I don't see why it would be at a disadvantage to commercial news sources in terms of reducing bias.
Ah, we're talking at cross purposes! Yes, it can counteract the bias of other news sources, but the ties to Government are decidedly unhealthy. It frustrates me (a) because we have to pay for it, and (b) because people say that the absence of commercial interests means that it is impartial, which is not true. This is why I don't like it. I suppose I did say so in a rather Flamebaity way though... guess I misjudged the amount of pro-BBC feeling on here.
I must say I'm surprised by your angle of attack. Usually, when defending the BBC, people insist that it isn't part of the Government (technically true) and it isn't funded by tax (also technically true). But you agree with my premise that it's part of the Government, and go on to say that this is fine, and running a news organisation is just a normal job of Government! For some Governments this is certainly true.. the USSR, the DPRK and China would be examples.
As it happens, I do have a pretty short list of things that the Government should do. It is based on a very simple principle: the function of Government is to do things that could not be done any other way. That would include law enforcement and running the military. It would not include running a news organisation.
Well, I can't say fairer than that! Personally, I would vote for him because I think he is awesome, one of the most honest and outspoken politicians we have, but I can understand why people might not like him.
I think you are correct and most undeserving of a Flamebait moderation.
The BBC is left wing, in the social sense of the word. The BBC slavishly supports the New Labour social programmes, from really big things like the public sector expansion, the quangos and the NHS, through the whole authoritarian anti-terror laws, right down to small but important things like political correctness and the doctrine of equality. New Labour may not be left wing in economic terms, but in terms of social policy, they are most definitely hard left.
The BBC helped New Labour gain power, and celebrated when they did:
"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that" Jane Garvey
BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.
And now the BBC is using its considerable power to ensure that the Conservatives must continue to support New Labour policy, even though it has led Britain into recession and is badly in need of reform.
The BBC's greatest achievement is making people believe that "left wing = good". The BBC has done this incredibly well. I see that one of your other replies conflates "right wing" with "Islamic dictatorship".. well, we can thank the BBC for that one. And another suggests that you are "off with Enoch Powell". I suspect this is meant as an insult, implying you are a racist, although the poster may be aware of Tony Blair's gushing praise for Mr Powell on his death in 1998 and may simply be implying that you are a Blairite.
You say "right wing nutjobs" but I think you mean "people who disagree with the BBC". Those are exactly the people I would expect to provide the most information on how the BBC is biased.
If you wanted evidence of Fox News bias, you would probably not ask a Republican. You would probably ask a Democrat. Particularly a Democrat who had been reporting on Fox News bias for some time.
Equally if you want evidence of BBC bias, you need to get it from elsewhere in the political spectrum. Don't you think?
I disagree. For two reasons. Firstly, the BBC has political bias. I've gone on about that at length, won't mention it again.
Secondly, the quality of BBC programmes isn't all that great. There are some gems out there, but a lot of it is just mindless mainstream dross of the sort that could quite easily be produced by any of the commercial channels. It's as if they've given up on trying to be cultured, and have just decided to compete for viewers instead. I find myself watching a lot of TV imported from the US these days - no BBC influence there - so I just don't think the licence fee is worth it.
If the BBC really provides value for money, then why doesn't it move to a subscription model, so that people can pay for it if they want? There are subscription channels on satellite and digital terrestrial TV. If you don't pay, you don't get them.
Clearly, if most Brits love the BBC, they won't mind "opting in" and paying for BBC channels.
On the other hand, if most Brits would rather not pay for the BBC, then that rather calls the whole "licence fee" thing into question, does it not?
Oh dear. Don't you see? The BBC told you what to think.
When Princess Diana died, the BBC told everyone that the nation was in mourning. And hey presto, they were.
When Daniel Hannan MEP criticised the NHS on American TV, the BBC told everyone that there was widespread public anger. And hey presto, there was.
Almost nobody went to see what Hannan had really said. Almost nobody had looked at the facts he presented, or the context in which he produced them, because the BBC had told them everything they thought they needed to know. In fact, everything Hannan said was true, and if you read his book ("The Plan"), you will find he is in favour of NHS reform, not scrapping the whole thing. The BBC didn't feel the need to mention that. They wanted to demonise him.
You've just provided the perfect example of why the BBC is a bad thing and why we should be rid of it. It speaks for the Government. It does not speak for us.
Firstly, control by the Government is neither better nor worse than control by Murdoch. Except in Britain, where it is worse, because you don't have to buy the Murdoch media, but you do have to pay for the BBC if you have a TV. So the BBC has lots of resources to distribute pro-Government propaganda.
Secondly, the BBC monopoly is one of the things that keeps Murdoch rich, because it helps to crush the little guys so there is less competition. Murdoch is one of the few with the resources to compete with a huge taxpayer-funded organisation that most Brits are forced to pay for. If the BBC did not exist, we would have more independent broadcasters, who would not be under Government or Murdoch control. I would welcome that.
This is true. Also I could disconnect my TV from the aerial, and tell the TV licensing people that I had done so. But I shouldn't need to do that. TV licensing shouldn't exist at all.
"The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?",
I don't know why this is Flamebait. I'm one of his countrymen. (Countrywoman in fact.)
I don't want to watch Sky TV. So I don't. I don't pay Mr Murdoch anything, and I don't get any Sky programmes. No problem.
I *also* don't want to watch BBC TV. But I still have to pay the BBC their licence tax. I still have to listen to other Brits going on about how impartial, fair and balanced the BBC is, even though I know for a fact that it isn't. I pay for the BBC to crush the competition through the power of their tax-funded "public service". I pay for the BBC to tell me who to vote for, what to say and what to think. And I am fucking sick of it. Where is my opt-out?
Don't trust the BBC to be impartial, fair or balanced, because it is none of these things. Everything it broadcasts reflects the viewpoint of the British Establishment. I trust it to provide me with weather reports, and that's about it. I resent having to pay for it.
In the UK the phone records are usually used to prove that somebody's been texting while driving. This only catches people who actually send their messages.
Here's the most famous example. Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, killed somebody because he was texting while driving. He got off with a shockingly light sentence which prompted cries of political interference.
I think we're going around in circles here. Let's get back to basics. It is wrong for the BBC to claim to be impartial and then not be impartial about contentious issues. It is wrong for the BBC to use our tax money to broadcast propaganda. It is wrong for the BBC to support the Government while claiming to be an impartial public service. In that sense, it is irrelevant whether the BBC are reporting facts or lies: they are reporting what the Government says, and using our money to do it, while falsely claiming to be impartial.
Do not trust the BBC any more than you would trust Fox News, because although the BBC also claims to be "fair and balanced", it is a Government mouthpiece and it will mislead you when it matters.
What do you mean? This is an anti-Government article, not an anti-Democrat article, or an anti-Obama article.
I seem to recall a large number of anti-Government articles on/. over the past decade. Lots and lots of very justified criticism of Bush and the Neocons. Where were we? We were right here, moaning about Bush.
People who are anti-Government continue to be anti-Government regardless of who the Government is.
I also don't see how it is racist to criticise Barack Obama, unless of course you are criticising him for being black.
It's very interesting to hear another explanation. I hadn't thought of that.
Left vs right also has some meaning when discussing social policy. When I heard people saying "Labour moved to the right", this is what I assumed they were referring to, probably because the context was related to bad things that Labour had done in that realm (e.g. ASBOs, detention without trial, etc.). It gave me a weird sense of cognitive dissonance because such micromanaging of society is hardly "right wing".
That's exactly correct, and Dragonslicer is also right about the scale between authoritarian and libertarian government, and how that scale is orthogonal to other aspects of policy.
This probably only makes sense in Britain, but my post is inspired by the meme that if the socialists do anything bad, it must be because they've stopped being socialists and become "right wing". This allegedly happened to New Labour. The meme is stupid, firstly because it's wrong, and secondly because it associates moderately right wing people (such as myself) with all of the bad things that New Labour did.
I used to assume that the left-wing dictators pretended to be left-wing merely as a tool of control, allowing them to be as selfish as they wanted, filling the Swiss bank account while pretending to have the people's interests at heart.
But having read a rather long (and definitely unsympathetic) biography of Stalin, I'm no longer so sure. I think many of them really believe in what they are doing, and are genuinely convinced that it is for the best.
For example, in the early years of WW2, Hitler broke his non-aggression pact and invaded Russia. Initially, this invasion was going very well for the Germans, and Stalin became convinced that the war was lost. He went to his dacha outside the city, and for a few days, none of his henchmen dared to give any orders because they couldn't run them past the big man. Eventually, the henchmen decided to go to Stalin's house.
"There, sitting nervously in an armchair, was a 'thinner... haggard... gloomy' Stalin. When he saw the seven or so Politburo members entering, Stalin 'turned to stone'... he looked at them searchingly and asked: 'Why've you come?'
"Stalin 'looked alert, somewhat strange', recalled Mikoyan, 'and his question was no less strange. Actually he should have summoned us himself. I had no doubt: he decided we had arrived to arrest him.'...
"'We're asking you to come back to work...'
"'Yes but think about it,' answered Stalin. 'Can I live up to the people's hopes any more? Can I lead the country to final victory? There may be more deserving candidates.'"
