The situation that the Greeks find themselves in and the one the BBC finds itself in bare a great deal of similarity.
The Greeks are at the mercy of the politicians of the EU whilst the BBC, despite Tony Hall’s claim that he is going to ‘fight the politicians’, is in reality at their mercy.
The Greeks are financially bankrupt and utterly unable to accept that they might have to leave the EU whilst the BBC is morally bankrupt, utterly unable to accept that it is in any way biased or left leaning, treating those who raise any objections with disdain and contempt.
Hall, the Guardian tells us, has pledged…
‘ to ensure that last week’s hasty deal with government to secure stable funding for the corporation will never happen again.
Writing for the Observer, Lord Hall, who has been forced to accept responsibility for the £750m cost of free licence fees for the over-75s, argues that key negotiations about the financial basis of the BBC must now be taken out of the political arena for good.’
Which is strange as writing in the Observer he also said…
‘As the dust settles after a challenging week of negotiation over funding and debate about the future of the BBC, three things are clear.
First, the BBC has negotiated a strong financial settlement from the government that gives us stability and clarity, but we should be in no doubt that the charter process will be tough.
Second, despite noises to the contrary, the BBC is as independent today as it has ever been. There has been no fundamental change in the relationship between government and corporation. Nor will there be under my watch.’
So that’s clear then….must fight those appalling politicians…and yet….all is good.
He continues...
‘Now we have fixed the funding settlement, the debate moves on to what the BBC does with that funding. We have never been afraid of debate about our future…..So what is most important is that the voice of the audience and the voice of people who care about the BBC are heard in the debate. The public are our shareholders. Their view will always be the most important.’
Hmm…right….just like those Greeks voters who voted in an anti-austerity party and then, just to make sure, held a referendum to dump austerity…and yet…..they got even more austerity. Like those Greek voters the BBC’s audience might feel like they’re being taken for a ride…..and oddly, like the Greek debts the BBC’s costs have mysteriously grown…once the cost of over 75’s licences was a mere £650 million, now it is very definitely £750 million. Curious that one, how it has suddenly gained so much traction.
Hope and joy at first flush of being asked for your opinion…..“It was an expression of the will of the people,”
Now….“I feel like a slave. They do what they want, and we can’t participate.”
I have every confidence that the BBC will listen to its audience…those it finds ‘acceptable’ and banging the same drum as the BBC.
Hall launches a highly political attack blaming the proposed changes on ‘politics’ and the ‘narrow self-interest’ of those politicians…
We should be under no illusion that this is a period of high risk for the BBC. While no one wants to abolish the BBC, there will be some who want to diminish us for their own narrow interests. We must remind them that the British public do not share their views.
So we’ve gone from listening to the British public to already knowing what they think…no need to call the BBC with your opinions thanks….they’ve got all the ones they need right now.
Hall says…
With public support, this is the chance to renew and enhance an organisation that we all deeply care about.
…and of course that’s what a lot of the BBC’s latest PR campaign has been about….persuading the Public that the BBC is in mortal danger and the world will be a worse place without the BBC…..and a lot of people will have to find proper jobs not cushioned by guaranteed funding and then do them properly without bias if the BBC goes under.
Have to say it is galling to hear the cheek of Hall and Co all desperately pleading for public support when they have spent years deriding the majority of the public and their views on Europe, immigration, Islam, climate change, Israel and economics.
Keep the BBC, boot out the people who have been the source of the institutional malaise, the ideological corruption, the divisive anti-white, anti-British, anti-Western narrative that has undermined society, and those who look the other way when the criminals or terrorists are ethnic.
Hall keeps saying that the BBC is essential for Britain, part of its fabric, maintaining cohesion and a better society.
Really?
The BBC has been the champion of radical Islamists, even as the bodies were being returned from Tunisia the BBC’s Phil Mackie was at Green Lane Mosque, a hardline Wahhabi institution, telling us how wonderful it was and how they were ‘fighting radicalisation’…the same mosque at the centre of the ‘Under Cover Mosque’ scandal!, and of course the champion of Palestinian terrorists, it has attempted to destroy Israel with all that that will lead to, it has encouraged mass immigration and the subsequent huge costs and damage that has come with that to society, it has undermined British identity and vilified British history in order to help along Labour’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the British population of those ‘horribly white’ British people and their dreadful culture, it has hidden the truth about the racial or religious identity of criminals and terrorists making sure the real solution to the problems that they bring with them cannot be dealt with as the problem is not recognised or admitted, it has relentlessly promoted climate change costing us billions and forcing the poorest to make that famous choice of ‘eat or heat’, it has promoted Europe regardless of what anyone else thinks, it has set out to smash political parties or groups that it doesn’t like such as UKIP or the EDL and they sacked Jeremy Clarkson.
We here at Biased BBC ‘Must keep reminding them that the British public do not share their views.’
So ‘no one wants to abolish the BBC’ according to Lord Hall.
He is not listening to the public debate of the last ten years while calling for a new one!
I can’t off the top of my head think of anybody I know who feels like that about the bbc. On the contrary, they have become a joke with the obvious lefty bias, and let’s face it ,why should anyone pay for this crap in the Internet/multimedia age. I smell a rat, lots of self interested people in a panic.
Agree-utter duplicity all the way-their socialistic views remain. My brother who was a staunch BBC listner/watcher, refuses to watch BBC News anyloner now turns to SKY news. I’ll probably smash the TV if I have to see another Question Time !
They also eat babies and tortue small, furry animals.
No, that was Thatcher.
Better than the other way round (fur gets in your mouth – terrible).
Then Fuleco, I presume that you have voted here ……………..
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
If you have, perhaps you wouldn’t mind advertising it ?
Aww you missed out allows large scale sexual abuse on it’s premises by it’s staff then sacking the journalists who uncovered it ,sexual harassment which in one case led to suicide ,bulling , smearing innocent men while protecting guilty ones ,ageism,theft,expenses fraud , tax dodging,handing up whistle blowers and it’s own journalist to the labour party leading to another suicide , criminalising the poor and helpless and imprisoning the really poor and helpless !
But I forgot you like those so no wonder you have a huge blind spot !
On one level, the BBC is claiming legitimacy for its funding and its narrative control, based on popularity.
This is so transparently untrue, with the levels of both bias and waste having become notorious and risible, that Mr Hall obviously realises he cannot get away with it. The real level of engagement between the BBC and the government is the unspoken but constantly implied assertion that, like the banks, the BBC is ‘too big to fail’.
The constant hammering on the theme that the BBC in its current form is central to the culture of the Nation is at the core of this assertion. Like the banks before it, this is an attempt to bully: in this case, anyone who would attempt to effectively control it, or reform its interpretation of its charter.
The activities and tone of the BBC since it effectively lost the election along with the Labour Party need to be understood in this light. It is currently attempting to demonstrate at every turn its depth and breadth of reach, and the chaos which would ensue if it were radically overhauled by what it fears most, Right-Libertarians.
Under a light covering of lately discovered populism of dubious sincerity, the BBC is engaged in fear-mongering. So the message to counter this has to be, first and foremost:
‘Don’t be afraid to say Boo to the Goose! It may have laid golden eggs in the past, but it is now depositing excrement on the central pillars of our culture – time for a change, before we are all completely buried in the stuff’.
“The real level of engagement between the BBC and the government is the unspoken but constantly implied assertion that, like the banks, the BBC is ‘too big to fail’.”
The BBC seems to have realized the value of the ‘too big to fail’ defence.
How else to explain, in a period of theoretical uncertainty on funding, the expansion of empire and creation of roles, especially at senior level with eye-watering pay, pensions and… doubtless… rock solid redundancy terms?
This £750 million that is ” lost” . How is that computed ?
The government didn’t give me £ 6.50 last week . Scrub that , it didn’t give me £ 7.50 . Where do I make up the shortfall , who do I impinge upon ?
Why should the government. –taxpayer– give me £ 7.50 ? Because I bought a megaphone to go into the town square to hector people . The megaphone still costs the same whether OAPs listen or not . How does the BBC justify what it thinks its owed ?
Just before 7am news BBC Radio 4 Monday morning announcer said “the news is about Greece and what is happening – the honest answer is that we don’t know but we’ll explore it a little later” How can you explore something you don’t know!!!! This just about says it all about a major flaw of the BBC has when it insists on talking to fill the airwaves with no knowledge. What value has this ? It is a quite mad and a complete waste of tax payers money on dribble!!!
yeah because it would be so much more sensible to ignore the biggest news event of the day, just because they’re not sure what’s going on. It’s not as if they can, you know, discuss the issues and possible outcomes or anything. You should run a news room,you’re an obvious natural at it.
You’re not talking about a ‘News’ room, your talking about a Speculation, Hype and Irritating Trivia mutual back-scratching parlour.
The Greek Titanic has sailed around the world twice now and can’t sink because the EU ‘project’ is ‘ever closer union’, just like ‘Hotel California’ we can never leave!
The BBC should be in the business of only reporting the facts, without spin or speculation. When they admit that they do not know what is happening in an ever-changing story, then they should shut the hell up, and report accurately on something else, until they do know.
Simply report the who, what, where, when, why and how, without any speculation as to what might or might not be next, or liberal progressive left wing spin imposing what they believe we should all think about the story. Report ALL the indisputable, cold hard facts and allow us all to make up our own minds. Don’t leave out or add anything that may be embarrassing or inconvenient for those on any side of a political agenda.
Right, so a European summit which is likely to determine the future of the entire continent is going on, and you expect a news organisation to just ignore it because nobody knows what’s going on behind closed doors? How likely is that? did you see the newspapers declining to comment on it? How about Sky, ITN, Fox? Did Breitbart just shut up about it?
do you thing that perhaps, just maybe, the newsreader was being flippant in saying ‘we don’t know what’s going on’? Making a joke? There’s a hell of a lot you can say about an international summit even if you don’t know what’s said behind closed doors or what the outcome will be. You know that if they’d just gone, oh, we don’t know what’s going on so let’s talk about the US presidential election you’d be on this board going WHY DIDN’T THEY TALK ABOUT GREECE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY TODAY, don’t you? The comment that started this is just idiotic. Those of us who earn a living trading with European countries want to know what MIGHT happen as well as what IS happening.
Those other media organisations are commercial entities. The BBC is supposed to be impartial and would be much more respected IF it stopped trying to compete on being the first to report, and decided to be the most accurate and reliable source of reporting, without bias, spin, speculation instead.
So YES I would prefer it if the BBC ignored speculation and only reported what is actually useful. EG FACTS! If you want speculation about what MIGHT happen next? Then leave that to all the other media, which is allowed to be biased and offer speculation, then those other media outlets can be wrong. It is not the BBC’s remit to try to mould public opinion.
And stop the vast expense of sending upteen reporters to any event worldwide, surely there are journalists/reporters in those countries that can report to the BBC. Terrible financial management but of course its not their own money.
Lets not forget the spectacle of Caroline Thomson, who got £680,000, and Mark Byford, who departed the BBC with £949,000 when they left as executives.
That’s around (and over) 1.5 million of the 750 million right there! NOT including the rest of the greedy gang who departed at the Beeb.
Thats about 6500 license fee payers for Byford and 4600 license fee payers to Thomson forced to pay their TV Tax…or go to prison.
Oh I’m damned sure the BBC can make savings to compensate for pensioners.
And yes they clearly need to be held to account, not by the useless BBC Trust nor even OFCOM, but by someone who is chosen by the people and has some real power like, erh…erh, yes the democratically elected government.
Because when you cant keep your own house in order and I’m forced to pay for it by law (as you are) then something has to be done.
Its simple the bBC have too many TV channels and Radio Stations to fill with quality programming.
Back to basics, two TV channels with a red button for (quality) sport. Three radio stations, 2,3 and 4, using the MW and DAB transmitters of R4 for sport and just morning and drive shows on local radio, the rest of it can be networked with R2, but optouts for hourly news, or in the event of a local emergency.
Leave crap like celeb this and that Don’t tell the bride etc to commercial TV. Kids can have a couple of hours between 3.30 and 6 just like the old days, no need for 24 hours (over two channels) of brain washing.
There, that’s just for starters and I’ve saved a few million, thats before I’ve started on the presenter cull of one where there are two and local reporters reporting nationally instead of rushing Huw down from London to do his piece to camera…This is too easy…
Please can they also save a few ‘k’ by getting rid of the dire ‘anonymous’, adds-nothing , Carmen Squire, the most-heard voice on British media.
(She’s the one that is given carte blanche to interrupt Radio 2 every 20 minutes with inane interjections like “Terry Wogan!”, “Jules Holland!”, “Paul McCartney!”, as if none of us would recognise any of them without her sexy (pass the bucket) help!)
I heard a rumor that parliament is going to look at bBC bias. Is this true?
If true, how are they going to fact find this accusation, look at the archive of this site perhaps?
If they find bias to be true? How will it be eradicated? How did it become entrenched? how will they stop it re-emerging?
A panel of eight: Dawn Airey, Colette Bowe, Andrew Fisher, Darren Henley, Ashley Highfield, Alex Mahon, Lopa Patel and Stewart Purvis are to look into the BBC’s left-wing bias. I think that the establishment for sending material in the form of emails to these eight is yet to be established.
The solution to the ‘too big to fail’ problem is to break up such monopolies into smaller units. As with Banks, the BBC has become a navel gazing monopoly, were the money goes to the parasites at the top of the management tree. Therefore the free market is producing alternatives to the Banks and the BBC. Breaking up such monopolies and letting them go bust, can only help those Banks and Broadcasters who serve the customer with what they want.
I like Tony Hall’s suggestion that “negotiations about the financial basis of the BBC must now be taken out of the political arena for good” That’s what Noel Edmonds and Richard Desmond want.
But Halls idiotic suggestion that “the public are our shareholders” would only come true if the Tories privatised the BBC. We could then have a vote, chose to sell or buy our shares, and obtain a dividend.
As for the BBC’s anti-democratic left-wing views “We must remind them that the British public do not share their views” as was shown in the General Election.
Whittingdale could confirm the views of the British people with a referendum. Question: Chose which way you wish to pay for the BBC (A) Voluntary Subscription (B) Compulsory Licence Fee, with a fine and a Criminal record for none payment.
My preferred option would be to close the BBC down, for knowingly employing and covering up for paedophiles. Failing that, to break up the BBC into separate subscription services:
BBC Sports; BBC Films; BBC news & current affairs; BBC Drama & light entertainment; BBC science and natural history; BBC Children’s TV… etc…
People can pay for whichever package they want. If the BBC are as popular and loved as they claim, they could make much more money than under the TV licence.