|
Post by sph on Apr 10, 2021 18:57:35 GMT
Yes, it seems silly to have two main channels and do identical coverage on both. I think as a society, while I appreciate the Royals as a part of our history and cultural identity, we have become too fragmented in our views to assume that everyone wants blanket coverage of them in this day and age. It is sad to lose a public figure, but nowadays we don't experience periods of "national mourning" in the same way our grandparents did perhaps.
|
|
1,437 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by marob on Apr 10, 2021 19:59:46 GMT
It would have been excessive enough just having it on one channel all day, but to show the same feed on both is just daft. I do find it weirdly amusing that all they put on BBC4 was a card saying to turn over.
I tend to prefer ITV news to the BBC nowadays. It doesn’t feel manipulative like the BBC does, especially when they start trying to make a national tragedy of a very, very old man passing away.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 10, 2021 21:27:08 GMT
The idea of the national broadcaster taking a day out to focus on the death of a major member of the Royal Family is not a bad one. But the idea that it should dominate all channels goes back to the days of one TV channel and a couple of national radio stations. The world has moved on. And so must the media plan for major deaths.
One channel is fine. Move all other key programming to other outlets after a few hours. Respectful but not excessive.
|
|
2,266 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Apr 10, 2021 22:01:40 GMT
I hadn't realised the same coverage was on both BBC Channels. I can understand it being on BBC1 but not both. I can't really understand the level of complaints though about the coverage. We are such a nation of complainers. Is it really a tragedy that Eastenders was not on last night? Having said that coverage of other more appropriate programming could have been moved to BBC2. BBC radio has changed all its programming today. I must say I have enjoyed the more mellow music on Radio 2 today.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 11, 2021 4:05:18 GMT
When I first heard that there had been complaints I was thinking "people will complain about anything" but now I kind of see their point. After all, the story was basically "old man with known serious illness dies". Yes, he was an important old man so there's going to be a retrospective of his life, but there are no breaking updates, no investigations, no dramatic revelations, no balancing of different sides to the story, and no need to get everything on screen as quickly as they can. If anything, multi-channel coverage is worse for everyone: people who know all they need about the story and want to move on get their choice taken away while people who want to follow as much as possible miss out because they can't watch everything at once.
I see some people are complaining that the BBC is allowing people to complain. "I need to be angry. What can I find to be angry about?"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 7:52:31 GMT
When I first heard that there had been complaints I was thinking "people will complain about anything" but now I kind of see their point. After all, the story was basically "old man with known serious illness dies". Yes, he was an important old man so there's going to be a retrospective of his life, but there are no breaking updates, no investigations, no dramatic revelations, no balancing of different sides to the story, and no need to get everything on screen as quickly as they can. If anything, multi-channel coverage is worse for everyone: people who know all they need about the story and want to move on get their choice taken away while people who want to follow as much as possible miss out because they can't watch everything at once. I see some people are complaining that the BBC is allowing people to complain. "I need to be angry. What can I find to be angry about?"Definitely a large chunk of the response is exactly this, British people just love being outraged. I'd love to see the data on the percentage of people who complained who actually pay a licence fee. The problem is that controllers and decision makers at the BBC who will have authorized this coverage will be of the age that they grew up in an era of blanked coverage in such events, so to them this is the natural, expected response. The other thing is this is probably adhering to an age-old policy that's never been questioned or rewritten. Lord knows what the coverage will be like when the Queen dies! Must say, I really enjoyed the subdued programming on Radio 6 yesterday, lots of instrumental versions of tracks that don't often get airplay.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Apr 11, 2021 20:16:34 GMT
The BBC clearly made an error over this. I have no interest in the royal family but I understand why they cleared the BBC1 schedule but to do the same to BBC2 and just not broadcast BBC4 was an absurd overreaction.
Then again given the constant criticism they get from the government and the right wing press you can understand why live in fear of not being considered sufficiently patriotic.
The criticism over making it too easy for people to complain seems to come from the defund the BBC crowd and they will criticise the BBC whatever it does.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 12, 2021 15:45:40 GMT
I don't hate the BBC, I admired Prince Philip and I think his story should be known BUT the coverage was ridiculous. One channel dedicated to the event please and leave the rest alone with possibly banners on programmes and anything obviously ‘off’ removed. I hope they review the inevitable coverage of the Queen’s death - long may she live and reign - in the light of the complaints. Doubtful the BBC will be around by then.....
|
|
4,960 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Apr 13, 2021 9:03:15 GMT
I wonder what the revised schedule for Saturday afternoon will be? Notwithstanding the many complaints (and the complaints about the complaints), last Friday did set something of a precedent.
Perhaps I'll have to eat my words, but it's hard to imagine that at the same time as Prince Philip's funeral is broadcast on BBC1, BBC2 is showing repeats of Flog It.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Mar 11, 2023 9:27:02 GMT
Interesting times as the Tory figureheads within BBC’s upper management force a freelance Sport presenter off air, for vocalising an opinion they don’t like, and with it the entire production falls apart. This in turn leads to a horde of fee-payers cancelling their licence fee subscriptions. Could the house of cards be falling apart?
BBC bowing to the Tory force in this way, pushing guidelines which don’t exist (the current impartiality guidelines exist for news staff, not sport freelancers) to pursue a clear agenda. Other sport freelance staff who work for BBC amongst other broadcasters are allowed to tweet about their anti-trans beliefs, but others aren’t allowed to discuss their issues with immigration. The hypocrisy is rife.
Meanwhile the entire exercise of ‘distract them from the real problem’ (the government’s inability to deal humanely with a horrendous situation) puts the entire corporation at risk, during at already perilous period.
I think people underestimate the reach, number and power of sport fans, and if this propagates, many more departments will see their budgets hacked at the BBC scrimps to save on a quickly decreasing income as more licence fees are cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 11, 2023 10:59:29 GMT
Would you agree that the BBC is right to have rules about impartiality?
If not, why not?
Would you agree that the BBC is right to apply those rules to all on air personalities/high profile individuals irrespective of whether they are salaried or employed via a different but equivalent route?
If not, why not?
From my perspective, impartiality is vital. This issue has arisen because management has been inconsistent in the way they have dealt with these issues over recent years. They have not enforced their own guidelines equally and have allowed past problems to not be properly addressed.
Perhaps it is time to hand over adjudication on such matters to an independent review body rather than leaving it to internal processes.
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Mar 11, 2023 11:33:53 GMT
Would you agree that the BBC is right to have rules about impartiality? If not, why not? Would you agree that the BBC is right to apply those rules to all on air personalities/high profile individuals irrespective of whether they are salaried or employed via a different but equivalent route? If not, why not? From my perspective, impartiality is vital. This issue has arisen because management has been inconsistent in the way they have dealt with these issues over recent years. They have not enforced their own guidelines equally and have allowed past problems to not be properly addressed. Perhaps it is time to hand over adjudication on such matters to an independent review body rather than leaving it to internal processes. For news presenters, yes, definitely. Fair and impartial news coverage has a role in upholding our (fragile) democracy, so we absolutely should expect public service broadcasters to take presenter impartiality very seriously. Of course most political journalists have strong views on politics, but decent ones are able to give us the info to make up our own minds. We will all have our own views on whether that is actually happening in BBC news at the moment, but, for example, whatever you think of his Nick Robinson's ability to be impartial in doing his job, you won't hear him giving his personal views on refugees to the media, whereas he frequently talks about his favourite football team. For sport or light entertainment I think it's far less important. I don't see how Gary Lineker's ability to anchor a football show or comment on football matters is affected by his views on refugees, and he is not presenting programmes that are meant to give us the info that influences how we vote. And these people's popularity and pay often reflect how they are publicly perceived as personalities as much as their knowledge of sport, so Lineker is popular partly because he's seen as a decent person. Yes maybe it should be adjudicated independently, but how do we stop the government of the day knobbling the adjudicator? Pretty sure the BBC governors and management are already meant to be impartial and to put public service broadcasting above their own allegiances...
