They’re not state-owned they’re state-funded, there’s a difference.
If the state owns a public park like a national park they’re not allowed to just say oh will we own it so we can tear it all down and build a shopping mall on it. Funding it is not the same as owning and controlling it.
So yeah there is something for them to answer. Because they are violating their mandate.
They are supposed to be impartial if the government do something stupid (I know hard to believe) They’re supposed to report on it.
There’s a whole thing where the conservatives have put Stooges in place. Trying to turn the BBC into agovernment propaganda platform isn’t actually legal. So yeah it’s a surprise it is happening.
The original comment seems to suggest that no one should be shocked that the BBC is government controlled but actually it is pretty awful and shocking. It is a surprise, and it isn’t something to be expected as the comment seems to suggest it should be.
They’ve been at this for years now tbh. Thousands protested Austerity outside the Tory Conference, and not a peep about it on the Beeb. At least they barely even hide the partisan support for the government now.
I don’t think they’re “supporting” the government - I think they’re cowed by the government.
The net result is the same, agreed. I’m mostly talking about motivations.
The tories would gut the BBC like the opening scene of Dune (the film), each employee drained for sacrificial blood and the party faithful smeared in it as rite of indoctrination.
They also did it with anti lockdown protests. You might disagree with the protestors in that case, but the Beeb shouldn’t be deciding what it covers based on whether the issue.
Why is BBC going shit now? I loved their impartial coverage but now this is giving me second thoughts on what they have covered till now has been truly impartial.
Brits don’t realise how bad BBC’s coverage always was. They covered for Saville, their foreign reports are a joke for most part and they are more of a propoganda for the government.
The BBC hasn’t been impartial since it was established, it’s sole purpose was to support the British State, that was it’s entire purpose of being created in the first place. I mean it’s not like there was never any news in England prior
OK, that’s one really article that was in bad faith, but I would argue the topic has journalistic value. But it should have been more nuanced.
Does that make the entire bbc transphobic? I am in full support of trans rights (I have a gender fluid child), but not everything is 100% black and white (cfr gender ;)) , one bad article doesn’t make the entire bbc transphobic.
I gave it as one example, there's dozens more articles like it. They've been pushing anti-trans articles for years at this point. And it's been noted by LGBT media and others that entire time. Some examples:
Fair enough. Most articles are still about the original article, but it does seem the bcc (or at least the dinosaurs in control) has its own (shitty) trans agenda… .
Thanks for not attacking me, but giving actual info. Appreciate it.
I’ll certainly be more wary about the bbc in the future.
Honestly? There isn’t really one. I think the best you can do is expose yourself to various sources and apply a very, very, very high dose of skepticism to everything you read.
Things do not look good on the inside too. The world is changing dramatically right now and if hypothetically the brits were to rejoin, I doubt that this would have a significant impact. Last five years have been crazy for all people of Europe. I would argue that this has been the case for the last 13 years. Financial policies that led the EU in a downward spiral and the UK out of EU
Honestly, the BBC never report on protests, and the people behind the protests always get mad about it. They just aren’t newsworthy unless something happens besides the fact of a protest.
Essentially, this story is free advertising for the protest.
Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, but I feel like it’s time to rebrand the cause. The battle is over and the war is lost. There is no point to being anti-Brexit because the Brexit happened. You can’t stop it without a tardis (or a Delorean, for my fellow Americans). Rejoining the EU will require an entirely new set of applications and negotiations. Somebody should come up with a new brand and some catchy slogans. Brexit was a brilliant piece of marketing, for example.
Essentially, yes, but it’s more branding than belief. I’m sure the people in the protests understand the difference, but the news media is calling them anti-Brexit, as though you can oppose leaving after you’ve left.
You’re right, but needing a catchy slogan and a bit of anger to get us to do something with massive consequences is a stark reminder that at the end of the day we’re just dumb apes.
As an EU citizen, I’m very conflicted about the UK just rejoining the European Union.
Your administration made the weird decision to lean on a marginal difference on a referendum, and left with a whole lot of fuss and customised paperwork. Who’s to say you won’t do it again?
While I do like a stronger Union, the UK will likely try to get back the position they had before (with all kinds of exceptions), but the only way the UK should be allowed to rejoin (in my opinion), should be with a full commitment, not just “we’re sort of joining but also not”.
As a Brit, I fully support the idea that we should rejoin with full commitment. No way do I want a repeat performance where we can be taken out by a minority of gullible idiots.
Didn't the EU say that if we were to rejoin, the UK would have to adopt the Euro and all the other shit that the rest of the EU got when they joined. I don't think we're really in a position to dig our feet in and demand exceptions that we threw in the EU's face when we left.
Right. If the UK tries to rejoin they're going to get no favors from the rest of the EU, as an example to other member states that you can't just play hokey pokey with a continental union. The UK will be miffed as a response. It'll potentially take decades for a deal to work out for the UK to rejoin the EU, if that's even its form at that point.
You might want to use the opportunity to push for a fishery policies reform which is overdue anyway, and if you ask nicely we’ll introduce national backsides for euro notes so that you can have Charles’ mug on them. The Euro is going to stay decimal, though.
