Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?

This a discussion to arising out of some points Alan Kendall made on Unthreaded
Alan seems to have 2 strange viewpoints
#1 That the BBC is 99% OK
#2 That BH regulars are frothing at the mouth trying to kill the BBC.

My Response to #2 If I went to a cafe and complained to the manager about the toast being burnt 5 times out of twenty, that would not be calling for the destruction of the cafe, just a valid complaint. It's the fallacy of false dichotomy to say if you criticise some organisation that you are calling for its destruction.
I wouldn't need to mention the 15 times the toast was OK.

Now I'll deal with the first point
An allegory for the BBC might be an international foodcourt
In the past everything wasn't perfect, but mostly OK
..Then new Acehenese owners take over the entire foodcourt and 2 policies come in :
#1 ..Chilli is shoe-horned into almost every meal : just like "right on values" are shoehorned into a proportion of progs : eg guilt about sexism, racism, immigrant sympathy, or greendream

#2 .. Alcohol becomes severely restricted, but with a small portion of meals you are still allowed to have a glass of alcohol,but they won't serve it unless you have buy a glass of red juice, yellow juice or green juice aswell. ie libertarians are allowed on panel shows, but only approved right-wingers like Portillo are allowed on unchaperoned.
My allegory is about the way ..any "right on" view is allowed anytime, but more libertarian viewpoints are restricted..and in the case of "challengers of greendream" almost completely excluded.

- Although many BBC progs maybe OK, the change in management culture is so strong that many special sites like BiasedBBC have been created to document them all.
That culture means that rather than cater to purely common values -"right on" values are often shoe-horned in.
eg sexual equality maybe a near universal value, but promoting positive discrimination is a "right on" political viewpoint.
eg. Care for the environment is universal, but following the greendream is a "right on" political viewpoint.

I don't really blame the BBC staff, many many like in the old days try to do a good and honest job, it's only a few that have decided that "right on policies" need a helping hand. I do blame the BBC managers for allowing that culture to arise.
- I never watch TV so i am writing about radio mostly. There are a few particularly good programmes but I am afraid to mention them, cos similar progs in the past were unecessarily disappeared and replaced by right-on shows.

Apr 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

3 Examples this week
- We’re All Going To Drown – BBC
- BBC Editor Wants To “Help People To Take Collective Action On Climate Change”
- BBC Provide Advertising Space For Tesla ..and the fact it's in there top 10 of open BBC pension investments (updated stat)

and that's ontop of other "right on" Bias in other non Green issues reporting criminals nationalities eg yesterday The Grantham ATM trickster ..when all the other media , reported it as Romanian.

Apr 17, 2016 at 3:42 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Tomo said Apr 14, 2016 at 9:12 AM

There are superficial similarities between academic research and the BBC - but the pivotal issue for many is that the BBC gets its lolly regardless of performance - and if it is judged - it's by its own rules - made up on a case by case basis. Even when *criminal* antics are involved when the matter surfaces the perps are almost exclusively outside the organisation or conveniently dead even.....

The system is not entirely rotten but but it's a common trait of both groups to present belief as fact and subborn evidence in support of those beliefs. It is curious how the BBC's luvvies (28gate) set the tone and and act as the gatekeepers to public perception of nature - yet don't bother to consult widely on on the facts or present uncertainty honestly.

Anybody who has views on a contentious subject in the workplace generally has to be careful about upsetting a zealot higher up the food chain

Apr 17, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Apr 11, 2016 at 11:42 AM Lord Beaverbrook
Pointed out that even tho they bang on and on about Cameron

The BBC pension fund like most, has offshore trusts .."BBCs-84-million-in-bermuda "

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:06 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Apr 14, 2016 at 1:12 PM | SandyS
Alan Kendall
Re BBc, don't you find much of the output has been dumbed down considerably? Particularly in the scientific/technical areas and to a lesser extent the News coverage. My particular irritants are Matermind, Horizon and Question Time, I can no longer watch the latter without shouting at whichever Dimbleby* is in charge to let the panelists answer, the audience have enough phone-ins and Any Answers.