I think this moment of vulnerability, in front of the men who could destroy him and had reason to do so, gives a lot of insight into the mind of Stalin. History remembers a monster, and of course this is correct, but nevertheless he was a rational man who believed he was doing the right thing for the USSR. When things went badly, he felt guilty for failing the people. He almost destroyed himself because of it.
Is this the action of a selfish man, considering only himself? I think not. Stalin's actions are entirely explained by the Marxist religion. In his mind, he did act for the people. He did help them! He freed them from the capitalists, the bourgeois and the imperialists. The mass executions, the war and the starvation were all necessary to achieve that end. Stalin was exactly what he claimed to be: a truly left-wing dictator.
This is exactly the problem. The BBC management thinks that MMGW is an established fact, and presents it in that way, even though there are quite a lot of people who don't think it is a fact.
The BBC don't need to be impartial about things that are facts, e.g. oil spill = environmental disaster.
But they should be impartial about things that aren't facts. They should be honest and acknowledge the limits of their understanding. They are not supposed to act as shills for the Government and its cronies.
Again, how would you like to be forced to pay for an organisation that broadcasts Christian fundamentalist beliefs as if they were true, and when challenged about this, claims as justification that they are true and no further discussion is necessary?
The BBC is not impartial about this and many other issues.
Suppose that you are forced to pay a special tax to fund a broadcaster in your country. Furthermore, suppose that the broadcaster is run by Christian fundamentalists. So there are programmes about how Creationists are right and everyone else is wrong. Every news report is distorted by Christian bias in some way.
Now, replace "Christian fundamentalism" with some other sort of religion (see my home page) and you have the BBC. Is "man-made global warming" a scientific certainty? The BBC says so, and the British government says so, but that doesn't mean they are right. To the BBC, the evidence against man-made global warming is entirely irrelevant, or at best worthy only of discrediting. Just like the evidence against Creationism.
Bias is harmful. Most especially when it is coming from a Government-funded broadcaster.
In terms of social policy, Labour are very left-wing; always have been. So are the Conservatives now.
But as you very rightly say, it's irrelevant from the perspective of the ordinary person. The extreme left and the extreme right are equally harmful to individual liberty.
Frighteningly indeed. Have a look at Biased BBC. It's where I found the following quote from veteran broadcaster Jeremy Paxton, which is very much on topic.
"People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago",
I'd agree with all of that. Like C itself, goto is a powerful tool that is easily misused by beginners, but is still very useful in the right circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why it would be at a disadvantage to commercial news sources in terms of reducing bias.
Ah, we're talking at cross purposes! Yes, it can counteract the bias of other news sources, but the ties to Government are decidedly unhealthy. It frustrates me (a) because we have to pay for it, and (b) because people say that the absence of commercial interests means that it is impartial, which is not true. This is why I don't like it. I suppose I did say so in a rather Flamebaity way though... guess I misjudged the amount of pro-BBC feeling on here.
I must say I'm surprised by your angle of attack. Usually, when defending the BBC, people insist that it isn't part of the Government (technically true) and it isn't funded by tax (also technically true). But you agree with my premise that it's part of the Government, and go on to say that this is fine, and running a news organisation is just a normal job of Government! For some Governments this is certainly true.. the USSR, the DPRK and China would be examples.
As it happens, I do have a pretty short list of things that the Government should do. It is based on a very simple principle: the function of Government is to do things that could not be done any other way. That would include law enforcement and running the military. It would not include running a news organisation.
Well, I can't say fairer than that! Personally, I would vote for him because I think he is awesome, one of the most honest and outspoken politicians we have, but I can understand why people might not like him.
I think you are correct and most undeserving of a Flamebait moderation.
The BBC is left wing, in the social sense of the word. The BBC slavishly supports the New Labour social programmes, from really big things like the public sector expansion, the quangos and the NHS, through the whole authoritarian anti-terror laws, right down to small but important things like political correctness and the doctrine of equality. New Labour may not be left wing in economic terms, but in terms of social policy, they are most definitely hard left.
The BBC helped New Labour gain power, and celebrated when they did:
And now the BBC is using its considerable power to ensure that the Conservatives must continue to support New Labour policy, even though it has led Britain into recession and is badly in need of reform.
The BBC's greatest achievement is making people believe that "left wing = good". The BBC has done this incredibly well. I see that one of your other replies conflates "right wing" with "Islamic dictatorship".. well, we can thank the BBC for that one. And another suggests that you are "off with Enoch Powell". I suspect this is meant as an insult, implying you are a racist, although the poster may be aware of Tony Blair's gushing praise for Mr Powell on his death in 1998 and may simply be implying that you are a Blairite.
