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

I seem to recall Auntie was equally verbose when the real musical legend that is David Bowie passed away.
 
I don't see that the taxpayer-funded state broadcaster really needs to be part of the rather banal celebrity-eulogising culture. Why can't they leave that mush to the tabloids, and instead just be a bit more circumspect and/or UK-society focussed?

Why not instead, for example, pick up on some of the notable-but-unnoticed people that pass through the obituary columns? Scientists, engineers, servicemen, philanthropists, doctors, administrators, public servants, etc and so on?
 
Why not instead, for example, pick up on some of the notable-but-unnoticed people that pass through the obituary columns? Scientists, engineers, servicemen, philanthropists, doctors, administrators, public servants, etc and so on?
I have a 1/2 hour commute from the station on a Friday afternoon. It just coincides with 'Last Word' on BBC R4. usually very interesting. Also available as a podcast.

Last week - Aretha Franklin, VS Naipaul, Winston Ntshona and Nan Joyce. A good mix

BBC Radio 4 - Last Word - Available now
 
Probably.
Are you suggesting the BBC is racist, sexist or both?
I believe it is plain to see in both, both in hiring practices and narrative, although it is framed as 'diversity / equality of outcome' rather than equality of opportunity... BBC 3 and Radio 4 output is dripping in, my opinion with 'narrative' rather than 'informative and entertaining'.

I know that opinions are subjective, but if the funding of the BBC had to survive on subscription rather than compulsion, I suggest the meme of 'Get Woke, Go Broke' would see a massive cut back on staff and output.

edited for meme correction
 
Last edited:

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
I believe it is plain to see in both, both in hiring practices and narrative, although it is framed as 'diversity / equality of outcome' rather than equality of opportunity... BBC 3 and Radio 4 output is dripping in, my opinion with 'narrative' rather than 'informative and entertaining'.

I know that opinions are subjective, but if the funding of the BBC had to survive on subscription rather than compulsion, I suggest the meme of 'Go Woke Go Broke' would see a massive cut back on staff and output.
That's why I don't listen to any "current affairs" flagship type nonsense on BBC R4 - if I wanted to saturate myself with opinions on diversity, homelessness, drug addiction, street violence, endless whingeing about discrimination, ethnicity quotas in the workplace etc - I'd read the Guardian.
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
Why not instead, for example, pick up on some of the notable-but-unnoticed people that pass through the obituary columns? Scientists, engineers, servicemen, philanthropists, doctors, administrators, public servants, etc and so on?
As much as most of us would like to see more of what you're suggesting, the problem is, people in general don't give a stuff about some scientist who's just made a breakthrough in reducing (insert ailment here), nor the engineers who pioneered their way through London's Underground to build the very system that carries them to their non-jobs each and every day. Such coverage would therefore not attract sufficient traffic (online or otherwise) to sustain their business model.

The want to read about Anthony McPartlin totalling his car into a wall after a skin-full. They want to read about celebs in rehab, which actor won what at the BAFTAs, Donald Trump's latest tweet to be taken out of context, worst snow fall since (insert year) and hottest summer since (records began, usually).

You only have to look on ARRSE to see that. The minute a semi-high profile celeb pops their clogs there's at least 3 threads about it within minutes of it being announced. Threads on the weather being too hot, threads on it being too cold - like we're suddenly incapable of looking out our own windows or reading the news for ourselves.

That's why our BBC is less factual and more opinionated these days.

Same reason ARRSE is less military and more civvy these days.
 
As much as most of us would like to see more of what you're suggesting, the problem is, people in general don't give a stuff about some scientist who's just made a breakthrough in reducing (insert ailment here), nor the engineers who pioneered their way through London's Underground to build the very system that carries them to their non-jobs each and every day. Such coverage would therefore not attract sufficient traffic (online or otherwise) to sustain their business model.

The want to read about Anthony McPartlin totalling his car into a wall after a skin-full. They want to read about celebs in rehab, which actor won what at the BAFTAs, Donald Trump's latest tweet to be taken out of context, worst snow fall since (insert year) and hottest summer since (records began, usually).

You only have to look on ARRSE to see that. The minute a semi-high profile celeb pops their clogs there's at least 3 threads about it within minutes of it being announced. Threads on the weather being too hot, threads on it being too cold - like we're suddenly incapable of looking out our own windows or reading the news for ourselves.

That's why our BBC is less factual and more opinionated these days.

Same reason ARRSE is less military and more civvy these days.
Good post,

But you missed the obligatory 'not as funny as it used to be'
 
I don't see that the taxpayer-funded state broadcaster really needs to be part of the rather banal celebrity-eulogising culture. Why can't they leave that mush to the tabloids, and instead just be a bit more circumspect and/or UK-society focussed?

Why not instead, for example, pick up on some of the notable-but-unnoticed people that pass through the obituary columns? Scientists, engineers, servicemen, philanthropists, doctors, administrators, public servants, etc and so on?
Then you'll be warmed by the news that media superstar Adrian Chiles is a raging alcoholic:

Chiles 'horrified' to learn alcohol intake

Who would ever guess that the bloat-faced Brummie was a raging piss-head?
 
My bold.

Really? Totally destroy? Can tell you're in bed with the BBC. At most it indicates the BBC sometimes recognises real home-grown talent.
I'm not sure what your point is here ( possibly I've missed something) I was referring to the fact that @Techtechtech was pointing out that the BBC discussed the demise of major Black and White artists in equal measure.

Either way I'm not in bed with the BBC - I work for them but I'm close enough to see the Corporations short comings and have always been happy to question them.
 
I'm not sure what your point is here ( possibly I've missed something) I was referring to the fact that @Techtechtech was pointing out that the BBC discussed the demise of major Black and White artists in equal measure.

Either way I'm not in bed with the BBC - I work for them but I'm close enough to see the Corporations short comings and have always been happy to question them.
If you honestly can't see what my point is then I'd suggest your questioning of the BBC, if that actually happens, is unlikely to be very robust.
 
]He was a legend in his Ziggy days, but rapidly deteriorated after that IMO. Still better than AF though.

And his death got the requisite 'we have lost a legend and wonderful ornament to our cultural heritage' treatment.
What I did not see was any references to his activities in the US which allegedly included statutory rape - ie sex with an underage girl or girls. But that would have not fitted with the BBC's eulogising stance and was thus studiously ignored.. obviously not in the public interest, unlike the treatment meted out Sir Cliff Richard.
 
How dare you offer rational examples that totally destroy the 'BBC is apologist and anti-white' narrative..
The BBC is a laughing stock amongst the general population. Gone are the days when its news output was respected as fairly impartial and informative.

Its web page is basically the militant wing of OK! magazine nowadays.

If there was no licence fee, the BBC would likely cease to exist. Due largely to its 'progressive' outputs and lack of any talent.
 
The BBC is a laughing stock amongst the general population. Gone are the days when its news output was respected as fairly impartial and informative.

Its web page is basically the militant wing of OK! magazine nowadays.

If there was no licence fee, the BBC would likely cease to exist. Due largely to its 'progressive' outputs and lack of any talent.
I think this is highlighted by the BBC feeling they have to have a link on their news site labelled "Why you can trust BBC News".
All self manufactured bolleaux of course.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top