or the beeb are getting it about right. Can’t please all of the people all of the time bla bla bla…

^^ this is the best explanation

Their news reporting is somewhat biased.

Fortunately, their news reporting is a tiny part of their total output.

BBC News has a clear left/centre bias.

Where are you counting “centre”? Maggie? Or somewhere to the right?

One of my beefs with the beeb is that there’s little of anything to interest people in their 30’s to 50’s.

Aside from the gritty Scandinavian detective stuff I found little that appealed to me.

No wonder Netflix, etc do so well.

No real attempt to explain global events in economic terms.

I wont miss the iplayer (apart from the ‘news’)

If they sold the iplayer content worldwide, there would be little or need for the licence.

But they wont, because they want to grind you peasants into the ground.

or the beeb are getting it about right. Can’t please all of the people all of the time bla bla bla…

That’s called the “argument to moderation” and it’s a common fallacy. The correct answer isn’t between two extremes – if you say that 2+2=4 and I say 2+2=5 then the correct answer is not 4.5.

The BBC isn’t biased to left or right – what it is is biased towards the status quo. So it generally supports the government, generally supports the current political makeup of the UK, generally supports the “New Labour” version of the Labour Party, etc.

The other problem it has – and it shares this with many other news organisations – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “balance”. And this is another version of the Argument to Moderation. It’s not balanced to give equal time to both sides in an argument with no analysis. You’re not balanced if you give equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers.

Interesting point

It’s not balanced to give equal time to both sides in an argument with no analysis. You’re not balanced if you give equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers.

the lack of challenge and analysis damages the understanding of many issues and leads to dumbing down of the discussion/ debate

climate change is one classic example, the science is dumbed down, the messages over simplified, the nuances discarded and the “non-pc” issues not discussed. Add into the collective memory the forecasts from climate scientists that we about to head into a new ice age then it’s entirely credible that people don’t trust what they are being fed as the “truth” and the associated monosolution

I’d be persuaded to watch for a while if there were two channels: one centre left, about where the SNP are, or the middle of the ongoing Labour cat fight, and one the other way. Then I, and others, could make up our own minds.

climate change is one classic example, the science is dumbed down, the messages over simplified,

… not just climate change b n d.

I thought of typing examples, but gave up. Things I’ve long found interesting seem to be let down by presenters doing half a job, like Alan Titchmash on geology and that Countryfile bloke on a steam railway. It leads one to presume there’s no-one on location with the nous to say ‘No, Alan, you got that wrong, not one mile but fifteen or twenty*’.

*Ok. I’m not sure where the rocks get hot enough for isostacy to happen, but I’m not paid to talk about it. But if it were as he said, there would be geysers in the background.

We pay the TV License and haven’t had a TV for years. More than happy to support the BBC.

Are you being serious or trolling?

The other problem it has – and it shares this with many other news organisations – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “balance”. And this is another version of the Argument to Moderation. It’s not balanced to give equal time to both sides in an argument with no analysis. You’re not balanced if you give equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers.

I’m reminded of this,

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg[/video]

climate change is one classic example, the science is dumbed down, the messages over simplified,

But is that an issue with the broadcaster or the consumer? Whenever I hear the Radio 1 news my teeth itch with its over simplicity, but other more comprehensive BBC news feeds are available. As an avid R4 listener I get my fill of the Today program then onto standalone programs like Costing the Earth, The Moral Maze and even the Infinite Monkey Cage which add so much more depth. The audience for these is small but is that the fault of the Beeb? It would be a bit like blaming the broadsheets for having smaller readership than the Sun and the Mirror. If I was allowed to be in charge (what an awful thought) the entire voting population would be sat in front of quality current affairs and poked with cattle prods to keep them watching, then tested to see what they took in with more prodding for those that failed. But given a choice a chunk of the population either are not capable of getting their heads around more complex handling of issues or just are not interested enough. Dumbed down programming of the major issues might just be better than nothing.

even the Infinite Monkey Cage which add so much more depth.

if you think a panel comedy show for a faux intellectual audience is adding depth then it shows how big the problem is

As an avid R4 listener I get my fill of the Today program

at last someone who admits to liking the “magazine” format where they spend 5-10 minutes on Van Morrison having a fart or the dichotomy of a London based visual art show which can be accessed by 50 people

It would be a bit like blame the broadsheets for having smaller readership than the Sun and the Mirror. If I was allowed to be in charge (what an awful thought) the entire voting population would be sat in front of quality current affairs and poked with cattle prods to keep them watching, then tested to see what they took in with more prodding for those that failed

there is nothing stopping the issues being presented in an interesting accessible manner other than the obsession with personalities in place of content, they could even try and use humour!

if you think a panel comedy show for a faux intellectual audience is adding depth then it shows how big the problem is

Did you spot the word ‘even’? I am aware what the show is ta. If I can find the clip I’ll put it up; but there was probably the best explanation I have ever heard of the current climate issue (juxtaposed with the short term economic and political everyday pressures faced by governments that slows the right things being done) on it recently. Yes, there is a (debatable) comedy element, but the topics are worthy of discussion. You could even say its worthwhile issues being presented in an ‘interesting accessible manner’ 😉 . Get past your snobbery, you might actually like it.

spend 5-10 minutes on Van Morrison having a fart or the dichotomy of a London based visual art show which can be accessed by 50 people

Yes, that pretty much sums up the entire content 🙄 You got the right program (3 hours every morning 6-9am)?

But given a choice a chunk of the population either are not capable of getting their heads around more complex handling of issues or just are not interested enough. Dumbed down programming of the major issues might just be better than nothing.

Indeed. The sad fact is that those most in need of understanding are probably least likely to be able to (or even want to) understand. Plus, y’know, Dunning-Kruger.

Look at Brexit; when someone votes Leave because they believe that we will be able to afford to build new hospitals and yet want to “send them all back where they came from” and get rid of half of the doctors and hospital staff in one fell swoop, well, these people are difficult to reach. They don’t buy newspapers to learn anything, they buy newspapers that tell them they’re right and to look at tits.

Dumbing down is needed because you have to reach the lowest common denominator. Your average Daily Express reader isn’t going to be staying up to watch Question Time or seeking to engage in a challenging discourse on mankind’s influence on climate change, they’re more likely to think there’s too many **** and are looking forward to summer being a bit sunnier.

It’s human nature to seek simple answers to complex questions (cf. religion), but the fact is that complex questions have answers which are difficult to comprehend and people will have varying degrees of ability (and inclination) to look at presented information with a critical eye to reach an informed decision. Ideally we need varying news feeds pitched at different levels in order to cater to different audiences, but we need to be careful what we say to people who are solely reliant on being told the simple answers. Once we reach our individual limit of understanding then we have to rely on those who know more about a subject, which is why the likes of Farage trotting out speeches deliberately undermining expert opinions is so incredibly dangerous.

News outlets, be that the press or the BBC or whoever, really should be bound by a duty of care. They’re wholly culpable for this **** mess IMHO.

El Reg in full sarcasm mode. I like them when they’re like that.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/06/bbc_detector_van_wi_fi_iplayer/?mt=1470466644134