Basically: Do it, but restrict yourself to things that already have some decent amount of support, or are quaint, of incomprehensible cultural importance. We’d get suspicious if you don’t.
This is an entirely reasonable position. The (narrow) majority of the UK voting public has the relationship inverted; they think the EU needs them far more than they need the EU.
There’s no way to come to a reasonable lasting outcome in negotiations.
Much like it makes all the sense in the world for the rest of NATO not to trust the US any more.
Whilst the BBC is impartial and independent and whatever etc. Key positions have been packed with Tory Party supporters/donors/friends.
It’s no surprise they toe the government line, especially for their fellow Tories
I feel like the BBC's "aura" of impartiality makes it all the more dangerous when it does occasionally engage in propaganda. A lot of regular folks put a lot of trust in the BBC.
Yup.
Similar to the “equal airtime” or “show both sides” when it comes to science.
It puts unscientific opinions alongside scientific theory as if they are equal.
The only thing I can say in favour of the BBC is that it seems like the majority of people feel it’s coverage is favourable to “the other side”.
So, while we may be saying “BBC is clearly biased” because of things like this, I guarantee there are people that we don’t agree with saying exactly the same about other topics.
So the situation is probably not as bad as it seems.
It does seem the majority of these “scandals” are about the BBC acting in favour of the Westminster UK government. But maybe that just the ones I actually see.
I'm a little hesitant to put much stock in conservatives' claims of bias, because plain factual reporting tends to strike a lot of them as biased. Reality is biased against modern conservatism.
I don't think the BBC is the worst by any means. But a couple of years ago, they did come out with one of the most egregiously misleading articles I've ever seen with regards to transgender people. Very obviously deliberate in its misinformation and even including proven lies about contacting sources. And to this day the BBC stands by it and has dismissed complaints.
Very good points.
I just wanted to temper the discussion a bit, and just check that I wasn’t getting too carried away, echo-chambered or whatever.
Having done that, I still agree with you. I don’t think the BBC is impartial or unbiased.
The Tory are a nickname for the right-wing conservative party.
Historically it has been used in a somewhat derogatory manner. If somebody is a Tory then they tend to engage in more right wing policies than a Conservative who tends to be more center-right. Although technically there’s no actual difference and they’re all the same party.
Anyway they’ve lately started calling themselves Tory in a weird “let’s take the word back” way, so you can more or less now just use the two words interchangeably.
Internally they have a lot of infighting about this, because some of the Backbenches (politicians who are members of the party but are not actually in government, think the equivalent of senators in the US) are unhappy with the parties direction because they feel that going full on lunatic right wing nut job might harm their chances of getting reelected. And based on current polling data it would seem that they are correct.
Mostly hate and misery, with a good dash of racism.
For a more serious answer, “tory” is the nickname for a member of the Conservative party, the UK’s major centre-right party. Much like in the US, they’ve been shifting further right in the past few decades and focusing more on “culture war” BS.
A Tory is the Conservative Party.
They are to the right. Although, if it’s US politics you are used to they would probably be considered center or old-school right - not this new Right bullshit that’s prevalent these days
Torys have been buying up the land that NHS hospitals are on and jacking up their rents
…then railing on and on about the ever rising costs of health care
Playing the long game until some crisis comes and then poof, welcome to the American Health* care system, you give us everything you own and we’ll give you 3 months to live. Maybe.
And forget about dental and vision. That’s for rich people.
Seriously Neoliberalism is anti-nationalist. The rich fucking despise regular people and do everything they can to, first, ensure that they are getting the government contracts, and then B, looting all that money, saying government doesn’t work and dismantling us back to fuedalism.
Pretty much.
Their whole deal is “fiscal responsibility”, which apparently means applying austerity for about a decade and cutting huge amounts of public service budgets.
Mild tinfoil hat
Things like the amazing NHS end up underfunded (and leveraged as a bargaining tool, like when Brexit would give the NHS 350m extra per week). Obviously waiting lists get longer, some people maybe start seeking private care for some things. Then the Tories can turn around and say “the NHS is broken, people are using private care, we should sell off the remaining NHS and do the American thing. Think of the tax cuts!”. /Mild tinfoil hat
They also hate immigrants, want the old Rule Britannia/British Empire thing back, think dealing with climate change is untenable, a whole bunch of fun stuff like that.
Jeremy Hunt, current Chancellor of the Exchequer, literally co-authored a book on how to dismantle the NHS and replace it with a health-insurance based system.
He was Secretary for Health at one point too, and his policies didn't exactly rule out that he might be following the game-plan of that book.
There's no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they're doing at this point.
There’s no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they’re doing at this point.
I know, but a part of me has to believe that the government is working for the benefit of all it’s citizens.
Otherwise, what the fuck am I doing here? The future is bleak enough with hyper-consumerism, class/wealth gaps and climate change.
It no longer is impartial. It just reports what it’s told.
It’s not the job of a journalist to report that someone says it’s raining. They have to stick their head out of the window and check, and then report what they find. They have forgotten this and it’s shameful.
Add comment