…so much?

Seeing the thread there Beeb bashing again, I am endlessly baffled by the way in which left wing views (whether real or imagined) in the media cause such handwringing among those of differing views (presumably right wing).

Why is that?

The UK media is overwhelmingly right wing and yet people still get upset at a contrary voice?

Being accused of being a liberal in the US is about the most potent insult that can be proffered.

I simply don’t get it (as a centrist, gently left leaning libertarian).

Speaking as an actual Rabid Stalinist, I do find it quite funny how many wooly liberal types get accused of being in my gang.
To be fair though, both sides do it.
Bring up a bit of talk about nationalisation, the right will call you a Stalinist.
Bring up a few concerns about immigrants, the left will call you a Nazi.
Because the main media narrative in the UK leans right, there is bound to be a lot more of the former.

It’s because the BBC is funded by a poll tax collected on threat of imprisonment. Any perceived bias (in any direction) from the strictly impartial triggers ire because the news collection/editing and broadcasting is done with tax funds, and so not paid for voluntarily like buying The Sun or watching Sky News. The same can be said of the EU PR machine that has the head start in the propaganda war in the coming referendum as it is permitted to defend itself using funds already secured through taxation, not contribution from it’s backers.

Jealousy, obvs 😉

It’s because the BBC is funded by a poll tax collected on threat of imprisonment.

That’s exactly it. The Daily Mail and the Sun are distasteful, but I’m not forced to pay for them so I’m not bothered that they’re biased.

If the BBC wants to behave like other news outlets, shaping and spinning stories, then it can be funded like other news outlets – via subscriptions and advertising.

Honestly though, the £10 per month that the Beeb costs is hardly worth the pseudo-outrage it seems to spark.

I wish those right wingers that seem blind to how supportive the BBC is of the establishment they profess to love would get as irate about things of real consequence, like, I dunno, Starbucks, Amazon et al failing to pay tax. Or poverty. Or pointless wars on false pretences. Or inequality.

But no, it’s the principle that’s important… weird.

And if anyone expects impartiality from the news then we really are more F@@@@@ than I thought – of course news never can be, and never will be impartial.

Bias generally frustrates me. It makes it very hard to understand what the real situation is if people are obscuring the facts to fit their own agenda.

I don’t think that the rabid righties are fussed about other’s poverty.
Or the failure of corporations to pay tax.

I wish those right wingers that seem blind to how supportive the BBC is of the establishment they profess to love would get as irate about things of real consequence

This is the kind of comment that makes me think the BBC gets it about right – it gets bashed by the right for its support (real or otherwise) of multicultural, liberal values, and likewise by the left for its support (real or otherwise) of the establishment.

Just pointing out that being left and liberal are not remotely the same. Liberal is all about freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties. Left policies can often run counter to this, think Labour (& now SNP) and ID cards or SNP and Getting It Right For Every Child legislation.

NB: I actually don’t think SNP are left but a dangerous mix of nationalist, totalitarian and populist.

It’s not a poll tax.

And dragon is right – the libertarian/authoritarian axis is a different thing to the big/small government axis.

This is the kind of comment that makes me think the BBC gets it about right

That response is often trotted out by BBC supporters – and it’s a fallacy for several reasons.

The first is it assumes all objectors are equal. On the face of it it makes sense, but it doesn’t really – it’s like the thing about “balance”, making reporting on climate change “balanced” by giving equal weight to both sides of the story, whereas in reality it’s 99/1.

The second is the assumption that if you’re being attacked from the left and the right then you must be in the middle. You could be off in a completely different direction, it’s not a simple linear scale.

The third is that it’s not possible to be biased in two directions at once. It’s perfectly possible for the BBC to be politically biased rightwards towards the establishment, and biased socially leftwards towards inclusion and equal rights, at the same time. That’s the way society has gone – much more liberal in some ways (gay marriage, from the Tories), much more right-wing in others (calling Corbyn hard left, for example).