|
|
865 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Mar 11, 2023 12:08:33 GMT
Impartiality rules only work when it applies to everyone across the board. Alan Sugar frequently tweets blatantly provocative political material with no sanctions. Fiona Bruce actually defended wife beater Stanley Johnson on Question Time this week because he only broke her nose and put her in hospital once. Laura Kuennsberg, Nick Robinson and when they were at the BBC Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson and numerous others were quite blatant in their bias, and the entire BBC Scotland news team are horrifically biased. Gary Lineker only spoke the truth about the Home Secretary's language, but he's the only one being silenced because the government and their cronies don't like it.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Mar 11, 2023 12:12:46 GMT
Would you agree that the BBC is right to have rules about impartiality? If not, why not? Would you agree that the BBC is right to apply those rules to all on air personalities/high profile individuals irrespective of whether they are salaried or employed via a different but equivalent route? If not, why not? From my perspective, impartiality is vital. This issue has arisen because management has been inconsistent in the way they have dealt with these issues over recent years. They have not enforced their own guidelines equally and have allowed past problems to not be properly addressed. Perhaps it is time to hand over adjudication on such matters to an independent review body rather than leaving it to internal processes. Fair questions, responding on a phone so will probably incur typos. The BBC should be absolutely be impartial in its coverage and actions and should have clear guidelines on how it actions that impartiality. News and political coverage should be entirely impartial and professional social media accounts belonging to those who present that content should adhere to the guidelines. The guidelines clearly state that sports presenters airing political views as an example are low risk and should not need to be considered. Freelance staff not working in news should not need to adhere to the strict guidelines on political impartiality, within reason (calling a politician an expletive obviously not acceptable). If you want to impose strict guidelines on any kind of impartially on anyone providing a service to the BBC (which is a number far greater than their staff workforce) how far does it go? I work for a company contracted to the BBC. Should I be banned from posting my opinions on shows I’ve seen here because that would be considered a breach of impartiality? Fundamentally, how does me (a BBC contractor) writing here differ from a high profile (non-staff) presenter tweeting their views? If the BBC want to apply strict guidelines with repercussions, they need to do so across the board. Why, if these guidelines apply to anyone, was GL previously allowed to tweet anti-Corbyn content? Why is Sharron Davies allowed to tweet anti-trans content? Why is Alan Sugar - a BBC employee - allowed to berate Mike Lynch and the rail strikes over twitter? And if your all for total impartiality, what’s your take on BBC Chairman Richard Sharp’s involvement with Boris Johnson’s financial affairs? Because to be that’s clear political alignment that should result in far more definitive action including immediate dismissal. This issue hasn’t arrived because “management has been inconsistent”. It’s arrived due to political pressure from the current government.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Mar 11, 2023 13:07:32 GMT
Will The Apprentice be the next casualty? Something tells me no.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on Mar 11, 2023 15:06:48 GMT
Interesting times as the Tory figureheads within BBC’s upper management force a freelance Sport presenter off air, for vocalising an opinion they don’t like, and with it the entire production falls apart. This in turn leads to a horde of fee-payers cancelling their licence fee subscriptions. Could the house of cards be falling apart? BBC bowing to the Tory force in this way, pushing guidelines which don’t exist (the current impartiality guidelines exist for news staff, not sport freelancers) to pursue a clear agenda. Other sport freelance staff who work for BBC amongst other broadcasters are allowed to tweet about their anti-trans beliefs, but others aren’t allowed to discuss their issues with immigration. The hypocrisy is rife. Meanwhile the entire exercise of ‘distract them from the real problem’ (the government’s inability to deal humanely with a horrendous situation) puts the entire corporation at risk, during at already perilous period. I think people underestimate the reach, number and power of sport fans, and if this propagates, many more departments will see their budgets hacked at the BBC scrimps to save on a quickly decreasing income as more licence fees are cancelled. Having a family member once work for the BBC for many, many years and in different locations, I can tell you the strongest driving influence at the BBC is that of the Left
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 11, 2023 15:36:00 GMT
Interesting times as the Tory figureheads within BBC’s upper management force a freelance Sport presenter off air, for vocalising an opinion they don’t like, and with it the entire production falls apart. This in turn leads to a horde of fee-payers cancelling their licence fee subscriptions. Could the house of cards be falling apart? BBC bowing to the Tory force in this way, pushing guidelines which don’t exist (the current impartiality guidelines exist for news staff, not sport freelancers) to pursue a clear agenda. Other sport freelance staff who work for BBC amongst other broadcasters are allowed to tweet about their anti-trans beliefs, but others aren’t allowed to discuss their issues with immigration. The hypocrisy is rife. Meanwhile the entire exercise of ‘distract them from the real problem’ (the government’s inability to deal humanely with a horrendous situation) puts the entire corporation at risk, during at already perilous period. I think people underestimate the reach, number and power of sport fans, and if this propagates, many more departments will see their budgets hacked at the BBC scrimps to save on a quickly decreasing income as more licence fees are cancelled. Having a family member once work for the BBC for many, many years and in different locations, I can tell you the strongest driving influence at the BBC is that of the Left Behave
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Mar 11, 2023 16:02:22 GMT
There's been actual peer-reviewed research on this which over the longer term has found that the BBC tends to lean towards the government of the day. That's not to say that BBC employees tend to be right leaning. Those are two different things. Editorial bias is what matters and research (as opposed to someone you know who knew who used to work for the BBC and met a few lefties) shows that the current bias is to the right.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 11, 2023 18:38:58 GMT
There's been actual peer-reviewed research on this which over the longer term has found that the BBC tends to lean towards the government of the day. That's not to say that BBC employees tend to be right leaning. Those are two different things. Editorial bias is what matters and research (as opposed to someone you know who knew who used to work for the BBC and met a few lefties) shows that the current bias is to the right. Last twenty five years at the BBC, news and current affairs haven't been filled with people from the left wing. Andrew Marr the most left wing name BBC have employed in that time? Best you can say he is a centrist he's hardly filling the airways with socialist rhetoric. Can you name more than a few others? You start naming those on the right in the BBC news and current affairs team and the list is a bit longer
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 11, 2023 19:04:41 GMT
Interesting times as the Tory figureheads within BBC’s upper management force a freelance Sport presenter off air, for vocalising an opinion they don’t like, and with it the entire production falls apart. This in turn leads to a horde of fee-payers cancelling their licence fee subscriptions. Could the house of cards be falling apart? BBC bowing to the Tory force in this way, pushing guidelines which don’t exist (the current impartiality guidelines exist for news staff, not sport freelancers) to pursue a clear agenda. Other sport freelance staff who work for BBC amongst other broadcasters are allowed to tweet about their anti-trans beliefs, but others aren’t allowed to discuss their issues with immigration. The hypocrisy is rife. Meanwhile the entire exercise of ‘distract them from the real problem’ (the government’s inability to deal humanely with a horrendous situation) puts the entire corporation at risk, during at already perilous period. I think people underestimate the reach, number and power of sport fans, and if this propagates, many more departments will see their budgets hacked at the BBC scrimps to save on a quickly decreasing income as more licence fees are cancelled. Having a family member once work for the BBC for many, many years and in different locations, I can tell you the strongest driving influence at the BBC is that of the Left The 'Left' is one of two things, it's either the Jeremy Corbyn-types (old school socialists) or it's the Wokerati who, whether they know it or not, are effectively mono-ID Marxists mimicking Mao's Cultural Revolution.
The BBC is neither of these.
The BBC wants to think it's 'left' but it's the broad centre of middle-class affluent managerial-professional Remainers who want benefits of Conservative government (property inflation! buy-to-let!! NEPOTISM, geographically and economically ring-fenced schools, etc) without the guilt of voting Conservative.
And these people absolutely do know what is best for everyone, usually because they went to uni and even got a degree in English Lit/Media Studies/Computahs.
They also want power, which is why they didn't take over the Lib Dems instead.
If you're wondering what happened to the old Labour voters who are not Corbyn socialists or Woke, they were ignored/abandoned due to being ignorant or bigoted (and the Red Wall fell).
|
|
721 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Mar 11, 2023 20:07:08 GMT
I think James Graham’s play about the England football team is going to be both interesting and very relevant.
I’ve still not quite forgiven the BBC for mixing up “balance” with “giving equal time to experts and lying chancers” during the Brexit debate.
I also think Lineker should be allowed his own opinions….when he tweets I’m in no doubt that they are his personal opinions…..I’m not under the impression it’s the “BBC” view! He’s a football presenter. Same with Alan Sugar or Deborah Meaden.
