United Thread - 2023/24

[blueste41]

Do you not think that is because that majority of City fans know the utter contempt they'll get from the BBC if they put in a complaint and that as a result they just don't bother?

You only have to look at the way the comments sections on the BBC Sport website is moderated to know that City fans don't get fairly treated by that supposedly 'neutral' & 'fair' organisation.

That's just confirmation bias. Don't take my word for it go on any other clubs fan forum pages and you will find examples of you only have to look at x to see they are biased against us.
Supporters of all clubs believe their complaints are met with utter contempt.
Do you truly believe that no one within the BBC supports City? And if so who is setting that rule? The DG who was only appointed in 2020 and if so who before him? How exactly do you get an organisation as big and varied as the BBC all to follow the same beliefs?

 

[mexico1970]

That's just confirmation bias. Don't take my word for it go on any other clubs fan forum pages and you will find examples of you only have to look at x to see they are biased against us.

Are other clubs chased relentlessly over the sports and news pages being accused of every footballing offence known to man?

There's a bias alright, and it's staring us right in the face mate :)

 

[The Shallyman]

I'm not disregarding any facts.

The fact remains that complaints are arrogantly dismissed by this organisation in a patronising and insincere manner with complete impunity safe in the knowledge that their wages will still be covered by the licence fee payer.

I have personal experience of this as do numerous posters which have been well documented on here.
Some of the responses are clearly copied and pasted from standard pre-prepared letters designed to fob off complainants.

Genuine question;
Do you think it is right that you can be prosecuted for not having a TV licence to fund the BBC even if you do not access any of their content?

If the BBC had to fund itself, it would be a completely different conversation but the fact remains that they don't and have an obligation to the people who pay their wages and they are clearly failing to do this.

The licence fee is nothing but a legalised protection racket and without it the BBC would have to resort to begging people to subscribe similar to The Guardian and The Athletic.

Complaints are categorized into numbers. For instance, the Russell Brand show received 44,000 complaints from the infamous Sachsgate broadcast. 3 people lost their jobs as a result of this.

Now, without demeaning your efforts. Five City fans sending emails to a dept that receives tens of thousands of emails per week, it is unlikely that you will receive preferential treatment.

And despite your feelings on this matter, it is a stark reality that more fee payers complained about the dog in 'gone fishing' being mocked for having an underbite.

 

[blueste41]

Are other clubs chased relentlessly over the sports and news pages being accused of every footballing offence known to man?

There's a bias alright, and it's staring us right in the face mate :)

No but fans of other clubs claim their isn't enough reporting on it, in fact they claim it's pretty much ignored now and has been brushed under the carpet.
Again, don't take my word for it just visit our page on a rivals fan forum and see for yourself.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

This rhetoric behind the BBC sending people to places to report on news is getting fucking weird.

You're now suggesting that because you think another channel didn’t send commentators to a game last night shows BBC profligacy? It shows to me that TNT don’t care about the quality of their broadcasts.

Or the fact that TNT has a smaller budget and has to work within its means / account for every penny rather than a bottomless pit of money from licence fee payers

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Or the fact that TNT has a smaller budget and has to work within its means / account for every penny rather than a bottomless pit of money from licence fee payers

You’d have thought that they’d want to put the money into their football show production though as it is its major cashcow.

Still, when there’s opportunity to bash both the rags and the BBC at the same time, it‘s manna from heaven for some.

 

[Blueboy73]

Complaints are categorized into numbers. For instance, the Russell Brand show received 44,000 complaints from the infamous Sachsgate broadcast. 3 people lost their jobs as a result of this.

Now, without demeaning your efforts. Five City fans sending emails to a dept that receives tens of thousands of emails per week, it is unlikely that you will receive preferential treatment.

And despite your feelings on this matter, it is a stark reality that more fee payers complained about the dog in 'gone fishing' being mocked for having an underbite.

Which is fine however if they were not funded by the licence payers, would we even be having this debate?

 

[rowarta]

made me smile upto the last 5 seconds :-)

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Give the BBC some shit in the media thread.....

This thread needs to focus on the SCUM.

 

[Blueboy73]

I was focussing on the "clearly biased" part of your post. I can see that your post goes beyond that.
Genuine question;
"Do you think it is right that you can be prosecuted for not having a TV licence to fund the BBC even if you do not access any of their content?"
I don't actually and neither do many inside the BBC. In the modern world of so much alternative content being available that can be accessed in many different ways it's clear that a discussion needs to be had and that quite possibly the license fee model is outdated. I suspect a new model will be introduced at the next Charter Renewal.
I also accept your point that complaints are handled in a sub standard way. The BBC is such a big organisation with many different arms all pulling in different directions and there is a distinct lack of accountability, this leads to a lack of cohesion and direction.
Although nobody that works at the BBC regularly considers that their wage is pad for by license fee payers, perhaps they should. But that's much the same way that civil servants don't regularly consider their wage is paid for by taxpayers or someone that bottles jam at Hartley's considers they are paid by people that like jam.

I'm glad that you agree with my point about the licence fee and this is the key thing which angers so many about this organisation and the lack of accountability yet nothing ever gers done about it as those in a position to do anything about it won't as it may endanger their position on the BBC gravy train.
Personally I don't think that the BBC is particularly biased one way or the other politically however certain employees use their positions as BBC employees to push their own agendas for example Richard Sharp appointed as chairman after loaning Boris Johnson the thick end of £1 million without declaring it and Gary Lineker airing his views on social media with the subsequent fallout.
I'm not particularly political myself as I believe they all piss in the same pot but these two examples were jumped on by those of a left and right wing persuasion respectively.
Had the BBC not been publically funded this would not even be a debate.
The worst of the lot is BBC Sport, employing ex MUTV employees at BBC Salford a stonesthrow away from The Swamp with numerous well documented digs at our club on their publically funded platform.
Dan Roan, the first "journalist" to be banned from The Etihad who uses his position as a BBC employee to promote his views on social media and Simon Stone, self confessed Rag again with numerous well documented little digs.
Roan and Stone would have been sacked from any other organisation for their comments about Leicester's deceased owner and using their job to promote and sell Rag branded Tag watches.