TV licence

[jayne lee wilson]

Does anyone here actually watch - Newsnight, the latenight Press Previews on BBCNews (and Sky), Any Questions, Any Answers?

Scathing relentless criticism of the PM, and the Tory Party who enabled him, from all sides... (yes, there are still some "consensus" Tories who can see the truth of it)....

Any Answers (R4) had people crying, in impassioned grief and protest, as they told of burying their loved ones by video (this happened to relatives of mine - they sent out links to the chapel), or watching them die from behind the glass, or miles away in a home supposed to protect them, when (as they now knew) the PM and his team were partying in the summer garden...of being unable to hug, to touch.
They also had a fanatical BJ-supporter, telling Anita Anand (who didn't hold back on her cross-questioning) that BJ was a great PM and "BBC and Sky should stop the witch-hunt"...

It is absolutely vital that we hear those views as well..you have to know your enemy. The idea that the BBC is a government-supporting mouthpiece, whether now or in the past, is simply untenable. And always has been. Most governments have attacked it as "biased" as some stage of their decline and fall.
Yes, the future is difficult. More because of the explosion of streaming services than anything the here-today-gone-tomorrow Prime Ministers and Culture Secretaries might say.

Independent News & Cultural Channels, whether Sky or BBC, are vital. We need to keep arguing in their support, and loudly too.

[Joseph K]

The idea that the BBC is a government-supporting mouthpiece, whether now or in the past, is simply untenable. And always has been. Most governments have attacked it as "biased" as some stage of their decline and fall.
Yes, the future is difficult. More because of the explosion of streaming services than anything the here-today-gone-tomorrow Prime Ministers and Culture Secretaries might say.

Independent News & Cultural Channels, whether Sky or BBC, are vital. We need to keep arguing in their support, and loudly too.

Yep it's easy to attack the Tories and BJ now the opposition is sufficiently Tory-lite... Most mainstream-media outlets are complicit in BJ getting into Downing Street in the first place.

I'm not sure I'd want to support any media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yep it's easy to attack the Tories and BJ now the opposition is sufficiently Tory-lite... Most mainstream-media outlets are complicit in BJ getting into Downing Street in the first place.

I'm not sure I'd want to support any media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Like Trump and the GOP in the USA, BJ became - and remained- leader because of an enabling Tory Membership vote. Not much you or I or the BBC could do about it.

Specific evidence of Sky or BBC support for the Tory campaign in 2019? How much of their output do you watch, every day, every week? There is of course much evidence of "balanced reporting" (a tough call to achieve and maintain anyway; beware the Myth of Perfectability...)......
Who would you blame for the large Tory Majority? Was Corbyn all innocence? Really? Were the Northern UK "red wall" Brexit-Tory-supporting voters just mindwashed fools?

The freezing of the licence fee is a part of Tory support for its "BBC Tory-supporting mouthpiece" is it?

[cloughie]

Like Trump and the GOP in the USA, BJ became leader because of an enabling Tory Membership vote.
Specific evidence of Sky or BBC support for the Tory campaign in 2019? There is of course much evidence of "balanced reporting" (a tough call anyway)......
Who would you blame for the large Tory Majority? Was Corbyn all-innocence? Really? Were the Northern UK "red wall" Brexit-Tory-supporting voters just mindwashed fools?

Too simplistic but largely yes but now that so many of his lies and promises have run their course maybe some are thinking it wasn’t such a good idea!

[Constantbee]

That's true. The alternative is for it to be funded out of general taxation ...

... As far as many of its current critics are concerned, it's the best they're likely to get.

That sounds like the more plausible scenario, FF. The idea of needing legal permission by way of some sort of licence you have to pay for in order to watch telly has always struck me as being a bit odd, anyway. A friend got rid of hers a couple of years ago and hasn’t looked back. Made me wonder how I’d cope doing the same. Every year the licence fee becomes more and more of a burden and I become more and more resentful and critical of the quality of the programming and the faces and voices whose annual remuneration runs into telephone numbers. Christmas is the only time of year I actually buy The Radio Times just in case I miss something worth watching, more particularly for the radio listings, but this year I wish I hadn’t bothered. Also, some of the BBC services are just plain dire. The BBC news website, for example. It’s sounding more and more like an online tabloid and filling up with stories of the ‘I’ve got this trendy but embarrassing problem I can’t get rid of’ type.

And another thing … if all that expensively educated brain power can’t find ways of making programmes more cheaply they're recruiting the wrong people and don’t deserve any funding. OK?

Rant over

[gurnemanz]

The current Tory crew are surely not all philistines and lowest-common-denominator populists. I remember Gove as a reasonably bearable contributor to Newsnight Review years ago along with good-value stalwarts such as Germaine Greer, Tom Paulin, Rosie Boycott, Bonnie Greer, Ekow Eshun etc

[Frances_iom]

...Were the Northern UK "red wall" Brexit-Tory-supporting voters just mindwashed fools?

NO but they, like many living away from the South East, were highly critical of the services provided eg in transport, medical services etc, etc; many being older were also extremely unhappy with the rapid change in the social structure (eg what appeared to be uncontrolled immigration) but they were being ignored by both the Tories and the Labour party (whose previous Leader had called one who commented on immigration a bigot and also whose choice of MPs, like those of the Tories no longer reflected life away from London). The Brexit vote was their 1st chance to express this pent up feeling.

[LHC]

Yep it's easy to attack the Tories and BJ now the opposition is sufficiently Tory-lite... Most mainstream-media outlets are complicit in BJ getting into Downing Street in the first place.

I'm not sure I'd want to support any media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch.

You may not have noticed, but Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of Sky TV ended in 2018, when he sold all of his shares to Comcast. He does still own Sky Australia (one of the reasons it is so awful), but Sky in the UK is completely independent of the Dirty Digger.

[french frank]

filling up with stories of the ‘I’ve got this trendy but embarrassing problem I can’t get rid of’ type.

I have the feeling it's what the BBC sees as an essential part of its public service remit: what you're too embarrassed to discuss with your GP. It also attracts plenty of attention from others.

One of the most nonsensical things to me is making it a flat rate based on the household, even if there are four wage-earning adults plus two children, with two or the three TV sets all with different programmes being watched at the same time; whereas the single occupant (elderly or not) who might barely watch anything having to fork out exactly the same amount.

But if the BBC withers, imagine what will fill the gap.

[Joseph K]

Like Trump and the GOP in the USA, BJ became - and remained- leader because of an enabling Tory Membership vote. Not much you or I or the BBC could do about it.

Specific evidence of Sky or BBC support for the Tory campaign in 2019? How much of their output do you watch, every day, every week? There is of course much evidence of "balanced reporting" (a tough call to achieve and maintain anyway; beware the Myth of Perfectability...)......
Who would you blame for the large Tory Majority? Was Corbyn all innocence? Really? Were the Northern UK "red wall" Brexit-Tory-supporting voters just mindwashed fools?

You're right in that I didn't and don't watch much TV before or now - what TV I did catch (and also bulletins on the radio) that evinced bias against Corbyn makes me infer that this was just the tip of the iceberg. If I, as someone who hardly watches or listens to these things still get the gist of what's happening, then it is.

See also:

https://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/stay-go-television-online-news-coverage-labour-party-crisis

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2019/december/press-hostility-to-labour-reaches-new-levels/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-british-uk-media-news-bias-tories-labour-a9209026.html

It's obvious the media moguls had it in for Corbyn from the start. Why do you think the press were so hostile to Corbyn? Because they have the British people's interests at heart?

I do blame the media for the large Tory majority. The countries with the best freedom of press generally have more social-democratic governments (Scandinavia).

As to your mindwashed fools comment, see this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Further Chomsky -

The question I have in mind is by no means new. One person who raised it was George Orwell, who is best known for his critique of totalitarian enemies, but was no less acid in addressing the ills of his own society. One pertinent example is an essay on what he called “literary censorship in England.” The essay was written as the introduction to Animal Farm, his biting satire of Stalinist crimes. In this introductory essay Orwell instructs his British audience that they should not feel too complacent about his exposure of the crimes of Stalinism. In free England, he writes, ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. He gives some examples, and only a few sentences of explanation, but they capture important truths. “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England,” Orwell wrote, “is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for any official ban.” One reason is the centralization of the press in the hands of “wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics.” Another, and I think more important reason, is a good education and immersion in the dominant intellectual culture, which instills in us a “general tacit agreement that `it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact.”

https://chomsky.info/20101010_2/

[Joseph K]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/07/bbc-independence-corporation-news-agenda-media-oligarchs

[RichardB]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...edia-oligarchs

Very good, I hadn't read that, thanks.

[french frank]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...edia-oligarchs

I agree with what Monbiot says about impartiality not just being about balance. It needs to penetrate the issues much more deeply. The BBC argues (particularly where the FOIA is concerned) that it is a 'hybrid' organisation, part public service, part in competition with the rest of the media world, which is where the trouble begins. But if you've ever worked in the news media you know how terrified they all are about appearing out of step with the majority in missing an angle. Scoops excepted, of course. In Scandinavia, self-regulation seems to work, I think that's with a press council which rules on journalistic ethics and which most of the media subscribe to. But what have ethics got to do with anything when the prevailing readership opinion is the guiding light?

[jayne lee wilson]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...edia-oligarchs

So the BBC are being marginalised by power bases that feel threatened by it, but end up as appeasers of that power? Without evening knowing it? Phew.
I just don't see this as I watch or listen. That is a very biased and self-contradictory piece by Monbiot (who I have much time for on environmental issues).
Closer analysis of the power/money/politics links is always very welcome. Along the lines of the remarkably detailed BBC2 series on the New Labour years. Yet that very in-depth documentary type of analysis is not likely to be done by the BBC during the lifetime of a government (has it ever done this?); other media eg the Guardian are better placed for such...(having said that, if you watch Newsnight regularly you may be surprised just how deep it goes, and in challenging areas of poverty, disability, low pay and the benefits system etc. They picked up the Grenfell Tower tragedy early on and never let it go, not to this day).

But JK - I still look in vain for your own firsthand, repeatedly witnessed evidence of the BBC and Sky being the government's supporters, or mouthpieces, or appeasers or whichever term you wish to select. All you do is refer and quote 2ndhand from one side of the argument. And as others have said, what do you want, or expect, in its place if it disappears?
GB News and Fox UK, then leftwing and other more extreme versions of the same, all engaged in a noisy social-media style adversarial cacophony? Or what?
What about music? Is the still-patchily-licensed free content on youtube supposed to fill the gap?

Watching a deal of Sky and BBC political comment and analysis late in the evening every day, as a political centrist open to hearing many views and arguments (keep your friends close and your enemies closer: I always listen very closely to any Telegraph writers/editors who appear - especially Tim Stanley; I disagree with almost everything he says, but his intelligent articulacy compels my attention (and he has a lovely dog, often sharing the screentime); I just don't witness this Tory bias or support....

However unfairly Corbyn was sometimes reported upon, he was still, very demonstrably, a very poor leader. This was clear in the commons, in his anonymity during the Brexit campaign, dealing with internecine party troubles and during the last election....
That terrible Tory majority isn't the BBC's fault!

[Joseph K]

So the BBC are being marginalised by power bases that feel threatened by it, but end up as appeasers of that power? Without evening knowing it? Phew.
I just don't see this as I watch or listen. That is a very biased and self-contradictory piece by Monbiot (who I have much time for on environmental issues). Closer analysis of the power/money/politics links would be very welcome. Along the lines of the remarkably detailed BBC2 series on the New Labour years. Yet that very in-depth type of analysis is not likely to be done by the BBC during the lifetime of a government (has it ever done this?); other media eg the Guardian are better placed for such...(having said that, if you watch Newsnight regularly you may be surprised just how deep it goes, and in challenging areas of poverty, disability, low pay and the benefits system etc..).

But JK - I still look in vain for your own firsthand, repeatedly witnessed evidence of the BBC and Sky being the government's supporters, or mouthpieces, or appeasers or whichever term you wish to select. All you do is refer and quote 2ndhand from one side of the argument. And as others have said, what do you want, or expect, in its place if it disappears?
GB News and Fox UK, then leftwing and other more extreme versions of the same, all engaged in a noisy social-media style adversarial cacophony? Or what?
What about music? Is the still-patchily-licensed free content on youtube supposed to fill the gap?

Watching a deal of Sky and BBC political comment and analysis late in the evening every day, as a political centrist open to hearing many views and arguments (keep your friends close and your enemies closer: I always listen very closely to any Telegraph writers/editors who appear - especially Tim Stanley; I disagree with almost everything he says, but his intelligent articulacy compels my attention (and he has a lovely dog, often sharing the screentime); I just don't witness this Tory bias or support....

However unfairly Corbyn was sometimes reported upon, he was still, very demonstrably, a very poor leader. This was clear in the commons, in his anonymity during the Brexit campaign, dealing with internecine party troubles and during the last election....
That terrible Tory majority isn't the BBC's fault!

... and I await in vain for your evidence - beyond your own personal anecdotes - that demonstrates how unbiased the BBC is. I'm still waiting for a reason they never made news of the slightly small issue of the human cost of austerity from the British Medical Journal.

If Corbyn was such a poor leader, why did hundreds of thousands join his Labour party? If he was such a poor leader how come Labour in 2017 achieved their (our) largest vote share increase since WWII? The truth was Corbyn's Labour truly opposed the Tories, rather than the craven policy-less Starmer.