nfe
OT Initiate
Posts: 144
|
Post by nfe on Mar 12, 2023 3:28:04 GMT -5
I’m genuinely interested in what the legal position is here, as essentially the BBC are trying to dictate behaviour outside of their studios. Lineker is a freelance contractor. They can ditch him for any reason whatsoever. I imagine the result here is that guidelines will be formalised and slightly rewritten to compel the BBC to terminate contracts with presenters making clearly political statements on social media or in interviews etc. They'll have to do it in such a way that Alan Sugar is exempt, though, so he can keeping calling Corbyn Hitler and making racist jokes about African football teams whilst fronting a show with a far larger audience than MOTD. Amusingly, the previous guideline rewrite was essentially a defence of Lineker making political statements about Brexit (and to handwave Andrew Neil being the lead BBC political journalist whilst also chairing a hard right magazine).
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 12, 2023 4:57:42 GMT -5
Question from a US resident, how much of your media is controlled by the BBC? Do they have a near-monopoly where someone getting fired from the BBC means they're gone, or is it a shrug, they can just go to the other 95% of the media options and be free of government control?
|
|
nfe
OT Initiate
Posts: 144
|
Post by nfe on Mar 12, 2023 5:03:59 GMT -5
Question from a US resident, how much of your media is controlled by the BBC? Do they have a near-monopoly where someone getting fired from the BBC means they're gone, or is it a shrug, they can just go to the other 95% of the media options and be free of government control? He will get a punditry job instantly on Sky or ITV if he wants one. BBC are by far the dominant news source, but not nearly so much on anything else. Sky are the biggest sports network. BBC (and ITV) only really cling on because some competitions are obliged to be on terrestrial channels and because some shows have such legacies (especially Match of the Day).
|
|
|
Post by maddocgrotsnik on Mar 12, 2023 5:09:39 GMT -5
Rightly or wrongly, the BBC tends to be seen as impartial, as that’s what it’s charter (and to some degree the license fee) requires.
Broadly it is balanced. The right claim it’s left wing biased, the left that it’s right wing biased - so it mostly gets it about right.
However, the current Shower Of Shit running/ruining the country have been doing what they can to turn it into a Tory Outlet. This includes “don’t mention Brexit”, corruption scandals such as the Government Appointed Director General just happening to help BogJob land an £800,000.00 loan before he got the job.
|
|
nfe
OT Initiate
Posts: 144
|
Post by nfe on Mar 12, 2023 5:23:32 GMT -5
Broadly it is balanced. The right claim it’s left wing biased, the left that it’s right wing biased - so it mostly gets it about right. This is the traditional BBC defence but it is obviously nonsense. If everyone thinks you're doing a bad job then it probably means you're doing a bad job. Assuming that it actually means you're tackling everyone fairly is fantasist stuff. It's an artefact of pretending there are only two sides on all issues and that impartiality is synonymous with attempting to interrogate each from a position between them. At its (rare) very best the BBC is only ever (and has only ever been) impartial towards 'each side' from the position of accepted convention. It is ALWAYS partial to the status quo and establishment thought. Hence why (perceived) radical proposals or actors are always treated with derision.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 12, 2023 5:26:40 GMT -5
Question from a US resident, how much of your media is controlled by the BBC? Do they have a near-monopoly where someone getting fired from the BBC means they're gone, or is it a shrug, they can just go to the other 95% of the media options and be free of government control? He will get a punditry job instantly on Sky or ITV if he wants one. BBC are by far the dominant news source, but not nearly so much on anything else. Sky are the biggest sports network. BBC (and ITV) only really cling on because some competitions are obliged to be on terrestrial channels and because some shows have such legacies (especially Match of the Day).
Gotcha. So it's more that the BBC is the most popular of the news options than the BBC having a true monopoly where if the BBC doesn't allow something you aren't going to get access to it? Or the BBC acting as a cable provider where they control the infrastructure for delivering content in addition to making their own material? I'm just curious because in the US the government-run media is pretty universally ignored by everyone regardless of party affiliation outside of some kid-friendly shows so I can't imagine anyone caring who the government hires or fires for the job.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 12, 2023 6:33:50 GMT -5
Yes, the BBC has not had a monopoly for decades.
It has no advert breaks except for trailers for BBC shows, so it is a more pleasant viewing experience on the whole. But the pretense at impartiality is slipping fast (as nfe says, it has never actually been impartial, but I do think it is getting worse).
