Just how influential might the BBC be compared to other media organisations? Biased BBC contributor Alan explains…
“59% of public trust the BBC for news. 5% Sky News. No other source gets a value above 2%…the Sun and the Times get a trust value of a mere 1% each.
So, lots of influence for Murdoch there.If Murdoch and his stable had been so influential with politicians who were ‘running scared’ of him how is it that he didn’t support Europe or immigration and Labour did? Two major policy areas and yet Labour sailed on regardless of coverage in the Sun and Times.
However let’s not forget that Miliband’s present communications chief, Tom Baldwin, was placing stories favourable to Labour and anti-Tory in the Times…..funny the BBC don’t mention that…..‘Alistair Campbell was known to liaise with Baldwin in endless attempts to discredit the Labour government’s enemies, the results of which regularly ended up prominently in The Times — a paper once admired for its thundering independence.’
Why do people trust the BBC Because it is accurate, impartial, truthful, reliable and unbiased. However this information is provided by the BBC from a survey commissioned by itself.…using 650 people….for a submission to the Plurality Review.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/05/bbc-ofcom-media-plurality-review
‘In its response to the consultation, the BBC said it accepts that “any assessment of plurality might take into account its share, voice and role in audiences’ news diet”, but argues that despite its role as the largest supplier of news, it should not face curbs to protect the rest of the market, and should only have its role questioned during the period in which its royal charter is up for renewal. The BBC document cites new research conducted for the broadcasting, showing that it attracts “72% of all television news minutes consumed, despite only broadcasting 27% of news minutes broadcast”.’
“The BBC uses its leading position not to advance its own interests and opinions but to ensure that a diversity of news and views is presented to all in a fair and balanced way.”
Said the BBC of itself.
The BBC have decided that the measure to use when judging plurality is not actually how many journalists or tv and radio stations you have, or indeed even the number of viewers and listener and readers, but the revenue you make…or in the case of the BBC the revenue they are gifted by order of law.
Wonder why that is….oh…..Murdoch makes lots and lots of cash, more than the BBC. Therefore he is unfit to run a media business and his operation should be hamstrung. Thereby in fact reducing plurality and choice.”
The lying, scheming and socialist BBC can do as they wish so long as they are supported by Britain’s political class: in other words, The One Party With Three Names.
Because their existence is funded by us BY FORCE AND WITHOUT choice they can continue to propagate all of the discredited rust-bucket socialist delusions such as statism, tyrannical community regulation and anti-enterprise without fear of reproach. Almost every night on Newsnight we have to endure the same old biased Left-wing economic drivel (don’t even get me started on the political bias!) led by that fount of economic ‘wisdom’ Paul Mason; and more and more the BBC are turning to its own employees for in-depth analysis and commentary rather than those currently working in industry. For political analysis we have the constant Labour, Tory and Lib Dem merry-go-round; hardly innovative, refreshing or enlightening is it?
If the BBC had to go it alone in the marketplace they would fare about as well as that other useless Left-wing mouthpiece, the Guardian – which everyone knows is only kept afloat, as it were, by its parent business Auto Trader magazine.
If privatised the BBC’s news output would appeal only to a few million (if that) metro-trendy Left-wingers; hardly a ringing endorsement of the TV License fee that is so aggressively enforced upon an impressionable public.
At least The Guardian is cross-subsidised from commercial sources, unlike the bBC. That is publicly funded to protect its independence, and instead has become a vipers nest of “White Middle Class Left Wing Pricks” (TM Pat Condell) which is a betrayal of trust. There is room for all opinions in the commercial market place, even if it is plain wrong (aka The Independent (of Reality). It is the bBC that is unforgivable.
Yes, for although I find the Guardian pretentious, extremist Left-wing, anti-British, Islamo-Marxist and, quite frankly, downright objectionable, there must be room for their Chardonnay socialist ranting (no matter how politically charged and nauseating) if we are to enjoy a free democracy. The BBC would allow us no such freedom of choice.
Don’t worry. The Guardian is slowly going bust.
Stop trying to cheer me up. The thought of Alan Russbridger in a cardboard box on The Embankment, meths in place of Bollinger, is just too appealing.
@JOE. The problem is that it’s dragging good radio stations (Real, Smooth and Rock) down with it.
My real problem is that the Guardian is owned by an offshore trust – tax-dodging to the nth degree, making every communist/socialist article ever printed by the Guardian totally hypocritical.
I once found a statistic which showed that television media was disproportionally more influential and persuasive than any other form of media…
The newspapers are merely pissing in the wind, when compared to the power the BBC wields.
Plurality? My arse.
Where the bloody hell these % figures come from I am not certain I’m sure.
Newspaper circulation can be manipulated by price / offers / etc but it is finite.
Needless to say I don’t believe the BBC with the news, let alone how popular they tell me they are even without price / offers / etc.
But from what I’ve seen when I walk into town shopping, I can’t imagine my fellow brethren ever having watched, let alone being interested, the BBC News, let alone 72 % trusting what day the BBC tells them it is (unless the VOICE is on of course).
Or put another way – if you like statistics – another 100 % emission straight out of Aunty’s arse !
SNAFU
The BBC’s dreaming. More and more of the British public are getting wiser to it all the time and more and more frequently openly questioning its impartiality, how sickeningly politically correct it is, how strangely choosy it maintains being with what to report about and what not to, and most importantly how the leftie stuffed outfit craftily words its brainwashing reporting.
I usually find ITV/ITN every bit as sickeningly leftist and biased as the BBC – but amongst all broadcasters it’s still ONLY the BBC that happily expects everyone to legally but completely undemocratically finance it!
It obsessively spouts on and on about Syria, Bahrain, the so called Arab Spring and everyone elsewhere just wanting democracy, yet where its unigue funding’s concerned and the TV Licence fee (NO, BBC Licence fee!) it completely and utterly laughs straight in the face of democracy for its forced-to-keep-coughing-up British public paymasters! Absolutely typical of the Balen Report utter cowards hypocritically only caring for proper democracy where it conveniently suits the laughable Al-Beeb rabble. As long as the findings of the Balen Report are withheld from the British public, claims of Al-Beeb’s impartiality and trust of the British public are empty and nothing but a joke!
Yes, it’s a little hypocritical for the BBC to pontificate about impartiality, democracy and freedom of speech when it aggressively threatens the population with criminal prosecution and fine for failure to fund its ever-growing one-dimensional operation.
Also, I too am getting a little tired of its frothing-at-the-mouth advertising for the Syrian rebels, many of whom according to observers, are Islamic militants. Yes, the atrocities are horrific and those perpetrators must be punished but can we really be so sure that it’s Assad’s regime always to blame? The BBC is very comfortable to promote this view anyway; their reporting on this matter is not balanced coverage, in my humble opinion, but openly supporting.
The Sky Security correspondent was on this morning (Tim Marshall a really straight up, switched on chap) and he has just returned from Syria. He stated that there is a full blown civil war in progress and AQ groups have moved in from Iraq and it is impossible to tell who is responsible for what atrocities.
A paid-for advertorial by the BBBC, I’ll bet! I guess Guardian readers would give that response, what about humans?
My mum lives in South Africa and gets satellite TV, can access Al-Jazeera, CNN, SKY, BBC, ABC and all the rest. I was surprised and very pleased to hear her say (with no prompting from me, and no idea what my thoughts are) that the BBC is hopelessly off line. RTL is her favourite.
In full agreement with what`s said above.
After Libya, Tunisia and Egypt…Islamic fundamentalists(emphasis on mental) may well be required and desired by the BBC…but they`re not good for the rest of us in the long term.
And certainly no good for any poor Christian or unapproved sect of Islam that prevents the Salafists from taking power.
The BBC loves a good rebellion as long as they only take pictures and sound off like Lawrence of Arabia…not one Beeboid would stay on to live out that romantic dream of the Caliphate, that MB etc wish imposed on the rest of us.
None of this is to prop up the odious Assad…but he`s a progressive young socialist, like Saif Gadhaffi and was flavour of the BBCs month until recently.
As he was for their minstrels like Sting and the like…so what`s changed?
Regarding trust…note the sad early death of Cassandra Jardine-a fine Telegraph journalist who wrote movingly of her trying to conquer her cancer.
Is it too much to have the BBCs “Last Word” do a tribute to her…or is it the usual crop of foreign lefties, liberal socialites and community activists who`ll get the eulogies as per?
Yes-probably!
That survey is a load of shit: how can they compare a national public broadcaster with Sky, Sun (other newspapers) etc?
It’s like asking what is your favourite sleeping position:
a) lying on a bed
b) upside down in the garden shed
c) underwater
Surprise surprise, 99% chose (a)