BBC watch

Good for Dennis

The new head of the BBC is Thatcher's old privatisation tzar.

So what?

This is an old thread ,May 2016, that had you not posted on it I would have bumped to show the thoughts back then and the conclusion.

I'm sorry but other than dislike of all things you consider to be a right wing plot I don't see what your/the problem is durhamjen. I didn't hear/do not hear when left wing bods rule/ruled the roost. Hells bells they are plenty of Quangos stuffed with them.

I remember this thread and the conspiracy theorists had a field day back then, they looked pretty stupid when the dust had settled and Lord Hall made this statement.

Tony Hall, Director-General of the BBC said:

“This hard won charter is now an opportunity to write the next chapter in the BBC’s history. It will deliver the strong and creative BBC the public believes in. It provides an 11-year charter and a licence fee guaranteed for 11 years. It endorses the remit, scale and scope of the BBC, and backs it as a great British institution.

"I set out my concerns regarding the new board appointments back in May and said we would continue to make the case to the Government. The BBC is a public service broadcaster - not a state broadcaster. I am glad they have reconsidered. There will now be an equal number of board-appointed Non-Executive Directors alongside the ones appointed by the Government. And there will now be four Executive directors on the board too. An independent and strong BBC is what the public want and demand.

"Our position on talent pay has not changed and all major broadcasters have questioned the merit of the proposal. The BBC is already incredibly transparent and we publish what we spend on talent pay - a bill which has fallen in recent years. The BBC operates in a competitive market and this will not make it easier for the BBC to retain the talent the public love. Ultimately, the BBC should be judged on the quality of its programmes.

"There has been a passionate debate over the BBC’s future. Overall, we have the right outcome for the BBC and its role as a creative power for Britain. It lays the foundation for more great programmes and journalism. The BBC has always existed to inform, educate, and entertain. We will do that with renewed energy and vigour.”

-----

Personally I think the BBC is loosing ground to Aljazeera and Sky for current , world wide news and I am finding my self watching them more and more, no I do not pay for Sky it is on free view.

The BBC is a much loved institution and I would not want to see it ever go but it has to continually prove it is worth the funding and there are some aspects that are flaws, as with most large corporations and businesses.

So I'd rather pay for and watch the BBC.
You watch Sky if you want to.

Well of course you would, given the BBC's left wing bias.

I will watch both Sky and BBC, regardless of right/left wing bias ( I am an equal opportunities boss.)

www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/10/sir-david-clementi-bbc-chair-unitary-board-trust-bank-of-england

What was your rather juvenile post in response to mine have to do with the partisan point you were trying to make by bumping this thread?

You answered the throw away comment at the end of my post , noted you only mention Sky not Aljazeera but all things Murdoch are the devils spawn in your world and many others aren't they.

You did not answer by saying what your problem is with the appointment so I will remain of the opinion it was his connection to the other hate figure of yours Margaret Thatcher.

Have I misinterpreted the reason as to why you chose to 'bump'this thread as I can't find anything of any substance in your link to the Guardian nor in either of your posts.

Murdoch hasn't got a great track record has he POGS?

As to the BBC's left wing bias, in 2013 a study was carried out by Cardiff University analysing the content of BBC's news coverage. The conclusion was that "Evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Euro-sceptic, pro-business version of the world."

I expect others can point to different studies that do not reach the same conclusion. So perhaps it is misleading to confidently pronounce that there is left or right wing bias. But it is very noticeable that the right wing press has had a vociferous ongoing campaign to present the BBC as full of "lefties" and agitators.

But it is very noticeable that the right wing press has had a vociferous ongoing campaign to present the BBC as full of "lefties" and agitators.

Why would they do that if it's true that the BBC 'tends to reproduce a Conservative, Euro-sceptic, pro-business version of the world.'?

Well now Eloethan the direction of bias by any media outlet will be in the eye of the beholder won't it.

You are correct there are copious reports, to say the BBC is left wing oirientaed, the same as there will be copious reports, comments to say it is right wing orientated.

The reason for the thread to be 'bumped' however indicates to me the point being made was there is a problem with new appointee because of his 'presumed' political persuasion . If I am mistaken then I am asking " what is the problem"?

Possibly because the Conservative party does not believe in publicly owned organisations and, by questioning whether the BBC is fulfilling its remit as a public broadcaster and undermining its efforts to appeal to a wide spectrum of the British public, it is, I believe hoping to bring about its demise.

It does not depend on the BBC for slanted coverage but while the BBC still exists it might as well use the opportunity to "encourage" such coverage.

Having seen many of the remarks, and interviews, of Adam Boulton and Kay Burley on Sky I don't think there's any doubt that Sky makes little effort to steer a fairly balanced course. Only the other day AB referred to Meryl Street as "the saintlike Meryl Streep" and called her comments "whining".

Eloethan

I don't follow what Anniebach has said has anything to do with this.

I mentioned Sky AND Aljazeera but I didn't think straight as now they are being used to deflect from answering the question "What is the problem" if it is not to make a partisan point". A question unanswered.

Tony Hall made a statement , did you read it?

"There will now be an equal number of board-appointed Non-Executive Directors alongside the ones ' appointed by the Government '. And there will now be four Executive directors on the board too. An independent and strong BBC is what the public want and demand.

Why shouldn't this government make an appointment to role, has it not been the decision by past governments?

I am genuinely struggling to see what the issue is . Take the last 2 individuals in that position Chris Patten , Tory and Rhona Fair head. What is so upsetting about Sir David Clementi?

I'm confused - I don't know what you mean. I haven't said anything about anniebach.

I don't understand your second paragraph either.

Yes, I read the Tony Hall statement.

I was commenting on your post about Murdoch being the "devil's spawn" and I don't think what I said was particularly contentious - "Murdoch hasn't got a great track record". Who would argue with that?

There is virtually nothing this government has done that leads me to trust them. I am not, of course, a Conservative but I think the brand of Conservatism espoused by Mrs Thatcher and which continues unabated to this day is a good deal worse than the sort of paternalistic Conservatism that used to exist.

Eloethan

Oh dear , please accept my apology and Anniebach also.

I just read AB and thought of Anniebach .

No problem POGS - I was just mystified that's all.