You say "right wing nutjobs" but I think you mean "people who disagree with the BBC". Those are exactly the people I would expect to provide the most information on how the BBC is biased.
If you wanted evidence of Fox News bias, you would probably not ask a Republican. You would probably ask a Democrat. Particularly a Democrat who had been reporting on Fox News bias for some time.
Equally if you want evidence of BBC bias, you need to get it from elsewhere in the political spectrum. Don't you think?
I disagree. For two reasons. Firstly, the BBC has political bias. I've gone on about that at length, won't mention it again.
Secondly, the quality of BBC programmes isn't all that great. There are some gems out there, but a lot of it is just mindless mainstream dross of the sort that could quite easily be produced by any of the commercial channels. It's as if they've given up on trying to be cultured, and have just decided to compete for viewers instead. I find myself watching a lot of TV imported from the US these days - no BBC influence there - so I just don't think the licence fee is worth it.
If the BBC really provides value for money, then why doesn't it move to a subscription model, so that people can pay for it if they want? There are subscription channels on satellite and digital terrestrial TV. If you don't pay, you don't get them.
Clearly, if most Brits love the BBC, they won't mind "opting in" and paying for BBC channels.
On the other hand, if most Brits would rather not pay for the BBC, then that rather calls the whole "licence fee" thing into question, does it not?
Oh dear. Don't you see? The BBC told you what to think.
When Princess Diana died, the BBC told everyone that the nation was in mourning. And hey presto, they were.
When Daniel Hannan MEP criticised the NHS on American TV, the BBC told everyone that there was widespread public anger. And hey presto, there was.
Almost nobody went to see what Hannan had really said. Almost nobody had looked at the facts he presented, or the context in which he produced them, because the BBC had told them everything they thought they needed to know. In fact, everything Hannan said was true, and if you read his book ("The Plan"), you will find he is in favour of NHS reform, not scrapping the whole thing. The BBC didn't feel the need to mention that. They wanted to demonise him.
You've just provided the perfect example of why the BBC is a bad thing and why we should be rid of it. It speaks for the Government. It does not speak for us.
Firstly, control by the Government is neither better nor worse than control by Murdoch. Except in Britain, where it is worse, because you don't have to buy the Murdoch media, but you do have to pay for the BBC if you have a TV. So the BBC has lots of resources to distribute pro-Government propaganda.
Secondly, the BBC monopoly is one of the things that keeps Murdoch rich, because it helps to crush the little guys so there is less competition. Murdoch is one of the few with the resources to compete with a huge taxpayer-funded organisation that most Brits are forced to pay for. If the BBC did not exist, we would have more independent broadcasters, who would not be under Government or Murdoch control. I would welcome that.
This is true. Also I could disconnect my TV from the aerial, and tell the TV licensing people that I had done so. But I shouldn't need to do that. TV licensing shouldn't exist at all.
I don't know why this is Flamebait. I'm one of his countrymen. (Countrywoman in fact.)
I don't want to watch Sky TV. So I don't. I don't pay Mr Murdoch anything, and I don't get any Sky programmes. No problem.
I *also* don't want to watch BBC TV. But I still have to pay the BBC their licence tax. I still have to listen to other Brits going on about how impartial, fair and balanced the BBC is, even though I know for a fact that it isn't. I pay for the BBC to crush the competition through the power of their tax-funded "public service". I pay for the BBC to tell me who to vote for, what to say and what to think. And I am fucking sick of it. Where is my opt-out?
This.
Don't trust the BBC to be impartial, fair or balanced, because it is none of these things. Everything it broadcasts reflects the viewpoint of the British Establishment. I trust it to provide me with weather reports, and that's about it. I resent having to pay for it.
Biased BBC has the definitive guide.
In the UK the phone records are usually used to prove that somebody's been texting while driving. This only catches people who actually send their messages.
Here's the most famous example. Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, killed somebody because he was texting while driving. He got off with a shockingly light sentence which prompted cries of political interference.
I think we're going around in circles here. Let's get back to basics. It is wrong for the BBC to claim to be impartial and then not be impartial about contentious issues. It is wrong for the BBC to use our tax money to broadcast propaganda. It is wrong for the BBC to support the Government while claiming to be an impartial public service. In that sense, it is irrelevant whether the BBC are reporting facts or lies: they are reporting what the Government says, and using our money to do it, while falsely claiming to be impartial.
Do not trust the BBC any more than you would trust Fox News, because although the BBC also claims to be "fair and balanced", it is a Government mouthpiece and it will mislead you when it matters.
What do you mean? This is an anti-Government article, not an anti-Democrat article, or an anti-Obama article.
I seem to recall a large number of anti-Government articles on /. over the past decade. Lots and lots of very justified criticism of Bush and the Neocons. Where were we? We were right here, moaning about Bush.
People who are anti-Government continue to be anti-Government regardless of who the Government is.
I also don't see how it is racist to criticise Barack Obama, unless of course you are criticising him for being black.
It's very interesting to hear another explanation. I hadn't thought of that.
Left vs right also has some meaning when discussing social policy. When I heard people saying "Labour moved to the right", this is what I assumed they were referring to, probably because the context was related to bad things that Labour had done in that realm (e.g. ASBOs, detention without trial, etc.). It gave me a weird sense of cognitive dissonance because such micromanaging of society is hardly "right wing".
That's exactly correct, and Dragonslicer is also right about the scale between authoritarian and libertarian government, and how that scale is orthogonal to other aspects of policy.
This probably only makes sense in Britain, but my post is inspired by the meme that if the socialists do anything bad, it must be because they've stopped being socialists and become "right wing". This allegedly happened to New Labour. The meme is stupid, firstly because it's wrong, and secondly because it associates moderately right wing people (such as myself) with all of the bad things that New Labour did.
I used to assume that the left-wing dictators pretended to be left-wing merely as a tool of control, allowing them to be as selfish as they wanted, filling the Swiss bank account while pretending to have the people's interests at heart.
But having read a rather long (and definitely unsympathetic) biography of Stalin, I'm no longer so sure. I think many of them really believe in what they are doing, and are genuinely convinced that it is for the best.
For example, in the early years of WW2, Hitler broke his non-aggression pact and invaded Russia. Initially, this invasion was going very well for the Germans, and Stalin became convinced that the war was lost. He went to his dacha outside the city, and for a few days, none of his henchmen dared to give any orders because they couldn't run them past the big man. Eventually, the henchmen decided to go to Stalin's house.
I think this moment of vulnerability, in front of the men who could destroy him and had reason to do so, gives a lot of insight into the mind of Stalin. History remembers a monster, and of course this is correct, but nevertheless he was a rational man who believed he was doing the right thing for the USSR. When things went badly, he felt guilty for failing the people. He almost destroyed himself because of it.
Is this the action of a selfish man, considering only himself? I think not. Stalin's actions are entirely explained by the Marxist religion. In his mind, he did act for the people. He did help them! He freed them from the capitalists, the bourgeois and the imperialists. The mass executions, the war and the starvation were all necessary to achieve that end. Stalin was exactly what he claimed to be: a truly left-wing dictator.
A socialist country passes a law that curtails individual liberty for the greater good?
Oh my God how did this happen! The Left are the good guys aren't they? Clearly Chavez has become right-wing.
This is exactly the problem. The BBC management thinks that MMGW is an established fact, and presents it in that way, even though there are quite a lot of people who don't think it is a fact.
The BBC don't need to be impartial about things that are facts, e.g. oil spill = environmental disaster.
But they should be impartial about things that aren't facts. They should be honest and acknowledge the limits of their understanding. They are not supposed to act as shills for the Government and its cronies.
Again, how would you like to be forced to pay for an organisation that broadcasts Christian fundamentalist beliefs as if they were true, and when challenged about this, claims as justification that they are true and no further discussion is necessary?
The BBC is not impartial about this and many other issues.
Suppose that you are forced to pay a special tax to fund a broadcaster in your country. Furthermore, suppose that the broadcaster is run by Christian fundamentalists. So there are programmes about how Creationists are right and everyone else is wrong. Every news report is distorted by Christian bias in some way.
Now, replace "Christian fundamentalism" with some other sort of religion (see my home page) and you have the BBC. Is "man-made global warming" a scientific certainty? The BBC says so, and the British government says so, but that doesn't mean they are right. To the BBC, the evidence against man-made global warming is entirely irrelevant, or at best worthy only of discrediting. Just like the evidence against Creationism.
Bias is harmful. Most especially when it is coming from a Government-funded broadcaster.
That's all good, until you discover that your opponent was actually your brother all along. In that case... eww.
In terms of social policy, Labour are very left-wing; always have been. So are the Conservatives now.
But as you very rightly say, it's irrelevant from the perspective of the ordinary person. The extreme left and the extreme right are equally harmful to individual liberty.
Frighteningly indeed. Have a look at Biased BBC. It's where I found the following quote from veteran broadcaster Jeremy Paxton, which is very much on topic.
I'd agree with all of that. Like C itself, goto is a powerful tool that is easily misused by beginners, but is still very useful in the right circumstances.