There is if we're all forced to pay for it.
Where else would it come from though? You don't think having some kind of balance in the media is important?
Now, secondly, if I pay bloody taxes to the BBC - it bloody well should be neutral. Actually, no media can be neutral - so the BBC should just sodding admit they are a lefty pancake and sod back to the fifties.
Where's the crackhead smiley? 😕
Yes well done, it's not literally a tax in a technical sense, just something you are legally obliged to pay if you want to watch TV.
Assuming that the BBC was no more and that the TV licence was scrapped, do you think that Sky would let you watch their channels free of charge?
If it is so clear that the BBC is left wing, i assume that anybody can see this and thus make an informed choice about how to intepretate the BBC's output.
The electorate clearly see the bias and have thus chosen to vote in a tory government.
Sorry this Left wing Right wing bias thing is crap, i don't see the BBC calling for nationalisation of the steel industry or even the electricity network.
What i do see is the Daily Mail and Sky ranting about immigration and how unfair it is to have a media output that does not call for the reconstruction of the british empire.
gonefishin have a google mate. They say themselves they've got a left bias.
At no point did I say that they didn't. What I don't understand is why that is necessarily a problem. There is plenty of Right wing bias in other forms of media which leads me to repeat my challenge to you to name one unbiased media outlet.
Yes well done, it's not literally a tax in a technical sense, just something you are legally obliged to pay if you want to watch TV
Hmm I believe this sort of thing is more normally referred to as a "charge".
Google "BBC left bias".
[url= http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=bbc+left+bias&word2=bbc+right+bias ]..guess what?[/url]
News Flash - not being slightly to the right of Hitler doesn't make it left leaning
Leave Herr Hitler out of it, he was a socialist.
Where else would it come from though? You don't think having some kind of balance in the media is important?
I don't care. The BBC is funded by all of us and so should be neutral.
They [i]should[/i] all be neutral, but the others are privately owned and so can do what they want unfortunately. Newspapers are a particular bugbear of mine, I don't want an opinion rammed down my throat or articles presented with a bias so that my emotions are affected. I want factual news, I can make my own mind up on topics thank you.
The BBC is as neutral is it can be - given that the left call it right wing and the right call it left wing 😀
Yes I'm glad that I pay a cheap rate to not watch adverts
- something which Murdoch and cronies keep whinging about and then pollute the minds of their consumers.
Just because I think the BBC is overpaid (sic) and completely past its sell by date doesn't make me a Fox lover does it? Now, secondly, if I pay bloody taxes to the BBC (sic) - it bloody well should be neutral. Actually, no media can be neutral.
Have you been to other countries and seen their TV?
Leave Herr Hitler out of it, he was a socialist
a nationalised socialist?
Have you been to other countries and seen their TV?
The US can be pretty good (I particularly klike the politically neutral choice of colour)..
[img] 
[/img]
Wrecker: The BBC is funded by all of us and so should be neutral.
Agreed. The BBC knows this, the trustees know this. The people in the organisation might be lefties, but we do pay them not to ram a socialist agenda down our throats, and as an organisation they do this.
You know what, they do pretty well most of the time. We know this because they manage to piss off whoever is in power at the time.
the BBC should just sodding admit they are a lefty pancake and sod back to the fifties.
Brilliant.
all bbc funding should go towards science and nature programs, a dashing of comedy thats approved by me and my peers, and f1 coverage. nothing else.
i have spoken! 
Just so we're clear, could those who are slamming the BBC's 'Left-wing' agenda please serve up some evidence of it beyond that remark from Mark Thompson? I suspect that the case against the BBC is being somewhat overstated, but am happy to be proved wrong.
Partial F1 coverage and I don't think it'll have that for long. The BBC has given us some very good programmes over the years and I hope the funding method stays as it is. I think that we have witnessed it dumbing down over recent years and an unacceptable increase in cheapy reality type shows and a marked decrease in what they actually do very well; documentaries, drama and comedy. I particularly want the BBC to get a larger share of the big sports events (international football, rugby, cricket, athletics etc) I am by no means anti BBC, I just want them to have a politically neutral agenda.
I don't care. The BBC is funded by all of us and so should be neutral.
Right, so you are happy for the vast majority of people to get their information on current affairs from Sky, The Sun and Daily Mail? 🙄
ram a socialist agenda down our throats
A socialist agenda? Are they calling for renationalising industry? What utter bollocks.
Right, so you are happy for the vast majority of people to get their information on current affairs from Sky, The Sun and Daily Mail?
Two wrongs don't make a right. I take the point on sky, but those who buy the mail, sun, guardian etc know what they're getting and choose to purchase the product for that reason. We cannot choose to purchase (or not) the BBCs product, in effect it belongs to us and so should not pander to any political (or other) group. IMHO.
If the BBC is so left wing, how come they pay the wages of Clarkson and Nick Robinson?
Hmm I believe this sort of thing is more normally referred to as a "charge".
I think you'll find it's a licence, since you are so fond of pedantry.
A socialist agenda? Are they calling for renationalising industry? What utter bollocks.
Is that for me? Did you read my post properly?
we do pay them not to ram a socialist agenda down our throats, [b]and as an organisation they do this[/b].
Edit: 😕 Damn me and my imprecise prose. Well, I meant that they don't ram a socialist agenda down our throats, even if some of the staff are crusty commies...
Stevious: just putting some quotes in. For some reason it blocks the URLs, maybe it thinks I'm spamming. Google the quote and you'll find it.
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?
In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.
CaptJon: because it's full of champagne socialists, and clueless managers. it's called a gravy train. Very much like politicians in general - throw more money at something because that will make it better.
I reckon the BBC needs to sack off its Sports coverage completely.
+1. I'm more than happy for my license fee to make programmes. I'm not entirely happy about a chunk of it just ending up in the pockets of Bernie Ecclestone and a bunch of footballers.
Sorry thebunk yup, but your post wasn't that clear - especially as you seemed to be agreeing with the comment about 'going back to the 50s' or whatever it was.
We cannot choose to purchase (or not) the BBCs product, in effect it belongs to us and so should not pander to any political (or other) group. IMHO.
I don't think it panders to a particular party, it just has a possibly liberal bias. They certainly don't seem pro-Labour for instance. And I think it's very important there is some representation of the liberal view in mainstream media, when everything else is ruled by commercial, corporate interests.
Rich corporate media owners have a tendency to promote right wing views (as they are good for their own finances broadly speaking).
Assuming that the BBC was no more and that the TV licence was scrapped, do you think that Sky would let you watch their channels free of charge?
Strangely enough no, I don't think they would. I wouldn't pay for sky either way though, so this is totally irrelevant.
Every election I see whinges from both the right and left about the BBC's "bias".
Shows to me that it is more or less in the middle.
I think you'll find it's a licence, since you are so fond of pedantry.
I was refering to the payment, not the piece of paper or right that it buys.
the BBC should just sodding admit they are a lefty pancake and sod back to the fifties.
What kind of reactionary simpleton are you? Just because an organisation's output is not nakedly right-wing does not make it Trotskyite.
You do not "pay bloody taxes to the BBC" - the licence fee is optional.
What would you replace the BBC with? You want to be careful what you wish for. Replacing centrally or state funded organisations with private enterprise has not been an unqualified success in this country.
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to [s]answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?[/s] present an argument from perceived authority
I don't think it panders to a particular party, it just has a possibly liberal bias.
Agreed, hence the work group and not party.
They certainly don't seem pro-Labour for instance.
Agreed
And I think it's very important there is some representation of the liberal view in mainstream media, when everything else is ruled by commercial, corporate interests.
Agreed (almost), but I don't think that the BBC is the correct vehicle.
The almost was because I don't believe that channel 4 has a particularly right wing bias (certainly not the news anchorman Jon Snow)
I reckon the BBC needs to sack off its Sports coverage completely.
Not all - I mostly (except Brian Moore on his negative days) like the 6 Nations coverage.
firmly of the Left.
define Left in the current political landscape please.
Once could argue that most of the private media leans very strongly to the right - maybe this is a way of balancing things
or maybe reflecting the majority view of their audience (just 'cos we got a Tory gov't it doesn't mean the majority are right wing.)
Agreed (almost), but I don't think that the BBC is the correct vehicle.
So what is?
The almost was because I don't believe that channel 4 has a particularly right wing bias (certainly not the news anchorman Jon Snow)
Channel 4 also receives license fee money and has some kind of public service remit though IIRC.
grum - Member
Sorry thebunk yup, but your post wasn't that clear - especially as you seemed to be agreeing with the comment about 'going back to the 50s' or whatever it was.
nooooo! that was sarcasm! igmc....
All the BBC presenters are wearing only hammer and sickle undies when seated at a desk, you just don't see that.
FACT.
You do not "pay bloody taxes to the BBC" - the licence fee is optional.
It's not exactly optional though. It's a fee that is charged for one thing (receiving broadcast TV), but is paid (largely) to only one supplier of broadcast TV. It's a ridiculous mess that would be more fairly funded by general taxation.
2tyred:
What kind of reactionary simpleton are you? Just because an organisation's output is not nakedly right-wing does not make it Trotskyite.
You do not "pay bloody taxes to the BBC" - the licence fee is optional.
What would you replace the BBC with? You want to be careful what you wish for. Replacing centrally or state funded organisations with private enterprise has not been an unqualified success in this country
I'm from a country that is far more socialist than the UK. However, the state controlled media, i.e. the BBC, is much more socialist than the equivalent media in Sweden.
The BBC, apart from being naive, not up to the job, overly expensive push out [u]their[/u] view of the news. It is not factual, they give the narrative. If you start looking at the air time of pro vs contra views on some of the hottest topics of the decade - you'll for instance find a serious overweight to people with a pro-MMGW stance. The economics news is weak. Just look at Stephanie Flanders interview of Mervyn King. Pretty important this whole money printing malarchy. She was a wet blanket. 1.5% inflation rise due to QE? Really? Did she push him on the fact he has missed the inflation target for last couple of years by twice the target? No, of course not. She's useless. You could argue this is proof that she is no biased, but actually it just proves she is shit (oh and she used to date Ed Milliband and Ed Balls, or something like that). AND SHE IS THE ECONOMICS person! GAH.
State controlled media should be doubly good at ALWAYS inviting people from not just both sides of the spectrum but bloody well from all sides. And yes, they can, and yes they should. They are lazy, incompetent and biased to the left.
What scares me the most with this discussion, or rant from my side, is that so many people think it's ok that the BBC is "leftist" because it outweights the rightwing media.
Bloody scary.
So what is?
Beyond my pay grade I'm afraid grum. It certainly shouldn't be via what is in all but name a tax on the british public.
Just thinking, like. Is this argument the same sort of rubbish that is constantly going on in the US? Extreme right wingers (like those tea-bagger people) constantly harp on about "the liberal media" in an attempt to force any political discourse to go more and more right-wing and keep anyone microscopically to the left of their bias on the back-foot?
I would have thought a liberal media would have been A Good Thing.
AdamW - MemberJust thinking, like. Is this argument the same sort of rubbish that is constantly going on in the US? Extreme right wingers (like those tea-bagger people) constantly harp on about "the liberal media" in an attempt to force any political discourse to go more and more right-wing and keep anyone microscopically to the left of their bias on the back-foot?
I would have thought a liberal media would have been A Good Thing.
Of course there is a place for liberal media. But a state controlled media should never put itself in a position to be described as anything on the political spectrum. Seriously.
If you start looking at the air time of pro vs contra views on some of the hottest topics of the decade - you'll for instance find a serious overweight to people with a pro-MMGW stance.
And based on this - completely ignoring the vast majority of science - I cannot take your argument seriously. If you want a neutral bias then you would have to give percentage time to each view and not equal.
For that, I'm out. 😆
AdamW - MemberIf you start looking at the air time of pro vs contra views on some of the hottest topics of the decade - you'll for instance find a serious overweight to people with a pro-MMGW stance.
And based on this - completely ignoring the vast majority of science - I cannot take your argument seriously. If you want a neutral bias then you would have to give percentage time to each view and not equal.
For that, I'm out.
So do you know what the other side of the science say?
State controlled media should be doubly good at ALWAYS inviting people from not just both sides of the spectrum but bloody well from all sides. And yes, they can, and yes they should.
Drawing on your 20 years of experience, how exactly would you achieve this within the confines of a 30 minute news programme featuring a host of other stories? The most you could hope for would be a single-sentence soundbite from each participant which would trivialise everything.
2tyred - MemberState controlled media should be doubly good at ALWAYS inviting people from not just both sides of the spectrum but bloody well from all sides. And yes, they can, and yes they should.
Drawing on your 20 years of experience, how exactly would you achieve this within the confines of a 30 minute news programme featuring a host of other stories? The most you could hope for would be a single-sentence soundbite from each participant which would trivialise everything.
Oh really. Suggest you look at ITV and what they do then. Or some international programmes. This is just sound journalism. The BBC feels it doesn't need to because auntie BBC knows what's right and what's wrong, just like Ed Milliband.
you'll for instance find a serious overweight to people with a pro-MMGW stance.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
So they should give equal weight to a few conspiracy theorists, despite the fact that the majority of scientific opinion supports MMGW? That's your idea of balance? 😕
If 999 people say the earth is round, and one says it's flat - on any discussion of the earth we need one from each side in order to be balanced?
But a state controlled media should never put itself in a position to be described as anything on the political spectrum
You can't possibly avoid that - as soon as a broadcaster makes mention of [i]anything[/i], there's nothing stopping some blowhard placing it on his perceived political spectrum then ranting about it on an internet messageboard!