Many people who use the tax argument say it about the BBC but then qualify by saying, but (insert programme name here)Was great
I for one am OK with the ‘licence fee ‘poll tax’ approach , and whilst I don’t agree with all of the way it is put to use-Mrs. brown’s Boys to name but one example- neither am I happy about the way other receipts from other taxes are used in my name. Do I have any option about either? No.
40p per day per household isn’t worth getting worked up about

If the BBC is going to be a proper state broadcaster, then it should be funded like one – out of general taxation. Then we’d know where we stand. As it is, it’s supposed to be independent of the government but is funded by a compulsory tax. It’s a weird setup.

That response is often trotted out by BBC supporters – and it’s a fallacy for several reasons.

It’s a fair set of objections to my comment, but misses out the crucial fact that the BBC is ultimately answerable to parliament, which in this country is split into two parties. As long as a similar number of supporters of both parties are getting wound up about something, I think it’s fair to assume that it’s navigating somewhere down the middle of that divide. Which is about as good as you can get in a supposedly neutral broadcaster that is supposed to cater to the entire population.

But the BBC isn’t a ‘state broadcaster’ and never has been, in the sense that the ‘state’ or the ‘establishment’ for want of a better term controls the output. The closest it came to being such was in WW2.

Many people who use the tax argument say it about the BBC but then qualify by saying, but (insert programme name here)Was great

Entirely understandable – and if the BBC made great programmes. Then no doubt people would choose to pay to watch it, just like they are able to choose to watch ITV for free (with annoying adverts in the middle) or Netflix for six quid a month without them – see, that’s marvellous, it’s the free market at work, consumer choice. Difference with the telly tax is that you don’t get the choice if you never watch the BBC, you still have to pay for it. Just turn that round and imagine that you had to pay for Netflix even though you never used it, would you think ‘fair enough’ or ‘**** that’?

It is the only hypothecated tax.

Its is a poll tax in the simple definition of the word in that it is a flat rate (on every household) with no (meaningful) proportional adjustment for income or ability to pay.

It’s is a tax due for the legal use of a television set, regardless of whether you personally consume BBC output or not. i.e. if one were a Murdoch fanboi, you are obliged to fund an organisation that you dislike, in order that you may legally consume output from a completely unrelated organisation.

On what and how the BBC spend my money is not of concern. The manner in which it is collected, however, is (and has been since the launch of ITV) anachronistic.

As above, if it is to be a “state” broadcaster, then fund it from central taxation. I, however, prefer a subscription model.

“What is it about perceived left wing or liberal bias that winds some people up?”

Because largely, it’s not accurate – people who listen to the Murdock / DMG press and believe the shit they’re fed, don’t believe the stuff the BBC puts out because it’s often contradictory.

In my experience the BBC reporting stands up to fact-checking a lot better than most outlets, and more over is the most willing to not only admit when it’s wrong, but publicize it’s problems – whilst the Sun made print a retraction tucked away in a small corner on page 12, the BBC will lead with a negative story about itself if it’s newsworthy – often reporting to a greater extent than it’s peers.

A lot of the rest of the media like to attack the BBC whenever they can, partly because of arrangements they have with Tory HQ, but mostly because in a world of diminishing advertising revenue and paywalls, a large-scale organisation putting out quality content on a free to all basis through as many avenues as possible makes their life much much harder – anything between ‘chaos’ surrounding the new Top Gear (thanks to a bit of needle from Amazon) how many people they send to cover Glastonbury (forgetting for a moment that whilst the Sun might send a couple of hacks to take pictures of pretty girls who just happen to decide to swim in the mud for the cameras) the BBC cover the whole event, on the Radio, TV and Online or heaven forbid they only allow 1 MP from the Tories or UKIP on Question Time if there’s a Labour or Liberal MP on, and not 3.

Just turn that round and imagine that you had to pay for Netflix even though you never used it, would you think ‘fair enough’ or ‘**** that’?

I do find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of those who object to the ‘BBC tax’ don’t watch or listen to some of the output at some time in the year. There are individuals- I know of one- but not the majority.
If they do watch/listen then that argument is invalid

Netflix is about the same price per month isn’t it? £7 v £10 for a licence, as a user of both, I’m going to stick my neck out here and say the BBC is much better value for money.