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 12, 2023 10:37:54 GMT -5
In slightly frivolous news, that hints at a deeper problem. Sunak has been caught walking his dog in a "all dogs must be kept on leash" park without a leash, and then is seen quickly trying to attach a leash once he realized he's been rumbled.
The deeper problem is that it's clear Sunak isn't interested in following any rules (like the seatbelt thing of a few months ago) unless someone is watching him. Given he's one of the highest profile people in the country, and the leader of the "law and order" party, it raises the usual question of whether he's incompetent or just doesn't care. What other rules is he breaking that we haven't seen?
I'm not saying I'm perfect or follow all rules and laws, but last I checked I'm not the Prime Minister, and have no responsibility for anything.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 12, 2023 10:41:38 GMT -5
Rightly or wrongly, the BBC tends to be seen as impartial, as that’s what it’s charter (and to some degree the license fee) requires. Broadly it is balanced. The right claim it’s left wing biased, the left that it’s right wing biased - so it mostly gets it about right. However, the current Shower Of Shit running/ruining the country have been doing what they can to turn it into a Tory Outlet. This includes “don’t mention Brexit”, corruption scandals such as the Government Appointed Director General just happening to help BogJob land an £800,000.00 loan before he got the job. This latest scandal is likely to completely ruin that pretense. The BBC have very clearly allowed Lineker to make various political statements; anti-Labour, anti-Qatar and so on, but fire him for making a perfectly reasonable anti-Tory claim. I don't think there's any way to walk back on it.
The fact it's football makes it even higher profile - the Gammons (generally) love football, and it's one of the countries major pasttimes.
Of course, I've seen a few people claiming that was the best MOTD in recent history because it focused on the game and not the commentary.
It's a sad state of affairs when the Governments only credible opposition is footballers.
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Mar 12, 2023 13:34:56 GMT -5
Broadly it is balanced. The right claim it’s left wing biased, the left that it’s right wing biased - so it mostly gets it about right. This is the traditional BBC defence but it is obviously nonsense. If everyone thinks you're doing a bad job then it probably means you're doing a bad job. Assuming that it actually means you're tackling everyone fairly is fantasist stuff. It's an artefact of pretending there are only two sides on all issues and that impartiality is synonymous with attempting to interrogate each from a position between them. At its (rare) very best the BBC is only ever (and has only ever been) impartial towards 'each side' from the position of accepted convention. It is ALWAYS partial to the status quo and establishment thought. Hence why (perceived) radical proposals or actors are always treated with derision. Hard disagree on this. The BBC does have a perspective (expressing any kind of perspective on economics/politics pretty much dictates it), but the position is 'centrist British'. Most average people in the UK who read an average BBC news report will be left sitting there thinking that it's doling out an average centrist perspective. In other words, it's reasonably representative of the country that pays for it. It has some slight foibles within that - namely a minor inclination towards 'degree educated liberal' (in the British sense) values - such as freedom of speech, freedom of trade, human rights and so forth. And anything too far wide of that (whether hard left or right) gets a shaky time of it. But saying 'Ah, well if everyone hates you, you must suck at your job' is just glib. It's probably more representative of your personal views not falling within their sphere of centrism (it's the usual reason people tend to quarrel with it as a 'defence' of the BBC). Most contemporary points of BB news discussion don't fall between the oft cited philosophical 'Would you support murdering someone painfully or quickly' which would make the centrist position equally monstrous. Frankly, I feel we should be giving them more money if anything. Spats over license fee this, director general that, aside; news networks that activately attempt to be politically impartial (however successful) are surprisingly rare in a global sense. Even the better of the American/European rags I read tend to be far more actively aligned with one cause or another than the BBC.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 12, 2023 13:47:13 GMT -5
The BBC is heavily biased towards the status quo and the establishment, whatever that is. This automatically means it tends to favour the right of the spectrum in British politics, although I agree it tends to fall into old school liberalism (not the US usage to mean anything left of the Republicans). A good example is how the BBC uncritically portrays neoliberal economics as the default and any alternative as radical.
However, the establishment has been firmly in the grip of the Tories for over a decade and is actively shifting further right as the Tories do. As such, the BBC is also doing so, very openly in some areas like transphobia.
