MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
****ing hell!!!!
Is this a taster for the totalitarian state we are about to enter. Do what your told, don't think for yourself, don't express an opinion, we own you.
Would it be too much to ask to include a link to what you're referring to?
Piloted on teachers a few weeks ago. Won't work there either...
The BBC has issued new guidance on social media usage, which will force staff to maintain impartiality.
Seems fair enough. What am I missing?
The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.
**** no.
One assumes the plan is to make all the employees leave of their own accord, giving a reason the shut the whole thing down
Seems fair enough. What am I missing?
The ability to read an article beyond the headline.
David Attenborough is going to be in trouble, all that pesky environmental politics he keeps spouting.
The ability to read an article beyond the headline.
I read it, seems like an employer with impartiality at the core of their mandate issuing some overdue guidance to their employees...
As long as the employees are impartial whilst doing their job, why should it matter what they do in their own time? Or what they earn outside of what the bbc pays them for?
BBC rakes in nearly £5,000,000,000 per year from their TV tax. Of which the treasury gets a chunk.
Which is why there will always be a TV tax.
I suspect the BBC will be a very different, diminished institution 4 years from now.
They will never cure that anti govt left wing rats nest.
brads
Full Member
They will never cure that anti govt left wing rats nest.
I hope not.👍
As long as the employees are impartial whilst doing their job, why should it matter what they do in their own time? Or what they earn outside of what the bbc pays them for?
Because the (presumed) impartiality of the BBCs various broadcast news and current affairs (that's mainly who this is pitched at) is undermined if the journalists and presenters delivering it then go on Twitter and spout their bias for all to see or take an after dinner gig with some sort of political implications...
It really is something that goes with the job TBH... If Laura Kuenssberg or whoever doesn't like it they can always do a Person and toddle off to ITN or Sky...
The fact that it specifically mentions avoiding 'virtue signalling' (BTW I'm sick of how often this term has been bandied around recently) shows where the political rationale for this comes from quite clearly.
I guess arsehole-signalling is ok though.
They will never cure that anti govt left wing rats nest.
Fingers crossed it stays that way yes.
Intelligent, well educated , well informed men and women who elect to not make the most lucrative career choices available to them not being natural tories. I can't fathom it.
BBC rakes in nearly £5,000,000,000 per year from their TV tax. Of which the treasury gets a chunk.
Which is why there will always be a TV tax.
The BBC rakes in ~£5bn in total, about three quarters of which is TV licensing. Of that licensing figure, something like a fifth is provided by the treasury to cover the licence-exempt gimmers.
<div id="post-11452706" class="bbp-reply-header d-flex justify-content-between p-0 mb-2">
<div class="d-flex justify-content-between w-100">
<div class="bbp-reply-author d-flex align-items-center flex-wrap">brads
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Full Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="d-flex align-items-center"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="p-0 loop-item-11 user-id-112533 bbp-parent-forum-180317 bbp-parent-topic-11452669 bbp-reply-position-12 even post-11452706 reply type-reply status-publish hentry">
<div class="bbp-reply-content p-0">They will never cure that anti govt left wing rats nest.
</div>
</div>
don’t believe everything you read in your daily mail...
I suspect the BBC will be a very different, diminished institution 4 years from now.
The BBC is already a very different, diminished institution from the one it was four years ago.
They will never cure that anti govt left wing rats nest.
You’d prefer a fiercely pro government propaganda machine? Even if that government was left wing?
Why does it matter what the political opinions of a football highlights show presenter are?
^^ Yep, I can't disagree with that sadly.
They will never cure that anti govt left wing rats nest.
For all the rampant bobbins we've seen since the Referendumb, accusing the BBC - as a whole - of left wing / anti-government bias must rate right up there as one the most bizarre and spurious. It's given exponentially more airtime to Farage and his merry band of arsetrumpets than just about anyone else, and challenged their outright lies so rarely that it becomes meme-worthy when they do. You must think Channel 4 is basically Stalin.
Sure, some of the Radio 4 comedy slots might be a big 'lefty' but I'd be astonished if The Now Show featured amongst your regular listening.
Removing my own bias and playing devil's advocate for a moment, if both sides are accusing them of bias in favour of the other then they're probably not getting things too badly wrong.
FWIW I think the beeb do a pretty good job of maintaining impartiality, primarily evidenced by the fact that people with both right and left leanings tend to accuse them if opposing forms of bias...
If someone is identified with the BBC's news and current affairs output, they simply have to moderate their social media blather accordingly. They've not been told they can't use Twitter, nor that they can't do external gigs, they've just been given guidance on what to consider when engaging in such things and how it affects the primary role for which they are employed by the BBC (and, if you like, by extension us license fee payers)...
This isn't actually all that unusual, certainly not "Totalitarian!"... I just don't understand all the frothing.
This isn’t actually all that unusual,
Does your boss require you to reveal all your outside earnings? That just seems like a way of generating ill feeling towards higher paid talent/execs. ‘Why are we paying him £X when he gets £Y from whatever else.’ Like what happens every time the salaries are announced.
This is just a step towards ‘controversial subjects’ becoming ‘whatever the govt disagrees with’.
Reporting from the BBC during that pandemic has been very obviously taking it easy on the government (hasn't the DG changed recently?).
The issue, as I see it, is that people (see above) don't understand what impartiality looks like. Do you want the BBS to report facts...... or views? Unfortunately, most people I see complaining about BBC "bias" are actually complaining about their view being exposed as not being supported by facts: ie: having a steady flow of economists reporting that Brexit will be an economic disaster.
It’ll be gone in less than a decade, this is just Enshittify The BBC Pt1. A planned ‘boiling frog‘-style demolition process. The heat and steam will be turned up over the next 6 years until the Beeb is more palatably offed and the public will have had had enough of it. The red top campaign against it has been in full swing for a good many years now.
The ‘official’ story will be like
‘The BBC was a Jewel in Britain’s Crown until the British Public decided that the broadcaster no longer represented English interests in an unbiased way, and has now sadly become a nest of foul, rabid, blood-drinking Marxinism. It has been decided by the Executive that despite every effort of the incumbent Brexit Party Regime to steer Her away from the inevitable rocks of Bolshevism and racial pandering - the BBC has failed the Nation and can no longer be trusted as an unbiased source of news and entertainment. And so, the time has come to look at new horizons. As such, we are somewhat sad to announce that the British Broadcasting Company will be shutting it’s doors and closing the curtains on New Years Eve, Dec 31st, 2027 at 21:30 GMT.
Give or take.
Removing my own bias and playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if both sides are accusing them of bias in favour of the other then they’re probably not getting things too badly wrong.
Or it can just mean they are half way to crazy town.
Plus I always find it interesting the use "both sides" which ignores the centrist grouping.
Ah yes, "balance." That probably means it's time for this clip again.
Do you want the BBS to report facts…… or views?
I want them to report facts as facts, and to discuss views fairly. I've no issue with someone extolling the alleged sunny uplands of Brexit on Loose Women, I've more of a problem with it going uncontested on News at 10.
Remember when investigative journalism existed, and reporters performed due diligence and fact-checked? Halcyon days.
Removing my own bias and playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if both sides are accusing them of bias in favour of the other then they’re probably not getting things too badly wrong.
I’m not convinced of their impartiality or lack of bias. If they were discussing the Earth’s curvature, the BBC would give equal time to some flat Earther in the name of fairness. They have done this for years with climate change for example. They are heavily pro the status quo imho.
Does your boss require you to reveal all your outside earnings?
Basically yep, my employer does want to know if I have any secondary work, mainly in case it conflicts with my main employment, I honestly don't find it sinister. But then I don't see grand conspiracies everywhere...
And I think it's the same case with the beeb, they're doubtless used to the talent being paid lump sums on the side, they're probably not so comfortable, I would imagine, if those sums were coming from, say a Russian oil billionaire for example...
Basically yep, my employer does want to know if I have any secondary work, mainly in case it conflicts with my main employment, I honestly don’t find it sinister.
Normally it’s a chat to say that there’s no conflict of interest, and that you are committed to the company. Not a set of accounts, to be made public.
They have done this for years with climate change for example.
Only in your imagination have they.
As long as the employees are impartial whilst doing their job, why should it matter what they do in their own time? Or what they earn outside of what the bbc pays them for?
its about perception of bias whether or not an actual bias exists. would you say the same about judges? or cabinet ministers? or police officers? or any of the regulators (ICO, Offcom, FSA etc).
David Attenborough is going to be in trouble, all that pesky environmental politics he keeps spouting.
He's not a bbc employee though - so isn't affected as I understand it...
I want them to report facts as facts, and to discuss views fairly
I completely agree with you. I think what I meant was that people who complain about bias are often complaining about objectivity - and are just put-out that this objectivity doesn't support their viewpoint (ie: their reasoning is flawed, or they are just flat-out W R O N G).
At a time when the rightists are pushing an agenda underpinned by misrepresentation of facts and outright lies - calling them out on that IS balanced/objective/neutral, it's not biased towards the left.
A newsnight presenter giving one politician (who is blatantly lying and refusing to give direct answers) a proper grilling, but using a lighter touch on another who is being more honest an open, is not bias..... it's objectivity. In the same way as taking the piss out of trump more than Biden isn't biased towards the left - but rightists moan that it is.
Removing my own bias and playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if both sides are accusing them of bias in favour of the other then they’re probably not getting things too badly wrong.
This... My Dad and his increasingly far right cronies call it the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation. The hard line socialists I know think the BBC is a right ring echo chamber... 🤷🏻♂️
I’m not convinced of their impartiality or lack of bias. If they were discussing the Earth’s curvature, the BBC would give equal time to some flat Earther in the name of fairness. They have done this for years with climate change for example. They are heavily pro the status quo imho.
Don't agree entirely, though do agree it is moving right at the moment (very recent phenomenon FWIW)... Unfortunately, if it wants to survive given the governments assertions that it will take control of whatever it wants and limit public information as it chooses, it has to! Sad times if this doesn't change very soon...
The BBC has traditionally been left leaning not through any conspiracy just that the type of people who go into public service journalism tended to be more liberal. This is being rapidly exterminated though.
At a time when the rightists are pushing an agenda underpinned by misrepresentation of facts and outright lies – calling them out on that IS balanced/objective/neutral, it’s not biased towards the left.
That may be factual. But the popular narrative is the ‘truth’ that matters. Even if it’s a lie or won on lies.
cookeaa
Full MemberBasically yep, my employer does want to know if I have any secondary work,
Does he expect you to put it in a public database? And does he then expect you to knock off for the day and then not go home and go on STW "and express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects"?
Yup, that social media policy is batshit crazy and completely unreasonable. People should be allowed personal opinions.
People don't change their opinions just because they are told not to express them. If the BBC is concerned that their presenters may be biased, maybe it would be more effective let them display that in personal posts, so that the public can make allowances.
Yet someone like Nick Robinson is clearly a Tory (was heavily involved with young tory stuff) so we know what his bias would be. Does that impact what he does on the BBC, probably.
Does he expect you to put it in a public database?
No, but then I'm not spending government money, nor accused by the public of being overpaid or subject to Bias. We expect publicly reviewable records for elected officials and others in positions of significant power - I'm not sure this is unreasonable. What would of course be better would be for the BBC to argue that all media organisations (over a certain size?) should require this sort of transparency. Personally I'd have no objection to being like Norway where everyone's income is public, although in a global world its perhaps not that much help atleast until the US starts to be a bit clearer about who's pulling strings.
And does he then expect you to knock off for the day and then not go home and go on STW “and express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects”?
mine does... largely disregarded from what I can see by some of the most millitant in the company. as a general rule I don't post anything easily identifiable to me (and therefore linkable to the company) which would meet those criteria.
Crazy.
Will they be accused of bias for reporting successful trials of vaccinations, given so many people now seem to think they are part of a left wing "Great Reset" agenda??
Yet someone like Nick Robinson is clearly a Tory (was heavily involved with young tory stuff) so we know what his bias would be. Does that impact what he does on the BBC, probably.
It will be a while since he was young tory - even by tory standards! I'd suggest that plenty of people were in favour of one part 20+ years ago who no longer see that party as representing the same views never mind whether their views may have changed. i'm sure thats true of all sides...
Will they be accused of bias for reporting successful trials of vaccinations, given so many people now seem to think they are part of a left wing “Great Reset” agenda??
I think you need to look at what bubble you are listening to if you believe that any meaningful number of people believe this. Not everyone who is concerned about a vaccine believes its part of a conspiracy. And a lot of the "not about a vaccine noise" is people arguing for opening society today rather than waiting - not any actual opposition or concern about vaccines in general or this one in particular other than timing.
More than one in five (23 percent) said they believe that COVID-19 is a "bio-weapon intentionally spread by the Chinese state to weaken Western economies," with 17 percent believing that the virus was intentionally released as part of a "'depopulation' plan orchestrated by the U.N. or New World Order."
From a hope not Hate survey in the UK
Maybe it's you that's in the bubble poly.
it specifically mentions avoiding ‘virtue signalling’
I wonder if they will ban the wearing of symbols? No red ribbons for World AIDS Day? No poppies for Remembrance Day Month? No Livestrong bands?
Poppies could very easily be argued to be virtue signalling. Bet it won't count though, cos... you know....
Poppies could very easily be argued to be virtue signalling
They have added a specific exception for that form of virtue signalling (sadly it has become it nowadays especially amongst that breed of tory MP who happily voted for restricting the ability of the soldiers to sue the MOD for failing them).
Yup, poppies need to be as big and as sparkly as possible otherwise you're not a true patriotic Brit.
mine does… largely disregarded from what I can see by some of the most millitant in the company. as a general rule I don’t post anything easily identifiable to me (and therefore linkable to the company) which would meet those criteria.
Whereas our social media policy is that if you are saying anything that could be linked back to the company you just leave a disclaimer that the views are your own and not that of the company.
Politically Neutral presenters and staff it affects.
Yup, poppies need to be as big and as sparkly as possible otherwise you’re not a true patriotic Brit.
And gay/trans etc need to be as ‘invisible‘ as possible. Preferably sacked. Is the message I’m getting from that ^ news story.
Letting it sink in. What if they sacked people for attending a Church parade?
This feels like an emerging dystopia that I somehow naively didn’t imagine in our lifetimes. Frankly horrific.
Remember when "virtue signalling" used to be known as "empathy"? Different times.
[triggered.gif]
From a hope not Hate survey in the UK
Maybe it’s you that’s in the bubble poly.
@grum - entirely possible I live in such a bubble - but I have quite a large interaction with all sorts of people in many ways, outside the people I actually enjoy talking to and so find the %ages suggested rather surprising. So that always makes me suspicious of any study claiming rather crazy statistics etc. Even their own analysis highlights surprise, inconsistency (people who said they didn't know what QAnon is and then saying they strongly support QAnon) and that the answers to the questions tell little about what they mean! Almost like they needed some clickbait article to write. The mechanics of the survey are not entirely clear but it looks likely Hanbury Strategy pay people to answer survey questions on line... but you can probably get a feel for who they are from this: https://goodlawproject.org/news/hanbury-strategy/ although obviously I accept the fact I'd put more faith in the good law project than Hope not hate may just be another aspect of my bubble.
Couldn't the Beeb just play the GINO at it's own game? Dismiss and then re-hire their employees as 'contractors'? Employees avoid tax, Beeb can pay these 'independents' what/how they like and the employees are fully free to post what they like on social media.
Anything to stick two fingers up to De Pfeffel and his court of cretins.
Remember when “virtue signalling” used to be known as “empathy”? Different times.
Ah yes, but that was back in the good old days before Leave and Trump legitimised being an arsehole.
Matthew 6:5
It's obvious that Johnson /Cummings want the BBC gone
You only have to see how terrified they are of having ministers on Newsnight or grilled by Andrew Neil
Cummings will use his 80 seat majority to degrade the BBC to a simple government propaganda mouthpiece
I know it's not a laughing matter but I did enjoy a tweet from Gary Lineker today(?)
Video of some republican saying that this election is "literally" fighting satan
Lineker said:
"this is nuts"
"for balance; this is not nuts"
reminds me of the Dennis Skinner classic "half the members opposite..." sketch
... and if they had the bottle (and a different head), BBC being rigorously impartial could be really good
The BBC is a government propaganda channel, plain and simple.
The sooner it's gone, the better.
The BBC is a government propaganda channel, plain and simple.
That others are claiming it’s an ‘anti govt left wing rats nest’ suggests you are both wide of the mark there...
That others are claiming it’s an ‘anti govt left wing rats nest’ suggests you are both wide of the mark there…
This is often trotted out, and obviously I am biased, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the truth is somewhere in the middle. See the climate change 'debate' for instance.
People think the BBC is left wing because it isn't saying exactly what the Daily Mail and their far right YouTube channels tell them. It might have been once, but it definitely isn't now, IMO.
The BBC represents the conservative (small c) British Establishment. It's probably true that, over the years, that has mostly aligned with the Conservative Party, but left wing/right wing comparisons are too simplistic.
People don’t change their opinions just because they are told not to express them. If the BBC is concerned that their presenters may be biased, maybe it would be more effective let them display that in personal posts, so that the public can make allowances.
You're right, individuals will always hold views, the beeb aren't asking them to stop having opinions they're asking them to stop tweeting them.
It's worth noting the BBC charter has 'impartial news and information' front and centre, not 'bias with a caveat'. https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission
It's written into the organisations core values. And is of course undermined if their news staff go on to publicly display their personal bias...
As for Linekar, he falls under 'light entertainment and sport' doesn't he? So I think there's a bit more leeway there... I don't think he'll been seen as doing any harm really.
And this:
It’s obvious that Johnson /Cummings want the BBC gone
They most definitely do!
Part of how they achieve that goal is by chipping away at the idea of BBC impartiality (which they've been doing for some time already), which is of course helped by political editors and reporters sharing their personal views on social media...
I see Huw is making a very personal bid for Welsh independence there
It's a great idea. I work in the industry and millennial 'journalists' seem to have none of the bitter cynicism that their older colleagues have towards both sides of the political establishment, and seem to think their jobs are to be left-wing activists. They only pursue stories they are interesting in advocating for, and have a one dimensional view of the world.
Their social media feeds are filled with opinionated content, making it impossible for them to be expected to carry out impartial interviews.
Whilst the BBC was always considered "left wing", news rooms across the country are now dominated by a single woke world view. You even find young Daily Mail reporters slagging their own publication off on public forums with statements like "I'm left wing really, just doing it for the £££" - I read the riot act to a recent City journalism grad for this recently.
The problem is serious. The issue isn't that these journalists are too liberal, is it that they are totally illiberal in their opinions and have no ability to understand that people can have divergent views, and not hate each other for it.
...AND the idea that the BBC is a government propaganda channel is completely silly. The left think its a tory mouth piece and the right think the BBC is the UK hub of the Communist party.
People like Laura Kunnesberg do an EXCELLENT job under incredibly difficult circumstances.
The BBC, from top to bottom, in front and behind the cameras, the news in particular, is in the firm control of the Tory party. If you don't believe me, google the new DG. There may be a few "lefties" hiding away in there, but the current govt has a strong grip on the purse strings, and a firm and ever increasing hold on the dangly bits, that balanced and fair reporting is a thing of the past.
People like Laura Kunnesberg do an EXCELLENT job under incredibly difficult circumstances.
You were so convincing up until then. Now you've just admitted to trolling.
The BBC, from top to bottom, in front and behind the cameras, the news in particular, is in the firm control of the Tory party. If you don’t believe me, google the new DG. There may be a few “lefties” hiding away in there, but the current govt has a strong grip on the purse strings, and a firm and ever increasing hold on the dangly bits, that balanced and fair reporting is a thing of the past.
You've no idea what you're talking about and have cleared never worked anywhere near a BBC news room. You'd be hard pressed to find a single Brexit/Tory voter outside the crew room or outside of engineering.
Laura Kuennsberg looks like she's going reenact 'that' scene from When Harry Met Sally every time she interviews a member of Boris's rabble, or Boris 'Richly Deserved Victory'* Johnson himself.
*To quote Kuennsberg herself.
Impartial my arse.
Whilst the BBC was always considered “left wing”, news rooms across the country are now dominated by a single woke world view.
Yeah, this is the main problem we face in society right now. The news media is too woke. Someone should tell Andrew Neil. Perhaps him being pretty much the face of BBC politics for years passed you by?
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1291470619587022867
Andrew Neil has been an outlier over the years and hence his departure. Totally spot on with that BBC bitesize thing as well. More or less nail on the head with the problem.
Joe
Free Member…AND the idea that the BBC is a government propaganda channel is completely silly. The left think its a tory mouth piece and the right think the BBC is the UK hub of the Communist party.
Means absolutely nothing. Trump's fans think every news outlet except from Fox are the Radical Left Fake News Media. Everyone else knows that Fox aren't even really a new channel. The truth isn't "somewhere in the middle". Even before gaslighting became tactic number one, that wasn't true but now?
And Laura Kuennsberg might as well be part of number 10's press office. Endless streams of leaks direct from Cummings to her, actual illegal announcements when voting was in progress in the last election, repeats stories from westminster with no fact checking (remember "Matt Hancock was attacked by a protestor"? Even after she knew it was completely made up she was still talking about the "grim scenes" and not about how she'd been lied to by a government minister and had repeated it to the nation)
I'm not sure it's personal bias though, it could equally be purely cynical/commercial.
Andrew Neil has been an outlier over the years and hence his departure.
Laura Kuenssberg seems to be doing a fine job of carrying on his legacy. And the current head of the BBC is a former conservative councillor. I think your own bias is very obvious.
The political leanings of junior employees is by the by when the boss is a Tory, installed to get the BBC in line, in the face of government threats to the license fee if they don't.
Joe
Andrew Neil has been an outlier over the years and hence his departure.
I thought it coincided with those pics of him with Epstein. Dunno if they're true or fake though - wasn't interested enough to follow up.