Bbc News - Have Your Say - How Might Falling House Prices Affect You?

[quine]

page after page of the public talking sense and welcoming the crash. Well I never!

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jsp...paginator

How might falling house prices affect you?

In an exclusive interview the chairman of one of the world's most powerful banks has told the BBC he believes house prices in the UK and USA are likely to fall for another two years. Are you prepared for a further fall in property prices?

[VacantPossession]

page after page of the public talking sense and welcoming the crash. Well I never!

Well, unless every single poster there is from HPC then this proves once and for all that a large cross section of BBC viewers completely disagree with the Beeb's repeated and obsessive fixation that house price falls are "bad". On the contrary, nearly every single contributor to "have your say" welcomes a crash. So, when is the BBC news (Peston et al) going to start reporting that it is a good thing as a reflection of REAL people's views?

VP

[The Insider]

Well, unless every single poster there is from HPC then this proves once and for all that a large cross section of BBC viewers completely disagree with the Beeb's repeated and obsessive fixation that house price falls are "bad". On the contrary, nearly every single contributor to "have your say" welcomes a crash. So, when is the BBC news (Peston et al) going to start reporting that it is a good thing as a reflection of REAL people's views?

VP

Most of the BBC's main economic correspondents - including myself - have been pointing out for months that falling prices are good for the majority of people. It's just that some people pay no attention to events which don't fit in with their fixed view of the world.

[oracle]

page after page of the public talking sense and welcoming the crash. Well I never!

I'd take ANYTHING the BBC has to do with an enormous pinch of salt.

They've probably got armies of their own employees detailed to write "oh well it's not such a bad thing" posts in order to indoctrinate the genuine posters who I guess will either be either in denial or angry.(subtle mind programming).

Given the level of sneakiness of the current administration,we already know they do not play by the queensbury rules.

[VacantPossession]

Most of the BBC's main economic correspondents - including myself - have been pointing out for months that falling prices are good for the majority of people. It's just that some people pay no attention to events which don't fit in with their fixed view of the world.

I would challenge that statement. While you, and a few others at the Beeb, might be of this view, the BBC as a whole continues not to challenge the endless spin that comes from either the property industry OR the government. It is nothing like as rigorous enough in its examination of platitudes issued daily by organisations who are effectively lying. It continues to broadcast, ad nauseam, the views of one side of the argument by ONLY inviting on to its programmes those with a blatant self interest in there not being a house price downward adjustment: Estate Agents, City Economists whose remit is to support a broadly bull standpoint, Mortgage lenders, Parliamentary Financial Committee Members (all fundamentally against letting a crash take its course) and others who either tow the government line or the City line.

In the last few weeks we have had relentless bulletins echoing the views of one pole of the issue: that of short term fixes, shared ownership, government rescue plans, strategies for staving off the inevitable, and a succession of pundits trotted on to declare what a disaster a house price crash would be for everyone, etc, etc.

The BBC is NOT reflecting, nor does it seek or invite, the views of those who feel the best thing is to let it take its course; nor does it rigorously question the theories, policies or views of those professionals who have cumulatively brought us, through their irresponsible practices, to the biggest debt crisis in history and what will be the mother of all overdue crashes.

VP

[yellerkat]

Well said, VP.

[ruisort7]

I would challenge that statement. While you, and a few others at the Beeb, might be of this view, the BBC as a whole continues not to challenge the endless spin that comes from either the property industry OR the government. It is nothing like as rigorous enough in its examination of platitudes issued daily by organisations who are effectively lying. It continues to broadcast, ad nauseam, the views of one side of the argument by ONLY inviting on to its programmes those with a blatant self interest in there not being a house price downward adjustment: Estate Agents, City Economists whose remit is to support a broadly bull standpoint, Mortgage lenders, Parliamentary Financial Committee Members (all fundamentally against letting a crash take its course) and others who either tow the government line or the City line.

In the last few weeks we have had relentless bulletins echoing the views of one pole of the issue: that of short term fixes, shared ownership, government rescue plans, strategies for staving off the inevitable, and a succession of pundits trotted on to declare what a disaster a house price crash would be for everyone, etc, etc.

The BBC is NOT reflecting, nor does it seek or invite, the views of those who feel the best thing is to let it take its course; nor does it rigorously question the theories, policies or views of those professionals who have cumulatively brought us, through their irresponsible practices, to the biggest debt crisis in history and what will be the mother of all overdue crashes.

VP

Very well said, well done, especially the final statement. Some accountability from the Beeb would be welcomed.

[uptherebels]

I would challenge that statement. While you, and a few others at the Beeb, might be of this view, the BBC as a whole continues not to challenge the endless spin that comes from either the property industry OR the government. It is nothing like as rigorous enough in its examination of platitudes issued daily by organisations who are effectively lying. It continues to broadcast, ad nauseam, the views of one side of the argument by ONLY inviting on to its programmes those with a blatant self interest in there not being a house price downward adjustment: Estate Agents, City Economists whose remit is to support a broadly bull standpoint, Mortgage lenders, Parliamentary Financial Committee Members (all fundamentally against letting a crash take its course) and others who either tow the government line or the City line.

In the last few weeks we have had relentless bulletins echoing the views of one pole of the issue: that of short term fixes, shared ownership, government rescue plans, strategies for staving off the inevitable, and a succession of pundits trotted on to declare what a disaster a house price crash would be for everyone, etc, etc.

The BBC is NOT reflecting, nor does it seek or invite, the views of those who feel the best thing is to let it take its course; nor does it rigorously question the theories, policies or views of those professionals who have cumulatively brought us, through their irresponsible practices, to the biggest debt crisis in history and what will be the mother of all overdue crashes.

VP

I second the above, despite my love for the BBC.

[crash2006]

Dont use the BBC for info, everything they spew out, is for some kind of future political means, they steer peoples views way before politicians release new laws.

[VacantPossession]

Dont use the BBC for info, everything they spew out, is for some kind of future political means, they steer peoples views way before politicians release new laws.

Agreed, but the problem is that over half the population of the UK actually DO believe what the BBC tells them, especially on the economy. Ignoring the Beeb might be desirable in this context, but then you have to address the fact that millions of less discerning people are getting a daily dose of misinformation and accepting it as fact. Therefore it is important to keep plugging away at the Beeb until it sees fit to make a better balance in its skewed presentation of housing issues.

VP

[buzzardo]

I would challenge that statement. While you, and a few others at the Beeb, might be of this view, the BBC as a whole continues not to challenge the endless spin that comes from either the property industry OR the government. It is nothing like as rigorous enough in its examination of platitudes issued daily by organisations who are effectively lying. It continues to broadcast, ad nauseam, the views of one side of the argument by ONLY inviting on to its programmes those with a blatant self interest in there not being a house price downward adjustment: Estate Agents, City Economists whose remit is to support a broadly bull standpoint, Mortgage lenders, Parliamentary Financial Committee Members (all fundamentally against letting a crash take its course) and others who either tow the government line or the City line.

In the last few weeks we have had relentless bulletins echoing the views of one pole of the issue: that of short term fixes, shared ownership, government rescue plans, strategies for staving off the inevitable, and a succession of pundits trotted on to declare what a disaster a house price crash would be for everyone, etc, etc.

The BBC is NOT reflecting, nor does it seek or invite, the views of those who feel the best thing is to let it take its course; nor does it rigorously question the theories, policies or views of those professionals who have cumulatively brought us, through their irresponsible practices, to the biggest debt crisis in history and what will be the mother of all overdue crashes.

VP

Thank you VP. My immediate reaction to this post from The Insider was "b%ll%cks," which clearly fell far short of the persuasive and erudite arguments which you subsequently posted. Once again I am a dwarf in a land of giants...

I'd be really interested to hear further views on this from The Insider. They look like a new-ish poster to this forum, and if - as they infer - they are on the inside at the Beeb it would be really insightful to hear more. Maybe they could rejoin as "Honest Beebster?!"

If they come back and do that, can we try not to completely blast them out of the water for raising their head? Who know, we might learn something valuable (possibly not, but I'm having an "I'm OK - You're OK" morning today!!)

Cheers.

B

[W12]

Thank you VP. My immediate reaction to this post from The Insider was "b%ll%cks," which clearly fell far short of the persuasive and erudite arguments which you subsequently posted. Once again I am a dwarf in a land of giants...

I'd be really interested to hear further views on this from The Insider. They look like a new-ish poster to this forum, and if - as they infer - they are on the inside at the Beeb it would be really insightful to hear more. Maybe they could rejoin as "Honest Beebster?!"

If they come back and do that, can we try not to completely blast them out of the water for raising their head? Who know, we might learn something valuable (possibly not, but I'm having an "I'm OK - You're OK" morning today!!)

Cheers.

B

Have a look at a thread from a few days back called something like BBC Bear Food. This new poster made some very good points on the last page of the thread.

Some people on here are incapable of being civil towards anyone connected to the BBC. Let's hope The Insider adds them to their Ignore list.

Edited July 22, 2008 by W12

[yokel]

Most of the BBC's main economic correspondents - including myself - have been pointing out for months that falling prices are good for the majority of people. It's just that some people pay no attention to events which don't fit in with their fixed view of the world.

You know how some numbers/song words/addresses stick in your head for ever, I noticed that this thread has a bbc insider, a poster called W12 and a is being read by `Blue Peter'. I can't say W12 without adding 8QT. And I haven't watched since the days of Leslie Judd.

Anyway, back on topic.

If its possible to answer, The Insider, without blowing your cover, could you say whether BBC business/economics correspondents and reporters generally have backgrounds or qualifications in these specialisms or are just general reporters who read out what they are given? Also, is there any requirement for `interests' to be declared. I often wonder, for example if Declan, or Pauline McColl, have property investments as they are/were reporting house price falls (after the denial stage) as unmitigated bad news. Quote from Declan the other week was something like, re the Halifax figures `How bad does it have to get before the BoE will cut rates?'

Y

[D'artagnan]

Have a look at a thread from a few days back called something like BBC Bear Food. This new poster made some very good points on the last page of the thread.

Some people on here are incapable of being civil towards anyone connected to the BBC. Let's hope The Insider adds them to their Ignore list.

Exactly! the silence from a few posters on here is deafening whenever the BBC have anything bearish to say, yet as soon as (in the interests of balanced reporting) they stray into the territory of thought that house prices might plateau, it's suddenly part of a government conspiracy to keep house prices inflated. Absolutely pathetic I think that the BBC have been more bearish that the average person on the street throughout the boom and definitely now that the bust has started.

Don't worry though, I (and I suspect most other posters/lurkers on here) have a good hearty laugh at these idiots.

[OnlyMe]

Most of the of the BBC "News" output - certainly anything with a political aspect post the sexed up documents affair has been pretty much dross and just feeding and regurgitating government spin.

It is not just the housing market - their social/political/economic commentary over the last few years has generally been appallingly skewed.

[dredwerker]

You know how some numbers/song words/addresses stick in your head for ever, I noticed that this thread has a bbc insider, a poster called W12 and a is being read by `Blue Peter'. I can't say W12 without adding 8QT. And I haven't watched since the days of Leslie Judd.

Anyway, back on topic.

If its possible to answer, The Insider, without blowing your cover, could you say whether BBC business/economics correspondents and reporters generally have backgrounds or qualifications in these specialisms or are just general reporters who read out what they are given? Also, is there any requirement for `interests' to be declared. I often wonder, for example if Declan, or Pauline McColl, have property investments as they are/were reporting house price falls (after the denial stage) as unmitigated bad news. Quote from Declan the other week was something like, re the Halifax figures `How bad does it have to get before the BoE will cut rates?'

Y

what is w12 8qt from ? I know its sheperd's bush but what did they wheel out on ?was it always kids programmes or something or was it actually just blue peter?

[yokel]

what is w12 8qt from ? I know its sheperd's bush but what did they wheel out on ?was it always kids programmes or something or was it actually just blue peter?

Don't know - it could well be the whole of the BBC building there, but I only ever saw it on Blue Peter because not many programmes asked you to send stuff in. Of course in those days (when I were a lad), you knew your competition entry would be fairly judged! Except I never won anything. :angry:

Y

[Jadoube]

I would challenge that statement. While you, and a few others at the Beeb, might be of this view, the BBC as a whole continues not to challenge the endless spin that comes from either the property industry OR the government. It is nothing like as rigorous enough in its examination of platitudes issued daily by organisations who are effectively lying. It continues to broadcast, ad nauseam, the views of one side of the argument by ONLY inviting on to its programmes those with a blatant self interest in there not being a house price downward adjustment: Estate Agents, City Economists whose remit is to support a broadly bull standpoint, Mortgage lenders, Parliamentary Financial Committee Members (all fundamentally against letting a crash take its course) and others who either tow the government line or the City line.

In the last few weeks we have had relentless bulletins echoing the views of one pole of the issue: that of short term fixes, shared ownership, government rescue plans, strategies for staving off the inevitable, and a succession of pundits trotted on to declare what a disaster a house price crash would be for everyone, etc, etc.

The BBC is NOT reflecting, nor does it seek or invite, the views of those who feel the best thing is to let it take its course; nor does it rigorously question the theories, policies or views of those professionals who have cumulatively brought us, through their irresponsible practices, to the biggest debt crisis in history and what will be the mother of all overdue crashes.

VP

I know its politically correct to accuse the BBC of bais and everything else but I look at their web site in some detail and there is plenty of material that would class as bear.

Other people obviously spot it as well. There are threads on HPC explicitly quoting BBC programmes with bear opinions and/or a bearish invited guest. For example threads entitled

My Story (today)

BBC News 24 - Peston.... (20th July )

House prices "will keep falling" (19th July)

Mock the week - mocking the housing market (19th July)

BBC News Now Iraq at turning point - no money for NHS.... (19th July)

BBC Bear Food (18th July)

Couldn't be bothered looking for more.

Surely you've read these? You've read the threads of appearances by HPC's own FP?

BBC Three counties Radio (18 July)

BBC Radio London Drive Time (8th July)

BBC Scotland Newsnight (7th July)

BBC Breakfast (1st July)

.

.

.

Relax, the crash is happening, the BBC are reporting it. It doesn't need propoganda or spin to help it. Going over the top undermines the credibility of HPC more than the BBC.

[thedebtisreal]

Is the problem that the BBC is not allowed to have an opinion because of its charter? It seems that all that leaves you with is a hollow publicity organisation who can do nothing more than regurgitate press releases and government spin. We live in a world where Robert Peston cannot say that Northern Rock is in trouble without a whole load of censure. I notice no one at the BBC can even mention B&B with reiterating nine hundred times that deposits are not at risk.

My problem is not with those who work at the BBC, but I do wonder that the institution needs some rethinking. Its ok to provide a little analysis once in a while. Plus is it too much to have presenters declare their property interests before they comment on the market? If just to alleviate the accusations of bias.

PS. RB should note that as we have prominent journalists around that I did not once mention Kirsty's flabby baps.

[Dave Spart]

what is w12 8qt from ? I know its sheperd's bush but what did they wheel out on ?was it always kids programmes or something or was it actually just blue peter?

It was always on Tony Hart's shows like Take Hart - the address to send your entries for the gallery.

These days it'd be a rogues gallery.

Cue that music.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Dave Spart

[VacantPossession]

Have a look at a thread from a few days back called something like BBC Bear Food. This new poster made some very good points on the last page of the thread.

Some people on here are incapable of being civil towards anyone connected to the BBC. Let's hope The Insider adds them to their Ignore list.

I have never posted anything on this website that is personally uncivil about any personnel about the BBC. I have said that Evan Davis sits on fences, but that is not uncivil. I have said that Robert Peston has a pretentious and highly mannered voice which I note now the BBC has obviously asked him to tone down, but that is not an uncivil (or untrue statement) either. I have commented that Stephanie Flanders knows her stuff but seems reluctant to say what's really on her mind, and neither is that uncivil.

All my posts about the BBC are in the main not gratuitous attacks on individuals, but an OVERALL assessment of its stance on housing and its willingness to broadcast "facts" about housing and finance which are in most cases not facts at all but regurgitated spin which it reads out almost verbatum from any PR stuff given to it by government ministers, "economists" and industry representatives. It does this almost always without bothering to offer an alternative view, seek confirmation of debatable facts, or rigorously research into the conventional claims made about everything from Northern Rock, to Mortgages, to Housing Supply, and a host of other issues it seems to take for granted.

The BBC has been woefully behind in the reporting of highly significant events which it complacently ignored, while intelligent and independent journalists elsewhere were warning of an impending crash and financial meltdown. Its response to Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley were clearly a result of instructions from on high not to precipitate panic, rather than reporting the bare truths. It is not a broadcaster's job to conive with or cave into government pressure not to report the full facts....its job is to report the JUST the truth and NOT to comply with requests to use its broadcasting power for the purposes of damage limitation.

On two specific and extremely important points, the BBC has consistently promoted two now utterly exploded myths: The first about property being in short supply when a simple checking of facts establishes that the exact opposite is the case, and the second is its singular lack of CRITICAL AWARENESS in reporting misinformation about economic "fundamentals", which up to barely eight weeks ago it was still reporting as being "sound". If that is not a capitulation to vested interests I do not know what is.

I stand by every word I have posted here about the BBC.

VP

[oracle]

The BBC wasn't woefully behind in it's merciless ramping UP of the property market now was it?

The creative term for the programme schedule would probably be construed as "reactive television",where they would try to squirm out of it by claiming they were just pandering to the fad that was in demand...ie "make shedloads from bricks and mortar"

the reality is that the media KNOW what they are doing,they have an agenda to stimulate certain topics so a market for product x can be created.

Global warming is the new baby....and again this is founded on EXTREMELY spurious science.

in olden days,one could resemble the modern day media to the middle-age priesthoods of the spanish inquisition.

....if you DARE question the status quo,you will be hounded,demonised,insulted,discredited and burnt at the stake.

it's a good job we DO have innocent until proven guilty (although the media/politicians & co are doing their best to change it),in this country or kate and gerry McCann would have been lynched by the mob and hanged already.

[bobthe~]

The BBC wasn't woefully behind in it's merciless ramping UP of the property market now was it?

The creative term for the programme schedule would probably be construed as "reactive television",where they would try to squirm out of it by claiming they were just pandering to the fad that was in demand...ie "make shedloads from bricks and mortar"

the reality is that the media KNOW what they are doing,they have an agenda to stimulate certain topics so a market for product x can be created.

Global warming is the new baby....and again this is founded on EXTREMELY spurious science.

in olden days,one could resemble the modern day media to the middle-age priesthoods of the spanish inquisition.

....if you DARE question the status quo,you will be hounded,demonised,insulted,discredited and burnt at the stake.

it's a good job we DO have innocent until proven guilty (although the media/politicians & co are doing their best to change it),in this country or kate and gerry McCann would have been lynched by the mob and hanged already.

I believe that there is film evidence that Kate McCann actually floats in water.

[oracle]

I believe that there is film evidence that Kate McCann actually floats in water.

quite,but it's a bit of a no-brainer.

she floats....she's a witch...drag her out and burn her to death

she sinks....ok she's not a witch....but still dead at the end of the exercise.

[VacantPossession]

Let me cite a typical example of BBC laziness and pandering to any old statistic or claim: THIS evening's ten o' clock news. Second Lead story: NHS concern about alcohol abuse costing it (apparently) £2.5 Billion.

Of course we all know there is a growing alcohol consumption problem among some people. But where does this figure come from? We are not told. Is it possible to so precisly match "costs" to any recognised data collection system based on this issue. Even accepting (which I doubt) that it is possible, who produced this sum, and how was it arrived at? What is the implied error in this quite definitive sum? Upon what sample was the figure predicated? What vested interests are involved in producing it? Was the figure produced from WITHIN the NHS or through a third party survey? What was the basis upon which this figure was collected? Were rigorous controls applied? How much of this figure is extrapolation to prove a point, and how much is due to strict rules and strictly applied? Who COMMISSIONED this survey, and FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

Was this figure a result of government officials needing an impressive sum of cash to quote, or did it emanate from within the NHS as a result of concern among independent doctors? What is the fundamental veracity of the figure? EVEN IF the sum quoted is true, what possible use is it without quotations of RELATIVE sums in other areas of the NHS? For example, agency X might produce a press release saying the NHS spends £200 Million per annum on ward cleaning. How do we know this is a low or high figure unless we know the total number of hospitals to which it is applicable? Or what the figure was say ten years ago, or three years ago.

The BBC CONSTANTLY runs bulletins on a variety of issues which expects the viewer and listener to accept, as a matter of blind faith, that it is quoting definitive sums and data which we are assumed to accept on face value with total obedience. The occasional use of this strategy might be acceptable, but it has become a worrying norm. We are assumed to take on board any and all reports without even a suggestion of where the data the report is based on came from, WHO ISSUED it and for what reason.

When you consider the accumulated mass of news reports emanating from the BBC which are ENTIRELY based on notional information we are expected to take on trust, we begin to see that the supposed greatest news organisation on earth is NOTHING MORE than a mouth piece on behalf of the Public Relations Industry. This is LAZY, COMPLACENT reporting and the license payees deserve better.

VP

Edited July 22, 2008 by VacantPossession