The BBC - is it worth fighting for?

Mutant Lemming · 21 Jun 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
On the subject of ads, one of the things that always astonishes me is the way that with the non-freeview channels, you actually have to pay a subscription to be able to watch them... and then you STILL get loads of adverts! I do sometimes think there ought to be some kind of good practice guideline where, if a company is charging you for content, it should therefore be ad-free.

Even though I have access to numerous pay-to-view channels (they come with my Internet package) I still rarely watch any tv other than BBC, just because I find adverts so annoying!

Kind of reminds my first trip to the States - which was at a time when we only had three or four channels here. It was a novelty having 90 odd channels to flit at first but it didn't take long to realise that they may have had more channels but there was less choice.

RailUK Forums

EM2 · 21 Jun 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
Kind of reminds my first trip to the States - which was at a time when we only had three or four channels here. It was a novelty having 90 odd channels to flit at first but it didn't take long to realise that they may have had more channels but there was less choice.

In the words of Bruce Springsteen, 'Fifty-seven channels and nothing on...'

Bevan Price · 21 Jun 2019

Some of the media & people who dislike the BBC have a hidden motive for wanting to see it destroyed or curtailed. Without BBC, more people would need to subscribe to pay TV channels, putting more money into the pockets of people who own commercial media companies (and some of whom may well support a certain political party...)

yorksrob · 21 Jun 2019

underbank said:
I always listened to our local independent radio station, but they were taken over by Heart and I now hate what they've done to it, so I've been trying to find a new station. I gave radio two a try and really liked it, so it's now my regular station. I tried radio one but it's far too modern for an oldie like me. Radio two hits the spot just right.

Some DJ's are worse than others for overly modern play lists. But it still has some good programmes.

I think having rythem nation four nights in a row is too much. One night should be 'Sounds of the Nineties' preferably fronted by Mark & Lard.

cactustwirly · 21 Jun 2019

yorksrob said:
Some DJ's are worse than others for overly modern play lists. But it still has some good programmes.

I think having rythem nation four nights in a row is too much. One night should be 'Sounds of the Nineties' preferably fronted by Mark & Lard.

But isn't modern music, what most people want?
If you want 90's Spotify has some good 90s playlists

yorksrob · 21 Jun 2019

cactustwirly said:
But isn't modern music, what most people want?
If you want 90's Spotify has some good 90s playlists

No, if you want wall to wall modern music, you listen to Radio 1.

Most people want a bit of modern music amongst the canon of great pop music (what Radio 2 is for).

43021HST · 22 Jun 2019

I think we've abandoned the BBCs web output ... I use BBC online news as my main news source, I do have my own issues with it, but I find it to be the most reliable, reasonably rhetoric free source out there. It's excellent at giving entry level articles into some very dense topics.
The BBCs TV output is mostly patronising guff, Springwatch is unwatchable. I don't watch BBC 1 & 2 at all but I do watch Iplayer quite a bit. But that's part of the broader trend of TV having its day, in favour of streaming services.

I'd argue their comedy output is very liberal left biased, whereas their TV current affairs output is more right wing Brexit biased, not great I know, as the BBC should be neutral on all grounds but they're just appealing to their audiences. Generally I think it's impossible for a media institution to be completely apolitical.

Overall the BBC has many things wrong with it, but not beyond repair.
Loosing the BBC is one of those nation defining institutions that'd be a great cultural shame to lose. One more step towards the americanisation of our culture.

AM9 · 22 Jun 2019

klambert said:
... One more step towards the americanisation of our culture.

Which is exactly what this government seems to want. Apart from those who have financial interests in commercialisation of anything, they presumably feel that a media organiisation controlled by right-wing capitalists is much more likely to keep them in power. Hence the severe disappointment when Murdoch's bid for Sky was stopped. By now we would have quality news broadcasting Fox News style, (the channel that convinced Trump that the NHS was hated by UK citizens and already in collapse).

Bantamzen · 22 Jun 2019

klambert said:
I think we've abandoned the BBCs web output ... I use BBC online news as my main news source, I do have my own issues with it, but I find it to be the most reliable, reasonably rhetoric free source out there. It's excellent at giving entry level articles into some very dense topics.
The BBCs TV output is mostly patronising guff, Springwatch is unwatchable. I don't watch BBC 1 & 2 at all but I do watch Iplayer quite a bit. But that's part of the broader trend of TV having its day, in favour of streaming services.

I'd argue their comedy output is very liberal left biased, whereas their TV current affairs output is more right wing Brexit biased, not great I know, as the BBC should be neutral on all grounds but they're just appealing to their audiences. Generally I think it's impossible for a media institution to be completely apolitical.

Overall the BBC has many things wrong with it, but not beyond repair.
Loosing the BBC is one of those nation defining institutions that'd be a great cultural shame to lose. One more step towards the americanisation of our culture.

Just on the issue of comedians, generally speaking I find that the further right on the political spectrum someone is, the less humour they seem to tolerate. So whilst there are right leaning comedians, they are not as plentiful as left leaning ones which generally means that those appearing on TV are more likely to come from the latter side of the spectrum.

As for the dear old Beeb, I do occasionally watch the news although it's almost paranoia inducing obsession with bad news health stories does grate me somewhat. But otherwise, having lost most major sporting events, day time viewing overly loaded with people obsessing about their house values or wanting to move abroad but have it just like their old home in Blighty, and cringworthy dance competitions (that the news channels won't shut up about when they are due to be aired), and generally rather dull programming in general, I for one wouldn't entirely miss the BBC. However knowing that despite the faux rage war being waged by the likes of the Daily Hate, erm I mean Daily Mail, many people still like it I would suggest that it could become a subscription based service but still kept in public ownership.

stibz · 22 Jun 2019

Agree 100% too many way overpaid numpties, nearly anyone on a quarter of the pay could do news reading ect

whhistle · 24 Jun 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
The quality of the BBC has seriously deteriorated since it's move to Manchester but it is still far superior to having to put up with the mind numbing brain washing advertising.

The BBC didn't move to Manchester.
They bought/did up a building and moved some programmes up there.
Essential programming is still done in London.

Plus, switch over to ITV or Channel 4 and count the number of adverts you see between programmes.
It'll be more than doube that you see on the BBC.

richa2002 said:
[The BBC] is overwhelming stuffed with left-wing liberals and that is reflected in the content, no matter how much they try to give the illusion of balance.

My local BBC radio station is very balanced.
You make the mistake of looking at the BBC as a whole when it really isn't like that.
Can you think of a way of making sure all output from the BBC is completely neutral? Because I can't. But I think they do a pretty good job.

DynamicSpirit · 24 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Can you think of a way of making sure all output from the BBC is completely neutral? Because I can't. But I think they do a pretty good job.

I agree.

I think the main issue where you could do with improvement is that they seem to interpret being neutral in terms of, giving about the same weight to voices on both sides of any debate. A lot of the time that's fine, but it completely breaks down when the voices on one side are mainly professionals or experts with a huge knowledge of the issue being discussed, and the voices on the other side are mainly 'random-man-in-pub' kind of voices: People who are concerned but clearly have no understanding of the issues involved. That completely clouded the BBC's coverage of climate change for years, until they realised the problem and corrected it by saying they'd give more weight to expert opinion. But the problem is - they only made the decision to give more weight to expert voices for that particular issue. I think to some extent, you still see the same problem on many other issues. A couple that come to mind are HS2 and the economic impact of Brexit.

To my mind, where the need to correctly inform clashes with the desire to be even handed, the need to inform ought to take priority.

Bevan Price · 24 Jun 2019

yorksrob said:
No, if you want wall to wall modern music, you listen to Radio 1.

Most people want a bit of modern music amongst the canon of great pop music (what Radio 2 is for).

Personally I think that BBC is incapable of looking further than an endless diet of pop singles (current or old). There is a vast range of non-classical music that it totally ignored because it is album tracks, or outside the type of music that the "music industry" is (or was in the past) trying to "push" /"flog". If you are lucky, specialist music (e.g. country, blues) might be allowed an hour or so per week; other types (e.g. progressive / psychedelic rock ) seem to be almost completely ignored.

One aim of the BBC is supposed to be "to educate" listeners as well as "entertain"; an endless procession of the same pop singles does little to "educate" people about the wide range of available music.

yorksrob · 24 Jun 2019

Bevan Price said:
Personally I think that BBC is incapable of looking further than an endless diet of pop singles (current or old). There is a vast range of non-classical music that it totally ignored because it is album tracks, or outside the type of music that the "music industry" is (or was in the past) trying to "push" /"flog". If you are lucky, specialist music (e.g. country, blues) might be allowed an hour or so per week; other types (e.g. progressive / psychedelic rock ) seem to be almost completely ignored.

One aim of the BBC is supposed to be "to educate" listeners as well as "entertain"; an endless procession of the same pop singles does little to "educate" people about the wide range of available music.

There is too much of the dreaded "playlist" on BBC radio.

radamfi · 27 Jun 2019

Bevan Price said:
Personally I think that BBC is incapable of looking further than an endless diet of pop singles (current or old). There is a vast range of non-classical music that it totally ignored because it is album tracks, or outside the type of music that the "music industry" is (or was in the past) trying to "push" /"flog". If you are lucky, specialist music (e.g. country, blues) might be allowed an hour or so per week; other types (e.g. progressive / psychedelic rock ) seem to be almost completely ignored.

Doesn't 6 Music provide this sort of thing?

Ianno87 · 27 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
The BBC didn't move to Manchester.
They bought/did up a building and moved some programmes up there.
Essential programming is still done in London.

The main effect of moving some output north is that the News people now seem aware of where 'Salford' is, and gets referenced as such much more during news broadcasts (As opposed to 'Greater Manchester')

Mag_seven · 27 Jun 2019

Whenever you look through the TV listings and you see a good documentary, 99% of the time its from the BBC.

yorksrob · 27 Jun 2019

Ianno87 said:
The main effect of moving some output north is that the News people now seem aware of where 'Salford' is, and gets referenced as such much more during news broadcasts (As opposed to 'Greater Manchester')

Growing up, I always thought it was somewhere between Gatwick Airport and Redhill !

DerekC · 27 Jun 2019

Greater Manchester between Gatwick Airport and Redhill - now that would fix the North-South problem!

scotrail158713 · 27 Jun 2019

Mag_seven said:
Whenever you look through the TV listings and you see a good documentary, 99% of the time its from the BBC.

Yep. They’re the only lot that can make a half-decent documentary. Probably helped by the fact they can’t create a big anti-climatic build up before adverts every ten minutes though.

DerekC · 28 Jun 2019

scotrail158713 said:
Yep. They’re the only lot that can make a half-decent documentary. Probably helped by the fact they can’t create a big anti-climatic build up before adverts every ten minutes though.

Twenty years ago when I spent a year or so in the USA one of the infuriating things about their TV was the buildups to commercial breaks and the recap afterwards. An hours watching got you about 25 minutes of real programme time. Now every commercial reality TV and documentary programme here does it - and even the BBC isn't immune. You can see the provision for advert breaks in some programmes made by external companies - which most are, these days. However - roll on the BBC, warts and all! Confusion to Murdoch and all his works!! He has won the EU battle - don't let him push the country into getting rid of the BBC as well.

underbank · 28 Jun 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
I think the main issue where you could do with improvement is that they seem to interpret being neutral in terms of, giving about the same weight to voices on both sides of any debate. A lot of the time that's fine, but it completely breaks down when the voices on one side are mainly professionals or experts with a huge knowledge of the issue being discussed, and the voices on the other side are mainly 'random-man-in-pub' kind of voices: People who are concerned but clearly have no understanding of the issues involved.

We joke about it in our house. With Brexit, almost every time, they interview a professor or top business spokesperson who's pro EU and then they cut to a random middle aged woman in street to give the Anti EU side. It's hilarious. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

scotrail158713 · 28 Jun 2019

DerekC said:
Twenty years ago when I spent a year or so in the USA one of the infuriating things about their TV was the buildups to commercial breaks and the recap afterwards. An hours watching got you about 25 minutes of real programme time. Now every commercial reality TV and documentary programme here does it - and even the BBC isn't immune. You can see the provision for advert breaks in some programmes made by external companies - which most are, these days. However - roll on the BBC, warts and all! Confusion to Murdoch and all his works!! He has won the EU battle - don't let him push the country into getting rid of the BBC as well.

Yep. All documentaries, including BBC ones, have a bad habit of telling you everything that will happen during the programme - during the 30 second intro. It then defeats the purpose of watching the programme.

Typhoon · 28 Jun 2019

radamfi said:
Doesn't 6 Music provide this sort of thing?

I would have said so. I hardly think that Freak Zone, Craig Charles Funk and Soul Show, Don Letts' Culture Clash and Nemone's Electric Ladyland offered an 'endless diet of pop singles'. For Country music I think Whispering Bob is still going strong on Radio 2. My (BBC) local radio station has a folk programme, there might still be one on Radio 2 (checked: Mark Radcliffe, Weds eves). I know that there have been cut backs on ten years ago, but I would have thought that the variety offered by the BBC exceeds that offered in say the seventies and eighties. I don't know about the country as a whole but in my neck of the woods commercial radio is the home of an 'endless diet of pop singles' - along with celebrity and inane chatter.

krus_aragon · 28 Jun 2019

DerekC said:
Twenty years ago when I spent a year or so in the USA one of the infuriating things about their TV was the buildups to commercial breaks and the recap afterwards. An hours watching got you about 25 minutes of real programme time.

A case in point: the CBS current affairs program "60 minutes" is a lot shorter when you remove the adverts. CBC's satirical news show is called "This hour has 22 minutes" in reference to this.

The BBC - is it worth fighting for?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member