*Am I imagining it or are there a lot of family links in BBC personnel?

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:07 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Apr 14, 2016 at 1:42 PM |Alan Kendall

Willing to believe in compartmentmentalism, but I have never read anything here that is positive about the BBC, and much that is stridently negative. Such negative suggestions that, if acted upon, would destroy what I hold dear. Hence my opposition.

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:08 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:49 PM M Courtney

In my opinion, the BBC has a lot wrong with it. And that which is wrong is gaining in strength.
But the benefits of a uniquely British broadcaster - immune form commercial Americanisation - are great.

Yet those benefits are not infinite. The BBC needs humility and repentance.
Instead they seem to be doomed by hubris.
A pity.

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:09 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Apr 14, 2016 at 3:13 PM TinyCO2

It won't be grumpy right wing climate sceptics that destroy the BBC, it will be da youf, whom the BBC has so fiercely courted but who don't pay for it. If they pay for anything it would be for BBC luvvies to hunt each other down in a fight to the death. BBC will vanish from its own narrow world view. Grumpy right wing climate sceptics just won't speak up for the BBC, when it needs them most.

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:10 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Apr 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM | Alan Kendall

TinyCO2. There are programmes (BBC and ITV) that are viewed by 6-8 million people but which I would never watch. There are whole channels of which I watch nothing (BBC3 was one, but then it wasn't aimed at me). I don't go around complaining about them or seeking their demise, I just never turn them on. If you are so opposed, switch off completely, don't pay a licence fee. If you do this, however, you loose the right to complain. *

At this time of year I regularly find one programme of interest to watch each night, and some nights the tv recording thingy works overtime. That situation was a rare occurrence in the USA. Here we get to see only the very very best of US television, which gives a false impression. To me the BBC output is so much better and I want to save it from being destroyed.

*Come on Alan !

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:12 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Apr 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM | Radical Rodent

Sorry, Mr K, but I have to agree with most others, here – the BBC is but a shadow of its former glory. While the general entertainment might not have changed drastically (and still occasionally throwing up some gems), certainly its more cerebral programmes have been dumbed down, with teeth-grating “background” music swamping a narrative that is often aimed more for the sub-teens than adults – and then there is the incessant climate change propaganda being pumped out, often from the least expected sources. Only the more obscure BBC4 really gives much worth watching, education-wise. Add to that the blatant political bias, with “news” that is more often opinion than reportage, indicates that the BBC is writing one of the longest suicide notes in history.

All that said, I have to point out that it has to be an incredibly difficult task to maintain high standards throughout the 24 hours the public demands, over all the channels the BBC offers.

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen


Your 99% figure has even less validity than a 97% consensus. After readIng that I had no inclination to read much further. And I didn't.

Enjoy your ranting. Hope the thread withers on he vine, but suspect it won't. The BBC (and Guardian) are like red rags to you guys. So frothing at the mouth is a reasonable analogy.

So much for a nuanced approach.

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

@Alan ..I am not picking on you. I did say"seems" I said I couldn't find your original quote but you seemed to imply that the BBC only has a problem with a tiny tiny percentage.

I was hoping that you would backup and clarify that original position.

I find it a very Ken Rice like position look for some fault and say something like .."after that I'm not going to read any further"
My points are sincere effort to see your viewpoint ..I am not picking on you.

Apr 17, 2016 at 4:37 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen


Of course eventually I did read everything but my initial judgement proved essentially correct. You may think you are not "getting at me" but that is the result you will achieve. I've already said at an earlier time that being on my own beset by a crowd of opponents is not exactly pleasurable.

I note that you did not repost those communications that are vehemently anti BBC, calling for its wholesale demise or for drastic funding reductions (until it "behaves" as if they are fit to judge this).

I find much to criticize, but far more to value and appreciate about the BBC. To many of you here you will only recognize its value if you do manage to cause it harm. I have no wish to help you do this, even as an adversary.

I see no reason to further contribute.

Apr 17, 2016 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

It's years since I had a TV. And, the few times I''ve tuned in to a BBC radio broadcast, I've quickly changed to something else. My impression is that 'dumbing down' seems to be its main priority.

The BBC has played a major role in instigating and sustaining the climate change madness. It considers itself (and indeed it is) above the law (and not only with respect to climate change).

It's possible that in the 1920's, 30's and 40's it made sense for radio and then TV to be paid for by a licence fee.

Today, it makes no more sense for BBC TV to be paid for by a licence fee than it does for book and magazine publishers or film makers.

Apr 17, 2016 at 8:05 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Peace, a once and future gem, now being badly cut.

Apr 17, 2016 at 8:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Unless we do something about the BBC NOW, we will all forget what good television was really like. Our children, and grandchildren will laugh at all the stupid warnings about global warming, being repeated endlessly, by fresh faced BBC presenters in 50 years time, all wrapped in modern thermal underwear made out of the skins of verminous polar bears, looting and pillaging around northern Europe, having walked from England to invade France.

Of course, this assumes that BBC TV can still be broadcast using electricity from Cryopower, harnessed to replaced the failed Solarpower, and killer whales can be trained to use blowholes beneath ice mounted wind mills.Thankfully, the EU will relax fishing quotas, if the fish are used to 'pay' killer whales for electricity generation, but the use of fish to feed starving people will remain banned.

Apr 17, 2016 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

stewgreen/ GC: Actually, the Beeb courtesy of Monty Python, had Alan K and his mates at the UEA well sussed out back in 1971:

Apr 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Salopian, I think I know that sketch, without clicking the link!

Also relevant was the series from the mid 80s "A very peculiar practice", loosely based/inspired by UEA, and some of it filmed there too. Dodgy goings-on amongst University Academic staff, with a new Vice-Chancellor seeking external investors.

Perhaps UEA could be gifted to the Commonwealth as the University of East Australia, as an antipodean rival to University of Western Australia, they could compete for daftest recruitment, and output, by niche Departments/Units.

Apr 17, 2016 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC: Or perhaps it could relocated to become the University of East Arctic. They could compete with the Polar Bears for the supposedly diminishing ice-mass.

Apr 18, 2016 at 12:34 AM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Salopian, if UEA went to the Arctic, they could compete with Polar bears in running races for food. Winners eats all.

Apr 18, 2016 at 1:49 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I agree with just about everything Stewgreen has posted here. It's hardly ranting or frothing at the mouth. As a lover of classical music, I am hugely grateful to the BBC for its coverage, its orchestras and the Proms. Even though the right on and dumbing down factors are increasing, there is still an enormous amount to enjoy and be grateful for. Mind you programmes such as Sky Arts and Classic FM show that it need not be a monopoly.

The programme W1A although a spoof accurately captured the problems at the BBC and why so many of its programmes (to my mind) are poor. Programme making goes through so many levels and committees any originality has been squeezed out and likewise any "unacceptable" views. (You could argue of course that W1A proves this is wrong, but it was a rare exception where basically one man wrote the scripts.) The subtle but persistent political bias is intensely irritating.

I accept that news coverage is likely to be left of centre. There is much more human interest in a single mum on benefits struggling to cope than an arid dissection of the economic problems the country is facing. But isn't the BBC's mission to educate and inform?

Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 AM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle


CRU was only founded in 1971 so can hardly be the source material for the parody. UEA almost certainly, it was a brand new institution, but not your climate nemesis.

Neither were I or my "mates" there at this time.

Am I now tarnished for all time by my former UEA affiliation? The butt of your lazy "jokes"?

Apr 18, 2016 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, No you are not.
And the fact that such irrelevant lines of attack are being used shows that the BBC is still very strong and valuable.

However, there are problems.
To try to raise the level of debate I'm going to drilldown and list them, as I see them.

1) The BBC is very dumbed down. It cannot handle science or economics or anything which requires numeracy. This is getting worse.
2) The BBC is very nepotistic. This leads to a narrow range of views being given voice. This has been the case since the days of Richard Dimbleby - no change.
3) The BBC is very self-righteous. It views itself as inherently superior to Sky and ITV. This may be . But if it isn't the BBC will be blind-sided like the MCC were by Kerry Packer and then the IPL. If anything, this is getting better with respect for US and European drama getting a hearing even over the wonder of Eastenders.

Please can other add their issues.

For me, the key factor is the lack of numeracy in the BBC factual content.
You can't assess risk or cost just by analysing sources and deciding who you trust But that is the BBC's method.

Apr 18, 2016 at 12:13 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

The BBC is the whispering ‘friend’ who endlessly puts us down so that we don’t feel confident we can survive without them. It brings up our flaws, both long past and present and charge us a fortune to trumpet those flaws on the World Service. On every front they seek to find others with whom we compare badly and if any study concludes that this is a good place to live they let us know that our fortune has been won off the backs of others. They court those who condemn us and never hesitate to air the views of terrorists and their sympathisers to let everyone know that the British public deserve whatever happens to them. If this was a marriage we could separate on the grounds of verbal abuse and mental torture.

Whatever party is in power, the BBC is the unofficial opposition, which allows it to claim it is unbiased but it is significantly left wing. It was comically gob smacked by the election results, sure that it had secured a Labour victory. Now, it alternates between glee and horror at the election of Jeremy Corbyn to Labour leader. It loves his far left views but also realises that he is almost unelectable. And maybe, just maybe those far left opinions would bankrupt the country and affect the lovely gravy train the BBC enjoys. However, whatever party is in, the BBC disagrees with every policy except ones that aline with its hard left stand point, which is almost every prudent financial or political plan. For the BBC the money pot is infinite.

Because the BBC is built of ‘artistic’ people, it leans heavily towards drug taking, alcoholism, promiscuity and what it calls ‘pushing the boundaries’, which is code for saying or doing whatever the employees do and don’t like to be condemned for. The BBC regularly chooses to offer a platform for extremists of all varieties. Some won’t remember but the BBC flirted heavily with those who wanted the age of consent reduced. Until Jimmy Savile, letting teenagers have sex with older people if they wanted to, seemed cool and progressive. Hmmm.

The culture of sex abuse is inherently part of the BBC operation. It thinks that celebrities should be worshipped. Jimmy Savile became fair game for parts of the BBC simply because he was no longer the in crowd but he still held some of his old power which is why the abuse stories were kept quiet so long. Plus the BBC wanted to protect itself. Sod the victims. What excesses is the BBC ignoring from the young celebs today?

The Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross thing was typical of the BBC. Nobody from the presenters to the complaints department thought that there was that much wrong with two rich, powerful men (physically and professionally), bullying a little old man whose wife was in hospital. Those who complained were old fuss pots who just didn’t get the humour. And that’s where the BBC is at its most biased. It hates traditional values and anyone over thirty (unless they act like they’re 5) and its whole output reflects that. But… but it shows historical dramas and culture stuff!

Yes, historical dramas that portray the things the BBC condemns us for. They make much of our evil empire and the left wing picture of the down trodden masses. When did they last make a drama that celebrated the good things this country did? Government and business is always evil. The police might have a few good ones but most of them are corrupt thugs. The system is always bad and the only bright lights are the few people who stand up to it… unless they’re climate deniers. We don't fit their idea of freedom fighters. Too bad.

It doesn’t matter to me that the BBC produces very few programmes that I want to watch. I wouldn’t resent it if it was wall to wall soaps (modern or period costume or farming) or banal fact free documentaries or quiz shows or antique programmes. I’d forgive its terrible output if it just stopped being the arbiter of how Britain should be run. For that I’d happily see the back of it tomorrow.

Apr 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Alan K:

Sorry if my "joke" offended you. But if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

You seem to be very enthusiastic joining in the banter directed at others on some blog threads, but seem to think that you, personally, are exempt.

Apr 18, 2016 at 7:48 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian