Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News1 min ago
Time To Create A Politically Impartial National Broadcaster?
20 Answers
Clearly the BBC is not fit for purpose but I like the idea of a BBC like state broadcaster and I have always considered the license fee well spent. Is it time to start again with a pro British organisation. Any suggestion for the name?.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The BBC is actually more impartial than you give it credit for. Or, alternatively, it's even *less* impartial, because you can (and do) hear similar rants about it from the left.
The real issue with the BBC is not that it is biased one way or another but that it misunderstands what "impartiality" means. Take any position on which there is not absolute consensus, but some sense in which the majority opinion tends. But it doesn't matter to the BBC, which always insists on presenting issues as either clear-cut or evenly split, and never anywhere in between. This is wrong, horribly misleading, and ends up making both sides given equal weight even if it's totally unjustifiable to do so.
In the "pro-British" debate, for instance, the BBC isn't anti-British but does make the "anti-British" side have more air time than it strictly deserves. This is still bias but not against one side or another, merely against the idea that anything can be different from entirely unsettled.
The real issue with the BBC is not that it is biased one way or another but that it misunderstands what "impartiality" means. Take any position on which there is not absolute consensus, but some sense in which the majority opinion tends. But it doesn't matter to the BBC, which always insists on presenting issues as either clear-cut or evenly split, and never anywhere in between. This is wrong, horribly misleading, and ends up making both sides given equal weight even if it's totally unjustifiable to do so.
In the "pro-British" debate, for instance, the BBC isn't anti-British but does make the "anti-British" side have more air time than it strictly deserves. This is still bias but not against one side or another, merely against the idea that anything can be different from entirely unsettled.
The Beeb is actually "impartial". That is to say it tries to present arguments for and against. Unfortunately everybody employed by the Beeb has been born in the same culture factory and cannot conceive that anybody who (this is an example) is opposed to mass immigration is not a xenophobic bigot. As Roger Scruton once observed about his last teaching post at whatever university "the only conservatives on campus were I and the Spanish cleaning lady"". Oh my God - that's racist, isn't it? Fortunately I'm not a Nobel laureate, so Jim can't persecute me for the statement. Still, it's a "hate crime" and therefore I can be be prosecuted for it, innit.
Like it Tongo, Nigel for DG too!
Personally I'd like to see the back of any 'State' run tv. It always leads to bias of one sort or another and tends to only attract a certain sort. At the present moment in time the BBC is full of self serving Luvvies and is run by the right-on Islington Brigade, but it does also have form in the past on being the other way.
So ditch the lot, return the licence fee for the public to decide what they want to buy.
If you want a tv station without Ads or with specialized topics then create one, but have it run on subscription.
Personally I'd like to see the back of any 'State' run tv. It always leads to bias of one sort or another and tends to only attract a certain sort. At the present moment in time the BBC is full of self serving Luvvies and is run by the right-on Islington Brigade, but it does also have form in the past on being the other way.
So ditch the lot, return the licence fee for the public to decide what they want to buy.
If you want a tv station without Ads or with specialized topics then create one, but have it run on subscription.
TTT, you say, 'Clearly the BBC is not fit for purpose ....'.
You should have started that statement with, 'In my opinion ....', because in my view we would be lost without the BBC.
Alright, like many other large organisations it has its faults, but compared with other TV companies around the world, its superiority stands out, in my opinion!
You should have started that statement with, 'In my opinion ....', because in my view we would be lost without the BBC.
Alright, like many other large organisations it has its faults, but compared with other TV companies around the world, its superiority stands out, in my opinion!
wiltsman, I agree we do need a "BBC" but currently it's the ABBC, due to years of infiltration from the luvvies have not learned off the masters that preceded them, that you keep your own views to yourself. Thus we have the corporation Anchors, (no that's not rhyming slang) throwing their toys out of the pram asking stupid questions all the time. Can you imagine Sir Robin Day or Sir David Frost doing that?
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.