Murdoch putting the boot in.
Comments
-
One particular annoyance for the broadsheets is that the BBC has an extensive online edition at taxpayer expense. This means that they struggle to make money from their versions, whether behind a paywall or not. The BBC website now seems to be covering clickbait rubbish too, which would affect the tabloids.1
-
Well said, @halix. The other thing you can do is take part in the BBC Trust consultation.0
-
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats2
-
Haven't bought a Murdoch paper since the 1980's. Refuse to buy from Sky too. His empire is controlling the media, and now influencing the government way too much; he got them elected, and it is payback time. By hitting the BBC hard, he enhances his media profile, and potential profits. The BBC has, IMO, now veered toward right-wing politics in an effort to placate the Tories. We need an unbiased BBC, free from Government control.14
-
In providing so much for so many the Beeb clearly gets things wrong at times and we all have differing taste but I despise the cynical way the Tories and their cohorts are gradually chipping away at such a magnificent institution. As with the NHS they just cannot see the value in something that doesn't exist solely to generate private wealth. This has been coming for a long time now and I fear we'll only really appreciate what we have now when it's been kicked into submission.15
-
Doubt very much if BBC 1 & 2, Radio 1/2/4 will have commentators (where would they show it), the news will cover it and there will be reporters for the sports reports, but they usually use feeds from the TMS team such as Jonathan Agnew. It seems that you may have taken the Murdoch bait and starting to believe his propaganda. We need a independant BBC and dont pay £40 odd quid a month to watch it, unlike what Murdoch charges for SKY (how much could he increase prices if there were no BBC).Lincsaddick said:I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
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.1 -
You should read the substandard
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 seen9 -
Now THAT is a quality periodical. And an example what happens when the competition (the Evening News) is killed off.Leroy Ambrose said:You should read the substandard
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 seen0 -
Good that you have introduced this topic @Halix. I think it's a big issue which will run and run. Maybe you might consider re-naming it, e.g. The future of the BBC.
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.2 -
Not just the Times though. The Telegraph has been running anti-BBC stories with an obvious bias since before the election. The fact they have such a vested interest passes most of their readers by I fear.
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???3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Like the NHS the BBC is a great service, and knowing people working at both institutions both sounds like they could do with some modernisation and a bit of a shake up. However I have no wish to see either broken up.
I'd pay the license fee for Radio 5 alone.2 -
Its always amazes me, a paper or politician or other "expert" or bloke in pub will spout off that the BBC costs to much, has too much power or is a left wing mouth piece and then like sheep people start nodding in agreement.
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.4 -
Best broadcaster in the world?charltonkeston said:Its always amazes me, a paper or politician or other "expert" or bloke in pub will spout off that the BBC costs to much, has too much power or is a left wing mouth piece and then like sheep people start nodding in agreement.
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.1 -
I use the BBC news almost every day and I have to say in the last two years its really gone downhill, less articles are produced and those they do publish are littered with mistakes.
I understand they may be functioning with less money, but expensive can it be to press F7.0 -
Yep, they peed off the golf lovers. Did they broadcast the winners round? I don't know as I, like most, was working all day Monday. Aliss made a comment about a new kitchen, I wouldn't have thought most would have worried about it until they were told to.kinveachyaddick said:
Best broadcaster in the world?charltonkeston said:Its always amazes me, a paper or politician or other "expert" or bloke in pub will spout off that the BBC costs to much, has too much power or is a left wing mouth piece and then like sheep people start nodding in agreement.
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.
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.2 -
As Paddy 7 says - we all have differing tastes, and there are a heck of a lot of people out there who prefer Bargain Hunt to golf. And in the future golf fans will have to help pay Wayne Rooney's wages in order to watch any Open coverage at all.kinveachyaddick said:
Best broadcaster in the world?charltonkeston said:Its always amazes me, a paper or politician or other "expert" or bloke in pub will spout off that the BBC costs to much, has too much power or is a left wing mouth piece and then like sheep people start nodding in agreement.
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.
Until you have lived anywhere else you simply have no idea how good the BBC is.
5 -
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.Halix said:
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.Lincsaddick said:I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
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.
3 -
Thank you Rupert.Big_Bad_World said:
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.Halix said:
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.Lincsaddick said:I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
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.
2 -
Believe me, I hold just as much disdain for Murdoch as I do for the BBCAlgarveaddick said:
Thank you Rupert.Big_Bad_World said:
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.Halix said:
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.Lincsaddick said:I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
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.
0 -
Yes, but that does not involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater...Big_Bad_World said:
Believe me, I hold just as much disdain for Murdoch as I do for the BBCAlgarveaddick said:
Thank you Rupert.Big_Bad_World said:
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.Halix said:
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.Lincsaddick said:I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
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.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
@Algarveaddick
"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?
9 -
Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.0
-
With regard to the BBC and Test cricket, it is totally over staffed. They have separate people reporting for TMS and 5Live. For example Alec Stewart and Pat Murphy report and comment on 5Live but are not part of the TMS team, but both are at matches and on a pretty good daily rate I'd imagine. Ridiculous waste of money.1
-
You've obviously travelled the world and throughly investigated the finance of broadcast media. So do let us in on the secret. Which is the country which has sorted it all out, and has better broadcasting choices (and quality news reporting) for its citizens for less money? And why isn't this other broadcaster being watched or listened to from Australia to Zambia like the BBC is?Big_Bad_World said:Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
7 -
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.
7 -
They are the most independently funded broadcasting organisation in the world BBW. No billionaire multinational owner telling them what to broadcast... They produce great quality diverse programming in TV and radio, locally and nationally. They produce a service in return for their funding. Are the social services, bin men, law courts, army etc "scrounging" from the public then?Big_Bad_World said:Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
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.9 -
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etcBig_Bad_World said:
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.Halix said:
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.Lincsaddick said:I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
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.
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.6 -
Would never defend Murdoch, and I don't currently have a whole lot of love for Sky, but I do think it's crazy how much people see the company as under his direct control. The man has very little influence on the day to day running of it. Sky News isn't worth spending any time on, sure, but the decision-making at Sky comes from a completely different set of massive c***s. By having Murdoch as the overarching villain, the rest go unseen.
Nobody has to watch repeats any more. Everything is on demand. You can manage your TV viewing without ever watching adverts or repeats, if you really want to. Plus they're showing more homegrown shows and US imports than ever before. Again, not defending Murdoch and co., but at least point the criticism in the right direction.charltonkeston said:
SKY repeats more and shows less.kinveachyaddick said:
Best broadcaster in the world?charltonkeston said:Its always amazes me, a paper or politician or other "expert" or bloke in pub will spout off that the BBC costs to much, has too much power or is a left wing mouth piece and then like sheep people start nodding in agreement.
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.1 -
Isn't TMS on throughout the day, whereas 5live dips in and out of it?Riviera said:With regard to the BBC and Test cricket, it is totally over staffed. They have separate people reporting for TMS and 5Live. For example Alec Stewart and Pat Murphy report and comment on 5Live but are not part of the TMS team, but both are at matches and on a pretty good daily rate I'd imagine. Ridiculous waste of money.
0 -
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?0
