What's Going On With The Beeb?

[j2k4]

It seemed to be the case that the BBC was going to pick-up the gauntlet and begin to defend itself.

Full-page ads and the like?

Are other investigations being contemplated?

The silence is reaching a crescendo.

[Skillian]

The last I heard they had decided to drop the appeal against the Hutton Report and are concentrating on rebuilding their credibility as journalists.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Skillian@10 February 2004 - 01:52
The last I heard they had decided to drop the appeal against the Hutton Report and are concentrating on rebuilding their credibility as journalists.
Always a good idea-

Does that mean, though, that they deem a refutation of Hutton's report an insurmountable task?

Given that we speak of the Beeb here, that they are apparently giving the nod to the report has tremendous significance, does it not?

I know many here will think I'm being snide, but I am rather sympathetic, actually; most of the U.K. held/hold the BBC in highest regard.

Were I in their shoes, I know how I would feel.

[Skillian]

Yes, I think they have decided that it's not worth the fight. Perhaps they were sick of writing stories about themselves in that surreal way we have seen recently.

Most of the public have heard from the BBC themselves that while they accept some blame, as illustrated by recent resignations, they do have some serious misgivings about the report, and I think they feel it is enough that the public know that.

I don't believe running through courts would prove their integrity, the way to do that is to get back to doing what they do best. So no, I don't think that their apparent reluctance to fight is of particular significance.

[j2k4]

Do you feel the BBC is/is not subject to governmental influence then?

The Hutton report would indicate this was certainly not the case in years past, but public opinion running contrary to Hutton's conclusions would have us believe it is-at least when it comes to matters concerning Blair's political survival.

I believe this goes to the root of the question of whether it's reputation can be properly restored, yes?

How will they erase the suspicions of government control that have come to light so suddenly?

[billyfridge]

The BBC made a mistake, so what, who doesen&#39;t, the top exec&#39; resigned, the BBC apologised, end of story. <_<

[MagicNakor]

I&#39;m fairly certain that the BBC took the fall for the whole thing. They are, after all, governmentally funded.

:ninja:

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@10 February 2004 - 12:01
I&#39;m fairly certain that the BBC took the fall for the whole thing. They are, after all, governmentally funded.

:ninja:
I don&#39;t know about government funding, every household, with a television has to pay for a licence wether they watch BBC or not. this year i have to pay £116.00
its compulsary. :angry: and it goes up every year. :angry:

[ilw]

The hutton report imo marks a sad day for the beeb. They let themselves down on the quality of their reporting and following up of a story (and makes me think that maybe they were slacking on other stories) and they deserved to get rapped on the knuckles, but Greg Dyke seemed like a good leader and its a shame to lose him. If i remember well wasn&#39;t there a furore when he was first chosen because he was a labour supporter? Oh well maybe the person to replace him will actually put something worth watching on the telly and continue his work of digitising and publishing the BBC archives online.

As to a loss of credibility, imo its been very slight, the general opinion seems to be that the Hutton report isn&#39;t worth the paper its printed on.


Do you feel the BBC is/is not subject to governmental influence then?
This is a hard question to answer, imo they are generally mostly free of influence, but the bbc is a national institution so effectively they have to accept the hutton report no matter what they may think of it. What is of more concern to me is the extent to which the government influenced the findings of the hutton report.

[VaVaVoom]

Not to rally behind the beeb but aren&#39;t these events, on some level, a symptom of how media corporations are bursting their banks?

The BBC and others, in the UK anyway, have become burgeoning Hydras and the various heads are clashing at every lightbulb pop.

I believe, contrary to intention, that 24 news has diluted quality and scrutiny and what we now receive are insipid hack-jobs and rushed, ill-contacted lampoons.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by billyfridge+10 February 2004 - 07:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (billyfridge @ 10 February 2004 - 07:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@10 February 2004 - 12:01
I&#39;m fairly certain that the BBC took the fall for the whole thing. They are, after all, governmentally funded.

:ninja:
I don&#39;t know about government funding, every household, with a television has to pay for a licence wether they watch BBC or not. this year i have to pay £116.00
its compulsary. :angry: and it goes up every year. :angry: [/b][/quote]
well its my homepage and i watch it every night, so thank you for paying your license.

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by mogadishu+10 February 2004 - 13:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mogadishu @ 10 February 2004 - 13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by billyfridge@10 February 2004 - 07:10
<!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@10 February 2004 - 12:01
I&#39;m fairly certain that the BBC took the fall for the whole thing. They are, after all, governmentally funded.

:ninja:
I don&#39;t know about government funding, every household, with a television has to pay for a licence wether they watch BBC or not. this year i have to pay £116.00
its compulsary. :angry: and it goes up every year. :angry:
well its my homepage and i watch it every night, so thank you for paying your license. [/b][/quote]
Yer welcome. :D :rolleyes: :D

[j2k4]

Then, considering what I&#39;m reading here, maybe an opinion poll is indicated: "Public or Private funding for the Beeb?"

I noted in another thread I had a hard time believing that a government-funded (that is how I will refer to it, because that is what it is; the government takes your money and spends it for you) media could be considered impartial, or at least "not subject" to influence, government or otherwise.

My opinion only here, but I had spotted the Beeb to suffer from a liberal, anti-government bias much as I see the same circumstance in the U.S. anent NPR and PBS, which are both government/public funded, and, in fact, normally carry a lot of BBC programming.

All of these government/public funded media have had no qualms about marginalizing causes, movements or philosophies that are. shall we say, "other-than-liberal". Again, my opinion only, so I hope we don&#39;t get sidetracked discussing my opinion.

My point is, the BBC has been held up as the unassailable ship of integrity, and either there has been an instance of absolute collapse in this regard (Lord Hutton&#39;s report), or the government has prevailed, via sub rosa plotting and arm-twisting, to have it&#39;s way, resulting in several of the Beeb hierarchy falling on their swords.

If the U.K. public believes this last to be true, then I posit this would call for out-and-out revolt, or at least some mild questioning as to the efficacy of your yearly assessment to support the BBC, yes?

I am not looking to provoke, here, but I was looking for an indication that followers of the BBC would see this event as prompting a bit of a reality-check; ilw seems to be the only one who realizes this.

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by j2k4@10 February 2004 - 16:14
If the U.K. public believes this last to be true, then I posit this would call for out-and-out revolt, or at least some mild questioning as to the efficacy of your yearly assessment to support the BBC, yes?


We have no choice J2, we either pay the licence fee or get a whacking great fine in the courts. :angry:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by billyfridge+10 February 2004 - 12:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (billyfridge @ 10 February 2004 - 12:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@10 February 2004 - 16:14
If the U.K. public believes this last to be true, then I posit this would call for out-and-out revolt, or at least some mild questioning as to the efficacy of your yearly assessment to support the BBC, yes?


We have no choice J2, we either pay the licence fee or get a whacking great fine in the courts. :angry: [/b][/quote]
Therein lies the problem, billyfridge:

Government auspices=no choice

Say what you like about the American media, but we got a bunch to pick from. ;)

[ilw]

Originally posted by billyfridge+10 February 2004 - 15:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (billyfridge @ 10 February 2004 - 15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@10 February 2004 - 16:14
If the U.K. public believes this last to be true, then I posit this would call for out-and-out revolt, or at least some mild questioning as to the efficacy of your yearly assessment to support the BBC, yes?


We have no choice J2, we either pay the licence fee or get a whacking great fine in the courts. :angry: [/b][/quote]
I really hate having to shell out every year too, but then again i don&#39;t really begrudge the bbc the money. I&#39;d rather have it and pay than not have it. I think the thing that annoys most people is that your paying for services that you don&#39;t use, e.g. a few years ago it was found out that over 1/2 the people visiting the bbc website were from overseas so people feel like they are paying to provide a service to others. Or more recently the poor ratings for the BBC&#39;s digital channels (ie complaining because many people don&#39;t have digital telly yet and also complaining that the channels are crap).

As to government/public funded, I&#39;m under the impression (i really don&#39;t know though) that the BBC automatically gets all the money from the licence fee and is free to choose the method of apportionment, so the government has fairly little control, short of behind the scenes pressure, about the BBC&#39;s funding/expenditure.

[j2k4]

ilw-

I thank you for delving in a bit deeper. ;)

[leftism]

While the BBC certainly made a grave error in trusting Gilligan 100%, I think we really need to take the Hutton report with a mountain of salt.

After hearing that Tony Blair chaired a meeting that formed the strategy of confirming the name of Dr Kelly, we are now expected to accept Huttons conclusion that Tony Blair played no part in this at all.

Bearing this in mind, I think you&#39;d have to be naive in the extreme to fully accept Huttons conclusions. Of course... you could always test this theory out by having a meeting with a hitman, arranging someones murder and then pleading innocent at your trial :rolleyes:

The BBC made the mistake of having a knee jerk reaction to Alastair Campbells latest ferocious attack. This was not the first time Mr Campbell launched an assault on the BBC and, in the past, every time he did this it turned out that the BBC was right and Campbell was lying.

However, now that Mr Blair has admitted that the 45 minute claim did not refer to WMD, it appears that the general thrust of Mr Gilligans report was not wrong at all.

There now seems to be a strong consensus among the British public that the BBC has been made a scapegoat and that Huttons report was an obvious white wash.

If anyone really thinks this is a victory for the government and a defeat for the BBC, they should visit the UK, pop down to their nearest local for a pint and spend a couple of hours talking to real people.

[j2k4]

Not quite my point, lefty.

I believe the BBC has been damaged, and it&#39;s heretofore unassailable integrity and credibility has suffered.

Unless you reject Lord Hutton&#39;s report on it&#39;s face and in it&#39;s entirety, then the Beeb&#39;s most valuable stock in trade is marginalized.

Indeed, if you believe that Blair and his cronies have in any way bent the BBC to their wishes, the BBC is likewise just as surely damaged.

It is a lose-lose situation for the Beeb.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism@10 February 2004 - 20:02
If anyone really thinks this is a victory for the government and a defeat for the BBC, they should visit the UK, pop down to their nearest local for a pint and spend a couple of hours talking to real people.
Lefty,

I think I found your problem, you get all your information from drunk people :lol:


It&#39;s all true, the BBC is evil.

You are going to love this&#33; (http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm)

I don&#39;t know exactly what he said because I was a bit distracted by his evangelistic hair, but the lapel reassured me that all would be well.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes+10 February 2004 - 15:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 10 February 2004 - 15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-leftism@10 February 2004 - 20:02
If anyone really thinks this is a victory for the government and a defeat for the BBC, they should visit the UK, pop down to their nearest local for a pint and spend a couple of hours talking to real people.
Lefty,

I think I found your problem, you get all your information from drunk people :lol:


It&#39;s all true, the BBC is evil.

You are going to love this&#33; (http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm)

I don&#39;t know exactly what he said because I was a bit distracted by his evangelistic hair, but the lapel reassured me that all would be well.[/b][/quote]
Now Hobbes, that is not exactly oil on troubled waters*, my friend.

*Of course, oil on any type of water at all will get you nothing but a call-out from the Greens, so it is just as well, I suppose.

[leftism]

@hobbes

LMAO&#33;

Thats a very convincing spoof. It is a spoof.... right?

btw, if you dont like pubs then try the nearest church. You wont find any difference in opinion, thats how strong the consensus is.

@j2k4

The main point of Huttons report was to convince us, the British public, that Tony Blair did not exaggerate the case for war. This point, above all else, is paramount.

The British public are not convinced. The glaring inconsistencies between the evidence and Huttons conclusions are plain for all to see. As I&#39;ve already pointed out, now that Blair has admitted the 45 minute claim did not refer to WMD, this just vindicates Gilligans reporting even more.

Tony Blairs credibility has taken a major blow and if you think the British public are switching off the BBC in disgust you are mistaken.

So, with regards to public opinion, the real losers here are the government. No one believes a word of what they say in relation to Iraq. On the other hand public confidence in the BBC hasnt changed.

On a political level the BBC is the loser. I&#39;m sure Huttons dodgy conclusions will be used to great effect when the BBC&#39;s charter is up for re-negotiation in the near future.

You have to put this public inquiry in the context of those that went before it. The government are never to blame for anything, ever.

[j2k4]

Lefty-

I&#39;m off to work now, but again, you are trying to deflect my point and reset the focus of this thread.

I am not insisting or assuming the Beeb&#39;s viewers are, or should, leave in droves, or in disgust.

I will try to answer you later.

[vidcc]

j2 i would like to clear up a fact for you.
The BBC is not funded by the government. The money comes from the licence fee. However the government controls the amount that the BBC can charge and there are regulatory bodies that control content.( issues of moral etc.) The fee is compulsory for the ownership of equiptment able to recieve a tv signal and failure to have a valid licence can result in a fine of upto (i believe) 1000 gbp. (about &#036;1850). Failure to pay the fine could result in jail time for contempt.
Governments have often complained about political bias in the Beeb but it&#39;s usually because the stories have been less than favourable to them. The beeb has as you say earned deserved respect worldwide for it&#39;s generally honest reporting regarding news events but more so i would say for the quality of product in the entertainment field.
As for the idea that the beeb should make its own way in the world, well i pay about &#036;110 per month for the basic cable channels and stars+internet and i get 5 mins of drivling adverts every 10 mins and with all those channels there is still nothing on...so the beeb is good value for money in my opinion and i think it would be a sad day for quality when the funding is removed.

Ps. (just for j2) did you read time this month...there is a good piece on the American health system i think you would enjoy

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>&#39;m off to work now, but again, you are trying to deflect my point and reset the focus of this thread.[/b]

Well.. I&#39;m sorry you feel that way j2k4, but that is not my intent. Your point seems to be that the BBC has been severely damaged by this episode. I&#39;m measuring &#39;damage&#39; in terms of public confidence and am trying to point out that this damage is not as severe as you believe.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I am not insisting or assuming the Beeb&#39;s viewers are, or should, leave in droves, or in disgust.[/quote]

I know that and I never claimed you were suggesting that they should. What I&#39;m saying is that if the BBC were so mortally wounded, as you suggest, then people would be leaving in droves.

The BBC is a public service broadcaster, and if the public do not feel it is providing a quality service they will vote with their feet. If we were talking about a private broadcaster the focus would be the same. What do the customers think?

If the customers are not the ones to judge whether the BBC has been truly damaged, then who should we look to instead?

[Rat Faced]

Strange how whichever government is in power complains the BBC is politicaly biased against them...usualy at the same time the opposition is doing the same.

I never got the impression the BBC was against the war; it had some Pro War programs and some Anti War, as it has to keep a "Political Balance".

Some of the commercial TV appeared anti-war (eg Channel 4), some appeared Pro war (ITV channel 3 network).....which is ironic as they are the same people at the end of the day :rolleyes:


The Government have very little influence over the BBC due to the system at work at the moment. The License Fee is decided by an Independant Commision that looks at production costs, rivals costs and the Business Plan the BBC wishes to implement and this is rubber stamped by the Chancellor in his Budget speech.

The Government cant even get access to the accounts of the BBC...that is how far removed they are ;) There is a huge movement going on at the moment to bring the BBC to heal by the establishment, and getting access to this is one of the methods being used. Luckily most honest politicians prefer the Independance and so far this has failed. You may wish to look here (http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/Analysis/1133297) for the history of that particular fight..

The shortfall that the Commission will not cover, which is very large, has to be funded by the many other Pies the BBC has its fingers in. BBC income is around £3.38Billion, about £2.5Billion is from the License Fee. (figures from above site)

The BBC does have a commercial arm; its called the UK range of channels on Cable and Satellite, and the operation abroad (such as the USA) may be commercial, as well as making quite a lot in exports of BBC programs & retail products such as videos.

Its also heavily involved in Education with the Open University plus programming for schools and colleges to assist in education in general.

This unfortunately may now change in the very near future, as stated before in the thread.

The Government are now saying they intend to scrap the License Fee. Probably as a punishment for the BEEB over telling people things the Government didnt want them to, although quite possibly because thats the Pay Off for Rupert Murdochs media support in the election.

The Conservatives also want to look at the funding, afterall you just cannot have a "State" broadcasting system that isnt controlled by the State, the politicians get embaressed when they&#39;re caught with their pants down :rolleyes:


This means that either:

1/ They will go commercial, which means they have to answer to the Corporates (The Advertisers) or

2/ The money will be given directly from the Government, and they will have the corresponding influence that goes with this.


As to Mr Dykes resignation....we may have to wait for The Book (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/7909679.htm)

[ilw]

Why go to the trouble of making a spoof and not making it funny? I didn&#39;t laugh once, it was just vaguely irritating <_<

[Agrajag]

It may be worth bearing in mind that The BBC is a very large corporation which broadcasts a very diverse range of products. The channels include :

BBC1
BBC2
BBC3
BBC4
CBeebies
CBBC
BBC News 24
BBC Parliament
BBC World Service
BBC Radio 1
BBC Radio 2
BBC Radio 3
BBC Radio 4
BBC Radio Five Live
BBC Radio Five Live Sports Extra
1 Extra
6 Music
BBC7
BBC Asian Network

And also (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/channels/uktv.shtml) <<<< Added channels (RF) ;)

In addition to the Regional variations which have their own news and current affairs programming. There are also region specific entertainment programmes and the like. This includes Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and various English regions.

There is also the large and very informative web page. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ which again has massive regional and content variations.

The BBC through it&#39;s charter is committed to broadcasting at least 10% of it&#39;s content from independent producers.

Long may we have the BBC, it relies on public funding for it&#39;s survival. But I am willing to pay around £2 a week for what I get. I think it is an excellent deal, when compare to the interminable re-runs of pro/celebrity hedgehog shagging that we see elsewhere.

Cheers Auntie, thanks for everything.

[Biggles]

J2

The UK is at times a strange place and the Beeb is a much loved institution even if the licence fee rankles some - Sky costs more and has less worth watching.

The Beeb has done what is percieved as the "British thing" and taken the criticism on the chin. The people responsible for the error (one sentence in one report which, whilst not withdrawn, was not repeated) have resigned.

The Government have got what they wanted and in doing so have come across very badly and become figures of ridicule in the process. The Bremner, Bird and Fortune piece on Hutton&#39;s guide to holiday&#39;s in Iraq was very very funny (and on rival, commercial, Channel 4 too).

So the Beeb has learnt a lesson but as the Vampire photographer with the daylight flash in Terry Pratchet&#39;s book was fond of saying " what doesn&#39;t kill me makes me stronger". (Come to think about it, the book was called The Truth and was about free Press :lol: - very funny but not everybody&#39;s cup of tea.) Auntie Beeb has got up, gathered her skirts and set her jaw, she is embarrassed, but she is being rooted for.

The Government know this and in turn are now saying how much they have always admired her and been her friend and, of course, they will continue to support her independence.

[lynx]

Prior to the actual publishing of the Hutton Report, the expectation on all sides was that both the BBC and the government would come in for severe criticism, and that at the very least Geoff Hoon (Minister of Defence) would have to resign. Even the Prime Minister&#39;s children are said to have been unable to sleep because of the worry (in other words they feared for their father&#39;s position).

In the run up to the publication, Michael Howard (leader of the opposition) was having a field day. He too expected the government to be severely criticised. One must remember that he is a respected barrister in his own right, and must have examined the evidence carefully himself before committing himself to the attacks he made Tony Blair.

My point for bringing this up is not to highlight the shortcomings of the government, but to show how one sided and unsupportable the findings of the Hutton Report turn out to be. The report is now, in most circles, almost totally discredited and as more things come to light the credibility of the BBC is actually strengthened.

In the past, the Chairman of governors has been appointed by the government, and there have often been complaints of political cronyism. Whether this is true or not, the next governor will be appointed by an independent committee, which indicates that the BBC will more than ever be SEEN to be independent of government influence, another fact which should strengthen its position.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by ilw@10 February 2004 - 22:54
Why go to the trouble of making a spoof and not making it funny? I didn&#39;t laugh once, it was just vaguely irritating <_<
???? Me neither

I didn&#39;t really get it. Are there parts missing? I seen little bits of the US Saturday Night Show and it has been quite funny. This was a bit flat, the joke with the lapel badge at the end was hardly worth the wait.

I suppose the humour is in the parody which is culturally specific.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles+11 February 2004 - 00:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 11 February 2004 - 00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ilw@10 February 2004 - 22:54
Why go to the trouble of making a spoof and not making it funny? I didn&#39;t laugh once, it was just vaguely irritating <_<
???? Me neither

I didn&#39;t really get it. Are there parts missing? I seen little bits of the US Saturday Night Show and it has been quite funny. This was a bit flat, the joke with the lapel badge at the end was hardly worth the wait.

I suppose the humour is in the parody which is culturally specific.[/b][/quote]
No, I was just posting some right wing emotive bullshit to balance the left wing bullshit which peppers this forum. Just for a sense of balance.

Did you hear all those dramatic and unnecessary spin words (A frothing at the mouth Anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest. It felt entitled (the Beeb) to pillary America, Americans...., it felt entitled to lie). Just a small sample.

Whether right wing or left wing, all those emotives do is activate the "bullshit" radar of anyone with their faculties intact.

Why can&#39;t people let their arguements stand on the merit of the evidence. Don&#39;t they see that emotive tactics and specious comparisons (I was browsing Bookworld today and was delighted to see the use of the "Well your thinking is much like Hitlers" card. Chapeau&#33;) undermine their credibility and draw a defensive reaction from those in the middle, who might be swayed by an honest approach?

[Rat Faced]

Image Resized
[img]http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/ratfaced/SELF_CONFIDENCE.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/ratfaced/SELF_CONFIDENCE.jpg')

[ilw]

i just googled that clip and it was actually aired as a serious piece wasn&#39;t it :blink: though of course its a comment rather than actual news piece. Hobbes i know you were trying to provide balance to all the liberal comments but you didn&#39;t have to balance it all in one go :P


I found an article (http://www.iht.com/articles/128703.html) discussing a similar theme while googling


When Greg Dyke, director general of the BBC, resigned last week, there must have been satisfied smirks at the offices of Fox News. After visiting the United States last year, Dyke had said that he was shocked by "the Fox News formula of gung-ho patriotism." He warned the British media: "In the area of impartiality, as in many other areas, we must ensure we don&#39;t become Americanized."

The irony will not be lost on the people at Fox News that Dyke had to step down because the BBC was found to be telling untruths that were politically damaging to the British government. The BBC has often been accused of having a liberal bias, and many interpreted its reporting of the Iraq conflict as being antiwar.

So it&#39;s official: the BBC messed up. But however much Fox News feels vindicated by the verdict, it should not ignore the fact that many foreign observers feel that the political right has taken over America&#39;s news media, and that the overt political bias of Fox News and Clear Channel Radio has become a serious obstacle to the fair workings of democracy.

The contrast between Fox News and the BBC crystallizes the difference between the cultures that gave them birth. Fox News was in many ways a brave experiment: a news channel aimed directly at a target political audience, albeit an audience that had previously been identified by Rush Limbaugh. The success of Limbaugh&#39;s conservative radio show, a daily diatribe against all that is liberal, caused a sea change in talk radio. In many parts of the United States it is now all but impossible to find a radio talk show that is not modeled on Limbaugh&#39;s pro-Republican format.
.
But few thought a mainstream television audience would accept the same opinionated personalities that make conservative talk radio work. The rapid growth in Fox News&#39;s audience caught other news channels off guard, and prompted a panicked shift toward the political right in cable news coverage. The buildup to war gave American networks the chance to outdo each other in patriotism and hawkish support for the administration. It was in this fevered climate that a shocked Dyke discovered the most ebullient of them all: Fox News.

If this fast-moving, money-driven change is typically American, then the monolithic introspection of the BBC scandal is typically British. The BBC, after all, was never a money-making enterprise; it was established by the government in 1922 to "inform, educate and entertain" the British people. It is paid for by an obligatory license fee. This protection from the forces of nature has allowed it to follow its own instincts in pursuing news stories and, some would say, has also allowed it to develop an institutional liberal bias.

It was not a fall in market share that finally forced the BBC to address the allegations - the corporation is immune to such things - but the Hutton inquiry. When Brian Hutton&#39;s report blamed the BBC for a series of blunders, Dyke and two other BBC employees fell on their proverbial swords in the traditional British way. The BBC can no longer assume the trust of the British people when it claims to be impartial. It must now prove itself.

In the United States such matters are handled differently. There will never be a Hutton deciding whether Fox News is politically biased. Its claim to be fair and balanced is no more than a knowing wink to its audience, and it has no higher master than the dollar. If the audience tires of the Fox News agenda then other stations will move in to fill the vacuum. If there is ever to be political balance in American news coverage it will happen by the law of the jungle, not the law of the land.

It is disconcerting to think that American opinion is being informed by such unpredictable forces. Yet in a typically American way, the political bias of its news stations is open, brash and strangely addictive. The British bias is subtle, covert and shielded by the myth of objectivity. There is no such thing. When Fox News claims to be fair and balanced, we&#39;re all in on the joke. When the BBC makes the same claim, they seem to actually believe it.

[j2k4]

I meant to get back here last night, but was side-tracked by a nostalgia-trip while searching the forum archive.

ilw-

The clip Hobbes linked was semi-serious insofar as it was an opinion piece but was not presented as hard-news, even though John Gibson presents a serious news show.

All of the Fox anchors finish their shows with an opinion piece of some sort.

Fair and balanced?

Depends on your inclination, which for most people here is hard-wired in, not molded by any news show.

I don&#39;t think FoxNews can honestly say it does not possess an overall slant to the right, but at least they are not trying to hide behind a shroud of impartiality that does not and has not existed for decades.

I don&#39;t care what anyone says, ALL news sources have a bias, even the beloved Beeb; they always have, except that has now become an issue in and of itself.

The balance comes, as you say, from the presentation of both sides (right v. left) of a given issue, and while FoxNews and the BBC have stood pretty much alone in this regard, the bias is still evident in the words and inflection chosen and used.

As I have said many times:

We make your own choices as to our favored media, and are commensurately informed.

We then enter these little discussions/debates with the facts/opinions we have gathered and interpreted.

None of us pretends to be unbiased, though some of us attempt to be reasonable about the presentation of our views as well as those of others.

I have respected the Beeb for years (it has an "age" advantage over FoxNews), but the fact of the BBC representing a particular viewpoint must be conceded, if for no other reason than it must be said that it is unrelentingly British/Irish/Scottish/what-have-you in it&#39;s mien.

Such is unavoidable; to fail to acknowledge this would mark one as truly blind.

So let&#39;s not try to fool ourselves or others by touting certain news sources over others-many who bemoan FoxNews have never watched FoxNews, likewise the Beeb.

I watch all of them, and, of course, you know why; I can&#39;t know, understand or rationalize other viewpoints unless I hear/see them.

That is how I balance my news intake.

Anyway, to wrap this up, if I were a citizen of the U.K., with the attendant respect/worship/love of the Beeb, I would have no difficulty with the realization that my faith had suffered a nasty kick in the shins, and I wouldn&#39;t feel compelled to brand the government "liars to a man" just to assuage my anger or disappointment; I would accept it for what it is and move on.

Long live the BBC. ;)

[ilw]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 February 2004 - 15:09
So let&#39;s not try to fool ourselves or others by touting certain news sources over others-many who bemoan FoxNews have never watched FoxNews, likewise the Beeb.

overall nicely put j2, but I think its absolutely necessary to tout certain news sources over others, aside from the bias inherent in the use of language, some new sources will leave you better aprised of the important facts and background information than others.
For instance reading an article in the Times or Sun (broadsheet vs tabloid) even if both articles are of the same length, the Times can essentially be relied on to give discussion from both sides of view and provide useful history, whereas the Sun is likely to leave u none the wiser apart from the ages and sexual histories of the people involved in the story and maybe some useless one sided rhetoric about the subject.

Maybe i just like my bias subtle.

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 February 2004 - 16:09
nasty kick in the shins, and I wouldn&#39;t feel compelled to brand the government "liars to a man" just to assuage my anger or disappointment; I would accept it for what it is and move on.

Long live the BBC. ;)
What u should say J2, &#39;is accept it for what is, it pay the licence fee £116.00 and move on&#39;,

do u pay licence fees in US, i&#39;ll bet u don&#39;t <_<

[j2k4]

Originally posted by billyfridge+11 February 2004 - 12:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (billyfridge &#064; 11 February 2004 - 12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 February 2004 - 16:09
nasty kick in the shins, and I wouldn&#39;t feel compelled to brand the government "liars to a man" just to assuage my anger or disappointment; I would accept it for what it is and move on.

Long live the BBC. ;)
What u should say J2, &#39;is accept it for what is, it pay the licence fee £116.00 and move on&#39;,

do u pay licence fees in US, i&#39;ll bet u don&#39;t <_<[/b][/quote]
:D As you wish, Billyfridge.

...accept it for what is, it pay the licence fee £116.00 and move on... :D


We do not pay license fees per se; our taxes get thrown into the big barrel so as to obfuscate their ultimate disposition.

It is a political ploy in aid of muting potential complaints:

How can we gripe if the cash leaves no trail?

So, to answer your question:

One way or another, we assume the costs of producing and disseminating our news as well, the most direct link existing between our taxes and PBS/NPR.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@11 February 2004 - 12:31
overall nicely put j2, but I think its absolutely necessary to tout certain news sources over others, aside from the bias inherent in the use of language, some new sources will leave you better aprised of the important facts and background information than others.
For instance reading an article in the Times or Sun (broadsheet vs tabloid) even if both articles are of the same length, the Times can essentially be relied on to&nbsp; give discussion from both sides of view and provide useful history, whereas the Sun is likely to leave u none the wiser apart from the ages and sexual histories of the people involved in the story and maybe some useless one sided rhetoric about the subject.

Maybe i just like my bias subtle.
Forgive me, Ian-

I should have clarified:

My statements only apply to those news outlets on at least a nodding relationship with subtlety of bias. :D

I presume hence we can all agree on what does or does not qualify thus. B)

:)

BTW-Can we all also agree the news could do with a good bit less sensationalism and repetition?

My God-tune in to any broadcast, and if you deleted the words and just watched the images and graphics and listened to the FX sounds, you&#39;d swear it was the fucking Super Bowl.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+11 February 2004 - 01:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 11 February 2004 - 01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Biggles@11 February 2004 - 00:16
<!--QuoteBegin-ilw@10 February 2004 - 22:54
Why go to the trouble of making a spoof and not making it funny? I didn&#39;t laugh once, it was just vaguely irritating <_<
???? Me neither

I didn&#39;t really get it. Are there parts missing? I seen little bits of the US Saturday Night Show and it has been quite funny. This was a bit flat, the joke with the lapel badge at the end was hardly worth the wait.

I suppose the humour is in the parody which is culturally specific.
No, I was just posting some right wing emotive bullshit to balance the left wing bullshit which peppers this forum. Just for a sense of balance.

Did you hear all those dramatic and unnecessary spin words (A frothing at the mouth Anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest. It felt entitled (the Beeb) to pillary America, Americans...., it felt entitled to lie). Just a small sample.

Whether right wing or left wing, all those emotives do is activate the "bullshit" radar of anyone with their faculties intact.

Why can&#39;t people let their arguements stand on the merit of the evidence. Don&#39;t they see that emotive tactics and specious comparisons (I was browsing Bookworld today and was delighted to see the use of the "Well your thinking is much like Hitlers" card. Chapeau&#33;) undermine their credibility and draw a defensive reaction from those in the middle, who might be swayed by an honest approach? [/b][/quote]
:D

Knowing it was serious (albeit in a personal &#39;rant of the day&#39; sort of way) actually makes it a lot funnier. Although I am not sure why. :blink:

J2 is right. All outlets have a bias. It is impossible for humans to make a piece of newsreel, art, cinema, whatever, without choosing which parts to leave in and which to leave out.

The Beeb does have biases. It also has a fair number of eccentrics embedded in its structure. David Attenborough, Patrick Moore to name but two. It is a home from home for dotty but often brilliant minds. As such, it is liberal and accepting by nature. It can also be rather stuffy if people try to bounce it into something it considers rather lowbrow - hence Auntie Beeb.

It is a little elitist (although it does try to extend its scope with things like East Enders - which I confess I never watch). It does also tend to be wary of people pushing certainties (be they poltical or religious), but then so do Brits as a whole. I think J2 is right to point out that the Beeb is essentially British in outlook and that whilst individual programmes may be enjoyed elsewhere some cultural aspects are quite, quite alien to those outside of that culture.

Vive la difference - as they say elsewhere. :D

[Agrajag]

The defining thing about Auntie is that she can makes decisions based on factors other than profitability. The programming can therefore be based on quality, or diversity, whatever she choses. This is what leads to some of the most extraordinary television ever made.

Who else could have done Brideshead Revisited or Monty Python or The Singing Detective or Fawlty Towers or The Office or a plethora of other things. She can make her decisions based on quality rather than popularity. I for one am willing to pay my £2 a week for that, in addition to all of the radio channels etc which she provides.

Again, Long Live Auntie.