The Bbc Is At Least A Thousand Times More Evil And Dangerous Than Rupert Murdoch

[barrabus]

This web site is full of nutters.

Is that you Hazel?

[profitofdoom]

How about just answering my question? Instead of being snyde, and sarcastic, and petulant?

You should not confuse him not answering your question with him giving you an answer that you don't like.I think that his point was that media type darling jobs attract the intellectual/gay/ethnic types and that is why they are over represented. I agree that it looks as if they have gone to great lengths.My local news has a muslim lady.I was speculating last night what would happen if she took up the habib.Strangely she has a penchant for tight fitting tops,I love imagining the apoplexy in parts of Luton as the Mad Mullahs watch the news,and most likely do a bit of pole-stroking.

[LuckyOne]

This is interesting, given the left was originally formed to stop thieves from stealing from "the workers." You are right, of course as this is what the left has become.

The right are generally the original thieves the lefft was formed to fight against, with enough promises of tax relief (which never, ever happens mind you) to get the votes in to fight off the left.

The left right paradigm is a complete failure - because they both seek to force their view on others.

The battle really is between free and coerced, but few are talking about it in those terms, even now. Which is pretty scary, really.

I agree with you completely.

Traktion did an amazing job in describing the difference between freedom and coercion with respect to money here.

[Milton]

You should not confuse him not answering your question with him giving you an answer that you don't like.

I didnt do. [see posts no's 27 and 32]

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[LuckyOne]

Great post. I agree with everything there.

And I also agree with Blair's (and Clinton's before him) "3rd way" (actually just continuing and deepening the Swedish modernising reforms from the 70s onwards), including Clinton's reform of the unemployment benefit system there, and Blair's attempted reforms here. Unfortunately New Labour was blocked by the alliance of Old Labour, public sector, unions, and then Gordon Brown.

When I wrote that "a truly left wing organisation would side with working people" I refer back to the main original principle of the left. Exactly to indicate their contradiction in this point - taxes on workers v benefits/public sector.

The retrograde alliance above betrayed that original principle. I think New Labour (and Clinton) was much closer to the interests of working people than Old Labour.

I have often wondered about the evolution of the politics of the so called left.

They had a critical job to do as the economy industrialised. Workers needed to act collectively to equalise the power in their relationship with the owners of capital with respect to wages, working conditions and safety. Their actions were noble.

At some point though, their demands became enshrined in our laws and accepted as normal in our consciousness rendering the parties of the left almost obsolete.

As their apparatus and desire for power was still in existence, they had to find something else to do rather than disbanding. It was at this stage that they switched their allegiance from working people to those who relied on the state for their well being. Their methods are the same but they lost sight of the fact that they were now starting to hurt those who they had initially helped.

[Milton]

I have often wondered about the evolution of the politics of the so called left.

Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA

For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current ­affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to ­answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?

In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[efdemin]

I didnt do.

You did and you've continued on to keep posting your blinkered questions.

[Milton]

You did and you've continued on to keep posting your blinkered questions.

I did not confuse you not answering my question.

Why are my subsequent questions blinkered?

I was merely making the point that the BBC will use positive discrimination when it suits their own purposes.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[Democorruptcy]

So while I think BBC News 24 and the main bulletins need taking to task, there's plenty of balance.

An astonishing comment from someone on HPC.

How can Question Time still be put up as a good point when it is very clearly pro-Labour and very anti-Liberal?

[DTMark]

An astonishing comment from someone on HPC.

How can Question Time still be put up as a good point when it is very clearly pro-Labour and very anti-Liberal?

I don't think we've been watching the same programme. I can remember instances where Dimbleby would push the Labour minister again and again to howls of laughter and derision from the audience, and very nearly got Jack Straw to admit out loud that the war in Iraq was wrong.

[LuckyOne]

I agree the BBC does drive the agenda on things like climate change in the media, but think about it, is this a good thing or not?

Shouldnt we be thinking about ways to live more efficiently on this planet?

We love saving money why should saving the planet for future generations be any different? The problem is Dunbars number, but if the message can be put across that avoids the dunbars number problem ie the viewer is made to think about their kids & grandkids and not a person we dont know in some far off country, it has more effect.

We already know modern day living in towns and cities is not the best for for us with things like pollution so shouldnt we be looking at ways to live more efficiently & healthily?

Isnt it about trying to make life as enjoyable as possible?

It is the little things that get my goat. I don't know whether global warming is as bad as some claim but I do know that spewing pollutants into the atmosphere cannot be good.

Before the carbon tax was introduced, I always bought carbon offsets on my flights for about 1/3 of the cost of the current carbon tax. Now that the carbon tax has been introduced at about 3x the cost of the offset, I no longer buy the carbon offset as I am already paying for it.

The net result is that the tax take has increased and I am pretty sure that there is no carbon offset to the pollution that is spewed into the atmosphere when I fly.

I do not know whether the carbon tax on flying is ring fenced and only spent on carbon reduction on a broader scale. Given the history of the road tax and fuel tax, I doubt it.

A well thought out policy would scale the carbon tax relative to the alternative modes of transport in addition to price of an offset. I for one would love to see the carbon tax being used to buy vast tracts of the Amazon rather than seeing it form part of the general tax pool and being spent on HB etc.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

99% don't get any choice.it's pay the extortion rate or go to prison.

I think there is more of a choice these days. Dump the tv, listen to the best bits of bbc radio and post broadcast tv on Iplayer, without paying a license fee.

This may be seen a a bit parasitic, so perhaps a small fee should be introduced (maybe, too small to justify collection) . I gave up tv, but would be happy to pay for some radio 4 / world service as commerical radio is appalling

[DTMark]

I think there is more of a choice these days. Dump the tv, listen to the best bits of bbc radio and post broadcast tv on Iplayer, without paying a license fee.

This may be seen a a bit parasitic, so perhaps a small fee should be introduced (maybe, too small to justify collection) . I gave up tv, but would be happy to pay for some radio 4 / world service as commerical radio is appalling

Agree with that. Though, I did find the letter I got from TV licencing - which more or less stated that I needed to prove I had a licence or I might get someone in a big black coat with a cage come to my house - rather wrong. For a start the place already had one, and I thought we had "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.

But perhaps this is about the polarised nature of "society" in this country. You have a fair chunk of people who rush home to watch Hollyoaks (the worst acting I've ever seen anywhere ever) who don't even know what Question Time is, and another chunk typically called "middle england" who think "Please don't ruin the BBC. We don't have much left."

[profitofdoom]

The BBC is not left-wing - it's wishy washy middle of the road liberalism. Yes, it can be sanctimonious, paternalistic and all the rest but it has set a broadcasting standard that is world class: how many other institutions in the UK can you say that about? Tories hate it because it's not a private enterprise but God help us if it goes because if you want your media to be Fox news and tabloids and celebrity gossip then get rid of it and enjoy...People in UK take the BBC (and NHS) for granted but life in this country would be poorer for their absence....

Yes that's right.You could choose the Dimblebys to represent what it stands for.Proggish,decent well meaning sorts.Not left though.

[DTMark]

the main reason I hate the BBC is that they make working class people on minimum wage pay £140 per annum for the privilege of having a TV.and then they have the cheek to pay themselves banking sector salaries to retain the 'talent',whilst lecturing us poor suckers on how lucky we are to have them.

sure feels like someone's slipping me a length of zanu luvvin.

I can agree with some of that. In particular, and to single out one of the most truly odious, crass and pointless individuals - just my opinion of course - Johnathan Ross. And, no, it isn't because he comes across as homophobic. I just cannot fathom why he's worth the money.

It's as if the BBC decided to dig in their heels over that, and didn't he shaft them for it.

And I think given some of the recent reviews and anouncements, this is indeed being addressed.

[efdemin]

I did not confuse you not answering my question.

Why are my subsequent questions blinkered?

I was merely making the point that the BBC will use positive discrimination when it suits their own purposes.

You're questions are blinkered because you're assuming the BBC is using positive discrimination when you ask them.

I'm saying the BBC is influenced by where it is based and the people who tend to work in that sector. You don't need the extra push of positive discrimination to explain it.

[Milton]

You're questions are blinkered because you're assuming the BBC is using positive discrimination.

I'm saying the BBC is influenced by where it is based and the people who tend to work in that sector. You don't need the extra push of positive discrimination to explain it.

I have already answered that in post 32:

I do not know how many of the population of the London Area are gay/ethnic minorities. Compared against the number of gay/ethnic minority people employed by the BBC.

But Marr obviously does, and his comment therefore is self explanatory.

Marr is specifically saying that the ratio is not representative of the population of the UK.

As DT Mark pointed out it is likely to be 'positive discrimination'

'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. .'

Andrew Marr, BBC

Marr goes onto say :

It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.

Source of Quote: BBC Admits it is Biased

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[DTMark]

Ones own bias can cloud the viewing experience.

Didn't take long to find this on the BBC's rather superb website, even though it was 3 years ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5390000/newsid_5391100/5391194.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2

It does cut the debate short. I recall Dimbleby going at him again and again. It was as close as you ever got to a senior Labour minister openly admitting that it was the wrong thing to do.

If you think QT is biased (not directed at 'Tr1ck5t3r'), do take a look.

[efdemin]

I have already answered that in post 32:

...

Marr goes onto say :

'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. .'

Andrew Marr, BBC

Ok, so the question here is, is Andrew Marr comparing the BBC to the general distribution of people / bias in:

1) London

2) The UK as a whole

You seem to think he means 1) but I am sure he actually meant 2). Have you got any more context for where this quote comes from?

BTW, it still makes sense like this:

'The BBC London is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded (well, ok this doesn't really fit), urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. .'

Andrew Marr, BBC

[DTMark]

what they did to the BNP's Nick griffin was wrong.free speech is free speech even if you disagree with someone.they actually gave him credibility by stacking the audience against him.

You see, I have a different interpretation again. Nick Griffin has no credibility and is so easily undermined by asking the very most basic questions about his past and his party that I thought he was given a fair hearing. It's just that nobody much liked what he said. He dug his own grave, and would have been far better off not going on the programme.

And if people are going to claim that the BBC was biased against him, I'd remind everyone of how controversial his appearance was and the BBC were heavily criticised for "allowing it". "Allowing" that free speech? Can't have it both ways.

[CrashConnoisseur]

'The BBC London is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded (well, ok this doesn't really fit), urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. .'

Andrew Marr, BBC

Actually that bit does fit; much of the City's income comes from imposing private sector taxes on the country's financial transactions.

[Milton]

Actually that bit does fit; much of the City's income comes from imposing private sector taxes on the country's financial transactions.

............

At its core, the BBC, like all the other higher echelons of the Establishment, is a plutocracy.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[Jack's Creation]

.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Jack's Creation

[Milton]

No, it was never that. Having worked for the BBC, along with my wife the vast majority of the people working there were white, middle class left leaning liberals.

If you are to be believed, whats Marr prattling on about then?

'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[DTMark]

Ok, so the question here is, is Andrew Marr comparing the BBC to the general distribution of people / bias in:

1) London

2) The UK as a whole

You seem to think he means 1) but I am sure he actually meant 2). Have you got any more context for where this quote comes from?

BTW, it still makes sense like this:

'The BBC London is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded (well, ok this doesn't really fit), urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. .'

Andrew Marr, BBC

I'm not sure where the quote was lifted from, but to paste it back in and split it in half:

'The BBC is not impartial or neutral.

It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. .'

I don't really see how those two statements run together. It's as if the middle bit is missing.

The latter part does not really qualify the former part and they stand separately, which is why I split it above.

Largely urban - well, that's because it's (mostly) in London and Manchester. Though I'd guess some of the staff live in the countryside.

Large number of gay people - yes, the media lends itself to that. Oddly enough I'd always assumed Andrew Marr was gay. Though I'd quite happily push the closet door shut and nail it down firmly

Large number of young people - eh? What?

Large number of ethnic minorities - can't say that I've noticed that particularly. But then if I look at a street of people, I see a street of people. I don't see some Jews, some Muslims, some British White Caucasians and so on.

The BBC is - and should be - held to a higher standard than, say, Sky, precisely because it is taxpayer funded.

It is therefore essential that all groups are reasonably well represented. I can imagine I understand some of the issues faced by, say, the Muslim population of Birmingham, but really, I haven't a clue. If I want to know, I go and speak to a Muslim living in Birmingham. So actually, I'd expect a "healthy" representation of ethnic minorities. It is healthy or excessive? I don't know.

I do wonder - given the shows that Marr has written, largely about British history and politics, if actually it's more of a side swipe at British "society" today which the BBC reflects.