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Mar 12, 2023 14:07:54 GMT -5
The BBC is heavily biased towards the status quo and the establishment, whatever that is. I'd argue that the British establishment and status quo are actually heavily biased themselves towards the opinions of the people of Britain. All the 'fun' aspects of government aside (what Hat Mancock's latest escapades are, what Bojo said over a coffee table to a lesbian from Peru, etc); at the end of the day, the British people voted for them. And the establishment wants the British people to vote for them again. So they always tailor themselves to try and fit what they think the British people 'want' - however successfully or unsuccessfully they may be within that. It's all ultimately a series of feedback mirror loops. The BBC opinion shapes the public opinion which shapes the government opinion which shapes the BBC opinion which shapes the public opinion, etc ad infinitum. A shift in one necessarily engenders a relative shift in the rest, though it's often painful. Brexit and Scottish independence are both clear examples of that movement.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 12, 2023 14:23:26 GMT -5
The BBC is heavily biased towards the status quo and the establishment, whatever that is. I'd argue that the British establishment and status quo are actually heavily biased themselves towards the opinions of the people of Britain. All the 'fun' aspects of government aside (what Hat Mancock's latest escapades are, what Bojo said over a coffee table to a lesbian from Peru, etc); at the end of the day, the British people voted for them. And the establishment wants the British people to vote for them again. So they always tailor themselves to try and fit what they think the British people 'want' - however successfully or unsuccessfully they may be within that. It's all ultimately a series of feedback mirror loops. The BBC opinion shapes the public opinion which shapes the government opinion which shapes the BBC opinion which shapes the public opinion, etc ad infinitum. A shift in one necessarily engenders a relative shift in the rest, though it's often painful. Brexit and Scottish independence are both clear examples of that movement. I could agree with that... except only about 43.6% of people who voted agree with the Tories, and that is a smaller percentage of the overall population. Since then the Tories' population has tanked mostly due to their own conduct, yet they still retain the levers of power. I think it is difficult to say even half the population agrees with the current establishment, but our political system allows a minority (albeit a sizeable one) to massively shape the BBC output in their image.
|
|
nfe
OT Initiate
Posts: 144
|
Post by nfe on Mar 12, 2023 14:43:19 GMT -5
This is the traditional BBC defence but it is obviously nonsense. If everyone thinks you're doing a bad job then it probably means you're doing a bad job. Assuming that it actually means you're tackling everyone fairly is fantasist stuff. It's an artefact of pretending there are only two sides on all issues and that impartiality is synonymous with attempting to interrogate each from a position between them. At its (rare) very best the BBC is only ever (and has only ever been) impartial towards 'each side' from the position of accepted convention. It is ALWAYS partial to the status quo and establishment thought. Hence why (perceived) radical proposals or actors are always treated with derision. Hard disagree on this. The BBC does have a perspective (expressing any kind of perspective on economics/politics pretty much dictates it), but the position is 'centrist British'. This doesn't seem like a disagreement. The middle of the Overton Window is the establishment position. No more so than 'everyone hates us so we must be doing it right', which it was a direct response to. Clearly it is more complicated, but that the critiques levelled at the BBC's partiality (including peer reviewed analyses of its partiality) are many and varied, rather than purely 'you like the other guys too much' os indicative of problems rather than balance.
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Mar 12, 2023 14:49:49 GMT -5
Perhaps I miscommunicated. I'm not saying that the British people as a whole 'agree with' the Tories. I'm not sure what subject it is you mean that they'd agree with them on, to be honest!
What I'm saying is that the averages of these things reflect each other in a feedback loop. Let me give some examples.
If a newspaper cottons onto a particular subject as being important, and can spread that message across the media more generally, they can convince people it matters. This then means that the politicians begin to work it into their next manifesto/policy shift as best they can, because they think they can win votes by appearing to be proactive and reflecting the popular opinion on that subject.
Alternatively, the government might (being advised by various professionals, etc), find another issue is becoming of pressing importance. They will then brief the media on it, who mimicking the government priority, will allocate it more prominent coverage. The public will read about this, and then become more invested in the subject.
From a third angle, a pressure group might organise a series of protests/events/visible activities that drum up popular grassroots supports on a subject. Because people are interested in this, the media will begin to cover it. And because the papers are now carrying it, they'll ask the government for their opinion on the subject, who will rapidly need to evolve/establish a position.
You get the idea. None of these three parties 'control' or 'agree' with the other necessarily. But the successful intrusion of an issue will usually result in each of the three staking out their position relative to each other - and the most forcefully held position will invariably push the other two to mutate to reflect it. The government will be struck out, or the papers will lose sales/clicks/interest, or people will change their minds - whichever happens first will depend upon the strength of commitment/feeling held amongst all three on average.
|
|