If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?

Yes I would pay it
18
33%
No I would not pay it
37
67%
 
Total votes: 55
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Hexx » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:51 am

OrangeRKN wrote:I completely believe the BBC tries to be unbiased. I also think they fail a lot, both from individual bias creeping in (like from Laura Kuenssberg during the election) and from a misunderstanding of balance (thereby unfairly weighting "both sides" in debates). The right wing appear more effective at taking advantage of the BBC in this way.


The BBC puts far to much emphasis on "both sides are angry" therefore we're doing a good job/are impartial.

BBC is moderately biased to the right
Right wing "You're not biased enough towards us"
Left wing "You're biased to the right"

BBC well both sides are upset so clearly we're being impartial!

User avatar
jawa4
Member
Joined in 2020

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by jawa4 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:38 am

It's surprising how perspectives can differ to such a degree when viewing the same thing. There are folk claiming that the BBC is biased towards both left and right leaning politics. I wonder if it's possible that people's own ideals are impacting their assessment?

Maybe a "moral" element is a factor. It seems that some folk believe other political perspectives are either "right" (as in correct, not right-leaning!) or "wrong". Would it be the case that people prefer impartiality to mean "only show viewpoints coming from the side I prefer"? When opinions are built upon such strong, almost binary, beliefs than any media channel sharing a broader selection of opinions will face annoyance from a sector of people.

It's also possible that - as with any form of news - our brains can naturally focus on the "bad" rather than the "good". The BBC could show two minutes of (insert your most-preferred political party name here) talking through a policy and then a minute of (insert your least-preferred political party name here) discussing an aspect and your brain will be thinking about the part you didn't like; maybe interpreting it to be bias or something that was "wrong".

I'm not, of course, suggesting that extremist political views should get airtime; more that it's virtually impossible to present a range of political viewpoints in a way which does not cause a sector of the audience to become annoyed. Perhaps such broadcasts could be arranged in terms of having - from each party - the same number of people talking for the same number of minutes, answering the exact same questions... technically that may be "fair", but would that be a touch mechanical?

In end... we just don't really like hearing or watching political viewpoints that differ to our own.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
SONM & Cake Sec.
SONM & Cake Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by OrangeRKN » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:01 pm

Here is a BBC report concluding that their coverage of climate change was biased towards climate denial

One of the key findings of the report which still resonates today is that there is at times an:

“... ‘over-rigid’ (as Professor Jones describe dit) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the ‘non-contentious’ nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion’. Professor Jones cites ... the existence of man-made climate change as [an] example of this point.”


So no, it doesn't just come down to people's own viewpoints biasing their perception of the BBC - it has a genuine problem with false balance.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Moggy » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:22 pm



I take it all back, if that happens then the BBC should be thrown into a pit.

Image
User avatar
Tomous
I Pissed My Pants
Joined in 2010
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Tomous » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:24 pm

The BBC giving undue attention to marginal views is a huge issue and contributing factor, in my opinion, to Brexit.

Nigel Farage was seemingly guaranteed a Question Time seat whenever he facied, for years.

Image
User avatar
Qikz
#420BlazeIt ♥
Joined in 2011

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Qikz » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:24 pm

Moggy wrote:

I take it all back, if that happens then the BBC should be thrown into a pit.


I thought we had anti monopoly laws here. Wtf

Image
The Watching Artist wrote:I feel so inept next to Qikz...
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Moggy » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:30 pm

Qikz wrote:
Moggy wrote:

I take it all back, if that happens then the BBC should be thrown into a pit.


I thought we had anti monopoly laws here. Wtf


The Murdoch’s only own newspapers now (Sky was sold to Comcast). And even then I doubt monopoly laws would stop Murdoch’s daughter being BBC boss.

Image
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Hexx » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:41 pm

Tomous wrote:The BBC giving undue attention to marginal views is a huge issue and contributing factor, in my opinion, to Brexit.

Nigel Farage was seemingly guaranteed a Question Time seat whenever he facied, for years.


Yep. It was a regular thing (mainly in news) - there are two views, so that should be a 50:50 split of coverage.

IIRC they've even admitted doing this in various Trust reports but have never changed

User avatar
jawa4
Member
Joined in 2020

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by jawa4 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:16 pm

OrangeRKN wrote:Here is a BBC report concluding that their coverage of climate change was biased towards climate denial

One of the key findings of the report which still resonates today is that there is at times an:

“... ‘over-rigid’ (as Professor Jones describe dit) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the ‘non-contentious’ nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion’. Professor Jones cites ... the existence of man-made climate change as [an] example of this point.”


So no, it doesn't just come down to people's own viewpoints biasing their perception of the BBC - it has a genuine problem with false balance.

That is a fair point, Orange. I would like to also share the paragraphs immediately after the one you quoted, though, ad they provide background on action taken to combat such a situation:

This is a matter of training and ongoing shared editorial judgement. The Trust notes that seminars continue to take place and that nearly 200 senior staff have attended workshops which set out that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, but depends on the varying degree of prominence (due weight) such views should be given.

The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences. The Trust also would like to reiterate that, as it said in 2011, “This does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly scrutinised.” The BBC has a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately. Audiences should be able to understand from the context and clarity of the BBC’s output what weight to give to critical voices.


I see it as a positive thing that the BBC takes action to gain independent audits of its work; and it appears that the suggested actions are - at least, in this particular case - taken forward.

I don't think anyone would suggest that the BBC is perfect or beyond reproach, but I do feel that they are more likely to undertake these kinds of analysis and review than other media outlets. Of course, this may well be in part because we are providing the funding for them to do so! Even so, the outcome would seem to be of benefit in terms of improving production approaches and standards.

User avatar
The Watching Artist
Scrub
Joined in 2008

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by The Watching Artist » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:51 pm

Tomous wrote:
The Watching Artist wrote:



Having high debt isn't necessarily an issue nor does it mean they don't have a sustainable business model (which they definitely do). Infact, looking into it, Netflix's debt situation is pretty healthy. I don't think it's even that high for the industry, in relative terms.

They also don't pay tax-
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... -didnt-pay
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... nt-in-2018
https://inews.co.uk/news/business/netfl ... les-643144

I've seriously lost count of the amount of times I've heard the BBC described as woke after the last few years. I mean it's got issues with the news side of thing but cor blimey it knows how to piss the right off big time. :lol:

Image
User avatar
Tomous
I Pissed My Pants
Joined in 2010
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Tomous » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:18 pm

They don't pay tax because they don't owe it. HRMC seems quite happy to give them tax breaks for UK based productions (which you can easily argue the UK does benefit from) and continue to allow them (and other big business) to channel UK based income through foreign subsidiaries (which in my opinion is a farce but the Government seemingly have no interest in closing those tax loopholes).

Image
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?
by Hexx » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:19 pm

The Watching Artist wrote:I've seriously lost count of the amount of times I've heard the BBC described as woke after the last few years. I mean it's got issues with the news side of thing but cor blimey it knows how to piss the right off big time. :lol:


There's clearly a big split between the overtly right wing leaning/pandering News/Current affairs section, and the majority of it's more progressive/representationa entertainment side.


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], massimo, MSN [Bot] and 67 guests