"The British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation"
Discussion
Sorry, I've linked to the Daily Mail because it was first on Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360786/Da...
Apparently CMD has started referring to the BBC as the 'BBCC', standing for the title of this thread, as he feels they aren't reporting the public spending cuts fairly.
Thoughts? Examples?
I've noticed a general trend when any minister is brought on to explain why they are cutting something, for them to be interupted immediately if they say "it's because we need to cut some things get the deficit down" with a kind of "yeah, yeah, we know all that, but why are you cutting this? Evan Davies is particularly good at this approach. If they reply well if not this? then what, they are treated with disdain.
Meanwhile union leaders' opinions are generally treated with something like reverence.
Good one this morning on R4: The news report on The King's Speech winning an Oscar was accompanied the coment that it was partly funded by the British Film Council (I think?) that "the Coalition Government have abolished as part of their spending cuts".
Meaning: "Gosh, now this nasty government will ruin our film industry."
I would've thought private investors would be happy to invest in commercial films like this that cost £10m and so far have taken £150m...
Was going to add this to the old BBC bias thread but I couldn't find it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360786/Da...
Apparently CMD has started referring to the BBC as the 'BBCC', standing for the title of this thread, as he feels they aren't reporting the public spending cuts fairly.
Thoughts? Examples?
I've noticed a general trend when any minister is brought on to explain why they are cutting something, for them to be interupted immediately if they say "it's because we need to cut some things get the deficit down" with a kind of "yeah, yeah, we know all that, but why are you cutting this? Evan Davies is particularly good at this approach. If they reply well if not this? then what, they are treated with disdain.
Meanwhile union leaders' opinions are generally treated with something like reverence.
Good one this morning on R4: The news report on The King's Speech winning an Oscar was accompanied the coment that it was partly funded by the British Film Council (I think?) that "the Coalition Government have abolished as part of their spending cuts".
Meaning: "Gosh, now this nasty government will ruin our film industry."
I would've thought private investors would be happy to invest in commercial films like this that cost £10m and so far have taken £150m...
Was going to add this to the old BBC bias thread but I couldn't find it.
I've actually stopped watching any political or news programmes on the BBC. It astonishes me that they seem to be able to constantly over report everything and anything that can be framed as detrimental to the coalition.
For example... last week, headline on front page of BBC website, something like "UK trade shrink worse than expected".
So I go to look at the article which contains much hand-wringing about how much worse the situation is than thought before realising about 3 paragraphs in that they were talking about a revision in the GDP figures issued earlier where the shrink in GDP during the last quarter of 2010 has been revised from something like -0.59% to -0.61%. Hardly worthy of a mention in the business pages yet alone a top spot highlight on the front page!!
And the covert favouritism on virtually all the political shows is astonishing, plenty of long winded soundbites from anyone in opposition to the coalition or effected by the CUTS, but barely any sensible response allowed from the coalition representative.
It's only when looking at the stories in more detail does it become apparent that there is a lot of spinning going on about the size of the cuts... which the BBC seems more than happy to report without any counter-balance viewpoints being seriously explored.
I wonder sometimes whether I'm becoming increasingly paranoid about it and that I'm seeing/hearing biase that's not there... but the details of any story would indicate I'm not, and it's in virtually every story now.
For example... last week, headline on front page of BBC website, something like "UK trade shrink worse than expected".
So I go to look at the article which contains much hand-wringing about how much worse the situation is than thought before realising about 3 paragraphs in that they were talking about a revision in the GDP figures issued earlier where the shrink in GDP during the last quarter of 2010 has been revised from something like -0.59% to -0.61%. Hardly worthy of a mention in the business pages yet alone a top spot highlight on the front page!!
And the covert favouritism on virtually all the political shows is astonishing, plenty of long winded soundbites from anyone in opposition to the coalition or effected by the CUTS, but barely any sensible response allowed from the coalition representative.
It's only when looking at the stories in more detail does it become apparent that there is a lot of spinning going on about the size of the cuts... which the BBC seems more than happy to report without any counter-balance viewpoints being seriously explored.
I wonder sometimes whether I'm becoming increasingly paranoid about it and that I'm seeing/hearing biase that's not there... but the details of any story would indicate I'm not, and it's in virtually every story now.
The Telegraph has been publishing a few bits about council waste, this is a massively under-reported story and would balance out the cuts issue a bit.
For once I'm not going to just blame Labour, plenty of tory-run councils have been spending ridiculous amounts on ridiculous schemes too.
I'd love to see an expose of the same magnitude as the MP expense fiddling story and then maybe, just maybe people would start to think and not just take the BBC line.
For once I'm not going to just blame Labour, plenty of tory-run councils have been spending ridiculous amounts on ridiculous schemes too.
I'd love to see an expose of the same magnitude as the MP expense fiddling story and then maybe, just maybe people would start to think and not just take the BBC line.
mattviatura said:
I'd love to see an expose of the same magnitude as the MP expense fiddling story and then maybe, just maybe people would start to think and not just take the BBC line.
I'd like to see not just expose style reports, but also factual, quantative reports,which put the average joe firmly in touch with the magnitude of expenditure and/or waste involved in our public sector.Things like:
- How is it sensible or sustainable that the NHS is teh planet's 3rd/4th largest employer?
- Given the above fact, why is expenditure for teacher's pensions higher than that for NHS pensions?
Ed Balls was on Jeremy Vine a couple of weeks ago and got an absolute slating. Even Vine who is normally namby pamby really laid into him - i enjoyed it a lot, refreshing, lots of angry callers etc and Balls kept contradicting himself, the interview was a total disaster imho for Balls!
However the news report immediatly after the program picked out a single sentance by Balls. I cannot remember the exact words but it sounded super smooth, slick and really fired at the coalition.
Nothing Politically on the BBC news is impartial which is all i ask of the corporation.
One cannot help but wonder how many people need to be smoked out of the fantasy land at BBC HQ and spend some time in the real world.
However the news report immediatly after the program picked out a single sentance by Balls. I cannot remember the exact words but it sounded super smooth, slick and really fired at the coalition.
Nothing Politically on the BBC news is impartial which is all i ask of the corporation.
One cannot help but wonder how many people need to be smoked out of the fantasy land at BBC HQ and spend some time in the real world.
gtdc said:
Surely the BBC are just the media wing of the Labour Party?
I'd say not, I would agree with this:Johnnytheboy said:
To be fair, the BBC were also critical of the last government, but generally from the left.
I would say that the BBC has an institutional political bias towards a set of Left-ish values, but is not party-partisan.freakybacon said:
Chaps- fill your boots.
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
I think that's biased, and even more so than the BBC.http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Randy Winkman said:
When Labour were in power, every news item on BBC radio went thus:
- Newsperson says what Labour propose to do.
- Quote from opposition or other person saying what a bad idea it is.
People have short memories.
But they didn't for the most part.- Newsperson says what Labour propose to do.
- Quote from opposition or other person saying what a bad idea it is.
People have short memories.
The BBC would get a quote from a Labour minister, and to comment against it they would put a Labour backbencher up, rather than the Official Opposition!
And if they couldn't dig up a Labour backbencher, then they gave it to the Liberal backbencher. Only when they ran out of everyone possible did they put it to someone from the opposition.
tinman0 said:
But they didn't for the most part.
The BBC would get a quote from a Labour minister, and to comment against it they would put a Labour backbencher up, rather than the Official Opposition!
And if they couldn't dig up a Labour backbencher, then they gave it to the Liberal backbencher. Only when they ran out of everyone possible did they put it to someone from the opposition.
That's how I remembered it too, there was very little anti-government BBC news when Blair and Ol'Winky were in charge. Most of it seemed to be public funded government cheer-leading.The BBC would get a quote from a Labour minister, and to comment against it they would put a Labour backbencher up, rather than the Official Opposition!
And if they couldn't dig up a Labour backbencher, then they gave it to the Liberal backbencher. Only when they ran out of everyone possible did they put it to someone from the opposition.
Tsippy said:
tinman0 said:
But they didn't for the most part.
The BBC would get a quote from a Labour minister, and to comment against it they would put a Labour backbencher up, rather than the Official Opposition!
And if they couldn't dig up a Labour backbencher, then they gave it to the Liberal backbencher. Only when they ran out of everyone possible did they put it to someone from the opposition.
That's how I remembered it too, there was very little anti-government BBC news when Blair and Ol'Winky were in charge. Most of it seemed to be public funded government cheer-leading.The BBC would get a quote from a Labour minister, and to comment against it they would put a Labour backbencher up, rather than the Official Opposition!
And if they couldn't dig up a Labour backbencher, then they gave it to the Liberal backbencher. Only when they ran out of everyone possible did they put it to someone from the opposition.
London local news have been banging on about almost nothing else for the last week or so, promoting their series of reports details 'what the cuts mean' as councils set their budgets. Pretty much every day has had outside broadcasts with person after person decrying how awful it all is and how we are all going to suffer, with knowing and sympathetic prompts from the studio and interviewers.
The coverage has been so far from even handed I can't recall even one piece detailing the reasons behind the proposed cuts, or spokesperson in favour of it. There is also little to no critical coverage of what they are looking at - no questioning how councils are going about implementing them or whether what is being cut is reasonable and whether savings could be made elsewhere.
The typical interview seems to go along the lines of:
Reporter: We are at x, where the council is cutting Y. Why is that?
Council mong: Oh it's the government cuts. Aren't they awful?
Reporter: Yes, look at all these unhappy people. Let's talk to one.
Unhappy mong: Vis guv'ment are evil. Vey are cutting our services. Vey should tax the bankers more. It ain't are fault it's them rich people.
Reporter: You can see how terrible it all is.
Smug studio woman: Yes indeed. More on how the government is screwing us all tomorrow. Never mind, won't be long before Labour get back in.
The coverage has been so far from even handed I can't recall even one piece detailing the reasons behind the proposed cuts, or spokesperson in favour of it. There is also little to no critical coverage of what they are looking at - no questioning how councils are going about implementing them or whether what is being cut is reasonable and whether savings could be made elsewhere.
The typical interview seems to go along the lines of:
Reporter: We are at x, where the council is cutting Y. Why is that?
Council mong: Oh it's the government cuts. Aren't they awful?
Reporter: Yes, look at all these unhappy people. Let's talk to one.
Unhappy mong: Vis guv'ment are evil. Vey are cutting our services. Vey should tax the bankers more. It ain't are fault it's them rich people.
Reporter: You can see how terrible it all is.
Smug studio woman: Yes indeed. More on how the government is screwing us all tomorrow. Never mind, won't be long before Labour get back in.
tank slapper said:
London local news have been banging on about almost nothing else for the last week or so, promoting their series of reports details 'what the cuts mean' as councils set their budgets.
Week? BBC London have been banging on about since May 2010! It's borderline ridiculous now as you can bet at least 3 stories each evening are different areas of cuts.Even the One Show got in on it on Friday as some bird was upset that the NHS refused to remove her tattoos (despite the decline to fund letter being dated 2008!). But no, it was down to "Tory cuts" rather than personal responsibility.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff