Note the author of this article

Unfortunately he now, more than ever, needs to appease right-wing Tories :

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/tory-mp-asks-boris-johnson-to-support-bbc-licence-fee-abolition-bill/203934

How did the BBC report today’s “Kill the Bill” marches? Oh yes. They didn’t.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0013tvd

Why are left leaning people here getting worked up about the death of an organisation which supports and enables the right wing? Laura Kuensberg, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, need I say more? Some real independence from govt will be a good thing no?

On the evidence of existing media, broadly no.

Why are left leaning people here getting worked up about the death of an organisation which supports and enables the right wing?

A balanced media outlet circulates both left and right leaning content.

I’m not going to argue about where the BBC sits on that spectrum but I do think a large part of the opposition now facing the organisation, is down to a growing intolerance for consuming any content that does not align with our political views.

This is not a good thing.

A balanced media outlet circulates both left and right leaning content.

The BBC can in no way be called balanced. Their political coverage is highly biased in favour of the right wing, they give a platform to every nutcase, fruitcake and self-interested mouthpiece, and ignore anyone from the left by painting them as extremists.

I thought Newsnight photoshopinhg Corbyn's hat to imply he was a Russian agent was a low and cynical move at the time, but I guess it was worth sacrificing journalistic integrity in order to ensure the enduring cast iron support of the Tory party for years to come. pic.twitter.com/TjEjzmxpSN

— Phineas Harper (@PhinHarper) January 17, 2022

Any organisation that still thinks Steve Wright and Jeremy Whine is acceptable to be on the air needs disbanding. Oh and the many overpaid executive

20/21 Annual report

Oh and the many overpaid executive

I doubt it’s any different to any other similar sized organisation.

For this…

The BBC can in no way be called balanced.

… See this, from the same post you quoted…

I’m not going to argue about where the BBC sits on that spectrum 

If the BBC were still impartial it would be worth saving but it’s not and would need major reform (and protections that would be likely unenforceable in order to prevent it becoming politicised again in future) before I’d care about it surviving. Yes there’s a lot of good programming on it but much of that could survive on a streaming platform.

I doubt it’s any different to any other similar sized organisation.

And like when any government funded organisation it’s meant to show value for money and the BBC imo no longer does.

I would happily pay my fee for iPlayer, R4 and R5 on BBC Sounds

And like when any government run organisation it’s meant to show value for money and the BBC imo no longer does.

If they paid significantly below the market rate for talent (in front of and behind the camera) they’d just loose all their good staff to the competition. There’s currently a record breaking investment surge in TV production (for the streamers) so no shortage of companies paying top dollar for talent.

A good example is Chris Evans, he left with his entire team to join Virgin radio (IIRC) as they were happy to pay his ‘high’ salary which was proving too controversial at the BBC. So Zoe Ball replaced him on a slightly reduced salary, but not a huge cut.

Yes there’s a lot of good programming on it but much of that could survive on a streaming platform.

More and more seems to be joint productions these days, seen a few things on Netflix recently which were joint BBC productions.

Any organisation that still thinks Steve Wright and Jeremy Whine is acceptable to be on the air needs disbanding.

Much as I agree both those things are absolutely bloody awful, millions of people listen to them every day. The point is that theres so much variety on BBC radio, if you can’t find something you want to listen to on one of their platforms, there’s no hope.

I have either Five Live, 6 music or Radio 4 on pretty much all day, every day and think the licence fee is an absolute bargain

The BBC can in no way be called balanced. Their political coverage is highly biased in favour of the right wing, they give a platform to every nutcase, fruitcake and self-interested mouthpiece, and ignore anyone from the left by painting them as extremists.

They seem pretty good at upsetting each end of the political spectrum and quite a large chunk in between which implies they are more or less getting it right. As Butcher says half the current problem is that people are so comfortable in their selected social media world that they get upset when anyone questions their world view.

The main problem is that the government and quite a few other politicians would love the BBC to carry on with the none challenging Steve Wright and Jeremy Vine type stuff and ditch any form of vaguely balanced journalism (which is expensive).

Where the BBC do have a problem is when they twist and turn to ‘show balance’. They still seem to think that means giving a platform to someone with a diametrically opposed view rather than talking to several people who know what they are talking about (I know it is a few years ago but giving Nigel Lawson air time springs to mind).

Anyway they can’t get rid of radio 4 because it could trigger a nuclear war.

The point is that theres so much variety on BBC radio, if you can’t find something you want to listen to on one of their platforms, there’s no hope.

This is key. All the “I only use A, B & C, what’s the point of the rest” comments ignore that someone else, who also lives here, and also pays their licence fee, could say “I only use C, D & E, what’s the point of all the rest”.

They seem pretty good at upsetting each end of the political spectrum and quite a large chunk in between which implies they are more or less getting it right

People always say this but I think it’s BS of the highest order. People are comparing the BBC to the oligarch-owned borderline far-right newspapers which dominate our media landscape when they say it’s too left-wing. They’re just wrong.

More and more seems to be joint productions these days, seen a few things on Netflix recently which were joint BBC productions.

I’m sure some are but I’ve been fooled before by things being branded a ‘Netflix Original’ – doesn’t actually mean they had anything to do with making it.

I quite like their radio when tinkering in the garage, Unbelievable Truth, Infinite Monkey Cage, Dead Ringers, Radio 6 etc.. 🙁 Hope that survives somehow

Hope that survives somehow

Adverts? 😕

I had a look at the BBC site this morning and saw this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-59938380

Another clickbait headline but what’s behind it? I thought. Reading the article it’s about inflation in Nigeria. Fair enough but at least tell us why. My immediate thought was that the civil war is still limiting oil exports. I wasn’t wrong:

https://tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/exports/united-kingdom/crude-oil-petroleum-bituminous-minerals

When a country’s balance of payments is screwed inflation is the inevitable result – they’re doing what they can to reduce imports and produce locally but… now there’s a real story.

After independance in 1960 the UK propped up a series of puppet governments with arms sales for oil but finally decided this wasn’t such a good thing a few years back and limited sales, how much we don’t know it all very secret and parliamentary questions aren’t answered.

But the British military involvement continued with a “training mision”:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-forces-in-nigeria-a-long-partnership-in-west-africa/

All this to consider (and more) and the best those click bait headline writers can come up with about Nigeria is the price of sanitary towels! What’s the real problem BBC? I couldn’t write about Nigeria with out the words “Boko Harem”, “deaths”, “displaced people”, “food shortages”, “closed borders”, “oil sector investment crisis”… .

Their radio output is utterly fantastic and constitutes the largest portion of my media consumption. The usual channels have been given a shout out on this thread but I’d have to give a nod to 1xtra and how it dovetails with radio1 and radio 6 (and even shares a few presenters with radio2)

With radio, the Beeb managed to respond magnificently to the twin threats of pirate radio and the issuing of new commercial radio licences. 1xtra has nurtured UK music and talent for 20 years, training up hundreds of people in the process to creating a channel that has a global outreach.

Someone needs to apply the same kind of thinking to the TV output.

As for the Corbyn montage above, the BBC photoshopped constructivist style graphics to photographs of Corbyn on a number of occasions if I remember correctly.

At the time I thought it only fair that they did the same to Jacob Lynch Mobb, addressing a Nuremberg rally in a fetching armband for instance.

the twin threats of pirate radio

Is that even a thing anymore?

Who, under the age of 30, has an FM radio?

Reading through this it’s depressing to see people falling into Nadine’s trap. By focusing on the BBCs news output and ignoring the majority of programming is exactly what she wants. Everybody can find news reporting they are not happy with and I get as frustrated as everyone else by the establishment bias, superficiality and timidity of a lot of current affairs programming.

But it’s like EU membership, it’s a broad enough subject to annoy at both ends of spectrum and on a host of different issues. But that ignores the greater portion of benefit you get from all the rest of the programming. I also think BBC forces up quality of “free” to view TV on other channels

I think there is a real risk of us on the left not realising what we’ve list until it’s gone.

I think there is a real risk of us on the left not realising what we’ve list until it’s gone.

I bloody realise it. I am a civil servant and supposed to keep political views to myself, but come 2027 if this plays out as currently desired it might be the hill I choose to – fruitlessly of course – die on.

A year ago Tories were saying that they were changing rules to decriminalise not paying fee then ditched that

and of course they axed free licenses for OAPs, its almost like they are deliberately trying to demonise it

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/21/government-rules-out-decriminalising-licence-fee-non-payment

Who, under the age of 30, has an FM radio?

Anyone with a car, for a start.

This is key. All the “I only use A, B & C, what’s the point of the rest” comments ignore that someone else, who also lives here, and also pays their licence fee, could say “I only use C, D & E, what’s the point of all the rest”.

Quite. I don’t see why my taxes should pay for the fire brigade when I’ve never had a fire.

I think there is a real risk of us on the left not realising what we’ve list until it’s gone.

The chances of this resulting in more balanced news provision are slim to **** all. Just another lurch rightwards.

Quite. I don’t see why my taxes should pay for the fire brigade when I’ve never had a fire

I’m not sure you can reasonably compare paying indirectly for an emergency service with paying directly for an entertainment service…

Agreed that loss of radio stations will have a impact for many that I hadn’t considered (I never listen to radio anymore myself) but presumably the better content has the chance for surviving in podcast form post-BBC?

Reading through this it’s depressing to see people falling into Nadine’s trap. By focusing on the BBCs news output and ignoring the majority of programming is exactly what she wants.

Not sure I’m falling into her trap it’s just that for me the real value of the BBC would come from it being an impartial and easily digestible news source – that I’d be willing to pay for. Sure there are programs on the BBC that likely would never have been made for a streaming platform (or other format) but I’d guess in the scheme of things those programs only pull in a tiny fraction of the BBC’s viewing figures. It comes down to whether you think those programs are worth funding the entire BBC for (and the baggage it comes with) – personally I don’t but obviously others will disagree.

Sure the government are trying to spin it as a good idea for other reasons that are complete garbage (e.g. the no more pensioners facing prison for non-payment of the licence fee utter bollocks that is a situation of the Tories making and something they could easily fix by other means). And I’ll miss a bit if/when it’s gone but the current licensing model and the BBC itself is hopelessly out-dated and flawed.

Go and watch TV in the USA and you’ll be sticking up for the beeb, despite the RW pro-apartheid bias.

Remember the Blair years?
He was hammered, daily, on many controversial issues.

Gordon Brown was rightly exposed as a wet fart.

Uncle Jezza?
Destroyed. Game over.

There is no bias, just a desire to remove the public service model and an independent voice.

I’m looking into my crystal ball and seeing the absolute tsunami of middle class whining from the Daily Mail readership who are presently hostile or ambiguous about the license fee once the BBC is no more.

It’ll all be fun and games once they’re asked to pay for all the individual bits of the BBC’s output they presently just take for granted, or have it boxed in by adverts. Lets see how the Archers being interupted with ‘this message from our sponsors’ or paying a subscription for Gardeners Question Time goes down, eh?

I suspect that they haven’t given a thought to the actual reality and that its the same sort of cakism as Brexit where they expect all the BBC content to somehow miraculously still be there but without them paying the license fee

Their radio output is utterly fantastic and constitutes the largest portion of my media consumption. The usual channels have been given a shout out on this thread but I’d have to give a nod to 1xtra and how it dovetails with radio1 and radio 6 (and even shares a few presenters with radio2)

Not to mention Radio 3 and the BBC’s support of music of all types and the arts. It’s not a news organisation it’s a cultural gem.

Quite. I don’t see why my taxes should pay for the fire brigade when I’ve never had a fire

Yeah and let’s privatise the NHS, I’m sure I’ve not had my money’s worth!

Oh, and if ‘woke’ means inclusive, diverse and respectful that’s fine by me.

That’s merely what I would expect from an institution that should reflect our aspirations as a nation, even if not to everyone’s taste.

Remember this?

Boris Johnson’s sister says she ‘was joking’ about Murdoch telling PM to axe BBC

An organisation that harboured and protected prolific paedophiles for decades. No not the Tories, the BBC. They knew about Savile and others but did nothing, even going so far as protecting them. Vermin like Esther Rantzen as an example. Up to her neck in it if you ask me. The BBC should have been burned to the ground when all that came out. How they managed to squirm and back hand their way out of all that is beyond me.

Therefore I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if they ceased to exist and they certainly should not be protected or talked about as some sort of national treasure.

Iconoclasm.

Goddam woke puppet fascist mouth piece paedo commie libtard nazi bastards

Mrs Brown’s boys, though, hilaaaario

…and away….

An organisation that harboured and protected prolific paedophiles for decades. No not the Tories, the BBC. They knew about Savile and others but did nothing, even going so far as protecting them

As already posted Margaret Thatcher was close friends with him and lobbied to have him knighted despite knowing about his crimes. Interesting selective memory you have there.