Criminal sanctions for BBC bias

[Royal24s]

The BBC is bound by law and its charter to be fair and unbiased. This is fair because we all have to pay the costs of running their 3rd rate service.
Yet they routinely ignore this legal duty with total impunity.

The twisted and one sided coverage of the Presidential Inauguration today was appalling by any standards, and it really must stop. Do they hope to sour our excellent relations with the new President and thus prevent the intended trade deals which would prevent the financial damage they apparently still hope will be done to Britain for leaving
the EU ?

I suggest that some objective independent board be set up to deal with complaints of BBC bias, and that it be given the power to reduce the licence fee during the following year by, say £1 for each complaint which is upheld.

The public are entitled to accountability from this broadcaster, which is way out of control, because they are the ones paying the bills . Furthermore, they are openly ignoring the law , and this cannot be allowed if the law means anything.

I think that this is a realistic objective and that those who agree should initially write to their respective MPs . In the mean time, I shall look into the possibilities of instituting a petition requesting a parliamentary debate upon the matter.

So if the BBC had gone the other way and broadcast a gushing and extremely positive coverage of Trump's inauguration would you still complain that it was one-sided and too positive?

Anything one sided or biased needs calling out.

In that case can I use this opportunity to call out royal24

Yeah you can. Certainly.
However, I'm an individual who makes no secret that I am representing particular set of ideas and opinions which I believe to be good ones. I am not a news outlet which has a legal or moral duty to be unbiased.
This being so you are perfectly able to put your own crackpot arguments forward against mine on an equal footing at at any time you want to. I'm not claiming to be unbiased and I'm nota news provider, so I can't really see the equivalence.

[Zambo]

In other words you are prejudiced if you are not prepared to hear what others have to say and evaluate that against your own views. I don't see the point of being involved in debate and discussion with that mentality, bcause all you are doing is preaching on a soap box with ear plugs in, calling anyone elses views 'crackpot'

[carcinogen]

Rather than say Trump was 'dancing' with his wife at the post-inaugural ball, whoever the bod is who types-up the copy for the robotic presenters to read used the term 'shuffling'. It's these little things that fuck me off. I know it's sad, but it fucking irritates me.

[Hillman avenger]

The BBC is bound by law and its charter to be fair and unbiased. This is fair because we all have to pay the costs of running their 3rd rate service.
Yet they routinely ignore this legal duty with total impunity.

The twisted and one sided coverage of the Presidential Inauguration today was appalling by any standards, and it really must stop. Do they hope to sour our excellent relations with the new President and thus prevent the intended trade deals which would prevent the financial damage they apparently still hope will be done to Britain for leaving
the EU ?

I suggest that some objective independent board be set up to deal with complaints of BBC bias, and that it be given the power to reduce the licence fee during the following year by, say £1 for each complaint which is upheld.

The public are entitled to accountability from this broadcaster, which is way out of control, because they are the ones paying the bills . Furthermore, they are openly ignoring the law , and this cannot be allowed if the law means anything.

I think that this is a realistic objective and that those who agree should initially write to their respective MPs . In the mean time, I shall look into the possibilities of instituting a petition requesting a parliamentary debate upon the matter.

So if the BBC had gone the other way and broadcast a gushing and extremely positive coverage of Trump's inauguration would you still complain that it was one-sided and too positive?

Anything one sided or biased needs calling out.

In that case can I use this opportunity to call out royal24

All media outlets should report facts, and not hide or pick out facts to suit their agenda, like the BBC frequently do.

Of course. But it's not as simple as that.
Whatever the media, choices have to be made about what is included in the time available, how it is described, and so on.
In this case we are being told that the BBC reporting that Trump a year or so ago was a business man and TV celebrity, and now he's president. Which is true- it is a fact. And yet even then people are on here complaining that they did that.
The media can, and should, carry opinion too, but it must be clear when that is what it is.
Some networks do not apply that distinction- for example, Fox. It employs as Fox spokespersons wh give what is clearly opinion direct to camera.
The BBC, to my mind, separates the two well, and the opinion is expressed usually by third parties. Apparently that is also considered bias if the BBC have third parties who do not match the prevailing prejudice here.
BTW the BBC arrangement is not going to change soon. Whittingdale was Culture Secretary and was dying to get stuck in, but when they looked at it in detail they realised how good the present system is, and renewed ito to at least 2020.

[carcinogen]

We know where to go for opinion. I just want news. Even NPR has shifted to the left. It's still OK, but I do worry.

[Ralph]

Rather than say Trump was 'dancing' with his wife at the post-inaugural ball, whoever the bod is who types-up the copy for the robotic presenters to read used the term 'shuffling'. It's these little things that fuck me off. I know it's sad, but it fucking irritates me.

Bit churlish but true.

[Hillman avenger]

It's interesting that this daft idea was promoted by someone who has told us at length about his career in justice, first in the police and then in the legal world.

Once again, have a look at the charter and Reith's notes about it. It is required to be BALANCED, and that is over the life of an issue, not on any one item broadcast. They can, and do, have people on there who I loathe and whose opinions I loathe. But I don't blame the BBC for reporting them, and I know that over time it will balance it.

The most unkind thing the BBC can do to Trump is to let us see him. It doesn't need comment. He is a buffoon who has deceived millions, many of them desperate for help which he will in the end not give them.

[Roy Twing]

It's interesting that this daft idea was promoted by someone who has told us at length about his career in justice, first in the police and then in the legal world.

Once again, have a look at the charter and Reith's notes about it. It is required to be BALANCED, and that is over the life of an issue, not on any one item broadcast. They can, and do, have people on there who I loathe and whose opinions I loathe. But I don't blame the BBC for reporting them, and I know that over time it will balance it.

The most unkind thing the BBC can do to Trump is to let us see him. It doesn't need comment. He is a buffoon who has deceived millions, many of them desperate for help which he will in the end not give them.

The BBC's charter would disagree with you.


https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/ ... iality.pdf

[Darkyboy]

It's interesting that this daft idea was promoted by someone who has told us at length about his career in justice, first in the police and then in the legal world.

Once again, have a look at the charter and Reith's notes about it. It is required to be BALANCED, and that is over the life of an issue, not on any one item broadcast. They can, and do, have people on there who I loathe and whose opinions I loathe. But I don't blame the BBC for reporting them, and I know that over time it will balance it.

The most unkind thing the BBC can do to Trump is to let us see him. It doesn't need comment. He is a buffoon who has deceived millions, many of them desperate for help which he will in the end not give them.

The BBC's charter would disagree with you.


https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/ ... iality.pdf

Indeed Roy. It's nowhere near as black and white as Hillman would have us believe. Fortunately, most of us have seen enough to know that Hillman rarely tells the full story.

For instance; suppose a newsreader who is interviewing a film director, asks the director about Trump. Now the newsreader knows full well that the director will come out with anti-Trump bile. The newsreader is "blameless" because he has not expressed an opinion, but he has led the director to make an extreme political point. What would the BBC Defender General Hillman make of that?

[Darkyboy]

6 music playing The Internationale by Billy Bragg at midnight - left wing enough for you Hillman? Oh, I forgot you don't reply when challenged on your blinkered opinions.

[Royal24s]

In other words you are prejudiced if you are not prepared to hear what others have to say and evaluate that against your own views. I don't see the point of being involved in debate and discussion with that mentality, bcause all you are doing is preaching on a soap box with ear plugs in, calling anyone elses views 'crackpot'

Yeah, well I would equally say that there's very little point in putting forward an argument unless you've thought it through properly and formed an opinion before you advocate it.
You'd need a pretty superficial grasp of your own views if they were likely to be reversed by someone in a chat room.
That could happen of course, but it's unlikely because most normal people have already considered learned arguments on all sides by the time they're you age, and now joined the ranks of one side or the other. The wishy washy stance you recommend is more suitable for a teenager than a mature person.

Anyway, as usual the point I was making flew over your head. I was saying that the expectation of a News provider with a statutory duty to be impartial does not apply to a private individual stating undisguised opinion.

Good luck in working out some opinions of your own before you retire.

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

Billy Fucking Bragg

[Royal24s]

By the way, and this will of course be lost on you, calling someone's stated views crackpot is different from calling them a crackpot. Complicated isn't it Benny ?

[Darkyboy]

Billy Fucking Bragg

I know. Corbyn in denim!

[Zambo]

In other words you are prejudiced if you are not prepared to hear what others have to say and evaluate that against your own views. I don't see the point of being involved in debate and discussion with that mentality, bcause all you are doing is preaching on a soap box with ear plugs in, calling anyone elses views 'crackpot'

Yeah, well I would equally say that there's very little point in putting forward an argument unless you've thought it through properly and formed an opinion before you advocate it.
You'd need a pretty superficial grasp of your own views if they were likely to be reversed by someone in a chat room.
That could happen of course, but it's unlikely because most normal people have already considered learned arguments on all sides by the time they're you age, and now joined the ranks of one side or the other. The wishy washy stance you recommend is more suitable for a teenager than a mature person.

Anyway, as usual the point I was making flew over your head. I was saying that the expectation of a News provider with a statutory duty to be impartial does not apply to a private individual stating undisguised opinion.

Good luck in working out some opinions of your own before you retire.

Nothing flew over my head. You have described exactly the reason you post on this forum. However, I will agree that it's got everything to do with the difference between a media source expressing facts, and an individual on a message board posting opinions, and you were sussed out by most a long time ago in that department. You don't post opinions in your mind, you post fact, and no one can argue or compete because they aren't fit to lick your shoes. You are better educated, had more experience as you've been a junior constable and seen the whole wide world.

I know my place.