Save Newsnight!

alfablue

Yes, there have been a few ****ups, however Newsnight is the best news analysis programme on TV in the UK (if not the world).

To be cutting edge, there are risks; the genuine revelations and truths that this programme has brought to public attention over the years would only come about with the editorial freedom and independence that have been afforded. The cost of this will be some errors. If they played it safe, it would end up as no more insightful than your average TV news bulletin.

Indeed, things go wrong when these are compromised (I suspect that the dropping of the Saville investigation may turn out to have been due to external pressures; the Lord McAlpine debacle occurrred after experienced editors "stepped aside" and there was probably a perceived imperative to make sure child abuse stories came to air after the Saville one was surpressed).

So don't let Newsnight be the next head to roll, it will not serve broadcasting, society or our democracy to lose this programme.

Gazzaputt

You I cannot believe how this is all front page news. BBC are feeding off it themselves. BBC seem so bloody self important.

It's so unimportant it's unreal. They f*cked up end of move on.

I say end license fee and make the BBC stand on it's own feet.

Newsnights future? Do I care? No.

alfablue

Thank you

GiantMike

I like a lot of the BBC's output, but the BBC's coverage of the BBC is very annoying. The BBC's recent 'incidents' are not headline news.

One thing that has really annoyed me is that when the BBC tries to interview BBC executives they are often 'not available for comment'. How the f*ck does that work? The BBC tries to report on the BBC and BBC executives (who potentially have the most to offer) refuse to comment. Either it is a story or it isn't.

OffTheBackAdam

Testicles! , The BBC has become but part of the left's propaganda machine.

GiantMike

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The BBC has become but part of the left's propaganda machine.

What? Really? Examples?

laurentian

What I don't get is that Newsnight are being grilled for a programme they DID NOT RUN and, more recently, for the incorrect exposure of a man THEY DID NOT NAME.

Waste of time when they could be pursuing the real miscreants in this saga.

MaxwellBygraves

The Daily Mash nails it: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 2111348731

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Testicles! , The BBC has become but part of the left's propaganda machine.

Hahaha.

finchy

Anyone who wants the licence fee ended should watch TV in other countries and see just how good the BBC is in general. Alternatively look at the commercial channels available in the UK or the newspapers.

Mind you, the fee is way too high, especially to pay for the salaries of the likes of Alan Shearer.

pb21

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Testicles! , The BBC has become but part of the left's propaganda machine.

Eh?!

To me they are becoming Tory apologists, they certainly seem to be getting an easy ride at the moment, particularly Ewan Davies on Today.

bianchimoon

johnfinch wrote:

Anyone who wants the licence fee ended should watch TV in other countries and see just how good the BBC is in general. Alternatively look at the commercial channels available in the UK or the newspapers.

Mind you, the fee is way too high, especially to pay for the salaries of the likes of Alan Shearer.

I agree, so called football experts/pundits should be paying the BBC to go on shows for the amount of publicity they receive that keeps them in the public eye and therefore ensures more work/endorsement offers

sfichele

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Testicles! , The BBC has become but part of the left's propaganda machine.

Strange, I thought it was infiltrated with Tory money makers, who have a stranglehold on it, which is why the BBC have been very, very quiet about the privatisation, and dismantling of the NHS.

alfablue

GiantMike wrote:

One thing that has really annoyed me is that when the BBC tries to interview BBC executives they are often 'not available for comment'. How the f*ck does that work? The BBC tries to report on the BBC and BBC executives (who potentially have the most to offer) refuse to comment. Either it is a story or it isn't.

Actually, this very issue is a sign of the quality of BBC journalism; they are prepared to treat interviewees with the same rigour whether or not they work for the BBC. The fact that executives are sometimes unavailable reflects the "mauling" that good BBC journalists will give them. See for example, John Humphries' interview of George Entwistle, which is regarded by many as a pivotal moment leading directly to his resignation.

If only other media organisations would subject themselves so such rigorous scrutiny!

-spider-

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?

GiantMike

-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.....

rolf_f

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.....

Well d'uh.... Space aliens. :roll:

Tom Butcher

I'm sure you both know what he means - the fact that child abuse appears to have been brushed under the carpet on a large scale coupled with long term rumours of involvement of well known figures in the British establishment - the stuff that MP Tom Watson believes he has evidence for.

rebs

Sad thing about all this is Newspapers do a similar screw up its all just *Shrug* then move on. Then its the same papers that are feeding the fire. Such a joke. Massive non story.

-spider-

Rolf F wrote:

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.....

Well d'uh.... Space aliens. :roll:

Well no, Rolf F, - I don't think d'uh.... Space aliens. :roll: :P

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).

Frank the tank

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Testicles! , The BBC has become but part of the left's propaganda machine.

I find the BBC to be an oganisation that seems to irk the government (of whatever political persuasion) this to me is a good thing.

GiantMike

-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?

tiredofwhiners

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

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

Will miss Kirsty Warks legs

Tom Butcher

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 ?

-spider-

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

tiredofwhiners

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.

GiantMike

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.

alfablue

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.

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

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: