory to be incompatible with a liberal free society. In theory at least I think your argument holds much water – where I tend to differ with you is that given the weight of evidence that suggests that wholly privately owned subscription servivces are in fact even more vulnerable to the domiantion of a single agenda than the Beeb. Whilst the national papers do, as someone has suggested, ‘wear their politics on their sleeve’ and can therefore be freely chosen in full knowledge of the agenda being sold, the broadcast media tends not to be as candid. One need only look to the US example – where the vast majority of the radio airwaves are dominated by right, (some might say extreme) agendas, frequently promoting an exclusionary religious code, yet – like FOX purporting to be ‘Fair and Balanced’. The risk of private ownership is obvious…isn’t it? If (and I realise it is an ‘if’) we accept the power of private proprietors to dictate news agendas – and fail (as has been the case thus far) to prevent enormous monoplolies emerging, it seems that the likelihood is that the British media will become more like an atomised series of competing, entrenched perspectives, in such a climate balanced dialogue becomes rarer.
Quite apart from news agendas though – the question of quality does have to be raised. It is part of the BBC’s remit to provide eduactional high quality programming, and I would argue that compared to its competitors it does so. If ratings and ad revenues are the ONLY object of programme-makers, what happens to the alternative productions, the eduactional programmes, the investigative docs? It is well-known that these attract smaller audiences than the reality-tv fad shows etc, does this mean that they are less valid?
The argument that the BBC should continue in this vein, but become a fee-paying optional service is obviously helpful here, but I worry that such a thing could not exist – as soon as it becomes a fee-paying service relying on ratings ONLY it is forced to change is programme-making. ie. it lowers standards. I might be in the minority here, and am sure I’ll get called a snob – but really, the standard of ITV’s output is fairly low in my opinion. In fact, I would go as far as to say their morning show GMTV is downright patronising.
Having said that, the BBC1 Breakfast show can be equally bland. I tend to favour radio 4’s Today, although this obviously demonstrates my tolerance of lefty bias!!!! I’ll not deny my political allegiances – no doubt they colour my opinion.
So, I can understand and sypathise with the aversion to a compulsory taxable nedia, it also goes against all of my intuitions – but I think with the proper checks and balances it can provide an invaluable service and its plusses far outweigh the inevitable minuses of the alternatives.
I’d be interested to hear whether you think it is relevant to look at the US example – the broadcast media there and whether this seems a desirable alternative to you, or indeed the possible risks of allowing monopolies like that of Berlusconi’s in Italy to emerge.
On a lighter note……
Be careful what you wish for….if the BBC is scrapped, we might end up with private networks dominated by an extreme left agenda, completely free to spin their lines..just imagine it, Galloway TV!!!!! a frightening thought indeed!
Hilary,
I’m interested on what based your notion that ITV output is of a lower quality than the BBC. Take your example of GMTV versus Dermot and Natasha’s Morning Moron Show, er, I mean BBC Breakfast. The typical running order for a given half hour on GMTV would be:
potted news headlines,
a scare story for mothers everywhere (e.g. the latest hokey academic report on how your toaster could kill your child),
tiresome and irrelevant nattering between the austere male host and the female auto-cutie
and a two-bit celeb plugging their TV show that’s on later that evening.
BBC Breakfast is almost identical, not merely ‘sometimes just as bland’. Except BBC would substitute the scary story on toasters with a scare story on the dreaded ‘climate change’ or another liberal cause celebre. Watch for yourself. And let’s not try and confuse GMTV and the much more independent and professional ITN, Hilary. Or ITN and ITV for that matter. They’re entirely separate entities.
The idea that the BBC provides output that is of great public need and could not be provided by independently funded broadcasters is a fallacy. Sure, there may be nuggets that genuinely do fall into this category (although I really am struggling to think of any), but at a cost of apx £2.5bn per annum, it provides appalling vfm. For every ‘The Office’ or ‘The Blue Sea’ there are dozens of Bargain Hunts, Strictly Dance Fevers or What Not to Wears. Check the TV Times, Hilary, don’t just swallow up the BBC’s propaganda.
If the BBC wants to continue to chase ratings, as it does at present, (I haven’t seen/heard anyone outside the BBC objectively argue otherwise, Hilary), it should be subjected to market forces. Let’s see if it can survive. I’m sure it would flourish and the only ones who’d complain would be those magnificent BBC producers, journalists and back-office staff who have finally had their freeloading existence terminated.
And you’re right, that aggrandising self-publicist could start his own TV channel. Good luck to him – but it would live and die by subscription/advertising revenue. What a novel idea.
Pete_London: while Scott Campbell is an amusing man, he’s entirely a piss-taker rather than someone with a serious point. Humphries says he’s glad the Beeb is liberal in the sense of “not persecuting gays”. That’s not bias – that’s just common human decency.
Agreed, John B. So why do the BBC fail to properly analyse/scrutinise the rabid homophobia present within some areas of the Muslim community?
Hilary
Galloway TV? Well, we already have Sharia TV on (I thnk) Channel 4 … 😉
Regarding the US, Fox and talk radio generally comes from the right. It’s my impression that blogs are also generally right-wing. But set aganst these are CBS (Dan Rather, anyone?), NBC, ABC, the New York Times and any other number of newspapers, Newsweek has been found out. In effect, the MSM comes from the left.
I don’t live there and don’t know but maybe some kind of balance is achieved all in all.
The key point though is that in a free society people are free to spend their money how they like. Each media outlet is responding to market demand. Apart from a relatively small taxpayer element in NPR’s funding no American is required, by force backed law, to pay for a broadcaster they don’t want.
Not only is this at odds to the UK but the broadcaster we are required to pay for is hugely dominant.
As for the quality, it’s my impression that the best of US tv is at least the equal of the best of UK tv. In comedy and drama I think the US has licked the UK for at least a decade. Markets don’t dumb down, the market mechanism means the best rises.
Not only does the BBC distort news and current affairs, it also hugely affects the funding of other media and programme makers. People would be more inclined to spread their money around if they weren’t required to fund the BBC. Quality would be found in other places. Independent programme makers would find other outlets.
It’s ironic that though we accuse the BBC of being unremmitingly liberal, in commissioning new programmes it is very conservative. New ideas used to be given a chance, that doesn’t happen now. The BBC is now notorious for not taking a punt on something which just may appeal even if it doesn’t fit the tried and tested formula. Hence, far from safeguarding quality tv, the BBC is actually a bar to it.
Your views on how the BBC is funded are noted. However, even if the BBC were impartial (even if it were conservative/libertarian like me) I would still refuse to pay for a licence. The funding mechanism, that I am required to pay for the state’s permission to own a tv, has no place in any form of liberal democracy. This trumps quality, standards, content or any any argument.
john b
If it is liberal to oppose the death penalty, successive polls over many years have shown that the British are not liberal.
I tend to agree that Humphries is being rather facetious – his use of the word ‘broadly’ implying that the BBc like the most of the country is mildly liberal as opposed to far-right or draconian. I don’t think his comments are particularly controversial or revealing, it seems a plain enough fact that most of Britain is ‘BROADLY’ liberal. As for the figures quoted on how many Brits favour the death penalty – there are other polls that counter this – I’ll try to find them – just find that claim a bit questionable.
Pete – I must admit, I find the cosy couplings offered up on BBC breakfast pretty vacuuous for the most part – but not, I might stress because of ‘scare stories’ about climate change – (a lefty cause celebre?….hardly, it receives far less media attention than it did in the 90’s – and furthermore – it kind of er, IS quite important! ?) (no?) I agree thought that the BBC dishes up its fair share of rubbish too, but of course this is balanced with plenty of quality programming, on BBC2 (and 1) as well as the radio channels. I do think the quality has probably slightly deteriorated – but I maintain that it squashes the competition.
Children’s TV deserves a mention. I have a 5 year old – the options here are CBeebies, CBBC, (educational programmes and entertainment, NO ads, or a small number of kids progs on C4 (which are quite good) CITV (sandwiched with a mass of agressive advertising for toys junk food, sweets etc etc etc) or 5’s ‘milkshake’ – lots of kiddy progs, some good, some bloody awful (have you ever had the misfortune of seeing ‘High 5’ ??!!! )- I gather if I had Sky Digital there’d be the glorious possibility of the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon. Fabulous stuff, I don’t think. Of course, a good middle class leftwinger ought to prohibit her child from all tv and spend walks in the woods looking at Funghi, I expect, ha ha ha, but I sadly don’t have an unlimited amount of time to do such things, and admit to relying occasionally on the tv for an hour or so a day. I’d much rather my son watched educational fun programmes without being subjected to an endless barrage of advertising. So…Children’s BBC it is then.
John B, you are adorable! For you to describe *anyone* as “entirely a piss-taker rather than someone with a serious point” when every third post of your own blog either says, “anyone who disagrees with me on issue X is a fuckwit who should be shot” or “I support the introduction of repressive measure X for no other reason than it would annoy the Tories.”
Incidentally, you meant Scott Burgess not Scott Campbell.
And I note that you didn’t see fit to mention that Burgess’s post did not take issue with Humphrys on support for not persecuting gays. It took issue on him over support for the death penalty, or rather on his assumption that normal liberal values mandated BBC opposition to it. Burgess, without stating his own opinion on the death penalty, pointed out that 54% of the British people did support the death penalty, yet this majority view is given short shrift on the BBC.
Hilary, I second Pete_London re CBS, NBC, ABC and the New York Times, and would add the L A Times, CNN and the San Francisco Chronicle. Fox made its money by catering to a large strand of opinion that hitherto had *not* been represented. As for radio, Air America and other left wing stations have been launched and faded every few years.
Regarding CBBC, I agree that the little kids’ programmes are fine. You wait until they are ready for Newsround, though. Even if you are leftwing you may find that the unbroken hymn to Green politics gets irritating after a while. Search this blog for “CBBC” to see more.
“that Burgess’s post did not take issue with Humphrys on support for not persecuting gays. It took issue on him over support for the death penalty, or rather on his assumption that normal liberal values mandated BBC opposition to it. Burgess, without stating his own opinion on the death penalty,”
Hello,
Actually, I noted (in an update added later on the day of the original post) that I was personally offended at what I saw as the implication that anyone “broadly conservative” would advocate persecuting gays.
And, as it happens, I oppose the death penalty.
Both comments just for the record…
In fact, my own phrase “hymn of praise” triggered a memory. I wrote this post Fair Trade 4 Kidz after seeing a particularly one-sided series of CBBC web articles on trade.
John B, I forgot to add that Scott Burgess is telepathic and knows when anyone talks about him anywhere on the web.
Hilary
I don’t have children and couldn’t comment on CBBC. I haven’t seen it in years but I’d guess it’s as good or better than the competition. I am horrified, though, at the thought of all of those impressionable young minds at the mercy of the BBC. It honestly gives me a chill.
Ditto for beakfast tv. At that time of day I’m usually swearing at Humphrys before switching over in a torrent of outrage to Nick ferrari on LBC.
For your studies and people on the other side of the political fence you may find a new book useful. It has its own posting above here (“An Aunt With an Attitude.”)
Natalie: a) well, on the ‘it takes one to know one’ principle, I’m the best piss-taker-spotter on the Internet 😉 b) I’m highly ashamed… all I can say is that expat Aussie centre-rightists resemble expat Yank centre-rightists. Honest.
The sense in which Humphries is using “liberal” is a sense of “classical liberal” that’s entirely compatible with also being a conservative – believing in basic freedoms to speak and do things that don’t harm others.
I don’t think you can reverse this to “conservatives approve of persecuting gays” – rather, you’d need to say “people who are not classical liberals approve of persecuting gays”.
(would a Mill-ian conservative classical liberal oppose the death penalty? I’d reckon yes, but you could probably make some kind of case the other way.)
I have to fear newsround now? Hmmm…
Given a choice between abridged reporting on the state of our planet and glossy ads for the latest muck-filled artificailly coloured ersatz confection, or the latest piece of uselss plastic accompanying McDonalds finest processed fare…I think I’ll risk my child’s exposure to the terribly insidious information about maintaining the world we live in.
Call me crazy…but it seems an easy enough choice. Fortunately I have an intelligent articulate child who is questioning and curious and I feel secure in the knowledge that when he comes to me with his questions, thoughts and ideas we can discuss them openly. Perhaps this is the important point, if we raise our children to think critically about the information they receive we would have less to fear about ‘media-effects’. I was certainly raised this way and having ‘exposed’ myself to a wide range of media do not feel I have been ‘indoctrinated with propoganda’. Many would no doubt disagree and argue that I have indeed ‘bought into’ the mainstream liberalism that many argue characterises the BBC. In fact, I favour programmes such as R4’s today, precisely because I often find that some of my assumptions and beliefs are explored and interrogated, challenged and tested, in programmes that are generally balanced and engaging. Not always admittedly, but far more so than on the many magazine-style programmes that dominate many of the other main TV networks.
In fact, as demonstration of my willingness to be challenged, I will make a commitment to buy the Telegraph tomorrow (rather than the Guardian). UUrrgggh. Anyone got some other suggestions? Gimme a challenge!
Oh, but not Nozick or Rand books please. Been there, done that, got the sick-bag.
John B,
Humphrys a classical liberal? Don’t make me laugh.
Hilary,
Did you actually follow the Fair Trade 4 Kidz link, and then go further and look at the four articles discussed?
It’s great that you have raised your child to be intelligent and questioning. But scarcely any child is equipped to question what he or she does not see questioned. The CBBC coverage of Fair Trade Fortnight was entirely positive except for half a sentence. Literally. That is not an exaggeration at all. In the four articles I linked to for that post there was not one word of argument for free trade versus fair trade – yet that debate is not exactly settled, is it? There was exactly half a sentence saying that trade *itself* might be good in some circumstances.
I did look at the link and articles yes. You quoted the line ‘next time you eat a non-fair-trade chocolate bar, it MIGHT have been farmed by slaves’. Well, that IS true. It MIGHT have, in fact there IS a distinct possibility. I agree that there should have been some further information on the positive effects of free-trade and ways in which globalisation works for the world’s poor, however, this was not the mandate of the ‘Fair Trade Week’ it was ABOUT the fair-trade arguments. I admit, it was unbalanced – agreed. However, the claims made are not false. Perhaps we could argue that historically our western Capitalist democracy has done quite enough to teach us about the wonders of free-trade – and the pendulum is beginning to swing back in the other direction. Our children will be taught about the Industrial Revolution at school (and home hopefully) and learn about how living conditions and health improved, how the economy grew stronger, how England was ‘the workshop of the world’ this is all part of the curriculum. They will see how trade has benefitted us in the west – they might also notice how unfair trade has benefitted us, at the EXPENSE of others. I concede, the BBC failed to give a fully balanced account of globalisation, the benefits and disadvantages of free trade, however, they have succeeded in getting young people to think a bit about some of the drawbacks to free-trade, which I consider to be a valid endeavour. It might be argued that the forces in favour of free-trade are so phenomenonally powerful they barely need defending. However, I too consider that for eduactional purposes, and particularly where young children are concerned a balance is preferable.
It seems I am broadly in agreement with you on this. What I find much more contentious is your views on newsround’s ‘green politics’. I’d be very interested to hear why you feel that an emphasis on environmental issues is something children shouldn’t be exposed to. I presume (perhaps arrogantly?) that you do not doubt the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion/proof and concrete observations that have lead to the current fears? Perhaps this is the case, I have heard many doubts cast on the scientist’s findings – although most detractors are less cynical as time goes on, indeed the vast majority of sceptical politicians and lords now accept the findings of an increasing number of world-respected scientists on the threat posed by global warning and the links to carbon emissions. If you do indeed doubt the accuracy of the reports – can you speculate as to what exactly anyone has to gain from this kind of scaremongering. I, for the life of me cannot think of a single vested interest that would gain from it. Maybe you can. I am all ears.
Also, – I know this is slightly going off the point, but if your beef with the licence fee is basically a libertarian argument, do you extend this argument to publicly funded eduaction and health? I relaise they are entirelt different arguments ethically, but I am genuinely interested in your views. I am quite open to having mine (self-confessedly leftist) challenged. Having had many a fascinating discussion with others on the subject we come back to the same brick wall. To argue that each person should be entirely free to spend his/her money as they see fit, (eg to choose not to use publicly funded schools and pay privately) and yet to argue at the same time that each person has the opportunity to succeed on merit assumes a level playing field of opportunity. This is quite blatantly not the case.Sorry to deviate from the BBC. Perhaps you consider this irrelevant. Just genuinely interested.
I wonder how many of you know who was in charge of the UN Atomic Commission back in the 80’s and after inspecting Saddam’s nuclear capability, categorically denied that Saddam had any nuclear weapon programme in effect – that is until Israel destroyed it.
This major blooper was committed by none other than Hans Blix, yes the same man who as head of the weapons inspection in Iraq prior to the invasion also denied that Saddam had any WMD. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but I wonder why the selection again of this particular man by the UN to head the weapons inspection team, particularly in light of the UN oil for food scandal proving that the UN did not want Saddam ousted, has failed to make any sort of headline. Instead the BBC et al are happy to continue to present this moron or scoundrel, depending what you want to believe, as some sort of paragon of virtue.
Have you ever wondered why it is that many despotic and totalitarian regimes around the world pay the BBC for their TV and Radio broadcasts. Now why should any regime that is the antithesis of democracy, you know – the thing that the BBC is supposed to represent, pay for the BBC to broadcast in their countries?
Well the answer might become clear if you consider that both the BBC and CNN maintained offices in Iraq during the Saddam era. The only difference between them is that following the ousting of Saddam, The then Chief News executive of CNN – Eason Jordan, finally admitted to the NY Times, having previously continually denying it, that CNN had been guilty of pro-Saddam bias. He gave the reason that Saddam threatened physical harm to their staff in Baghdad, and closure of their offices if all news reports weren’t first vetted by him.
Now who thinks that the BBC never had the same restrictions? Question remains, why do so many other similar type regimes still maintain the BBC? Could it be that in the BBC hegemonic desire to rule the media world it is prepared to sacrifice all of our values to give these regimes the ‘balanced view’ they seek, and not the perspective of a moral free society founded on contrary values to these despots?
Any wonder why Galloway is lauded by the BBC.
I think the BBC is living proof of the maxim that power corrupts – and absolute power corrupts absolutely They use the status they get as a nationally supported INDEPENDANT broadcaster to sell us out.
There is no hell shit enough for the likes of these bastards.
Hilary,
You say you are here to do “research” but it sounds like your mind is already made up. You sound like you are trying to cherry-pick comments and postings here to fit a pre-conceived hypothesis. (And trying very hard to convince the people here of the righteousness of that pre-concieved hypothesis.)
PS — in case you were thinking of bring it up, we’ve already heard of the Glasgow media studies report claiming that the BBC was too pro-war, and the Cardiff University study which claimed that the Beeb was too “pro-Israel” (or was it Glasgow that did the pro-Israel one or Cardiff that did the pro-war one? I get them mixed up).
Been there, read that, got the sick bag.
Again I ask the question: if the BBC is so “balanced” why do only stridently left-wing people like yourself show up here to defend it? No rightwinger, not even a centrist has ever shown up to defend the Beeb at this blog. Only hardcore Guardianistas like yourself.
That may be a subject for your research as well. Also, we could do without the dreadfully twee condescension (“I’ll even buy a Telegraph instead of the Guardian. . .)