BBC funding and impartiality

Can't stand the fella. Is he political? Comment in general really

It was being reported as being as a political decision and a win over the wokeists in the press today.

Suppose I should not believe everything I read in the mainstream media but as most people do I might as well join the unquestioning masses.

I can quite happily live my live without never seeing the Mash report again.

But then again if the BBC ever try to cancel Mock the Week, I will be outside Broadcasting House with a bullhorn and my placard.

Agreed it isn't funny that the prime minister is a racist and a liar but that's what we're stuck with.

Picking one thing he said on twitter which seems unlikely to be meant to be funny is a pretty weak argument.

Interesting article. BBC can't really win but even to a Beeb lover, like myself coverage on 1&2 seems OTT.

www.theguardian.com/media/2021/apr/10/bbc-flooded-with-complaints-over-prince-philip-coverage

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.

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.

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. 

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.....

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.

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...

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.