Also can we talk about poor people and how Britain seems to be broken whatever metric you look at.
|
|
6,331 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by danb on Mar 12, 2023 12:09:15 GMT
Having a family member once work for the BBC for many, many years and in different locations, I can tell you the strongest driving influence at the BBC is that of the Left The 'Left' is one of two things, it's either the Jeremy Corbyn-types (old school socialists) or it's the Wokerati who, whether they know it or not, are effectively mono-ID Marxists mimicking Mao's Cultural Revolution.
The BBC is neither of these.
The BBC wants to think it's 'left' but it's the broad centre of middle-class affluent managerial-professional Remainers who want benefits of Conservative government (property inflation! buy-to-let!! NEPOTISM, geographically and economically ring-fenced schools, etc) without the guilt of voting Conservative.
And these people absolutely do know what is best for everyone, usually because they went to uni and even got a degree in English Lit/Media Studies/Computahs.
They also want power, which is why they didn't take over the Lib Dems instead.
If you're wondering what happened to the old Labour voters who are not Corbyn socialists or Woke, they were ignored/abandoned due to being ignorant or bigoted (and the Red Wall fell).
Oh you are good! Nicely summarised. 👍
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 12, 2023 15:19:49 GMT
The 'Left' is one of two things, it's either the Jeremy Corbyn-types (old school socialists) or it's the Wokerati who, whether they know it or not, are effectively mono-ID Marxists mimicking Mao's Cultural Revolution.
The BBC is neither of these.
The BBC wants to think it's 'left' but it's the broad centre of middle-class affluent managerial-professional Remainers who want benefits of Conservative government (property inflation! buy-to-let!! NEPOTISM, geographically and economically ring-fenced schools, etc) without the guilt of voting Conservative.
And these people absolutely do know what is best for everyone, usually because they went to uni and even got a degree in English Lit/Media Studies/Computahs.
They also want power, which is why they didn't take over the Lib Dems instead.
If you're wondering what happened to the old Labour voters who are not Corbyn socialists or Woke, they were ignored/abandoned due to being ignorant or bigoted (and the Red Wall fell).
Oh you are good! Nicely summarised. 👍 Sarcasm?
|
|
6,331 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by danb on Mar 12, 2023 15:43:35 GMT
Not at all. It is an excellent summary of where society is at the moment.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 12, 2023 15:45:25 GMT
Oops. Good job I checked before saying he he
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on Mar 12, 2023 16:59:26 GMT
All top BBC management are appointed by the government. Nothing is ever said when it is the Left appointing their people. No one said a thing when Blair appointed Labour supporter Gavyn Davies as chairman, his wife Sue Nye even worked for Gordon Brown! It is just typical that people assume it is only the Tories that put their people in certain key roles. They have short memories.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 12, 2023 17:11:43 GMT
Chair of the BBC may as well be a Cabinet-level position, some might say it is (obv. unspoken and informal).
Everything about BBC News and Current Affairs is fraudulent, from the originating premise to tonights broadcast. Imo it should be restricted to 2 channels - BBC News and BBC Parliament - and not allowed to wrap its agendas around entertainment channels.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Mar 12, 2023 19:02:37 GMT
All top BBC management are appointed by the government. Nothing is ever said when it is the Left appointing their people. No one said a thing when Blair appointed Labour supporter Gavyn Davies as chairman, his wife Sue Nye even worked for Gordon Brown! It is just typical that people assume it is only the Tories that put their people in certain key roles. They have short memories. Actually Gavyn Davies appointment was heavily criticised so what you've said isn't true at all. And of course Davies time as Chairman saw relations between the BBC and the then Labour government hit an all time low, unlike right now when they are marching in step. As always the Conservatives go further and the Sharp appointment is particularly alarming given his, at the time, undisclosed role in arranging a loan for Boris Johnson.
|
|
865 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Mar 13, 2023 13:42:13 GMT
Tim Davie's response to their self inflicted disaster was risible, trying to claim that he acted appropriately suspending Lineker and didn't cave in to right wing pressure on Friday. So why did it take three days for him to realise that there was anything wrong? And since so called BBC impartiality is applied in such a random arbitrary fashion, how the hell will the poor sod tasked with reassessing the rules make sure they're then applied appropriately?
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 13, 2023 15:12:44 GMT
Yep good to have Gary back on our screens
|
|