Tony Hall Resigns

[Serial_Apologist]

Assuming you mean the Sussex Saga, it serves to distract attention from another member of the family, unfortunately for H&M.
I gave up on BBC news a long time ago, and TV news in general some time later.

The problem then is, where does one get ones new from? Online? I think one is safe so long as one knows which stories are likely to be biassed, in what ways, and why.

[richardfinegold]

I suspect the BBC will be weakened in stages - first step de-criminalise Licence evasion - probably that can be done before the next (Charter?) review - then watch the BBC quality nose-dive (even more) as revenues decline. Then let market forces take their hold as a concept in TV, etc generally.

Eventually we may be left with a PBS (US) equivalent for radio letting the market feed the masses with the equivalent of Fox TV....

James Murdoch made a bid for this long ago, maybe the stars are now aligned for their aims...

Or not. We may well see that a Johnson government dismembers the BBC and much else besides. OTOH he no doubt feels one term won't be enough and is conscious that all governments accummulate sectors of the electorate who have been alienated as their term proceeds. He's started with a good 50% from Brexit to start with (any votes lent purely to end indecision, and on the delivery of all those promises). We've yet to see how the reality matches up to the rhetoric (and the useful deranged straws in the wind from the Cummings wing of "government" which can be used to measure strength of feeling). I mean, relocating the best club (gravy train courtesy of the taxpayers) in London - to York?

PBS over here is not equivalent to Fox! What a concept. Trump hates National Public Radio, and if he wasn’t obsessed with the Vitrriolic Leftist commercial networks such as CNN he would probably defund it

[Andy Freude]

the Vitrriolic Leftist commercial networks such as CNN

I'm presuming that's Trump's description?

[oddoneout]

The problem then is, where does one get ones new from? Online? I think one is safe so long as one knows which stories are likely to be biassed, in what ways, and why.

Indeed, but the internet provides the solution as well as the problem. My upbringing encouraged questioning(within boundaries - father's authority was not open to that!), and I was quite surprised as a student to find that what the paper of choice said was accepted as the last and only word on an issue by so many around me.

[greenilex]

But Auntie is the Truth for many, I fear.

[kernelbogey]

BBC News may be authoritative, but the main evening news appears to follow trends set in print media - often the tabloids. It also has its own routines of the studio presenter 'interviewing' the BBC correspondents wherever they are.

The cliche of having reporters standing in front of the place they're reporting about - e.g. Number Ten - when obviously their research will have been done on the phone from their base is infuriating as it is an obvious waste of money to move a journalist and a camera crew across London for a three minute item.

Channel Four News does this much better, with a news item, or foreign report, followed by a studio (or satellite link) interview with one to three people knowledgeable about the subject and representing varying viewpoints. The studio team reflects British social diversity admirably, IMV.

What must not be forgotten is BBC World Service which is superb. I sometimes listen during insomniac periods in the night, as it is on the Radio Four wavelength from midnight to 0500. It truly is a world broadcaster in content and news reporting. I believe it adds immeasurable prestige to the name of Britain internationally.

[oddoneout]

But Auntie is the Truth for many, I fear.

As are the Sun, Daily Mail, et al, about which I have more concerns in that direction.

[Cockney Sparrow]

PBS over here is not equivalent to Fox! What a concept. Trump hates National Public Radio, and if he wasn’t obsessed with the Vitrriolic Leftist commercial networks such as CNN he would probably defund it

Have to say, I haven't experienced the output of PBS, only occasional exchanged items, etc. But I wasn't saying they were equivalent - rubbish TV/radio for the masses, and a PBS as a small redoubt (allowed to exist a sop to culture and standards, or under attack in varying degrees). That's my meaning.

[CGR]

"Time to leave the country"....

I am hopeful that the Great British Public would rise up in arms (or something) against this. The Tories won't want to alienate their Radio 4-listening, BBC4-watching middle class supporters (especially swing voters). Remember the power of the Save Radio 4 Longwave campaign: totally successful. (No doubt many French gite-owning Tories supported this!)

Many, like me, have already given up listening to large chunks R4 particularly the news and current affairs.

BBC4 seems to have stopped producing anything worthwhile. We are now even getting football on BBC4!!!

[teamsaint]

Many, like me, have already given up listening to large chunks R4 particularly the news and current affairs.

BBC4 seems to have stopped producing anything worthwhile. We are now even getting football on BBC4!!!

Well thats good , because there is hardly any on other BBC channels most of the time. Football fans pay the licence fee too !!

[Andy Freude]

[/B]
Well thats good , because there is hardly any on other BBC channels most of the time. Football fans pay the licence fee too !!

That is the popularist argument for broadening the content scope of Radio 3. None of the other stations are doing it, or would do it, so Radio 3 must provide it because that audience pays its licence fee too !!

BBC 4 is going the same way as BBC 2: once the arts and culture service, now used for the overspill of popular entertainment. And bit by bit the popular entertainment squeezes out the arts and culture. And what's left of arts and culture descends into popular entertainment anyway.

[teamsaint]

That is the popularist argument for broadening the content scope of Radio 3. None of the other stations are doing it, or would do it, so Radio 3 must provide it because that audience pays its licence fee too !!

BBC 4 is going the same way as BBC 2: once the arts and culture service, now used for the overspill of popular entertainment. And bit by bit the popular entertainment squeezes out the arts and culture. And what's left of arts and culture descends into popular entertainment anyway.

I'd that is A populist argument.

There is plenty of space on R3 ( 24 ours a day, online, etc ) for both the " entry level " and the specialist.

Football is the most popular spectator sport, and one of the most popular participation sports. I can't see the problem with the BBC making a decent effort to reflect this as budget sensibly allows. there is Hardly any UK football elsewhere on free channels.

I watch very little BBC TV but I still have to pay the fee to watch anything on iplayer, or to enable me to pay for subscription channels. I kind of like seeing the kinds of things I want to watch ( music , football, ) in return for my hard earned, populist or not !

( And there is plenty of room for more arts and culture. The will isn't there, reflected in the broadcasting lines for each channel.)

[Andy Freude]

Football is the most popular spectator sport, and one of the most popular participation sports. I can't see the problem with the BBC making a decent effort to reflect this as budget sensibly allows. there is Hardly any UK football elsewhere on free channels.

That doesn't even approach an answer as to why the football isn't therefore broadcast on the mass audience channels. Or as to why what you call "entry level" programmes can't be broadcast on the several mass audience/entertainment stations. I'm sure a BBC answer is available. It would be good to hear them admit what it was.

[DracoM]

Better answer from FA, I's suggest.
Same almost as true as for cricket.
Complete disgust from me.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Well, my suppositions seem to converge with information on the intentions of those with influence.......

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-current-form

Dominic Cummings’s thinktank called for the “end of the BBC in its current form” and suggested rightwingers should work to undermine the credibility of the broadcaster, branding it the “mortal enemy” of the Conservative party.

Cummings….was the director of the New Frontiers Foundation when it called in 2004 for a campaign to target the BBC and the creation of a Fox News equivalent that would not be constrained by impartiality rules.......

........The thinktank also suggested an end to the ban on TV political advertising to allow politicians to speak directly to the public in ad breaks…… and the “development of the web networks scrutinising the BBC and providing information to commercial rivals with an interest in undermining the BBC’s credibility”........

.......One post from September 2004 said: “There are three structural things that the right needs to happen in terms of communications... 1) the undermining of the BBC’s credibility; 2) the creation of a Fox News equivalent / talk radio shows / bloggers etc to shift the centre of gravity; 3) the end of the ban on TV political advertising.................

Another idea proposed was that government ministers should avoid appearing on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme – a policy that has come to pass.........."

"People" say that Boris likes to be liked, even more has a sharp sense of self-preservation and overweening ambition (so would like 2,3 - 4? terms as Prime Minister). Perhaps the only question is whether he will follow through on the intentions of the right / far right or whether underneath that solid coating of ERG style rightism, he is the "one nation" sort of Tory that some try to reassure us is his true nature.