The BBC has released a report into the future of News.
Here is the BBC’s own version of what’s in the report:
BBC ‘should improve local and World Service news’
BBC News should increase both its local and global coverage and improve its digital services if it is to remain relevant, the corporation has said.
The BBC should “do more to provide local news that properly serves all parts of the UK”, according to a report titled The Future of News.
It should also reverse the trend for closures to World Service language operations, the report said.
“If the UK wants the BBC to remain valued and respected, an ambassador of Britain’s values and an agent of soft power in the world, then the BBC is going to have to commit to growing the World Service and the government will also have to recognise this,” the report said.
As well as “looking at how we can develop a service that might work for North Korea”, the corporation is also “increasingly reflecting on the position of the media in Russia and Turkey”, it said.
The report added: “In many parts of the world, there is not more free expression but less.”
This from the BBC that set out to destroy the EDL, smears UKIP as immigrant murdering nazis and incites anti-Semitism with its reporting from the Middle East.
Did laugh at this from the first paragraph of the report…
In a democracy, news is the essentialpublic service. Government by thepeople cannot function without it.The job of the news is to keep
everyone informed – to enable us to bebetter citizens, equipped with what weneed to know.
The same BBC that closed down debate on immigration, Europe and climate change….and tried to mislead us on the economy and Labour’s Plan B.
It tells us that in the age of the internet and the proliferation of many different sources of news…
‘The BBC is more necessary and valuable than ever’
I would suggest it was the other way around….because of the BBC’s dominance of the news and its very one sided view of what we should hear and think, as evidenced by this very report, see below, it is more vital than ever that we have access to the internet and the many and varied sources of news it provides to balance and weigh up the BBC’s coverage which, I have to say, I never accept as a reliable source of ‘truth’ based on long experience of reading and hearing what they tell me only to find that it is only half the story….as shown recently with its very misleading report on the IFS statements about the economy.
The BBC went on….
The internet is not keeping everyoneinformed, nor will it: it is, in fact,magnifying problems of informationinequality, misinformation, polarisationand disengagement.
Sorry but that’s so much bull…..without the internet we would be slaves to the BBC’s world view and as for ‘disengagement’ I would suggest that it has massively increased political participation in one form or another from protest groups, charities and NGOs all utilising it to get their messages across to pressure governments and companies…it has also enabled political parties to revitalise their support…just look at Obama in the US….just look at Russell Brand on YouTube.
The only difference between the BBC and ‘bloggers’ is that the BBC has the money and resources to gather the news but that does not mean that the BBC should be the sole arbiter of what that news means….the blogger is just as able and entitled to analyse and interpret that information as any BBC journalist. Naturally that puts the ‘professional’ BBC journalist’s nose out of joint but so what? Celebrate the diversity of opinion!
Compare that BBC’s version of what the ‘Future News’ report says with this from the Telegraph:
BBC World Service ‘under threat from Al Jazeera and nationalist news’
BBC warns the World Service needs extra money to counter rival broadcasters touting news based around ‘political Islam, evangelical Christianity, nationalism and patriotism’
Global news is polarising around religion and nationalism, the report warns.
“There is a deepening global tilt towards news focused or aggregated around a world view: political Islam, evangelical Christianity, nationalism, patriotism and so on. While these are very different and varied phenomena, in such communities of interest shared values become a new brand loyalty.
“Al Jazeera in Arabic sees itself as serving an audience that is conservative and Muslim. For the station and its audience, common religious assumptions give a sense of belonging which can bleed into shared views on political, economic and especially cultural questions.
“Similarly, Fox News articulates a very specific view of what it is to be an American.
“In this polarised world, modern or universal rights – political, human, gender or sexual rights – or concepts of openness and democracy become deeply polarising.”
So not just extremist Islam but evangelical Christianity…has the BBC told all those African immigrants they are on its hit list for extermination…ideologically speaking?
Then there’s the other world evils to be tackled…nationalism, patriotism …and the news according to Fox News.
So much for ‘impartial’.
Curious that the BBC’s article didn’t mention any of that.
Curious that the BBC recognises in theory the problems associated with fundamental ideologies in relation to secular, liberal democracies which promote universal rights…and yet it, far from tackling what it calls ‘political Islam’, which to you and me is everyday ‘Islam’ as it is an ideology designed for political purposes wrapped up in religious garb in order to give it divine sanction for its actions, the BBC defends and promotes those who wish to impose ‘political Islam’ upon us….such as in the Torjan Horse case or where it excuses terrorism and refuses to link it to ‘The Religion of Peace’. How can you claim to be tackling ‘political Islam’ when you refuse to admit what that really means?
As for nationalism and patriotism…this is the BBC that at every turn condemns the British Empire which brought half the world under one rule….thus producing a Pax Britannica….held together at the point of a gun. It is empires that produce the worst violence as people struggle for their independence from colonialism….something always cheered on by the BBC as it supports ‘good’ nationalism by preferrably brown people, though non-Protestant will do as well….and more violence as they struggle to decide whose vision of the nation will prevail, as in Libya now.
Empires, those borderless mish mashes of states, always break up…it is human nature to want self -rule and for people to define themselves by their location and shared cultures and values. The BBC in its idealism, as with communists, takes no regard of human nature and tries to impose their utopian vision upon an unwilling mass…all to end in tears and violence.
The BBC’s hatred of nationalism and patriotism extends only as far as that of the Anglo-Saxon world. The British Empire was bad, the Muslim caliphate good…indeed the BBC in many respects supports the ISIS caliphate which redraws the map of the Middle East regardless of ethnicity or religion…which is curious as the BBC hates the diverse nature of Iraq which it tells us is an unworkable forced union of different peoples….no celebrating diversity there then….of course that was created by Europeans so must be a bad thing.
Yes, the BBC will support you in your fight for independence from your colonial masters but when you get it will denounce you for being nasty little nationalists. Welcome to the world according to the BBC.
‘I would suggest it was the other way around’ Too right.
The BBC invert reality and then insist that their view is the only one that should be held. It’s not difficult to imagine a deregulated network of radio stations financed by the equivalent of a small percentage of the BBC poll tax and to realise how many different voices and opinions we could be hearing. The BBC monolith, in spite of its professed multiculti espousal, strangles freedom of speech and thought. Scrap the licence fee.
The BBC is an anachronism from the time of national champions. Every nation wanted a corporation that would stand for the nation: British Steel, British Airways, etc. The BBC was created to develop this cutting edge technology and existing culture formed its output and assumptions. So it’s first Reithien model was the great universities. Now that bird has flown because in an information saturated world you no longer need a curator of news and knowledge. And, as happens to all scherotic institutions, it confused itself with the message with the result that it developed a culture – and values therein – by no coincidence identical to all the other deracinated state broadcasters in the English speaking world. You need a modern Orwell to get to the dark heart of the matter but you won’t because the BBC is such a financial force in the culture and opinion market that it crowd out contrary views of the world. It already has its tentacles deep into the education sector to shape the next generation. The BBC is on a mission with an impetus generated within its mass and it wants to fly free of its mooring and fully express its political vision. It already has the power to bring the political class in this country to its heel but it wants its vision out there shaping the world – a history maker. Not oddly the Guardian has exactly the same idea. The World Service has given it a vehicle to exercise this by spreading the message of its values. The only sticking point is money, ours. I think we should cut the bonds that tie it to this small island and let if fly as near to the sun as it so that it can look down on us from an even greater height. But I do not want to pay for the wings.
“set out to destroy the EDL” The apparent aim of the EDL is threatening gatherings of shaven headed young men who’s personal conduct rapidly goes south once they get a few cans inside them. If the BBC’s main reporting of the EDL is as a public order menace that’s not the BBC’s fault.
Anyone who has come across one of their marches has at best had an afternoon’s shopping ruined or at worst (bad luck if you’re a bit non-white) had racist abuse screamed at them.
Defending the EDL does this blog no favours. You wonder what “Alan” sees in them? These strapping, shaven headed, white men. Manly, burly, working class men who hate “pakis”. What is the appeal?
The EDL may well be unpleasant and not a group you would want to meet on your street. But compared to the murdering Muslims fanatics they are very small beer and pose no serious threat to peaceful British citizens. Compare and contrast to the followers of the Religion of Peace, held in such high regard by the BBC, who are causing mayhem and slaughter all over the world by trying to impose their religion on those of us who detest it. Is it any wonder that some groups are trying to oppose them? What is remarkable is that there has been very little retaliatory violence by non Muslims who are being subjecting to a world wide campaign of violence in order to form a Muslim caliphate.
The BBC et al can be well satisfied that they have so far protected the growing Islamic threat from any serious scrutiny or sanction. They and the rest of us , those who live long enough at any rate, will grow to regret what has been done as the tide of Islamification grows ever stronger and eventually sweeps away all those ‘liberal’ values that have characterised Britain for so many centuries.
Let’s just say that you are correct, that the EDL are an odious, racist organisation that incites violence where ever they congregate. I take it that, in that case, you believe that everything they stand for is wrong?
What do you propose should be done about them? Should they be arrested and jailed for their crimes and which crimes are they guilty of?
Like burkas?
To protect his anonymity Alan probably sits at his keyboard wearing one of the EDL’s most popular items – “The Full Face Mask”.
http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/shop/?orderby=popularity
Maybe Alan can tell us why 3 out of the 10 most popular items for sale by the EDL are designed to cover the faces of their members.
To assist the speed surfing of posts, can it be now presumed you are going to harp on the topic of who people are (Glasgow residents excepted) and bizarre political conflations and generic associations vs. matters of BBC inaccuracy, lack of objectivity and integrity every time now?
(Extra points from down the corridor for use of the word ‘tactic’ in any reply)
Presume what you want – as I have said often enough I really don’t care what you think or (attempt to) say!!
‘as I have said often enough I really don’t care what you think or (attempt to) say!!’
And clearly you will not care enough to keep saying it:)
Like you dislike this forum so much you keep having to come back to not actually add anything of value.
Carry on.
One can only wonder as to the reasons why the “hall monitor” gets so upset whenever the “head boy” is challenged.
Hall monitor? Moi? Promotion at last!
Guessing this latest is you still not caring what I think or write then?:)
I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes getting upset, and who seems to be getting it.
I take it back, you are now adding considerable value… to my day at least.
No blood vessels were harmed in writing this post. Well, here, anyway
One can only wonder why you keep replying to GW when you maintain you don’t care what he says.
Now you’ve gone and done it.
Hark…
Do take the wife and kids along on an EDL march then. I’m sure they’ll have a great time.
The wife and kids would spend more time trying to dodge the obscene abuse and violent behaviour of the UAF thugs. Another piece of leftie myth-making – EDL violent thugs, UAF peaceful demonstrators. Unfortunately the arrest statistics show predominantly UAF supporters being arrested for public order offences and violent conduct, though the MSM won’t tell you that. They’ll only report that ” Fifteen people were arrested at today’s EDL demonstration.” Oh, and let’s not forget that it was a UAF thug who murdered Lee Rigby. I don’t recall anyone from the EDL being charged and convicted of a like offence.
Says the man using a pseudonym. Maybe he does it for the same reasons that you and I do?
To avoid the relentless persecution of self appointed witch-finders like you perhaps?
What, you mean like the Muslim Burka Albaman?.
Ho, ho, ho, I will resist the gaping open goal of people in this country who wear masks to cover their identity, I mean it’s so bleedin’ obvious ‘innit guv ? You see them every day in all the larger cities. And I suppose all the bleedin’ class warriors who man ( and woman!) the barricades against the counter revolution go around with their ID hanging around their necks don’t they pal?
Yeh that’s right They all were happy to be seen as god intended;
http://assets4.heart.co.uk/2011/32/tottenham-riots8-1312708060-view-0.jpg
You get a point for making me laugh today, cheers pal,
PS where is my reply to my request that you tell us who you work for North of the haggis border, I mean, is it a state secret ? Somehow I doubt that wee ‘Eck will sack you for revealing yourself, more like give you a big wet kiss, hmmm, I can see now, I mean who would want the big jockstrap learing over one whilst puckering up ? Only for jock land class warriors eh ?
UAF members don’t ever, ever wear face coverings, do they:
https://englishpatriots.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/brighton-st-g-2012-uaf.jpg
EDL:
http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/238255/edl-hyde.jpg
Like perhaps a store supplying the average ‘we don’t like capitalism but buy our coffee from Starbucks’ protest?
The BBC should treat all political organisations fairly regardless of their own prejudices.
Ignoring your homo-erotic jibe in the direction of Alan, I gather you see political difference as a polite exchange of opinion that does not disturb the great religion of shopping. It is noticeable that at no point do you address what the EDL are demonstrating against. What do you think? Historians ignore the noisy fripperies associated in demonstration and rallies and always concentrate on the ideas being promoted or opposed. If somebody, due poor education and frustration, gives vent to howl of anger I give them slack not mock them. They are the powerless that our political class have taken for granted – apart from wars, of course – and quite deliberately has made their world alien to them. They are not able to wield the pen, let them wield their voice.
News… meaning… Newly received or noteworthy “information”, especially about recent or important events:
Opinion….A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge: I judge that the BBC is heavily more into the the later and little to do with the former.
Additionally increasingly blatant and without any subtly…
Why should it? Who is going to bring the BBC to heal?
I would add …Who is the BBC’s master and who does it serve.
If the BBC wants increased credibility the answer is simple. Just report the 6Ws (who, what, where, when, why & how) of the news without favour to anyone except Britain. If the report is partial because of pressure or some other reason say so. Drop the semiotic tricks to push the reader in one direction or another. Right now, in many areas, the BBC is FOX News except that Fox never pretends to be neutral nor the state broadcaster.
North Korea will allow the BBC in only if it agrees to absolute censorship and will jam if the BBC broadcasts anything they don’t like. What possible reason does the BBC have for a North Korean service if it, as it will, implicitly bows to the demands of the rulers.
So as to appease its Islamic, Arabic-speaking audience, and to obfuscate the nature of the enemy of the West, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) censors words: ‘Islamofascists,’ ‘Islamic jihadists,’ and ‘terrorists’-
“A top BBC executive branded ‘mad’ after saying that Charlie Hebdo killers should not be described as ‘terrorists’”
http://www.eureporter.co/world/2015/01/29/a-top-bbc-executive-branded-mad-after-saying-that-charlie-hebdo-killers-should-not-be-described-as-terrorists/?
So the BBC wants to continue in its policy and aim of destroying local newspapers.
At that point, with the task completed, it will call for huge extra funding as it won’t be able to parasite off the efforts of the redundant local journalists.
It can do no other, being a unstoppable modern monarch believing in its divine right to rule.
The BBC’s World Service is a relic of the empire which is anathema to the BBC’s current lefty liberal mindset.
The BBC is trying to colonise the world with its own views, values and opinions.
How old fashioned and politically incorrect.
ThE bBC Should be encouraged to embark on this world vision of its news reporting and output with one proviso,
That this organisation should be decoupled and not a recipient of the licence tax.
This would facilitate a major cut in the annual fee, to say £1 a week and be subject to a a 12 month rolling contract with minimum customer satisfaction criteria established.
Those requiring its news output could have that as a separate option……
The World Service used to promote British values abroad. Now it attempts to promote foreign, indeed alien, or anti-British values into the UK where most of its listeners really are. BBC is thus very happy and wanting ever more money so to do.
[Don’t believe their ridiculous audience figures for the World Service for a moment.]
This BBC report will be sounding alarm bells for anyone familiar with ‘1984’.
The BBC’s desire to monopolise news at every level throughout the globe is plain for all to see, and they have become so arrogant about it they don’t even attempt dress it up. Who the hell are they to say Fox News is wrong? Their desire to impose their world view e.g. wanting to obliterate Fox because they don’t like its alleged political leanings, is just plain sinister.
And bracketing ‘evangelical Christianity’ with ‘political Islam’ is the pure unreconstructed hard left moral relativism we have come to expect from the commentariat it shares 24/7 with The Guardian .
This is the BBC singing from the Hacked Off hymnsheet, with all the curtailing of free speech and democratic expression that entails, pure Common Purpose/Agenda 21 totalitarianism.
Truly scary – and worse, it doesn’t look like anyone can stop them.
“‘The BBC is more necessary and valuable than ever’”
Oh dear, oh dear. The really are so far up their own arses.
I get my news from numerous sources, from the Times of Israel to al Jazeera. From CNN to Fox News and, believe it or not, The Guardian, also The Times, The Telegraph and the Mail, plus a plethora of outlets here in North America.
Do I bother with the BBC? Rarely if ever. They have proved to me that they will deliberately withhold news items or distort them. A lot of the bilge they now pump out is little more than op eds.
I forgot to say that I get all of this from the Internet.
And what does the BBC have to say about the Internet:
“The internet is not keeping everyone informed, nor will it: it is, in fact, magnifying problems of information inequality, misinformation, polarisation and disengagement.”
Hilarious twaddle if it wasn’t so dangerous.
Excellent post, Alan. The BBC’s attempt to denigrate the internet says so much about them.
I noticed the quote about local news reaching all parts of the United Kingdom. The BBC and the Trust are obsessed with ‘local’. I used to be on a BBC panel and the whole of the questioning was set to ensure that responses stressed the importance of ‘local’. And of course this does not mean that the good people of Wick in the north of Scotland get their local news but that the BBC can justify not only the Asian network but perhaps justify the introduction of a Polish network, Bosnian network, African network etc….and of course they would need extra funding to provide it.
The BBC seem awful keen to present themselves as honest brokers in any mediation between ISIS and the Jordanian and/or Japanese government.
Who the hell gave white BBC reporters the right to ask family of Jordanian families that are going through hell, what they think of their government?
Witness the BBCs running of the Sydney story-the hostage taker killed two people(one in the coldest blood imaginable)…but all the BBC cares to tell us of is the one who was killed by a police bullet that ricocheted.
As ever-let`s not look at ISIS, Islam and its evil tentacles…let`s blame the uniforms, the authorities..and give Allah its usual free run.
Typical BBC displacement…endless rucking for Duggan, Moaty and Mad Frankie…so fuck off Rigby, Rathbone and Henning(once we`ve waved a ceremonial onion under a moist eye).
If only ISIS would take the BBC in its entirity-they would at least be honest in their evil…the BBC,on the other hand; sprinkle petals and rosewater on the Butchers of Beelzebub and hope to pass their notes on-and excuse whatever the scum choose to do.
ISIS-BBC…the aim is the same, just an extra letter in the aggronym!
Any chance of the BBC following up on the Jay Report into Rotherham and its child abuse inquiry, as given to us all last October?
Any arrests?…and jail time for the perps? Any change in policies, procedures even?
Why do I ask?…because the BBC news this morning led with the fact that they had rang around insurers…and not enough were willing or able to fulfil a Tory pledge to provide some age care insurance for the ageing population.
Hasn`t happened-but you can bet that the BBC created this story to file a “File On Four” type of expose on the awful Tories.
Still the fact that there was no story didn`t spare the Tories-oh the humanity!
But as for a live scandal embroiling Labour and its evil reign in South Yorkshire?…an easy story and one that is ongoing?…well might embarrass Labour and the Muslim Brothers of quangoland and unionville.
Ah the power-to choose your turf, your stories and your agenda and priorities…and slurry us all in liberal lying shit!
Maybe the BBC could take the matter up with the Chief Crown Prosecutor, who seems to know the score and shares a religion approved by the BBC and Government. Yes, I know he has prosecuted some members of the modest and peaceful religion, but not that many.
Now can we address this question. Remember the attacks on Butler Sloss who was said to have connections which compromised her impartiality.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/nazir-afzal-there-is-no-religious-basis-for-the-abuse-in-rotherham
The BBC is not keeping everyone informed, nor will it: it is, in fact:
(1) Magnifying problems of information inequality: through censorship of information on the Internet not approved by the BBC.
(2) Misinformation: through censorship of parts of the information: Such as the identity of those naughty British people and anti-Semites, also those not actually denying that the Climate changes, but just the brainwashing about the cause.
(3) Polarisation: through the censorship of information, which causes ignorance, rather than understanding.
and
(4) Disengagement: through censorship of News, which causes people to look on the internet for News.
Alberman lives in a foreign country “The Peoples Socialist Republic of Scotland ” .Nothing to do with England . The BBC will soon be SBC , in Scotland, not the Evil English version , just the evil Scottish one.
when the bbc and radio 5 live presenters are accussed of bias which is quiet alot they always say we try hard to be impartial in there news coverage,no you should not try hard,you should be 100% impartial simple as that,some people might say look at channel 4 and jon snow they are left wing biased,yes they are but the big difference betreen channel 4 and the bbc is that we are not forced to pay to watch channel 4 but are forced to pay to watch the bbc left wing bias under the threat of court action if we dont cough up £145 .50.
Unfortunately, Stuart, I believe we do subsidize C4. Not too sure how it works, to be honest, but it probably explains why they mirror the BBC bias to a certain extent.
Back to Pedants Corner …
C4 is funded by sales and advertising. IIRC they were originally funded by the State at start up but that was a long time ago …
See here.
Since when has it been in the BBC charter to run a website giving advice about long term care for the elderly?
“If the UK wants the BBC to remain valued and respected”
That ship has sailed.