Media discussion - 2025/26

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Being from a Northern Irish Catholic family and watching the news from the 70s onwards it was clear the BBC has always been a propaganda machine. It doesnt make it unwatchable and most of the time the don't just lie. What they do is provide an opinion, miss out key facts or present facts in a way to make you think and feel a specific way. This has only got worse in the clickbait era. The issue isnt that the BBC are now doing it, the issue is that people are only just realising it.

It doesn't make the BBC impossible to watch you just have to do so knowing what they are doing and looking for what they don' t tell you or work out why they are presenting things in a certain way.

The sports department moved to Salford and employed a load of former MUTV people (as that was the only real pool of staff in the NW with sports television experience). As such it was only ever going to go one way.

And yes Slimey is a ****, so is his boss, and so are a lot of those operating the social media channels, and their bosses as well. But personally I love to watch how they try to make Utd relevant. Take the latest story that Sesko 'wants' Utd dispute a lower bid, yet no mention of the respective wages being offered by Utd or Newcastle, wonder why that is?

The problem with the BBC is constant government interference. They’re always at the whim of the government of the day, particularly a Tory government (which we almost always have), constantly threatening to ‘close it down’ or ‘stop the licence fee’.
I think they used to be able to stand up to government but individual self-interest will always win out, sadly.
This independence was eroded under Wilson in the 60’s, further undermined in the 70’s and has been on steroids since Thatcher. For example, there was always a trades union rep on the board but she ended that. The board was dissolved in 2006 and replaced by the BBC Trust until 2017 when the Board was reformed.
Governments appoint the DG and the board and want those appointments to be sympathetic to the views of the government.

To ‘compete’ with subscriber tv or advertising funded tv, they are continually told people have to be watching, clicking and browsing the BBC.

As they’re ‘measured’ in clicks, viewers and readers why would they not mimic what everyone else is doing? Keep the rags relevant, talk about Liverpool in reverential tones, belittle everyone else. Unfortunately, to not do so, would be the end for them.
Whether that is a desirable outcome is a different discussion, but it’s clearly why they do what they do.

 

[mexico1970]

The problem with the BBC is constant government interference. They’re always at the whim of the government of the day, particularly a Tory government (which we almost always have), constantly threatening to ‘close it down’ or ‘stop the licence fee’.
I think they used to be able to stand up to government but individual self-interest will always win out, sadly.
This independence was eroded under Wilson in the 60’s, further undermined in the 70’s and has been on steroids since Thatcher. For example, there was always a trades union rep on the board but she ended that. The board was dissolved in 2006 and replaced by the BBC Trust until 2017 when the Board was reformed.
Governments appoint the DG and the board and want those appointments to be sympathetic to the views of the government.

To ‘compete’ with subscriber tv or advertising funded tv, they are continually told people have to be watching, clicking and browsing the BBC.

As they’re ‘measured’ in clicks, viewers and readers why would they not mimic what everyone else is doing? Keep the rags relevant, talk about Liverpool in reverential tones, belittle everyone else. Unfortunately, to not do so, would be the end for them.
Whether that is a desirable outcome is a different discussion, but it’s clearly why they do what they do.

The licence fee was formed when people didn't have a choice so they couldn't go elsewhere, now the licence fee just looks and feels like the scam it is.

You get the distinct (Fuck you we'll do what we want) vibe from them most of the time, I want it to close and for it never to open its doors again because it hasn't fed the public appetite for what the majority want for a considerable time now.

 

[the blue panther]

Being from a Northern Irish Catholic family and watching the news from the 70s onwards it was clear the BBC has always been a propaganda machine. It doesnt make it unwatchable and most of the time they don't just lie. What they do is provide an opinion, miss out key facts or present facts in a way to make you think and feel a specific way. This has only got worse in the clickbait era. The issue isn't that the BBC are now doing it, the issue is that people are only just realising it.

It doesn't make the BBC impossible to watch you just have to do so knowing what they are doing and looking for what they don' t tell you or work out why they are presenting things in a certain way.

The sports department moved to Salford and employed a load of former MUTV people (as that was the only real pool of staff in the NW with sports television experience). As such it was only ever going to go one way.

And yes Slimey is a ****, so is his boss, and so are a lot of those operating the social media channels, and their bosses as well. But personally I love to watch how they try to make Utd relevant. Take the latest story that Sesko 'wants' Utd dispite a lower bid, yet no mention of the respective wages being offered by Utd or Newcastle, wonder why that is?

Maybe some of them have got on Wiki - looked at Sesko there this morning and it says he's with the scum as of now!

 

[Gazza]

Being from a Northern Irish Catholic family and watching the news from the 70s onwards it was clear the BBC has always been a propaganda machine. It doesnt make it unwatchable and most of the time they don't just lie. What they do is provide an opinion, miss out key facts or present facts in a way to make you think and feel a specific way. This has only got worse in the clickbait era. The issue isn't that the BBC are now doing it, the issue is that people are only just realising it.

It doesn't make the BBC impossible to watch you just have to do so knowing what they are doing and looking for what they don' t tell you or work out why they are presenting things in a certain way.

The sports department moved to Salford and employed a load of former MUTV people (as that was the only real pool of staff in the NW with sports television experience). As such it was only ever going to go one way.

And yes Slimey is a ****, so is his boss, and so are a lot of those operating the social media channels, and their bosses as well. But personally I love to watch how they try to make Utd relevant. Take the latest story that Sesko 'wants' Utd dispite a lower bid, yet no mention of the respective wages being offered by Utd or Newcastle, wonder why that is?

My go to topic is 'The Troubles', I really enjoy reading about every aspect of that time (if enjoy is the right word for such a terrible thing) and have a bookcase full of books dedicated to the topic - Having lived through its modern era (mid 60s to late 90s) I only realised after reading umpteen books how one-sided the British media coverage was.

 

[TheGhost]

I don’t spend my life watching TV but if I’ve ever got a couple of hours spare and I put Iplayer on, there’s always loads of things I want to watch.

With Northern Ireland being mentioned above, the documentary ‘Once Upon A Time In Northern Ireland’ is some of the most incredible TV I’ve ever watched.

I don’t think you’ll ever get something of that quality on the other streaming services. That’s public service broadcasting at its very best.

 

[TheGhost]

Blaming BBC for the weather? And deliberately trying to make the UK population more miserable?

And I thought I’d heard it all.

Some people are absolutely mental. I can only think he reads the Daily Heil.

 

[TheGhost]

There’s a lot to pick up on there, but is that reference to Empire a way of saying they should axe the world service? I’ve lived in a number of other countries and I found it invaluable. Maybe it doesn’t have a place today, but I’d need to know a bit more about listening figures.

Overall, I just think see it differently to you. I see it as a National Asset. Just like other services we all pay for, for the common good, be they delivered locally or nationally, I think of the bbc that way also. I know it’s not the 20th Century anymore, but not everything from then needs to be scrapped, and the payment model is essential for me.

(But there is also plenty wrong with the BBC I agree with that too).

The World Service is a brilliant tool for the UK to exert soft power throughout the world. The government funds it directly. Some of the best value for money the government spends.

 

[NowInMilnrow]

Being from a Northern Irish Catholic family and watching the news from the 70s onwards it was clear the BBC has always been a propaganda machine. It doesnt make it unwatchable and most of the time they don't just lie. What they do is provide an opinion, miss out key facts or present facts in a way to make you think and feel a specific way.

Having been brought up and educated in England in the 1970s I have a different, although similar, angle on this. The vast majority of journalists at the BBC will have had a similar education to me, English and Protestant (at least Anglican). The true history of British rule in Ireland was never taught to us, so they will be reporting things based on their understanding of it, rather than what really happened. That's not so much propaganda as just plain ignorance and incompetence.

 

[NowInMilnrow]

Governments appoint the DG and the board and want those appointments to be sympathetic to the views of the government.

It's actually the Chairman who is appointed by the government, not the DG, but I get your point.

 

[cheekybids]

My go to topic is 'The Troubles', I really enjoy reading about every aspect of that time (if enjoy is the right word for such a terrible thing) and have a bookcase full of books dedicated to the topic - Having lived through its modern era (mid 60s to late 90s) I only realised after reading umpteen books how one-sided the British media coverage was.

It works as well, backed up by education telling us the Irish were attracted to the jobs created by the Industrial Revolution. I then did my family tree & traced the arrival to Manchester in the 1840s…..

Imagine the troubles if everyone knew the truth & descendants had been been starved off their land.

 

[cheekybids]

Having been brought up and educated in England in the 1970s I have a different, although similar, angle on this. The vast majority of journalists at the BBC will have had a similar education to me, English and Protestant (at least Anglican). The true history of British rule in Ireland was never taught to us, so they will be reporting things based on their understanding of it, rather than what really happened. That's not so much propaganda as just plain ignorance and incompetence.

It was deliberate when setting out the syllabus, once we were ignorant it was then the blind leading the blind.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

My go to topic is 'The Troubles', I really enjoy reading about every aspect of that time (if enjoy is the right word for such a terrible thing) and have a bookcase full of books dedicated to the topic - Having lived through its modern era (mid 60s to late 90s) I only realised after reading umpteen books how one-sided the British media coverage was.

Truth really is the first casualty of war...on all sides.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

The licence fee was formed when people didn't have a choice so they couldn't go elsewhere, now the licence fee just looks and feels like the scam it is.

You get the distinct (Fuck you we'll do what we want) vibe from them most of the time, I want it to close and for it never to open its doors again because it hasn't fed the public appetite for what the majority want for a considerable time now.

I'd happily see it broken up and then segmented on a subscription basis. They still produce some good content, but I certainly wouldn't be a subscriber to their "news" and current affairs content (both domestic and international). Their football coverage is biased and juvenile.

 

[levets]

I don’t spend my life watching TV but if I’ve ever got a couple of hours spare and I put Iplayer on, there’s always loads of things I want to watch.

With Northern Ireland being mentioned above, the documentary ‘Once Upon A Time In Northern Ireland’ is some of the most incredible TV I’ve ever watched.

I don’t think you’ll ever get something of that quality on the other streaming services. That’s public service broadcasting at its very best.

‘Once upon a time’… was a fantastic insight into the troubles. A great series

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Being from a Northern Irish Catholic family and watching the news from the 70s onwards it was clear the BBC has always been a propaganda machine. It doesnt make it unwatchable and most of the time they don't just lie. What they do is provide an opinion, miss out key facts or present facts in a way to make you think and feel a specific way. This has only got worse in the clickbait era. The issue isn't that the BBC are now doing it, the issue is that people are only just realising it.

It doesn't make the BBC impossible to watch you just have to do so knowing what they are doing and looking for what they don' t tell you or work out why they are presenting things in a certain way.

The sports department moved to Salford and employed a load of former MUTV people (as that was the only real pool of staff in the NW with sports television experience). As such it was only ever going to go one way.

And yes Slimey is a ****, so is his boss, and so are a lot of those operating the social media channels, and their bosses as well. But personally I love to watch how they try to make Utd relevant. Take the latest story that Sesko 'wants' Utd dispite a lower bid, yet no mention of the respective wages being offered by Utd or Newcastle, wonder why that is?

Another issue with the BBC is their warped attitude to 'impartiality' (apart from BBC Sport of course, where's there's no pretence).

The scales dropped from my eyes one afternoon listening to a discussion on Radio 5 Live about something that had happened in the world of economics. They had two people on to discuss it. One was the left-wing former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis and the other was from a think-tank associated with the extreme libertarian, right-wing Koch Institute. It was just bear-pit radio with the two ideologues shouting at each other.

I complained that this completely demeaned a serious topic but got the typical BBC response that they were platforming both sides. It was equivalent to getting Tommy Robinson and a people smuggler to talk about immigration. I've rarely listened to 5 Live since.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It's actually the Chairman who is appointed by the government, not the DG, but I get your point.

Fair point and I stand corrected.
Mind you, when the DG is appointed by the board, led by the government appointed chair, there’s a chance he’ll be someone who stood for the conservatives in council elections and, upon being appointed, say there’s far too much “laughing at the Tories” on the BBC.
Not laughing at the government but the Tories was the ‘offence’, which is a somewhat odd stance to be taking.

 

[mexico1970]

I'd happily see it broken up and then segmented on a subscription basis. They still produce some good content, but I certainly wouldn't be a subscriber to their "news" and current affairs content (both domestic and international). Their football coverage is biased and juvenile.

They appear to just get sport on the cheap, why bid seriously for the football when you can get Horse Of The Year at a fraction of the cost?

When the fucknut took over the sporting editors job and suggested that we should be fed less football and more talking it shows just how out of touch these people are, in a lot of cases they don't care about the cultural importance of the BBC.

And because they don't people now don't really care about it at all.

 

[TheGhost]

They appear to just get sport on the cheap, why bid seriously for the football when you can get Horse Of The Year at a fraction of the cost?

When the fucknut took over the sporting editors job and suggested that we should be fed less football and more talking it shows just how out of touch these people are, in a lot of cases they don't care about the cultural importance of the BBC.

And because they don't people now don't really care about it at all.

I’m not sure I agree with much of that.

The BBC clearly can’t compete with the pay per view channels for a lot of sport. The government should increase the number of ‘Crown Jewels’ sporting events which must be shown on terrestrial TV. Football is wel represented but I’d add all European Football Finals, the Championship Play Off Final and maybe the League Cup Final. In other sports The Ashes, The Lions Test Matches and The Masters (Golf) should be added.

As for ‘talking about football’. I’d like to see the quality coverage we get of cricket applied to football. There’s little actual tactical analysis of what happens on the pitch. When was the last time you learned anything about the game from a highly paid pundit. The game is pitched by the TV companies at people who don’t actually like the game.

I care about the BBC. I wish the government, of whatever hue, would be strong enough to support what it does.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Another issue with the BBC is their warped attitude to 'impartiality' (apart from BBC Sport of course, where's there's no pretence).

The scales dropped from my eyes one afternoon listening to a discussion on Radio 5 Live about something that had happened in the world of economics. They had two people on to discuss it. One was the left-wing former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis and the other was from a think-tank associated with the extreme libertarian, right-wing Koch Institute. It was just bear-pit radio with the two ideologues shouting at each other.

I complained that this completely demeaned a serious topic but got the typical BBC response that they were platforming both sides. It was equivalent to getting Tommy Robinson and a people smuggler to talk about immigration. I've rarely listened to 5 Live since.

The impartiality thing really is a nonsense that benefits nobody. Not opening Brexit stuff on yet another thread but, in 2016, there was real difficulty finding economists who thought it was a good idea. And yet, they thought impartiality meant they had one from each side on every programme, giving the impression that there was a 50/50 split of economists views.

Look at how often a mad think tank rep/journalist is on politics today, or QT.
Oakeshott, Hartley-Brewer, Andrews, Tim Stanley and Camilla Tominay all appear in the top 15 most appearances on QT…

 

[the blue panther]

BBC online sport is in daily breach of section 3 of the BBC Charter in which it affirms its commitment to impartiality. We all know that if we go on the website on any day there is an overdose of articles related to MUFC. The BBC cannot defend a charge of a lack of impartiality due to the very clear bias towards MUFC in particular. That is also evidenced by the output of their chief football correspondent, whose time is spent on little else.

Complaints fall on deaf ears, as has been stated here frequently - and it's getting worse.