BBC

Forums New posts
egb_hibs said:
@Archie do you really not get it?

I didn't list my views - I share some, disagree with others and am indifferent to yet others. I listed views that are not represented.

Your post implies I'm imagining the BBC having a left liberal bias, and in your next breath you express disbelief that other views might be represented. I can't believe you actually wrote that without noticing.

i also can't believe in the context of this conversation you could construe things like an honest portrayal of pre colonial countries as being pro colonial. Have we really got to the point where accuracy versus invented and idealised mythmaking is 'right wing'?

i put it to you that this is the problem with the liberal echo chamber on nutshell; devotees come to assume the establishment view is a default. It's not, its a minority view albeit that minority includes the rich and powerful. Its also not a 'good' worldview either - its not wholly benign at all. And moreover I think it is so pervasive it is causing devotees to lose their purchase on what truth is and what is real.

As I say no objection to that being available to you of course, but let's keep it simple; why should other people be forced to fund the promotion of a specific worldview just because you happen to share it? Seriously.
Click to expand...
Firstly, your assumption that the BBC represents my world view is lazy. I happen to believe that a public broadcaster is a good thing and an important antidote to the wasteland of unfettered commercial broadcasting. You could equally argue why should people who disagree with Catholic schools have to fund them?

On your point about an 'how could you construe anhonest portayal of pre colonial countries being pro colonial'? It might not be so, but equally it could be used as a pretext to justify colonialism. Surely you must see that? But more to the point, can you tell me examples of the BBC giving a dishonest view of pre colonial countries?

But the nub of this is to paint the 'establishment' as the enemy. But that can't be the rick capitalists - oh no. That can't be Trump - oh no. It looks like you really want to paint the establishment as anything but those who wield real economic power. Why is that. The attacks on the BBC are just part of that.

Do you ever consider just trying to improve things rather than wrecking them?
 
egb_hibs said:
Ps no I don't see myself as arbiter of the disadvantages of black people; I see myself as someone who places more value on facts and reality than on mendacious narratives which damage the disadvantaged.

Let's not get forked on off on that though it's been retread on 2 or 3 threads over the last few weeks already; the point here is even if it's uncomfortable and you choose to reject it, the BBC won't give you the full picture. It lies by omission, at best.
Click to expand...
I'll bet you don't want to get into that. Let me guess it's anti racists and people who passed anti racist legislation - is that it?
 
Archie said:
I'll bet you don't want to get into that. Let me guess it's anti racists and people who passed anti racist legislation - is that it?
Click to expand...
It's been done on more than one thread recently and I think you were involved?
 
Archie said:
Firstly, your assumption that the BBC represents my world view is lazy. I happen to believe that a public broadcaster is a good thing and an important antidote to the wasteland of unfettered commercial broadcasting. You could equally argue why should people who disagree with Catholic schools have to fund them?

On your point about an 'how could you construe anhonest portayal of pre colonial countries being pro colonial'? It might not be so, but equally it could be used as a pretext to justify colonialism. Surely you must see that? But more to the point, can you tell me examples of the BBC giving a dishonest view of pre colonial countries?

But the nub of this is to paint the 'establishment' as the enemy. But that can't be the rick capitalists - oh no. That can't be Trump - oh no. It looks like you really want to paint the establishment as anything but those who wield real economic power. Why is that. The attacks on the BBC are just part of that.

Do you ever consider just trying to improve things rather than wrecking them?
Click to expand...
I'd be quite happy if everyone got a 'voucher' to pay for the school of their choice. If anything the problem is non denom schools- I mean it's not like they present a neutral value set is it, but most people don't have an alternative. Or are you the arbiter of the one correct truth in this case also?

Meanwhile, as to the truth can be used to justify colonialism - do you think that? Do you think the fact that many people walk about with the view that the west is somehow uniquely bad and / or 'messed up' these places is better even if based on untruths and incomplete truths?

As for this point about capitalists, I mean what are you on about? You did this the other day and I pointed out then that I keep restating that global capitalism is one of the major causes of our ills.

What am I trying to wreck? People being forced to pay for one broadcaster which promotes a highly partial world view? Aye OK. That world view is a wrecker itself in many ways.

I'm sorry but I think we've done nothing here but underline why the BBC is partisan amd the influence that has. You seem to appear to believe you are the one who welcomes a multi facetted portrayal of view points, except that pretty obviously means ones you agree with or at minimum are not challenged by. And that is a product of the dominance of the establishment viewpoint - not that you hold your views but that you mistake your position for neutrality
 
egb_hibs said:
I'd be quite happy if everyone got a 'voucher' to pay for the school of their choice. If anything the problem is non denom schools- I mean it's not like they present a neutral value set is it, but most people don't have an alternative. Or are you the arbiter of the one correct truth in this case also?

Meanwhile, as to the truth can be used to justify colonialism - do you think that? Do you think the fact that many people walk about with the view that the west is somehow uniquely bad and / or 'messed up' these places is better even if based on untruths and incomplete truths?

As for this point about capitalists, I mean what are you on about? You did this the other day and I pointed out then that I keep restating that global capitalism is one of the major causes of our ills.

What am I trying to wreck? People being forced to pay for one broadcaster which promotes a highly partial world view? Aye OK. That world view is a wrecker itself in many ways.

I'm sorry but I think we've done nothing here but underline why the BBC is partisan amd the influence that has. You seem to appear to believe you are the one who welcomes a multi facetted portrayal of view points, except that pretty obviously means ones you agree with or at minimum are not challenged by. And that is a product of the dominance of the establishment viewpoint - not that you hold your views but that you mistake your position for neutrality
Click to expand...
This is the usual mix up of stuff here. As it happens I believe that there is a range of views available across broadcast media. I'm perfectly comfortable with GB news (but I do have issues when they fan unsubstantiated conspiracy stuff).

But I've thought about your notion of there being no prevailing values. Do you really think that? Yes there is diversity on issues such as the death penalty. But I assume that there isn't much divergence on issues like child cruelty, healthcare and so on. Social attitude surveys across the UK show remarkable congruence. In short I don't accept your view that there is such a wide divergence as you suggest.

But your broader point that schools, broadcasters and other institutions should present a 'neutral' view. Well what does that even mean? What is a 'neutral' view on what is happening in Ukraine? I suspect your issue is that previously much of the shared value set was given by the church. For a range of reasons that had dramatically lessened. My guess would be that you regret that.

Turning to the point about schools, that was a reference to your point about paying for things you don't like or don't use. A stable society requires that we do that. Vouchers is an attempt to build a market in school admissions. Is that really better than working towards good quality local schools?

My issue with your references to global capitalism is that they don't appear to follow through. If you really oppose global capitalism then you have strong controls on immigration, capital controls and restrictions on imports. Is that what you really mean? It would surprise me as it requires strong government intervention and control.

But where you really lose me is the notion that these poor capitalists have been led astray by the 'liberal elites'. The reason why right wingers want to point a so called 'liberal elites' is that it shifts the focus from where power really lies. That's how Trump, who doesn't give a rat ass about working people, spins it. A man whose connections have given him the silver spoon life.

I don't alway agree with the Guardian, but I think this piece sums it up Rupert Murdoch’s toxic legacy? The powerful can now blame the world’s ills on ‘the elite’ | Jonathan Freedland
 
@Archie we are still talking past each other. Your catholic school analogy is not a good one. A comparable situation with the BBC would be if all state schools were Catholic schools, ie only representative of one belief, rather than representing the mix of contributing taxpayers.

As to there being no prevailing values; you are the one who simultaneously does not which to countenance a diverse set of values being represented by the BBC, or even basic truth it seems from your last but one post.

My original point there was to try and give the Beeb a break by acknowledging they maybe can’t serve all sections of the country - as you are evidencing, many will not countenance values they don’t share being represented. But if they can’t they should be like peers at GBNews, Sky, ITV, and raise their own funding.

And there you go again about capitalists as if it was the 1980s. It’s not so much that you keep ignoring my critique of them, as the fact you seem to think they are different to, even the enemies of, the ‘liberal elite’. It’s 2023 Archie, they’re the same thing.
 
So if capitalists are the same as the 'liberal elite', are you rail against the 'liberal elite' you are also showing your disagreement with capitalism. Have I got this right?
 
Archie said:
So if capitalists are the same as the 'liberal elite', are you rail against the 'liberal elite' you are also showing your disagreement with capitalism. Have I got this right?
Click to expand...
Sigh.

I think many of the mechanisms of global capitalism have been immensely damaging to the western world while dragging hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty elsewhere; and this is a zero sum, we can’t have both.

It is thus a morally complex question, that western countries should be evaluating openly and honestly, rather than cloaking in misdirection and demonisation of opposition. That I am opposed to.

Likewise, I am perfectly happy for elites along with everyone else, to hold the views they do. I oppose the use of their power to ram them down everyone’s throat, in ways and towards ends often indivisible from the previous point.

I am deeply sceptical of the convergence of elite interests around a globalised economy and supranational power structures, which erodes democracy and enables the things in my previous complaints. I am opposed to this overall, but it is not without considerable upsides as well, such as peace between participating nations. The last was why I personally voted remain while being largely ambivalent on the topic and certainly not sharing the heated passions on either side.

However, imo the cost / benefit balancing act has tipped against it in the round, due to the above - which has now got us to a place where peace within those nations is starting to be at risk.

I do not have an issue with John Lewis, the corner shop, Bar Napoli in Dundas street, Hibernian FC, and countless other expressions of free enterprise / capitalism, that may be imperfect in their own ways, but are entirely legitimate products of free agency.

If you were looking for something more black and white, I apologise for letting the side down. But it’s not a black and white world.
 
Last edited:
egb_hibs said:
Sigh.

I think many of the mechanisms of global capitalism have been immensely damaging to the western world while dragging hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty elsewhere; and this is a zero sum, we can’t have both.

It is thus a morally complex question, that western countries should be evaluating openly and honestly, rather than cloaking in misdirection and demonisation of opposition. That I am opposed to.

Likewise, I am perfectly happy for elites along with everyone else, to hold the views they do. I oppose the use of their power to ram them down everyone’s throat, in ways and towards ends often indivisible from the previous point.

I am deeply sceptical of the convergence of elite interests around a globalised economy and supranational power structures, which erodes democracy and enables the things in my previous complaints. I am opposed to this overall, but it is not without considerable upsides as well, such as peace between participating nations. The last was why I personally voted remain while being largely ambivalent on the topic and certainly not sharing the heated passions on either side.

However, imo the cost / benefit balancing act has tipped against it in the round, due to the above - which has now got us to a place where peace within those nations is starting to be at risk.

I do not have an issue with John Lewis, the corner shop, Bar Napoli in Dundas street, Hibernian FC, and countless other expressions of free enterprise / capitalism, that may be imperfect in their own ways, but are entirely legitimate products of free agency.

If you were looking for something more black and white, I apologise for letting the side down. But it’s not a black and white world.
Click to expand...
No need to sigh!

To make it simple for me, I've set out what I think are the consequences of your line of thinking - have I got this right?

- stronger immigration controls
- controls on international capital movements
- import controls/quotas
- limits to engagement/integration with supranational bodies.
 
Archie said:
No need to sigh!

To make it simple for me, I've set out what I think are the consequences of your line of thinking - have I got this right?

- stronger immigration controls
- controls on international capital movements
- import controls/quotas
- limits to engagement/integration with supranational bodies.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I don’t know how it can be contested. As I keep admitting it’s easier to point at problems than figure out solutions.

We, along with other countries, seem over a barrel to me. I don’t see how things such as you suggest can be implemented. Politics is downstream of culture and increasingly down stream of actual power also.
 
Sancho Panza said:
This is an excellent piece by Andrew Doyle. I've always been a big supporter of the BBC but stuff like this has become so commonplace that it really tests my patience.

open.substack.com

The extreme ideological bias of the BBC

The state broadcaster has failed in its obligation to remain impartial.
open.substack.com open.substack.com
Click to expand...
The BBC appears irredeemable. When people say it has a left wing bias you get folk piping up in response saying that it's not marxist cos x, y, z.

Of course it isn't. Noone claims that. What it is, is absolutely wedded to the progressive and technocratic consensus. If people don't want that called left wing, fine. But that's it's bias and it is saturated in it.
 
egb_hibs said:
The BBC appears irredeemable. When people say it has a left wing bias you get folk piping up in response saying that it's not marxist cos x, y, z.

