The BBC and the new Culture Secretary

[AuntDaisy]

Well found, AuntDaisy. And very politely done, I'd say, rather than exhibiting 'wrath'.

Yes, very polite, but firm.
I've been trying to date it - probably 18/3/1987 (although this Grauniad webpage has 1997!)

[mikealdren]

Well the Grauniad is clearly incorrect, Lawson was long gone by then and Redhead had died 3 years before.

[Padraig]

Well found, AuntDaisy. And very politely done, I'd say, rather than exhibiting 'wrath'.

Yes, f f -AuntDaisy's clip one to treasure.
Perhaps the polite delay in responding enabled BR to polish his 2-part riposte, to the utter dismay of NL. And, to be fair, NL 'let Brian finish' too. Wouldn't happen in today's 'freedom'.

[muzzer]

Difficult as it is, one has to ignore the ****ocks that Tory Laura and her ilk post about this.. post. Focus on the minister’s agenda and try to work out a strategy that neutralises it, getting all fellow travellers onboard in the process. Don’t do the classic left thing of being paralysed by ideology. The only thing these ****s understand is strength.

[oddoneout]

Difficult as it is, one has to ignore the ****ocks that Tory Laura and her ilk post about this.. post. Focus on the minister’s agenda and try to work out a strategy that neutralises it, getting all fellow travellers onboard in the process. Don’t do the classic left thing of being paralysed by ideology. The only thing these ****s understand is strength.

Only if wielded by the "right" people.

[kernelbogey]

It appears to me that the Tory agenda of 'taming' the BBC is prompted by what is seen as politically critical coverage of, and commentary on, the Government. This ignores the point that, if both 'sides' feel there is bias, then that's a good sign of likely neutrality (see post no 7 above).

The more important point seems to me to be that the programmes responsible for that belief, whether on tv or radio, are a handful in each. As far as I am aware, there is no concern about political bias in Eastenders, Match of the Day, Record Review or Desert Island Discs.

My concern, in starting the thread, was that a political agenda based on a couple of handfuls of programmes threatens the magnificent edifice of this organisation, and its manifold achievements, which are admired worldwide.

That is not to ignore the ideologically-driven aim to privatise bits of the BBC.... but we know where ideologically-driven policy leads, do we not?

[french frank]

It appears to me that the Tory agenda of 'taming' the BBC is prompted by what is seen as politically critical coverage of, and commentary on, the Government. This ignores the point that, if both 'sides' feel there is bias, then that's a good sign of likely neutrality (see post no 7 above).

Alternatively, they get it badly wrong on both wings, but people see it when their 'side' is misrepresented/omitted/treated unfairly: if the other side is treated unfairly, the BBC has got it 'right'. At least, that's the only explanation I can see for the BBC getting flak from right and left. The biggest danger to the BBC is certainly perceived to come from the right, isn't it?

John Whittingdale (who always seemed a bit right-wing to me) has also gone, and he was held in some respect in having a good grasp of the brief.

[kernelbogey]

Alternatively, they get it badly wrong on both wings, but people see it when their 'side' is misrepresented/omitted/treated unfairly: if the other side is treated unfairly, the BBC has got it 'right'. At least, that's the only explanation I can see for the BBC getting flak from right and left. The biggest danger to the BBC is certainly perceived to come from the right, isn't it?

John Whittingdale (who always seemed a bit right-wing to me) has also gone, and he was held in some respect in having a good grasp of the brief.

PS: they get it badly wrong on both wings - is that your opinion, or is there an elided 'if' at the beginning?

[french frank]

PS: they get it badly wrong on both wings - is that your opinion, or is there an elided 'if' at the beginning?

It's not my opinion (I only read the BBC online news stories, and pick the few that interest me: consequently I am not qualified to hold an opinion). I proffer the scenario as an explanation which from my (admittedly very limited) perspective seems to fit the facts: that both sides are highly critical from their opposing viewpoints.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Alternatively, they get it badly wrong on both wings, but people see it when their 'side' is misrepresented/omitted/treated unfairly: if the other side is treated unfairly, the BBC has got it 'right'. At least, that's the only explanation I can see for the BBC getting flak from right and left. The biggest danger to the BBC is certainly perceived to come from the right, isn't it?

John Whittingdale (who always seemed a bit right-wing to me) has also gone, and he was held in some respect in having a good grasp of the brief.

Whittingdale was on Newscast (23:35 BBC 1 TV) last night:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000zpww/newscast-series-2-16092021

They thanked him as a "good sport" for appearing (certainly rare to get a minister - oh, of course now ex-minister on BBC TV news at night). He said he was sorry to go as there was a "bigh jobe to be done" in reforming public service broadcasting (he said, in relation to Channel 4) but Channel 4 would still be a public service broadcaster. I don't knoe about him - maybe he was seen as to soft on the media?

In any case, Dories, who apparently worships at the political feet of Johnson, can be expected to have a jolly good go at "reforming" Ch 4 and the BBC. Murdoch TV made its appearance on the same day......

[Serial_Apologist]

Whittingdale [...] said he was sorry to go as there was a "bigh jobe to be done" in reforming public service broadcasting

Is that a typo, or a euphemism?

[LHC]

Is that a typo, or a euphemism?

I assumed it was how Billy Connolly would have described most members of this Government.

[Katzelmacher]

Dorries was an abject (and expected) failure in her previous government position as a junior Health minister. While in the post, she took unauthorised time off to compete in ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ (which she came nowhere near winning). Presumably the fact that she’s ‘written’ a few novels is her qualification for the post. Her collected works seem to line the shelves of charity shops everywhere.

I’m sure Johnson shares in the general contempt felt for this superannuated ‘girly girl’ but her appointment is no doubt to put the wind up the bbc. It would be far more alarming if she actually had a record of competence. So, maybe people ought to relax a bit?

Personally, I think the bbc is beyond saving and the licence fee is a waste of money. In fact, I’d have a moral objection to contributing to an organisation that makes subtle pro-Tory propaganda like The Apprentice and Dragons’ Den.

[oddoneout]

Do you sense any particular aspect to the BBC output, having used other sources. I'd be interested on your views of the BBC in comparison.

I've read the Times, because there are so few quality news papers now and it does have content. (Its relatively easy to filter out the Tory/Johnson supporting elements; I can't abide Quentin Letts so never click in to his stuff). The FT has a reputation for objectivity but its costly and includes business info I don't need. After that, apart from Private Eye, it would be a foreign - I suppose US - newpaper. I wonder if the BBC's neutrality tends to too much accommodation to what the government machine is issuing each day / week.
I suppose current affairs reporting such as Panorama and other Radio (R4 in particular) content bear on the delivery of "news" and "issues". There was a long debate (on "Feedback", etc) about the neutral stance affording equal chance to climate change deniers when the support for the evidence of it was overwhelming as opposed to the efforts of those the deniers managed to put up.

I don't know about sensing a particular aspect other than when I do read the BBC news reports online I still get the feeling that bits are missing, even in the nominal analysis/explanation sections that appear underneath, probably not helped by what too often seems to me a rather casual style of writing which I'm afraid makes me suspicious (possibly unfairly) about style over content. I also very much dislike the website layout, which doesn't help. I had access to the online FT for about 3 years a while ago ( and we had the paper at home growing up) and it rather spoilt me. Finances have to be a consideration, so now it's Guardian as first port of call, follow up links there and/or search for further info as necessary, including occasional forays into Al Jazeera. I used to watch Channel 4 news regularly years ago and sometime still catch some of it - I would watch more, and more often, but the time of it doesn't seem to fit very well with what passes for my routine - especially if there is an evening concert to listen to on R3. The online version of the local rag is dipped into very briefly each day just to keep track of things closer to home but sadly its quality has deteriorated considerably so usefulness even for that can be pretty limited.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Yes, . Typos