Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
When it comes down to it, vote to privatise it like all the other industries over the years.
After all NuLab and the Tories have privatised everything else
up to their old tricks with less than flattering photos of tory leaders
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44147000/jpg/_44147907_cameronwave203i_ap.jpg
Referring to the BBC report about Inheritance Tax.
In 2006-07 it brought the government £3.5bn, up a relatively modest 50% during the previous five years.”
I’d have thought that an increase of over a billion pounds would have been thought of as more than modest, especially when, assuming even 3% inflation, the inflationary rise would have been around 17%. Seems IHT is a potential issue, so the beeb are going out of their way to demonise anyone discussing it.
Did a quick search of Amazon US’s poetry book sales rankings — number one is The Prophet by Khalil Gibran (sadly for al-Beeb, he was a Christian Arab, despite the Muslim-sounding name), number two is the Divine Comedy by that Muhammad-hating Italian, Dante), number three is Beowulf.
Rumi has three books on the top 20 list, so I would say he was pretty popular, but, on the other hand, his first book on the list is outranked by someone called “Shel Silverstein.”
Yet another example of al-Beeb’s obsessive and increasingly comical Islamophilia. They are starting to remind me of the old guy in “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” who keeps insisting that the Greeks invented everything, and that every word ever spoken has a Greek root — including the word “kimono.”
Excellent post at Prodicus…
http://prodicus.blogspot.com/2007/10/wtf-theyre-still-at-it.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7020108.stm
‘Army facing ‘decline’ in recruits
The Army is facing a decline in recruitment north of the border, figures given to the BBC reveal
(Given by whom exactly?)
—————
This article contains a quote from Brigadier David Allfrey (head of recruitment)
‘There is not a crisis in recruitment’
Also, the article contains a quote from the EIS (Scottish teaching union) ‘They run all kinds of activities that are designed to persuade people to pursue a career’
Why a quote about the Army careers service offering information and encouragement to pupils is a bad thing I can’t get.
Would the same thing have been said about local factories giving a career information day?
The article also contains a statistic telling that the total infantry recruitment has gone up.
Overall the article can be summed up thus:
Recruitment is down because of the Iraq invasion. It’s also because of the government policy of getting more children into higher education. The SNP feel that it is the UK governments fault.
Some army guy says the figures show that recruitment in Scotland is actually pretty good compared to national averages; infantry recruitment has went up.
A union representative is horrified that the army try to recruit people.
The BBC repeats the story of the 12 year old in Washington DC who died of an infection that reached his brain. There was no mention, however, of several salient facts. 1)Such a condition is the result of years of dental neglect(with recurring pain and swelling present that would indicate the need for dental care) on the part of parents 2) there are several free clinics in the DC area that treat children and pdovide preventive care as well, at no cost 3)any dentist knows that no one can force parents, or adults, to seek preventive care.
NIce to see that my ‘headline of the week’ has changed – the power of BBBC.
Funny I didn’t see all the analysis of the Labour “policies” last week or suggestion that people didn’t know what they stand for (as Brown’s rhetoric strayed further and further from reality and nobody could understand what the hell Miliband was twittering on about).
At least Dermot is disobeying party lines and referring to it as the Conservative Party Conference, perhaps he should his presenter mate for lessons to say Tory with an air of disgust. Much better career prospects that way.
The 08:10 Toady interview today was with James “If we win the election” Naughtie, lots of interruptions and hurrumphing but actually less attacking than I expected. However, the fact that I am pleasantly surprised that an interview with a Conservative shadow minister is less than a hatchet job speaks volumes for how biased the BBC normally is. Of course the Conservative policies were uncosted, whereas Labour’s were glorious.
The recent BBC World Service program about healthcare in the US left us in no doubt that it was the lack of an NHS type service that was causing health problems in that country. Strangely, when we hear that the UK is a not a good place to be if you have a stroke or heart trouble, the BBC never seems to question if it is our method of health funding that is causing the country’s poor performance.
BBC Views 24
Fuel duty rises 2p.
this is the first of 3 planned rises over the next 18 months.
Petrol companies have confirmed that they’ll be passing the charges on to the motorist. (EH? So it’s the evil corporate monster petrol firms who are to blame for the government increasing taxes?).
They actually have a vox pop where a man says something along the lines of “I think it’s terrible, we already pay tax on petrol” (If you see this could you confirm whether it’s just me or if the guy appears to be blaming it not on Broon but on BP)
Then we get the obligatory mention from an environmental group saying it’s good but not enough.
Christ almighty.
I’m off work today and am sitting with BBC News 24 on. See my post above. There’s now a special about it with the business editor (Declan??).
First we get the tories criticised because they haven’t pledged any cuts in duty. Then he states that there is a ‘vast majority’ of emails which say the motorist is a soft touch. And then goes straight into one of the emails which says motorists ‘never’ pay enough for fuel in comparison with the environmental damage cars do.
I know I’m rabbiting, but I don’t have a blog out there to mention this!
[The Moderator: Direct comment on BBC content is always welcome here (we’ll tell you if you start descending into “endless running-commentary” mode.]
Check out this rubbish about New Zealand maoris living in Australia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7021444.stm
Just love the last paragraph:
Expatriates [expat maoris] are often labelled “plastic Maori” who have abandoned the cause in the selfish pursuit of money overseas.
What exactly is “the cause” ?
The whole piece is the usual BBC “sandwich” – a mix of facts and the writer’s own opinion. Usually the opinion is hidden in he middle between some facts – not so this time.
Also look at the strange picture – its weird. Very few maori look like that – they do regular jobs (mostly), drive cars, live in houses, etc…. In fact there are no 100% pure blood maoris any more. None.
Bias by omission.
There is an article by Clare Matheson, business reporter on the BBC’s website this morning about ‘ageism laws’. The unspoken assumption of this piece is that laws against ‘ageism’ are desirable, that too many companies are failing to comply with them, and that they may have to be strengthened. Nowhere is there a hint that these new laws, and the avalanche of litigation they have given rise to, may have been ill-advised and the consequences regrettable.
There are quotations from an obscure pressure group called the Employers’ Forum on Age, from Age Concern, and its sister organisation, Heyday, from the British Youth Council and the TUC. There are no quotations from mainstream employers’ organisations (CBI, Institute of Directors) whose views do not appear to have been sought.
Last Sunday Julian Worricker’s programme had three guests who all agreed amongst them selves that they all wanted 10 more years of a Labour government. I was outraged by the lack of balance this displayed but presumed it was because of the Labour conference starting that day. Yesterday the programme had three guests who all agreed amongst themselves that David Cameron was rubbish and Labour was only only party worth voting for. |The BBC has now given up all pretense at being a national broadcaster and is now simply a vehicle for Labour propaganda
The BBC has now given up all pretense at being a national broadcaster and is now simply a vehicle for Labour propaganda
Voice of Reason | 01.10.07 – 11:15 am
Agreed. It’s incredible how blatant the BBC is about their diehard support for the Labour government. All fighting talk of independence died with the demise of Blair. Since Brown arrived the slavish adherence to Brown led spin and bully boy tactics against the opposition is pretty much complete. And the honourable exception of Andrew Neil, whose coverage of the Lab party conference was frequently ‘off message’ – is treated like a pariah in the BBC hierarchy. Wonder how long his programme will last with cuts looming.
The BBC has bought Lonely Planet, the private company producing the travel guides.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7021791.stm
I know this is BBC WorldWide, the commercial part of the BBC but this still doesn’t feel right. Why is the BBC buying anything? What are the guidelines? If it felt it could afford it, could it buy say Channel 4 or ITV or The Times?
It feels like those vast nationalised behemoths of the sixties and seventies.
We can all see the BBC pro-Labour, anti-Conservative bias but what can we do about it? There must be some way of bringing this bias to the attention of the vast majority of the public who don’t frequent Biased-BBC and similar blogs and take it on trust that the BBC are unbiased. Most of the public like to see fair play, how can we show that the BBC is not playing fair?
>The BBC has bought Lonely Planet, the private company producing the travel guides.
That is an absolutely appalling development. There is no doubt that any commercial arm of the BBC would be in no position to buy anything much if the BBC has not been propped up over the decades by the dozens of billions of pounds that have been forcibly removed from taxpayers and then given to it.
It means we’re forced to subsidize a company that is directly competing in the private market. In some cases it will mean that a license-payer (such as someone who works in the travel book industry) is forced to (indirectly) subsidize a commercial operation that is a direct competitor.
You have to wonder how the US and Australian markets will feel that a huge competitor, owned by the UK government can suddenly arrive and dominate a market in this way.
I recall the BBC being critical of Gazprom buying British Gas since it was a government industry ran by Putin effectively.
Steve B
In 2006-07 it brought the government £3.5bn, up a relatively modest 50% during the previous five years.”
Al-BBC has to play down the sum of £3.5 billion, otherwise it would be conceding that at £3.5 billion for itself in licence fee revenue it is itself expensive.
Telford | Homepage | 01.10.07 – 12:25 pm
BBC Worldwide doesn’t receive a penny in subsidy from the licence-fee payer. On the contrary, the licence-fee is subsidized by the profits of BBC Worldwide.
No-one working for Rough Guides need worry that their competitor Lonely Planet is being subsidized by their licence fee. It won’t be.
ShugNiggurath | 01.10.07 – 12:41 pm
The BBC is not ‘owned by the government’. It is an independent corporation established under Royal Charter. Examples of other institutions established in the same way include the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, the Royal Geographical Society, Cambridge University, the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers.
Susan B. 1.37 PM.
You say, [the BBC] is an independent corporation established under Royal Charter. Examples of other institutions established in the same way include … the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers.”
Yes, except that the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers is not empowered to send me to prison if I don’t subscribe to Haberdashers’ News.
Susan B, if you had bothered to actually read what I wrote with any care you would have noticed that I did not say that a commercial arm of the BBC is directly subsidized by the license-fee.
You would have also understood my point — that the commercial arm of the BBC would be in no position at all to be buying anything if it had not had the advantage of years of the BBC brand’s reputation being built up through forced payments from license-payers. Without the BBC logo behind them, the commercial arm of the BBC would just be another British TV company, who would never have got where they are today. Not to mention the fact that the commercial arm of the BBC has the advantage of years of experience in the TV world bought by the license-payer, and the innumerable contacts built up over the years, again all paid for by the license-fee.
So the Rough Guide is subsidized by the license-payer *indirectly*. That’s why, you will have noticed if you had read what I said with any care, I used the word ‘indirectly’ in connection with this.
>On the contrary, the licence-fee is subsidized by the profits of BBC Worldwide.
This is just an absurd way to put it. The fact the commercial arm puts money back into the non-commercial arm does not mean entitle you to say it is ‘subsidizing’ the license-fee. It is the BBC who chooses to spend more than the enormous sum they get from license-payer. How you pay for that extra is your business. It does not follow that the license-fee is in anyway ‘subsidized’ — for to say that is to imply that the license-payer should be paying for everything the non-commercial arm of the BBC spends, which is nonsense. (It’s this form of subtle abuse of language that the BBC is very good at.)
Susan B (BBC):
Telford | Homepage | 01.10.07 – 12:25 pm
“BBC Worldwide doesn’t receive a penny in subsidy from the licence-fee payer. On the contrary, the licence-fee is subsidized by the profits of BBC Worldwide.”
BBC worldwide is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC. In my book that makes them the same organisation. If BBC worldwide was independent , what would it have to sell?
Most of the public like to see fair play, how can we show that the BBC is not playing fair?
NotaSheep | Homepage | 01.10.07 – 12:18 pm
Conservatives did a bit of biting back in today’s broadcasts.
1. George Osborne took a swipe at James Naughtie answering one question about Gordon Brown with “well you know him better than I do.”
2. Oliver Letwin swatted the usual ‘lurch to the right’ question from Martha Kearney on WATO with a sharp riposte that is was a piece of Labour propaganda.
3. And best of all at a fringe debate hosted by the BBC on whether Cameron was in touch with the grass roots a conservative woman turned the tables on Martha asking her why the BBC allowed Gordon to get away with ‘British jobs for British workers’ rhetoric and indeed got feted for it, but if a conservative had said it they would be torn limb from limb. Funnily enough she didn’t reply.
It went a small way to getting the message across – but obviously nowhere near enough to combat the shameless bias. I’ve also noticed that the BBC are shifting the rhetoric on the election to a triumphalist crowing that Brown has set “an elephant trap” for the Conservatives – confirming what I suspected all along, it’s all been one of his stunts and he has no intention of calling an election. If people have any sense this will backfire on him – all it tells you about Brown is that he is a dodgy man who sets elephant traps. So much for ‘trust’. But no doubt the BBC will come up with yet more spin to cover up for him.
Susan, what Shug meant was that most of your funding comes from the government, and you would collapse without that funding. So while it doesn’t technically own you, it does “own” you in a similar way to the way that the bank “owns” my house.
(In fact, even more so, because the bank has a legal obligation not to take my house as long as I keep paying them back, whereas the government has no obligation to keep funding the BBC beyond the latest license-fee deal, and the BBC isn’t paying the government any of the money back that it gets).
“The BBC is not ‘owned by the government’. It is an independent corporation established under Royal Charter. Examples of other institutions established in the same way include the Royal College of Anaesthetists”
Susan B [BBC];
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the govt does not set the budget of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, nor does it write its charter, or appoint the board and chairman. All of which it does for the Beeb.
Oscar | 01.10.07 – 2:20 pm
best of all at a fringe debate hosted by the BBC on whether Cameron was in touch with the grass roots a conservative woman turned the tables on Martha asking her why the BBC allowed Gordon to get away with ‘British jobs for British workers’ rhetoric and indeed got feted for it, but if a conservative had said it they would be torn limb from limb. Funnily enough she didn’t reply.
John Reith is letting you people get away with murder today. Where r u JR? I’m sure he’d normally be the first to point out that the none other than the BBC’s Political Editor has said exactly the same thing as the grass roots Conservative. In fact, was the first to say it:
Gordon Brown is about to deliver a speech to the TUC pledging to deliver “British jobs for British workers”. This a day after the home secretary pledged to force immigrants to speak English……………
Ponder for a second how exactly the same policies or phrases would have been written up had David Cameron delivered them. A “lurch to the right” anyone? Or, even, “language normally associated with the far right BNP”?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/09/strategic_confi.html
Also, this whole ‘BBC supports Brown unquestioningly’ mantra is unfounded. I’ve heard critical analysis of what Brown has been doing/saying all week on the BBC. Radio 4 on Saturday, for instance, had a whole half hour of discussion on the ‘trust’ implications of Brown’s tactics on Talking Politics/ Weekly Political Review.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml#t
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/directory/station/radio4/
Telford + others …..whatever you say, BBC Worldwide is a separate legal entity, with no cross-subsidies direct or indirect from the BBC. It also does a lot more than sell BBC branded stuff. It’s part of many joint ventures around the world selling books, magazines and investing in programmes and films that have no domestic BBC connection.
When 2 employees of BBC Worldwide embezzled millions of pounds of income from the Teletubbies BBC News failed to report the story. Why would it do that if they weren’t connected?
If BBC worldwide was independent , what would it have to sell?
Susan, do answer this one…..
D Burbage | 01.10.07 – 3:12 pm
I just did.
Voice of Reason | 01.10.07 – 3:05 pm
When 2 employees of BBC Worldwide embezzled millions of pounds of income from the Teletubbies BBC News failed to report the story.
Have you any links for this? Did it ever happen?
Susan, whatever you say, BBC Worldwide trades on the BBC name which was established by the license-payer. If it had been called Islington Worldwide Productions it would be a minor company at most. If it hadn’t have been able to use the contacts established by people working for the BBC, if it hadn’t have been able to call on the expertise of BBC people it would be nowhere.
In other words, if there had not been a license-fee then BBC Worldwide would be a non-entity. How can you not see this? (I can assure you that the people who run BBC Worldwide will be well-aware of the fact that they trade very favourably upon the BBC name).
A correspondent on my blog “bodo” informs me that:
“sean – not only that, they have CHANGED the question!!
But they’ve left the same answers [but not those criticising the BBC]
Its originally asked for views on the Tory conference. Now it wants to know your opinion on tax cuts. How on earth can they get away with this? All those who have put in answers to the original question must be extremely annoyed — it makes some of them look pretty stupid.
Oh, and stealth edited too, ie time/date left unaltered.
I have a [partial] screengrab of the original.”
Is there any way we can hold the BBC to account re this stealth editing and disappearing of top recommended comments? JR do you or any of your associates have any comments to make?
So does BBC Worldwide get privileged access to BBC content, or does it compete on a purely commercial basis against other commercial operators, paying market price for whatever content it gets?
Stealth edit shocker!
The BBC has changed the question it posted yesterday on its “have your say” message board. It originally asked for “Tory conference: your views”. By far the most ‘ recommended’ answer was one heavily criticising the BBC for its pro Labour bias.
Today, the question asked at the same link is totally different, (it now asks about proposed tax cuts) although the date and time on the page remains the same, as do (bizarrely) most of the answers. One answer is conspicuous by its absence however, i.e. yesterday’s most recommended, the one heavily criticising the bias of the BBC.
Appalling censorship and manipulation of people’s views. I have a (partial) screen grab of the original page/question if anyone wants to write an article on it.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=7517&&edition=1&ttl=20071001145809
Nota – our posts crossed methinks.
Susan
Please look at this from the bbc world wide website
http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annualreviews/report1999/intro.htm
Relationship between BBC Worldwide and the BBC
“BBC Worldwide is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, formed in 1994 to develop a co-ordinated approach to the BBC’s commercial activities and to ensure that the BBC continues to develop into a leading player in the world media market. BBC Worldwide is fully accountable to the Director-General of the BBC (who in turn is answerable to the Board of Governors), and operates at arm’s length from the rest of the BBC.”
So its a wholly owned subsidiary with the same brand name and accountable to the same boss.
It is not a separate entity
When 2 employees of BBC Worldwide embezzled millions of pounds of income from the Teletubbies BBC News failed to report the story.
Have you any links for this? Did it ever happen?
Susan B (BBC) | 01.10.07 – 3:15 pm | #
google ‘operation epistles’
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,606158,00.html
jones | 01.10.07 – 3:33 pm
I said it was a seperate legal entity. It is. If you want to ruminate on whether it is seperate spiritually or philosophically, that’s your choice.
World at One, 1 October. The last few minutes includes an interesting jibe about BBC bias. A questioner asks Martha Kearney(?) why Gordon Brown was not ripped apart by the BBC for his ‘British jobs for British people’ speech – the point is put that if a Conservative had said the same, he would have been savaged.
Interesting.
Notasheep & Bodo – I noticed that too, and have been on the case for a while already. Watch this space for more.
andrew, I’ve mailed u the screenie, hope its some use. I suspected the page would be stealth edited [getting wise to their ways]. Just wish I’d got a better screengrab.
Susan,
Hiding behind legal peculiarities doesn’t help.
I don’t work for the BBC or any other broadcast company, I’m not connected to or with any political party in this country. I am simply a citizen who has grown tired of watching the way news is managed in this country, a lot of it appears, to me, to be direct reprinting or reading out of government propaganda. The fact that blogs like this – and many others – exist reinforce the belief that I have that the BBC is biased against a particular political viewpoint as opposed to a particular party.
Anyway, having said that – I’m not interested in Royal Charters, the perception of the BBC is that it is owned by the United Kingdom in the same way that BT, British Gas and Steel were once owned by the state. And the perception nowadays is that the BBC is a mouthpiece for the government of the day.
Until the staff inside the BBC realise that this is a negative perception and that there needs to be an addressing of it then sites such as this will continue to flourish.
Bodo – considering that George Osbourne didn’t actually mention the figures until 1215 today 01.10, I think we have the right to question this on the have your say forum.
Susan –
No, a wholly owned subsidiary is not a separate – read autonomous – legal entity. It is legally defined as part of the larger whole – a part of the BBC. Put another way, if Wal-Mart GMBH, a fully owned subsidiary of Wal-Mart was found to be breaking the law in some way, I doubt many would be saying, “well, it’s Wal-Mart GMBH, it’s not Wal-Mart”. As for what BBC Worldwide sells, it’s profits are made through selling the media products (dramas, docs, etc.) we in the UK are compelled, buy threat of imprisonment, to pay for. The fact that BBC Worldwide makes a profit puts the logic of a television poll tax into question. The best BBC content makes a profit, it doesn’t need the multi-billion pound subsidy. What we pay for is all the dross that fills the BBC’s 8 channels that is of such low quality no other market will pay for it. A rationalized BBC would grow only as large as its product value will allow – I seem to recall BBC Worldwide made around USD 200 million last year. Logically, that should be fed back to the Beeb, and that should be there budget for new media. Instead, BBC Worldwide uses the profits it makes from tax payer funded media, to compete with private firms and undermine private media markets abroad, while the BBC does the same here.
The original Have Your Say question is still here on News Sniffer.
“ShugNiggurath:
Bodo – considering that George Osbourne didn’t actually mention the figures until 1215 today 01.10, I think we have the right to question this on the have your say forum.
ShugNiggurath | 01.10.07 – 4:19 pm ”
Yes but why change the subject and delete the previously highest rated comment.