The BBC | Tim Davie resigns as Director General over Trump documentary edit (p 187)

There is an excellent article by Polly Toynbee in The Guardian today. “If you care about The BBC stand up and fight for it.”

I have felt for a while that certain newspapers and media outlets have been trying to systematically undermine and discredit the BBC and she explains it very well.
 
Anyone who’s ever tried to complain about a BBC programme, be it about bias, stereotyping, banality etc will know the obstacle course they have to negotiate. That’s a sign of a company not willing to be transparent. It is, and has been for some time, too large, outdated and increasingly irrelevant in today’s society. Do anyone younger people use it? I don’t think so, repeats, cheap mind numbing quiz games, same faces recycled. The radio is great, too many stations though, but content good. Scrap the fee and make it subscription then we can choose.
 
Eccles Blue said:
Could someone tell me what TDS stands for please?
Click to expand...


They Deployed Sandwiches

It refers to our treatment of the press including the BBC when they visit the Eithad, no matter what the goading, snivelling bellwafts say or do we comply by giving them goodies taking the high road as they piss in our chips :)
 
hampshireblue said:
They did absolutely. But why has it come out now, nearly 5 years after the speech was made and over a year since the programme was broadcast attracting zero complaints.
Click to expand...

Means fuck all, just means they got away with it for 5 years. Imagine having a bastion of impartiality do this at any time?

This'll kill off the parasite and hopefully it'll not take too long to bury it.
 
I'm not fan of Trump, but the thought of him claiming damages from the BBC is a farcical situation. Is that taxpayer money too? If so he's finally found a way to make non-Americans pay tribune to him, and the BBC have paved the way.

In this world where everyone can have a voice, yet not everyone is worth listening to, the BBC should have stood for much more than this. Yet bias is riddled throughout the corporation from sport to politics, and my fear is this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The BBC have an over-inflated opinion of themselves that doesn't translate to the views of the modern citizen. They don't represent my views, they don't as it turns out present fair and factual programming, but they do charge a fortune for their content in a way no other media outlet can. I would have to pay 2-3 times the monthly cost of netflix or prime, for what would be strictly to keep the kids happy, Attenborough's programmes, maybe the odd Brian Cox space documentary. I do actually quite like Have I Got News For You though. Oh and of course the right to watch live football, which the BBC has the rights to show a fraction of and I have to pay additional fees to another broadcaster for the big games.

They're very capable of some incredible programming, and bias is demonstrably subjective in many cases, but there is a time and a place to show it and a time and a place to be factual. That is what we are supposed to be paying for. But they have such a disconnect with the British public that I do wonder if this will finally be one scandal too many.

They asked me to give my views on how the BBC represent relevant views and balanced arguments a while back. I gave them honest answers, but much like the complaints procedure it goes into a black hole of dismissal and no self awareness.
 
Last edited:
Metal Biker said:
In an age of streaming services where people choose which entertainment they wish to absorb, somethng like a 'licence fee' is so archaic.

We're not forced to pay for Amazon Prime if we want to watch Disney+. We're not forced to pay for Netflix if we want to watch Sky.

We are forced to pay for the BBC, if we want to watch any other content. People think the BBC is great and delivers great content. Good for you boo, a lot of us don't watch the Beeb or rate their programming. So why should we be forced to pay for content we don't want, to gain access to the content that we do?
Click to expand...
We don’t have to pay the Licence Fee. We only have to if we watch any BBC content or any live TV.

However, if all we do is stream non-BBC content on apps or online from ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, UTV, Freevee, Plex, Pluto, Tubi, Netflix, Now, Prime, Disney, Paramount, YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, ihavenotv, Rumble etc… we can go to http://www.tvlicence.co.uk and go to Declare No Licence Needed and tell them we do not need a licence.

It is not a legal requirement to pay the Licence Fee. There’s £174.50 a year we can save.

I get why it’s annoying when people do watch live TV but not the BBC. Say they have Sky for the live sport but never watch the BBC, they still have to pay the Licence Fee, which is annoying.
 
Last edited:
.db. said:
We don’t have to pay the Licence Fee. We only have to if we watch any BBC content or any live TV.

However, if all we do is stream non-BBC content on apps or online from ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, UTV, Freevee, Plex, Pluto, Tubi, Netflix, Now, Prime, Disney, Paramount, YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, ihavenotv, Rumble etc… we can go to http://www.tvlicence.co.uk and go to Declare No Licence Needed and tell them we do not need a licence.

It is not a legal requirement to pay the Licence Fee. There’s £174.50 a year we can save.

I get why it’s annoying when people do watch live TV but not the BBC. Say they have Sky for the live sport but never watch the BBC, they still have to pay the Licence Fee, which is annoying.
Click to expand...
You've said what I said, you just took longer to say it.
 
bluethrunthru said:
errr - cuts to their income has seen it greatly reduced in recent years. For example BBC local Radio if you listen to it has been decimated. Up here in the North East we had local radio that covered separately North Yorkshire, the Teesside and Country Durham, Wearside, Tyneside then Northumberland. Now they have a few localised slots but for most of each day there is one presenter playing music and gabbling on across all the North East. Especially overnight.

So what you say? Well each local area covered local things. You have a flower show in Nth Yorks - the local radio would interview and promote it. There's a kids dance event in Stockton-on-Tees the local radio will do the same - and the same across the whole area. A lot of those overnight presenters in various areas had loyal followers providing an almost therapeutic service to people who lets face it are licence payers. For the rest I suggested - yeah some of them get coverage but they compete against one another to get airtime and is a flower show in Northallerton relevant to a listener in North Shields?

And thats symbolic of the damage and the cuts that have taken place to appease a certain Political demographic. As an aside you could see the direction of travel as when he was PM Sunak couldn't take a shit without BBC Local Radio in North Yorkshire reporting on it but when he rushed to the polls and the writing was on the wall he became the invisible man.
Click to expand...

It reduced its local radio output (not a big issue) but I guess you missed its expansion into digital TV and it's online content. This is why I mentioned diversification. But if it enabled you to rant about something you wanted to get off your chest, then fair enough. I would just rather you did that with others rather than bore me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top