The BBC ..or is it just me?

Yes I though those numbers were wrong.
-----------
Richard

My, scarily similar to me, friend simply doesn't buy newspapers or watch the news, too scared of throwing bricks at his TV! I assume his wife does as he seems reasonably well informed!
Perhaps he has the right idea?

That's what comes of watching the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. 

Seems I am not on my own with criticisms of the BBC.

My biggest complaint is over the waste of money on reporters. Partly what groundhog has stated and partly over the continued practice of duplication. eg: reporter for national news stood on a motorway bridge, miles away from nowhere, possibly in the rain with a camera crew.  Local news obviously same time of day, still raining still with camera crew another reporter presumably Salford based giving same story.

One other point.  How many reporters were in the USA covering the Trump Saga? , being fed and watered on our Licence fees.   Are we that interested.

Thanks for starting this topic guys as you probably guess its a topic that gets my back up.

groundhog wrote:We all know by now unless you have lived in a different universe the World is suffering from a terrible pandemic, we all know it is serious and how stretched our services are.

No secret here I hate the press but must we put up with this night after night, there are so many other things going on right now that are far more newsworthy.

I share your point of view. My guess is it's an attempt to get over to those, not complying, how serious the situation is. The problem is that those numpties will not be interested in watching the news coverage. We're (in this house) trying to maintain a sense of balance in our lives right now and the impact and effect of the relentless coverage makes that just a little more difficult. I now take in the headlines and switch off. You are also correct about other news stories being either missed or not given sufficient coverage. Seems there's only one story in town.

I endorse all the above, and more. BBC has lost the plot - as I was able to write in a recent questionnaire which they invited me to complete.  To the above views I added some pet grumbles of my own, including persistent "music" being played across spoken dialogue (on both radio and tv); heavy advertising of BBC Sounds; obsession with being "woke". And so on, including its evident London-centric, Remain bias.

Poor old Lord Reith - that it's stooped to current levels.

Cymro

I agree with all the above but I think it's the media in general.

RML wrote:There is a BBC survey being circulated to some licence holders by email, I filled it in last week and made my negative opinions c!ear. 
Rich..

Where do you get it from. I have many negative opinions as well

To add a bit of balance: IMO the BBC has had a problem identifying what it is, for many years. Is it still the UK's "national broadcaster" and, if so, does it have a duty to broadcast content that is "in the interests of the UK"? I.e. when viewed from outside, does it have a duty to broadcast state propaganda?

When you look at some of its content, such as the relentlessly positive coverage of the Royal family, it clearly feels that it does. Similarly, its coverage of the pandemic reflects - to a large extent - what the government wants us to hear.

So... what is it? A state's national broadcaster, or an independent global news provider? Is it "impartial and independent", or the voice of the UK's "public interest"? Can it possibly be both?

Now at 51, I used to regard the BBC as the reliable, trustworthy news broadcaster. Sadly over the past few years (largely driven by 24 hr news broadcasting ) there is a need to fill in slots with ‘views from our experts’ and ‘listen to what our independent advisor’ has to say. BBC news is now awash with political bias and clear agendas which infects other programmes such as question time etc. You only have to observe the conduct of Laura Kuenssberg over the past 2 years to understand what the beeb wants us to think. It’s dangerous

Don't mention Laura Kuenssberg, £250,000 annual salary , for what exactly?

When it comes to individual news reporters, it's impossible for the BBC to win.

I can recall a short and pointless debate (on another forum) with someone about Huw Edwards. I knew him as a very professional, and apparently harmless newsreader who had been around for so long that I pretty much took him for granted. But to my opponent he was a "Welsh windbag" who could do no right.

I personally don't find Laura Kuenssberg especially offensive. She has obviously been told to be thought-provoking and to question official government output, and that (to me) is all that she seems to be doing.

Robert Peston, on the other hand, is a presenter who I can't tolerate. It really doesn't make any difference (to me) what he is saying - it's the whiney delivery that gets to me, very quickly. But to others he is precious, apparently.

I also received the BBC email the other day and filled in the survey appropriately, explaining why I can no longer watch some of my previously favourite programmes due to their biased agenda and constant preaching, rather than informing, educating or entertaining me. Their obsession with 'diversity' means that they focus disproportionately on reflecting the views of minorities, whilst ignoring the culture and values of the majority of folk in Britain.

The BBC are not alone, most of the mainstream media 'news' outlets have now moved away from simply reporting actual facts about events that have happened, to speculating constantly about what might/may/could possibly happen in the indeterminate future, usually forecasting worst case scenarios.

As to Peston, he has simply become a parody of himself and should no longer be taken seriously.

Roopert wrote:To add a bit of balance: IMO the BBC has had a problem identifying what it is, for many years. Is it still the UK's "national broadcaster" and, if so, does it have a duty to broadcast content that is "in the interests of the UK"? I.e. when viewed from outside, does it have a duty to broadcast state propaganda?

When you look at some of its content, such as the relentlessly positive coverage of the Royal family, it clearly feels that it does. Similarly, its coverage of the pandemic reflects - to a large extent - what the government wants us to hear.

So... what is it? A state's national broadcaster, or an independent global news provider? Is it "impartial and independent", or the voice of the UK's "public interest"? Can it possibly be both?

It’s not either. It just puts out its own negative, biased propaganda about Brexit, it’s negative about anything to do with Great Britain, it has no proper ‘investigative’ reporters and it’s definitely not ‘impartial’.

Al Jazeera is a lot better for the news. You get world wide news and I think it is independent, I haven't heard any bias. I remember the BBC putting Broadcasting House up for sale when they moved to Up North. Then they decided they could just increase their empire by keeping it, and guess what? We now have staff rushing to and from Salford, I wouldn't be surprised if they are travelling first class on trains. Having been given the standard 'compulsory relocation' expenses that Government dishes out like candy floss which amounts to 'have a free house, better than the one you have now and we'll pay off your mortgage, get landscape gardeners in, have all new white goods you want, new furniture and carpets' they then get the train back to Broadcasting House.
That woman who cannot let her interviewee finish their sentence really annoys me. Why ask a question if you are not going to listen to the answer?
And why do they interview people - presumably with degrees - who always start a sentence with 'SO'? I conclude that day 1 at university consists of the students having drummed into them that they must always start every sentence with 'SO'.
Why do we need two separate children's BBC channels? Just to keep them indoors instead of being allowed out to play.
I personally spend my time sitting watching Youtube, it is a lot better.

OldWomble wrote:It just puts out its own negative, biased propaganda about Brexit

Again, it's impossible for the BBC to be "right" and "unbiased" on this.

In the referendum, almost exactly half the people that voted were for, and half against. As the two are almost diametrically opposed on the issue, and few people have changed their stance in either direction since, the BBC cannot make any comment without getting it "wrong" for one half of that group!

Unless they constantly sit on the fence, which would no doubt annoy both sides...

If sitting on the fence means that they don't come down in favour of one side or the other of an argument, but rather cover both sides equally, then that indeed IS just what they should be doing as a supposedly impartial broadcaster.

As has been pointed out, the Brexit vote was close to half and half so therefore they should spend roughly equal amounts of time covering positive as well as negative sides of the issue. 

However survey after survey has found them to be consistently strongly pro-EU and anti-Brexit in their coverage. This lack of impartiality is not just in news or current affairs programmes -  a study showed that 74 percent of the corporation's comedy slots in November 2020 were occupied by comedians holding "left-leaning, anti-Brexit or ‘woke' views".

And I have found their persistently woke PC agenda to have bled over into previously popular programmes such as Countryfile, Winterwatch and even Doctor Who.

Before anyone suggests this is all just coming from surveys of Telegraph, Mail & Express readers, Ofcom have come up with similar findings and if you want some typical viewer feedback, have a read of some of the reviews of the BBC on Trustpilot, where the overall rating across over 7400 entries is just one star.

And the BBC have not responded to a single negative review - but then why should they bother, they've got our money anyway since it's illegal to watch the BBC or any other live broadcast channel without paying them £157 a year.

Of course, not all of their programmes are rubbish, they do still make (or at least broadcast*) some excellent quality programmes, but sadly many fewer than in the past. 

* Much of their output is now commissioned, produced by external production companies rather than in-house.

rogerblack wrote:
As has been pointed out, the Brexit vote was close to half and half so therefore they should spend roughly equal amounts of time covering positive as well as negative sides of the issue. 

I think this really needs some examples, to help me understand.

Please, can someone who watches Al Jazeera or one of the "better, less biased" news broadcasters please give some examples of the positive sides of Brexit that these "better" broadcasters are showing but the BBC are not?

I think this really needs some examples, to help me understand.

Please, can someone who watches Al Jazeera or one of the "better, less biased" news broadcasters please give some examples of the positive sides of Brexit that these "better" broadcasters are showing but the BBC are not?

As I’m sure you are well aware, there are many positives from Brexit. Unfortunately the Brussels Broadcasting Company have never once mentioned any of them. Just look at all the FTA’s we have already signed up to all around the world, the huge inward investment from companies like Nissan etc and, most importantly, look at the vaccination program here compared with the EU. Yet all the BBC do is criticise the UK. They are NOT a national broadcaster and they are NOT independent. They need to be defunded ASAP.