Of course it isn't. Noone claims that. What it is, is absolutely wedded to the progressive and technocratic consensus. If people don't want that called left wing, fine. But that's it's bias and it is saturated in it.
Click to expand...
It's not left wing though is it?

Not since the torys flooded it's hierarchy with its own people.

Laura Kuenssberg left wing 😆

Tory cheerleaders currently dealing with a tsunami of tears!
 
Jack said:
It's not left wing though is it?

Not since the torys flooded it's hierarchy with its own people.

Laura Kuenssberg left wing 😆

Tory cheerleaders currently dealing with a tsunami of tears!
Click to expand...
As I say, if we don’t want to call it left wing, that’s fine by me. But oh look, there’s Laura Kuenssberg mentioned again; funny how she stands out, really.

But in any case, I’m not talking about this kind of thing, I’m talking about the cultural assumptions that are shot through near everything it does.

It’s metropolitan liberal to its bones. And it’s arguably one reason the tories and labour are so close together, because the Beeb is run by the same caste that run the show in these parties.
 
Bring back-Play For Today,Jackanory Arena,Tomorrow’s World and quality drama like I Cladius and PeakyBlinders.Scrap Eastenders Pointless and Bargain Hunt give me an alternative to Wimbledon Iif you invite Farage onto question time then put him up against someone like Michael Rosen not some lightweight airhead from the Sun.Give me comedy that has the quality of the Fast Show or The Thick of It .Get someone like Johnny Ball explaining science to kids.Keep the excellent nature programmes and then maybe just maybe I might pay for my Tv licence.
 
Findlayhibby said:
Bring back-Play For Today,Jackanory Arena,Tomorrow’s World and quality drama like I Cladius and PeakyBlinders.Scrap Eastenders Pointless and Bargain Hunt give me an alternative to Wimbledon Iif you invite Farage onto question time then put him up against someone like Michael Rosen not some lightweight airhead from the Sun.Give me comedy that has the quality of the Fast Show or The Thick of It .Get someone like Johnny Ball explaining science to kids.Keep the excellent nature programmes and then maybe just maybe I might pay for my Tv licence.
Click to expand...
Oh and scrap the bloody One Show!
 
Findlayhibby said:
Bring back-Play For Today,Jackanory Arena,Tomorrow’s World and quality drama like I Cladius and PeakyBlinders.Scrap Eastenders Pointless and Bargain Hunt give me an alternative to Wimbledon Iif you invite Farage onto question time then put him up against someone like Michael Rosen not some lightweight airhead from the Sun.Give me comedy that has the quality of the Fast Show or The Thick of It .Get someone like Johnny Ball explaining science to kids.Keep the excellent nature programmes and then maybe just maybe I might pay for my Tv licence.
Click to expand...
Plenty in there to agree with
 
Sancho Panza said:
So....does the BBC actually employ anyone who isn't a sex pest or a nonce? 🤔

www.bbc.co.uk

Gregg Wallace steps aside from Masterchef as host as allegations are investigated

It comes after BBC News sent a letter outlining allegations by 13 people, including Kirsty Wark, that Wallace made inappropriate sexual comments.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
was about to post that it wasnt the fault of the BBC... but reading further, it would appear like there have been warning signs for over a decade. .... but for balance Im no sure a couple of sexists jokes when kirtsy wark was in the room about 15yrs ago qualifies in someone being a nonce or a sexpest.
 
emerald green said:
was about to post that it wasnt the fault of the BBC... but reading further, it would appear like there have been warning signs for over a decade. .... but for balance Im no sure a couple of sexists jokes when kirtsy wark was in the room about 15yrs ago qualifies in someone being a nonce or a sexpest.
Click to expand...
I was being just a wee bit tongue in cheek there mate. 🤭
 
Doc Shrink said:
Agreed.
His pulling stupid faces all the time on Masterchef rips my knitting.
My missus likes the programme but doesn’t like me shouting “You’re nothing but a bald sleazy grocer” every time the corpulent *&*^ appears.
Click to expand...
I sang that in my head to the tune of 'Guantanamera' when I read that - 'Fat baldy grocer...You're just a fat baldy grocer'.

Really can't stand the massive twat.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

​

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom