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

Maybe you should have registered your username and "Reform the BBC" instead then?

You don't generally abolish something you like, do you?
We detect here the beginnings of a dishonest debating tactic. Let's just recap:

1. You claimed that we want to abolish the BBC because we don't like it, as if our position is whimsical.

2. We replied by explaining that we have reasons for wanting to abolish the BBC and kindly referred you to our website. It is not, or not just, that we dislike the BBC.

3. You now reply stating that since we are not abolishing the BBC because we dislike it, that must mean that we like the BBC and therefore we can't have a good reason for abolishing it.

4. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that liking or dislking something is not necessarily related to wishing to either reform, change or abolish something.

Before you reply on this point (if you do burden us with another response), could we ask that you read carefully what we have just said and try to think logically.

And since you have the choice not to watch TV, you're free not to pay their license fee either.
Here you dishonesty omit our points that:

(i). the BBC is part-funded out of general taxation, in the form of government grant aid money; and,
(ii). under the relevant statute and supporting regulation, a licence fee is required to be paid by all persons who are in possession of television-receiving equipment.

Both these points nullify your argument.

I use the BBC a lot. Sports, weather, local news, business news, markets, etc.

I like to think I'm intelligent enough to work out when their broadcasting services are being a little biased / PC and turn to other sources for a more balanced view.
Our complaint in regard to bias is not predicated on the belief that the BBC should be unbiased, rather it is predicated on the belief that since media organisations will be biased, there should be a competitive marketplace and people should be allowed to fully exercise choice. The existence of the BBC precludes this. Payment for the BBC is compulsory for us all as taxpayers and mandatory for all those who possess television-receiving equipment. With respect, that is not choice. That is authoritarianism.

I don't suddenly have the urge to see a long standing British Corporation get kyboshed because a few disgruntled pensioners are a bit angry that it's no longer acceptable to have elephants smoking in television studios, women in bikinis on game shows and Sid James cackling over Babs Windsor's breasts.
It's not clear what you are talking about here.

So the bosses command huge salaries. Twats like Chris Evans get paid a fortune to do one season of Top Gear. I still get paid the same and for £12 a month,
We don't object to the salaries paid. But they can be paid by the private sector based on the choices exercised by viewers and listeners.

I don't really mind the blatantly biased news reports and bland "comedy". Not enough to read your website and sign a petition anyway.
That's entirely your choice - so far, nearly 5,000 people disagree with you, and that petition has only been running for a few days. We think there will be more support.
 
We detect here the beginnings of a dishonest debating tactic. Let's just recap:

1. You claimed that we want to abolish the BBC because we don't like it, as if our position is whimsical.

2. We replied by explaining that we have reasons for wanting to abolish the BBC and kindly referred you to our website. It is not, or not just, that we dislike the BBC.

3. You now reply stating that since we are not abolishing the BBC because we dislike it, that must mean that we like the BBC and therefore we can't have a good reason for abolishing it.

4. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that liking or dislking something is not necessarily related to wishing to either reform, change or abolish something.

Before you reply on this point (if you do burden us with another response), could we ask that you read carefully what we have just said and try to think logically.



Here you dishonesty omit our points that:

(i). the BBC is part-funded out of general taxation, in the form of government grant aid money; and,
(ii). under the relevant statute and supporting regulation, a licence fee is required to be paid by all persons who are in possession of television-receiving equipment.

Both these points nullify your argument.



Our complaint in regard to bias is not predicated on the belief that the BBC should be unbiased, rather it is predicated on the belief that since media organisations will be biased, there should be a competitive marketplace and people should be allowed to fully exercise choice. The existence of the BBC precludes this. Payment for the BBC is compulsory for us all as taxpayers and mandatory for all those who possess television-receiving equipment. With respect, that is not choice. That is authoritarianism.



It's not clear what you are talking about here.



We don't object to the salaries paid. But they can be paid by the private sector based on the choices exercised by viewers and listeners.



That's entirely your choice - so far, nearly 5,000 people disagree with you, and that petition has only been running for a few days. We think there will be more support.
Excellent stuff! You've cracked this internet forum thing, haven't you: establish a profile so as to promote a rather esoteric single-issue POV and, within 4 posts pompously announce to a Moderator that you believe him to be dishonest.

Go you!

. . . oh, and 5000 signatures gathered from a population of 60-odd million just doesn't stand close scrutiny.
 
Excellent stuff! You've cracked this internet forum thing, haven't you: establish a profile so as to promote a rather esoteric single-issue POV and, within 4 posts pompously announce to a Moderator that you believe him to be dishonest.

Go you!

. . . oh, and 5000 signatures gathered from a population of 60-odd million just doesn't stand close scrutiny.
None of this is an argument.

And the other person's argument are crap.

Anybody else?
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
This child is a bit odd using the "royal" 'us' and 'we'. A real one man's People's Army of Judea type. I bet it's mummy finds out what it's up to and sends it to bed, all before we all ignore it and wait for it to get fed up and go and play somewhere else.
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
We detect here the beginnings of a dishonest debating tactic. Let's just recap:

1. You claimed that we want to abolish the BBC because we don't like it, as if our position is whimsical.

2. We replied by explaining that we have reasons for wanting to abolish the BBC and kindly referred you to our website. It is not, or not just, that we dislike the BBC.

3. You now reply stating that since we are not abolishing the BBC because we dislike it, that must mean that we like the BBC and therefore we can't have a good reason for abolishing it.

4. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that liking or dislking something is not necessarily related to wishing to either reform, change or abolish something.

Before you reply on this point (if you do burden us with another response), could we ask that you read carefully what we have just said and try to think logically.



Here you dishonesty omit our points that:

(i). the BBC is part-funded out of general taxation, in the form of government grant aid money; and,
(ii). under the relevant statute and supporting regulation, a licence fee is required to be paid by all persons who are in possession of television-receiving equipment.

Both these points nullify your argument.



Our complaint in regard to bias is not predicated on the belief that the BBC should be unbiased, rather it is predicated on the belief that since media organisations will be biased, there should be a competitive marketplace and people should be allowed to fully exercise choice. The existence of the BBC precludes this. Payment for the BBC is compulsory for us all as taxpayers and mandatory for all those who possess television-receiving equipment. With respect, that is not choice. That is authoritarianism.



It's not clear what you are talking about here.



We don't object to the salaries paid. But they can be paid by the private sector based on the choices exercised by viewers and listeners.



That's entirely your choice - so far, nearly 5,000 people disagree with you, and that petition has only been running for a few days. We think there will be more support.
I already knew arguing with you was a futile exercise because, like most single issue agenda types, you join a forum to promote your single issue and anyone opposing it is "shot down in flames".

Do you not see the irony of what you're protesting against here?

Dear me...

No idea why this site attracts so many, but rest assured you're not the first, you probably won't be the last.

I have no doubt that, like those before you, you thoroughly believe in what you're doing and would say I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours - but like I said previously, happy to pay the £12 a month for what I get out of it. As are the other 64,995,000, apparently.

OK, OK, not that many (1 license per household and all that), but you get my meaning.

And no, I'm not dishonest. I even tell the truth about my waistline, my disappointing sexual performances and inability to fight my way out of a paper bag.
 
BBC “Hardtalk” just got his neck wound in by Irainian academic!
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Black female singer with (some) civil rights era connection dies - all BBC channels in collective wet dream mode
ITV also went sillier than usual last night making it the prolonged top story before any real news.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Yeah, it's not like she's one of the greatest musical talents of the modern era or anything, is it?
Must be a real shame because I had never even heard of her.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top