BBC bias in question (which way do they lean?)

I read all of that report (Thanks to the poster) & a couple of things made me sit up.

1. BBC4 (BBseen before) going to subscription. Why should I pay again to watch something that I’ve already contributed to paying for in the first place?

2. This;
0EBB0B8F-D796-41B7-886A-E303DCD20381.png

They have ‘target’ to reach for BAME & disability employees.
Surely the target should be for the man/woman/other to be best suited to a particular role, not based on colour, creed or limb aggregate.
Isn’t this positive discrimination?
If I’d been given a job on skin colour in my job, colleagues would be looking down on me (quietly. Don’t upset HR) as someone who ticks a box.
That’s not good for harmony or morale.
 
Last edited:

BlackDyke

War Hero
They have ‘target’ to reach for BAME & disability employees.
Surely the target should be for the man/woman/other to be best suited to a particular role, not based on colour, creed or limb aggregate.
Isn’t this positive discrimination?
If I’d been given a job on skin colour in my job, colleagues would be looking down on me (quietly. Don’t upset HR) as someone who ticks a box.
That’s not good for harmony or morale.
There is no such thing as Positive Discrimination, there is just Discrimination.
Positive Discrimination
is a bullshit neologism that was made up to justify unacceptable discriminatory practices.
IMHO of course.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
I read all of that report (Thanks to the poster) & a couple of things made me sit up.

1. BBC4 (BBseen before) going to subscription. Why should I pay again to watch something that I’ve already contributed to paying for in the first place?

2. This;View attachment 475606View attachment 475606
They have ‘target’ to reach for BAME & disability employees.
Surely the target should be for the man/woman/other to be best suited to a particular role, not based on colour, creed or limb aggregate.
Isn’t this positive discrimination?
If I’d been given a job on skin colour in my job, colleagues would be looking down on me (quietly. Don’t upset HR) as someone who ticks a box.
That’s not good for harmony or morale.
The policy is a smokescreen. It appears to encourage diversity, but denies diversity of political opinion. (Or any kind of critical opinion really).

Of course it is discrimination, but look back at the USSR or Communist eastern Europe. In the 1950s to 1980s, anyone who had a negative opinion of communism would have been discriminated against. The same in reverse in the USA during the McCarthy era.

The reason that social class is not included as a "protected characteristic" today, is probably due to a fear among the Establishment, that working class people may hold anti woke opinions.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
This got covered on the scots politics thread….
I wish he would really make up his own mind about who he is writing about. He mentions broadcasters, journalists and news reporters as they are all one and the same - or does it mean they all studied "media studies"?
He also has the problem of not being able to differentiate between opinion and news. Surely news reporters are expected to do that and not to express their own (possibly of bias) opinions.
 
BBC4 (BBseen before) going to subscription. Why should I pay again to watch something that I’ve already contributed to paying for in the first place?
The BBC4 subscription...

My post #8040:

Subscription only for the gullible outside of Licencepayerland.​

Outside the UK, we are exploring potential commercial opportunities for BBC Four to become a new global subscription service that takes our strengths in specialist factual to the world stage.“​

Presumably you are in the UK if you have ‘already paid‘ for it. My view is bin the licence fee and introduce a subscription model for the whole rotten kit and caboodle that is today's BBC.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I wish he would really make up his own mind about who he is writing about. He mentions broadcasters, journalists and news reporters as they are all one and the same - or does it mean they all studied "media studies"?
He also has the problem of not being able to differentiate between opinion and news. Surely news reporters are expected to do that and not to express their own (possibly of bias) opinions.
The last part of your posts is, I think, rather his point. He too is complaining about BBC journos giving opinion as news and not saying it is opinion.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
The last part of your posts is, I think, rather his point. He too is complaining about BBC journos giving opinion as news and not saying it is opinion.
I didn't read it as that way.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I didn't read it as that way.
He does use a lot of words to say very little, probably paid by the word! This sentence from the last para sort of sums it up for me
Which leads us back to poor Sarah Smith standing there with a microphone trying to navigate it all and appear neutral. What she’s saying to us is: “Trust me, I’m a journalist – a neutral, unbiased BBC journalist”. But perhaps the BBC could be more honest about what’s really going on: she is expressing an opinion.
 
I read all of that report (Thanks to the poster) & a couple of things made me sit up.

1. BBC4 (BBseen before) going to subscription. Why should I pay again to watch something that I’ve already contributed to paying for in the first place?

2. This;View attachment 475606
They have ‘target’ to reach for BAME & disability employees.
Surely the target should be for the man/woman/other to be best suited to a particular role, not based on colour, creed or limb aggregate.
Isn’t this positive discrimination?
If I’d been given a job on skin colour in my job, colleagues would be looking down on me (quietly. Don’t upset HR) as someone who ticks a box.
That’s not good for harmony or morale.
The main BBC board has 13 members so 2 BAME members represent around 15.4pct of the committee. The percentage of no non-whites in the UK is around 13 pct. So whilst we can't argue with the logic here, what about the smaller non-exec groups where the membership is, for example, 5 people?
 
The main BBC board has 13 members so 2 BAME members represent around 15.4pct of the committee. The percentage of no non-whites in the UK is around 13 pct. So whilst we can't argue with the logic here, what about the smaller non-exec groups where the membership is, for example, 5 people?
They could be all white, black, Japanese or even Welsh, for all I care.
As long as they were chosen because they were the best candidate & not based on their ethnicity, I’m ok with it.
Also, I’d add that they shouldn’t be imposing their personal social or political gripes into their job.
If the whole BBC was black run, for instance, I wouldn’t want to see a whole raft of programmes featuring only black characters or documentary’s about black issues.
 
They could be all white, black, Japanese or even Welsh, for all I care.
As long as they were chosen because they were the best candidate & not based on their ethnicity, I’m ok with it.
Also, I’d add that they shouldn’t be imposing their personal social or political gripes into their job.
If the whole BBC was black run, for instance, I wouldn’t want to see a whole raft of programmes featuring only black characters or documentary’s about black issues.
I agree that it should be the best man/woman/other for the job.

However..
When Lenny Henry was guest editor on the Today programme he insisted that all the staff that day were from BAME backgrounds. The fact that neither he nor the execs at Radio 4 thought this was a bit dodgy is concerning.
 

BlackDyke

War Hero
I agree that it should be the best man/woman/other for the job.

However..
When Lenny Henry was guest editor on the Today programme he insisted that all the staff that day were from BAME backgrounds. The fact that neither he nor the execs at Radio 4 thought this was a bit dodgy is concerning.
You mean Sir Lenny Henry CBE who is a bit quick to rant about all the unfair discrimination?
Poor Sir Lenny CBE...
 
Surely news reporters are expected to do that and not to express their own (possibly of bias) opinions.
That's why they are called News Reporters. If they wish to make their opinions known then they should write an opinion piece and/or have a banner under their name on tv which informs the viewer they are watching an opinion piece which may or may not represent the views of the tv station.
 
I agree that it should be the best man/woman/other for the job.

However..
When Lenny Henry was guest editor on the Today programme he insisted that all the staff that day were from BAME backgrounds. The fact that neither he nor the execs at Radio 4 thought this was a bit dodgy is concerning.
See my last paragraph. That’s sh1t & the execs should’ve told him to jog. They won’t, of course because 1. They probably agree with him as they’re so woke, or 2. They were frightened of upsetting a minority Sir &/or those upstairs at BH.

Lenny Henry has to be switched off in my house whenever he comes on. He’s a one topic bore. Same as Jo Brand (cake/men) & Julian Clary (arrse gags). It’s boring.
 

BlackDyke

War Hero
That's why they are called News Reporters. If they wish to make their opinions known then they should write an opinion piece and/or have a banner under their name on tv which informs the viewer they are watching an opinion piece which may or may not represent the views of the tv station.
Didn't that used to be called an Editorial?
 

Latest Threads

Top