Save Newsnight!

The place for more serious off topic questions, light hearted banter and friendly chat.
User avatar
GiantMike
Posts: 3162
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 09:41 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby GiantMike » Tue Nov 13, 2012 22:07 pm

-spider- wrote:Have a read of some of Tom Watson's stuff - perhaps, maybe, there's a possibility that potentially that there is a chance of a cover up going on. Coverage of the North Wales scandal and Jimmy Saville's outrageous behaviour has been pushed from the front pages.

Try this for starters - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 24702.html

or this - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... er-1417353

GiantMike - I think that might be the real story.

Personally - I don't trust the BBC (not sure about Tom Watson yet).


So are you saying you think that a 70s paedophile ring has sufficient clout in 2012 to get the independant BBC, as part of a wider cover-up, to stifle a story about the paedo-ring by keeping stories about BBC ineptitude as the headline?
my power improvement experiment blog

Rule number 100: It's your bike and your money and your time; do what you like with it and ignore other peoples' rules. Except this one.

tiredofwhiners
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 15:38 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby tiredofwhiners » Tue Nov 13, 2012 22:24 pm

The BBC DG admitted that yes, surprise surprise, the BBC was full of left wingers and despite their best attempts to be balanced, they couldn't. they haven't changed since then by all accounts.

2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... mpson.html

You only have to look at the last decade of reporting where the balance tends towards the 'business bad - employees always good' angle and in every dispute its about the people wanting more and never about the survival of their employer longer term. It has however changed tone over the last few quarters, with a lot more 'our businesses are actually very good' programmes. Polls show 76% of the populations support a £26k benefit cap (60% support even lower!) but the BBC plays the left wing angle of why its unfair to Somalis living in Knightsbridge. They rarely report the side of people paying more taxes to support the lifestyle of non-workers.

They still noticeably however 'promote' news on public sector disputes and protests and almost never provide a counterbalance on the lack of support the protest get from the majority of UK workers. Given the lack of support from the public at large, public sector strikes should be a footnote on the news - not the main item.

The BBC has also been quite fairly criticised for providing undue publicity and a voice to fringe views, in a manner which is out of proportion to the level of support of the fringe view. The recent example was the recent MMR vaccine situation where they continued to give the same airtime to the banned Doctor and to the medical consensus when fair balance' would be 99% of the airtime being the latter with a brief statement to say 'Doctor X believes otherwise but nobody else thinks he is sane'. Even when the doctor was disbarred, the BBC continued to give equal prominence to his views despite them being utterly refuted.

In attempt to provide balance, the BBC shows its bias in giving its own minority beliefs/politics more prominence than they deserve.

But I would still pay for the BBC for the good programming output of entertainment and drama etc. Given the choice I would cut back much of its overseas reporting, cut back the soaps and game shows and concentrate on its strengths.

ben@31
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 23:24 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby ben@31 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 22:27 pm

GiantMike wrote:
-spider- wrote:Is it possible, that in all this coverage of the BBC itself, there is an attempt to move the issue away from the real story?


The REAL story? Go on.....


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 2103046917

.

Gazzetta67
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 17:24 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby Gazzetta67 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 22:32 pm

Will miss Kirsty Warks legs :cry:

Tom Butcher
Posts: 7046
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 22:07 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby Tom Butcher » Tue Nov 13, 2012 23:08 pm

GiantMike wrote:
-spider- wrote:Have a read of some of Tom Watson's stuff - perhaps, maybe, there's a possibility that potentially that there is a chance of a cover up going on. Coverage of the North Wales scandal and Jimmy Saville's outrageous behaviour has been pushed from the front pages.

Try this for starters - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 24702.html

or this - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... er-1417353

GiantMike - I think that might be the real story.

Personally - I don't trust the BBC (not sure about Tom Watson yet).


So are you saying you think that a 70s paedophile ring has sufficient clout in 2012 to get the independant BBC, as part of a wider cover-up, to stifle a story about the paedo-ring by keeping stories about BBC ineptitude as the headline?


It's possible - the secret services will have contacts at high levels in the BBC - why did they drop the Savile programme originally - according to the journalists working on in it seems they went from being very keen to suddenly washing their hands of it.

There are some odd things about this case - I heard the copper investigating savile on the radio say he would be arresting a dozen people within the next two days and it would include several household names - I got the impression there was going to be some fairly sensational revelations - in the end he nabbed Freddie Starr and Gary Glitter, I mean come on coppers don't come out on national radio and say they are going to arrest people unless they are sure they are going to - so what happened ?
------------------------
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.

User avatar
-spider-
Posts: 2540
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 17:40 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby -spider- » Wed Nov 14, 2012 08:28 am

GiantMike wrote:
-spider- wrote:Have a read of some of Tom Watson's stuff - perhaps, maybe, there's a possibility that potentially that there is a chance of a cover up going on. Coverage of the North Wales scandal and Jimmy Saville's outrageous behaviour has been pushed from the front pages.

Try this for starters - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 24702.html

or this - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... er-1417353

GiantMike - I think that might be the real story.

Personally - I don't trust the BBC (not sure about Tom Watson yet).


So are you saying you think that a 70s paedophile ring has sufficient clout in 2012 to get the independant BBC, as part of a wider cover-up, to stifle a story about the paedo-ring by keeping stories about BBC ineptitude as the headline?


No
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-Spider-

tiredofwhiners
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 15:38 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby tiredofwhiners » Wed Nov 14, 2012 08:56 am

Here's a good example from this morning;

Headline "European workers stage austerity protests"

Written text "Strikes are expected in Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy, with other protests planned in Belgium, Germany, France the UK and some eastern EU states."

Facts....
1. "Most" workers are not on strike and only in countries for whom the gravy train has stopped..
2. A lot of the protestors are not actually workers.
3. The strikes are only significant in PIIGS, where they want more money from otherts without condition, etc etc
4. The strikers are predominately public sector workers.
5. The article sets out all their demands but does not mention in any way, how jobs will be created out of thin air, or where money will appear from to keep them doing nothing, but still paid.

If the strikers had written the article, they couldn't have made it much more biased.

User avatar
GiantMike
Posts: 3162
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 09:41 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby GiantMike » Wed Nov 14, 2012 09:21 am

tiredofwhiners wrote:Here's a good example from this morning;

Headline "European workers stage austerity protests"

Written text "Strikes are expected in Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy, with other protests planned in Belgium, Germany, France the UK and some eastern EU states."

Facts....
1. "Most" workers are not on strike and only in countries for whom the gravy train has stopped..
2. A lot of the protestors are not actually workers.
3. The strikes are only significant in PIIGS, where they want more money from otherts without condition, etc etc
4. The strikers are predominately public sector workers.
5. The article sets out all their demands but does not mention in any way, how jobs will be created out of thin air, or where money will appear from to keep them doing nothing, but still paid.


I don't understand what your example is a good example of. A good example of a half-story or an example of the story being reported to move the real story off the front pages? I'm getting a bit confused by all the innuendo.
Last edited by GiantMike on Wed Nov 14, 2012 09:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
my power improvement experiment blog

Rule number 100: It's your bike and your money and your time; do what you like with it and ignore other peoples' rules. Except this one.

alfablue
Posts: 8468
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 21:49 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby alfablue » Wed Nov 14, 2012 09:27 am

Having read the article in full, I can't see any problem;

1. Nowhere in the headline or article does it say "Most" workers; the headline itself is entirely accurate, differentiating between strikes and "other protests". Indeed the article points out that some are protesting because "there is no work".

2. it doesn't say that the protesters are all workers (see above).

3. the article points out that "Strikes are expected in Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy,, it doesn't imply they are elswhere.

4. The article does not suggest that they are not predominantly public sector workers (but so what? This only matters to those who have an anti-public worker, us and them mentality). The article states "unions claim the operations of several large companies, including Danone and Heineken, have ground to a halt." Now this is presented as a union "claim" not as fact, so it suggests there may be some impact in the private sector, but the suggestion is presented no more strongly than that. Had they said simply "Heinekan has ground to a halt" then that would be poor reporting and suggestive possibly, of bias. Newspapers are far more likely to report claims (from either side) as fact, without the "claim" caveat. There is no reason why the BBC should not report "claims", claims are part of the story. They also include government claims.

5. So what's new here? Unions usually have lots of detail on demands, and little on solutions (same with politicians!); it's not the BBC's fault!

So, I don't think this is a good example of bias at at all. What it is an example of is your particular take on this, and you are entitled to be biased. Your "facts" are possibly also (most probably) a precis of the Mail or Telegraph's take on the strikes / protests. I would be interested in your source for this, or is it just your innate knowledge?

B.M.R.
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 15:11 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby B.M.R. » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:39 am

When you look at what the BBC did with the Olympics, where you had 20 odd channels to choose from and could basically watch ANYTHING that was going on sports-wise, I was incredibly impressed. Now what with these extended revelations and foul-ups, I wonder what the future is?

For quite a while the whole idea of a license fee has bugged me. Basically if you own a TV you HAVE to pay £144 quid a year, you cannot choose not to. You cannot say "I don't want access to BBC programmes", you MUST pay the license fee. Think about it, you are basically paying 12 quid a month for the fact that there are no adverts on the BBC (But there are, just for their own shows), and for programmes you may have no interest in watching.
There is something very unsettling about being told you must pay for a "service" you might not want if given the choice. Yet because its been that way for years, we seem to go along with it.
And given the most recent scandals, would you want to keep paying? I think the BBC should at least forgoe one years TV license payments as punishment to them.

I know it's a big organisation, and the whole "Saville" scandal only relates to a small part of it, but I'm really not happy at being forced to pay money to these clowns just because I own a TV. I pay a lot of money every month for a Sky Subscription, but it's my choice to because I enjoy watching the content that is provided.

It's time the BBC either scrapped the license fee and started advertising (Adverts are annoying, but I don't see why I should pay £12 a month just to not have any), or made the BBC channels pay-for-view and charged £12 a month that way. The current system is archaic, dictatorial, and monopolistic.

alfablue
Posts: 8468
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 21:49 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby alfablue » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:11 am

I'm afraid that if the BBC were supported solely by advertising they would have to lose the vast majority of their output as it would not attract sufficient funds from advertisers to support them. The vast majority that they would lose is all the quality and minority programming which is so important (including radio). What would remain is the BBC One schedule, and as a broadcaster it would be little better than ITV. Its understandable that if you only ever watch prime time BBC One programmes (or indeed, never watch BBC at all), you may find it hard to stomach the fact that you fund things you don't watch, but this is a bit like saying you don't want to fund education through taxes because you don't go to school anymore. (Maybe you would say that).

Funding via advertising is, contrary to belief, not free to viewers. As a consumer I pay for TV advertising in the price of products I buy, and I never watch commercial TV!!!!! I don't see why I should have to pay an extra quid on my Persil Non-Bio when I never even watch their adverts :? :evil:

User avatar
disgruntledgoat
Posts: 8756
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 14:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby disgruntledgoat » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:22 am

Surely the BBC should be there for programmes which other stations lack the resources to produce or that do not represent mass appeal and are, therefore, unattractive to wholly commercial stations. What does Radio 1 offer that the DAB stations on a freeview box can't these days? What role does BBC 3 fulfil? This is particularly true now the BBC outsource production of a large number of programmes.

The genuine public service stuff (iplayer, documentaries, natural history, news etc) could probably fill 2 TV channels and 3 Radio Stations, the rest is just sprawl to attempt to compete with ITV etc. I never listen to Radio 3, but I can see it's value. I also never watch Snog, Marry, Avoid and can't understand why the BBC commissioned it.

For years now, the beeb has attempted to play it both ways, having all the benefits of being state funded (large budgets, multiple locations, thousands of staff) but none of the drawbacks (accountability, transparency, not making Celebrity Dog School).

That and the Newsnight report on Welsh Care Home Abuse would have shamed a local freesheet. Appalling journalism from the bottom up.
"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

@gietvangent

User avatar
GiantMike
Posts: 3162
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 09:41 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby GiantMike » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:25 am

Having seen a lot of TV around the world I can't think of a better broadcaster than the BBC. It doesn't make it perfect, and I'd happily shoot the Strictly Come Dancing production team in the face*, but it is far better than the commercially-funded dross elsewhere. And the licence fee pays for radio too. I listen to Radio 4 a lot and would hate to have adverts for Dave's Carpets every 5 minutes.

*disclaimer. This is a Clarksonesque joke not a declaration that I intend to GBH them all. Maybe.....
my power improvement experiment blog

Rule number 100: It's your bike and your money and your time; do what you like with it and ignore other peoples' rules. Except this one.

User avatar
GiantMike
Posts: 3162
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 09:41 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby GiantMike » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:26 am

disgruntledgoat wrote:That and the Newsnight report on Welsh Care Home Abuse would have shamed a local freesheet. Appalling journalism from the bottom up.


Unfortunate turn of phrase :wink:
my power improvement experiment blog

Rule number 100: It's your bike and your money and your time; do what you like with it and ignore other peoples' rules. Except this one.

User avatar
finchy
Posts: 5857
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 07:14 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby finchy » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:36 am

B.M.R. wrote:It's time the BBC either scrapped the license fee and started advertising (Adverts are annoying, but I don't see why I should pay £12 a month just to not have any), or made the BBC channels pay-for-view and charged £12 a month that way. The current system is archaic, dictatorial, and monopolistic.


I would say that if you were going to go down this route, it would be better to have subscription-only channels and no advertising. Make no mistake, all of that advertising money comes out of your wallet, and if you can't afford the satellite channels, that's even more unfair than having to pay a licence fee for the BBC which you can watch/listen to if you so choose.

User avatar
finchy
Posts: 5857
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 07:14 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby finchy » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:47 am

disgruntledgoat wrote:Surely the BBC should be there for programmes which other stations lack the resources to produce or that do not represent mass appeal and are, therefore, unattractive to wholly commercial stations. What does Radio 1 offer that the DAB stations on a freeview box can't these days? What role does BBC 3 fulfil? This is particularly true now the BBC outsource production of a large number of programmes.


I agree with you up to a certain point, but 2 objections come straight to my mind:

1) How would you define "mass appeal"? Should the BBC be barred from making popular comedies such as Only Fools and Horses or Fawlty Towers? Given that ITV has more or less given up on comedy and Channel 4 goes for minority comedies such as Peep Show and imported sitcoms, I'm not sure which other channels would be willing to produce shows like these.

2) Would that not then lead to accusations that the majority are funding the minority?

I would prefer to see the BBC forced to increase the proportion of genuine public service broadcasting, slash budgets so that we aren't just getting over-produced shows which are more about style than substance and not paying "star" presenters massive wages.

User avatar
finchy
Posts: 5857
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 07:14 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby finchy » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:04 pm

tiredofwhiners wrote:The BBC DG admitted that yes, surprise surprise, the BBC was full of left wingers and despite their best attempts to be balanced, they couldn't. they haven't changed since then by all accounts.

2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... mpson.html


He was talking about the situation 30 years ago and he says it's completely changed now. If you believe him when he talks about the what it was like 30 years ago, why don't you believe him when he talks about the situation today?

tiredofwhiners wrote:You only have to look at the last decade of reporting where the balance tends towards the 'business bad - employees always good' angle and in every dispute its about the people wanting more and never about the survival of their employer longer term. It has however changed tone over the last few quarters, with a lot more 'our businesses are actually very good' programmes. Polls show 76% of the populations support a £26k benefit cap (60% support even lower!) but the BBC plays the left wing angle of why its unfair to Somalis living in Knightsbridge. They rarely report the side of people paying more taxes to support the lifestyle of non-workers.


Can you provide any actual evidence of this bias? You know, links to news items on the website, etc.? They've got all of their articles archived, so given just how biased it is, it shouldn't take you long.

tiredofwhiners wrote:They still noticeably however 'promote' news on public sector disputes and protests and almost never provide a counterbalance on the lack of support the protest get from the majority of UK workers. Given the lack of support from the public at large, public sector strikes should be a footnote on the news - not the main item.


They report the government view and the view of the striking workers. What's so bad about that?

tiredofwhiners wrote:The BBC has also been quite fairly criticised for providing undue publicity and a voice to fringe views, in a manner which is out of proportion to the level of support of the fringe view. The recent example was the recent MMR vaccine situation where they continued to give the same airtime to the banned Doctor and to the medical consensus when fair balance' would be 99% of the airtime being the latter with a brief statement to say 'Doctor X believes otherwise but nobody else thinks he is sane'. Even when the doctor was disbarred, the BBC continued to give equal prominence to his views despite them being utterly refuted.

In attempt to provide balance, the BBC shows its bias in giving its own minority beliefs/politics more prominence than they deserve.


True. They also give a voice to the likes of James "it's all a Marxist conspiracy" Delingpole on global warming, despite the fact that he obviously knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about science. Does that mean that they are biased to the right?

Frank the tank
Posts: 6606
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 21:22 pm

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby Frank the tank » Wed Nov 14, 2012 17:23 pm

I don't care what anyone says I believe the BBC is excellent value for money, at least we all know how much it costs.

How much does ITV cost Joe public? No one knows because it's imposible to calculate. Therefore how can anyone say whether it's good value or not.

I know one thing, since the deregulation of TV the results IMHO have been very mixed. Standards of some broadcasting has been improved but there isnt half a torrent of sh1t filling the schedules.
Tail end Charlie

The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.

verylonglegs
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:59 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby verylonglegs » Wed Nov 14, 2012 17:38 pm

The radio is its best output by a long way imo so it's an odd situation for me as I don't pay the licence but would be loathe to lose the radio stations. So yeah, fantastic value from my point of view as I enjoy stuff I don't pay for!

User avatar
finchy
Posts: 5857
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 07:14 am

Re: Save Newsnight!

Postby finchy » Wed Nov 14, 2012 18:01 pm

Frank the tank wrote:I know one thing, since the deregulation of TV the results IMHO have been very mixed. Standards of some broadcasting has been improved but there isnt half a torrent of sh1t filling the schedules.


Too true. I sometimes flick through the digital channels and just think "that's sh*t... that's sh*t... that's sh*t... that's sh*t". Sky is even worse.


Return to “The Cake Stop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest