What's Going On With The Beeb?

[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't laugh once, it was just vaguely irritating

???? Me neither

I didn'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'>

[ilw]

i just googled that clip and it was actually aired as a serious piece wasn&#39;t it 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


I found an article 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]
As you wish, Billyfridge.

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


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.

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]


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.

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.