I read the Times. I have noticed that everyday for the past few weeks it has been running some seriously anti-BBC stories. They are fairly obviously working to an agenda for a sustained attack on the BBC at a time when the government is deciding the BBC's future budget and role. Whilst there are lots of things to criticize the BBC for, I am much happier that not all the media is controlled by such charming people as Murdoch, Richard Desmond, the Barclay bros and the Rothermeres. Its a worrying thing that a company as questionable as News International can blatently try and influence peoples opinions in this manner. I suppose all that I can do as an individual is not buy the Times.
29
Comments
If you think the BBC is biased imagine a news media controlled completely by the Murdoch empire. I think they may be slightly more partisan and have their agenda controlled. Imagine the deal that Murdoch could cut with a politician if they were the only real source of news and political reporting. If they can carry out a sustained attack against the BBC who else could they set the dogs on.
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
*****ATTENTION, ATTENTION! PLEASE IGNORE THESE COMMENTS THIS PERSON IS CLEARLY DERANGED****** love from Rupert.
It's even more laughable than Sky in its bias - it seems to exist now solely as a publicity sheet for Lebedev and whatever cronies he chooses to back. Most shocking example of media bias I think I've ever seen
I am quite ready to buy the argument that a big organisation such as the BBC must be regularly scrutinised to ensure it isn't bloated and inefficient. However the really troubling thing is that the "expert" committee the government has appointed to undertake this is 'heaving with vested interests". And they are not my words, but those of Lord Fowler, an old style one nation Tory with long experience in the area. It's not a genuine impartial inquiry and that is why we need to make sure our voices are heard, because as you've pointed out, the other side are already vocal and have the media resource.
I'd also like to point out that this Government has played exactly the same trick regarding the Freedom of Information Act. Again they've announced an "independent"enquiry into its workings, on a Friday in July, whose members are all people who don't like the Act. Not one person whose experience will highlight what is good about the act.
The announcement of these two committees at the same time, and their make-up, so soon into the new Government, says very bad things about the Britain it now wants to create, IMO. Can anyone who voted Conservative remember seeing either of these two issues as key elements in the manifesto pre-election?
The funny thing is, going back to your original point that on Andrew Marr on Sunday there was a Times columnist doing the paper review. He actually commented that he didn't know why the Tories were wasting their energy on such a thing as the BBC when there are so many more important things that need to be fixed, because they are broken, unlike the BBC. It proves that the Times output is being written to Murdoch's orders, and suggests that the guy will probably soon be an ex-Times columnist.
It's not perfect of course but for less than the price of a pint a week per household it provides entertainment, news, radio and internet content that is admired around the globe. Can you imagine where we will be in terms of an educated, informed electorate if we were reliant on Kay Burley for our news???
I'd pay the license fee for Radio 5 alone.
My opinion, it costs what costs and is what is. Leave it alone, its the envy of most media outlets.
Politicians should try to do their jobs to the best of their ability for the few years they are elected instead of dreaming up damaging ideas for the best broadcaster in the world.
Final round of the Open on Monday and they didn't bother to show it until halfway through the day because Bargain Hunt had to take priority.
Not what I'd call the best broadcaster in the world. Then we had Aliss' blatantly sexist remark on the final green.
No surprise that Sky have won the rights to show the tournament in the future.
I understand they may be functioning with less money, but expensive can it be to press F7.
Sky do produce real quality programing though, if you like sport and certainly would have made a better job of it and will do on one of their half dozen £600 p/a channels. Though about as good as the BBC when it comes to showing Charlton games in the FL or any team in the EPL excepting the top six and who they are beating that week.
But besides the cock up Monday (some weirdo's actually prefer Bargain Hunt to golf) the BBC do a fantastic job. Compare their home grown programmes to SKY or the actual schedules, SKY repeats more and shows less.
Until you have lived anywhere else you simply have no idea how good the BBC is.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
"Until you have lived anywhere else you simply have no idea how good the BBC is."
Bloody hell, yes.
People all round the world are receiving the news that the government wants to mess with it, with absolute incredulity.
One issue here which I'll be taking up with Whittingdale and co is that in fact the BBC is a global exporter, yet successive governments have cut it back. They are not allowed to compete in other markets that want their output, nor sell digital licenses to people like Algarve and I. I'd gladly pay the licence fee and more for such a license, instead I have successively paid far more to Sky, bought a huge effing satellite dish, and now pay a VPN, to watch and listen to the BBC illegally.
When it comes to the World Service in Asia, you know who pressured the government to clip the BBC wings? Murdoch again. Not making enough from his poxy Star offering in China and elsewhere because the Chinese viewer had the effrontery to prefer the BBC World Service.
My point in summary. The BBC could earn huge amounts more from global commercial sales, which could be used to cap the licence fee and fund tech development for the UK user, but successive governments have instead told them to stop being so successful. Where is the sense in that?
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
Yes, fancy contributing to something that serves the common good.
If you want wall to wall shite like the output of channel 4 and 5, it's available in almost every country in the world, with nothing else to compete with it. The BBC is unique and precious, and as Prague said should be allowed to make money to produce even better programmes and then even compete with the likes of Sky for the big sporting events.
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Believe me, I hold just as much disdain for Murdoch as I do for the BBC
Are Pravda and the Socialist Daily worker still going then?