And please don’t law tede me to some statutory provision to the effect that the BBC must be impartial, That’s why it IS required to be. Not why it SHOULD be required.
Why should it be? Because the free market provides partial commentary. Free choice as to which one. A taxpayer-funded service to the population as a whole needs to be impartial to avoid rampant schizophrenia whenever the popular agenda changes.
I dont have any issues with the BBC. I like the fact it challenges me to revisit my prejudices, and doesnt take the status quo for granted, that it's a bit of a magnet for alternates; it remains my go to for journalism.
I dont care that it challenges my occasional prejudices, as long as it doesn't get into bed with gypsies (sorry Jim, not sorry Occam).
The day that it's buttoned up will be a very sad day. It's a force for good.
It should be politically impartial in that it should pursue truth and accurate reporting. It's not the BBC's fault that the Tories and right wingers do nothing but lie. Impartiality =/= giving two unequal arguments equal airtime.
In a sign of Marshall’s stupidity, he appears in his little brain to be conflating the issues of impartiality and editorial independence.
The BBC should not be “state controlled media” editorially, But like any (completely independent, privately owned) newspaper or tv channel, it or its presenters should be perfectly free to express political opinions.
Whether or not the licence fee is a good idea has nothing to do with whether or not BBC people are allowed to express political opinions,
The assumption (always on the paranoid freak khunt Right, ofc) is always that the BBC would, if allowed to adopt political positions, consistently adopt the same position to the left or right. This is of course not the case.
In any event Lineker was not posting on social media in his capacity as a BBC employee, and his opinions expressed on Twitter should not have anything to do with his job (and yes I think the same position should apply to employees in our general slightly pathetic private sector).
I don’t think they should be. Does the impartiality requirement only apply to TV? We seem to have some rampantly political radio channels (although, weirdly, radio has no watershed for swearing which is blanket banned - British media regulation is really fuktup).
I think we can all recall, when Laz was resident in HK, that this brave purveyor of independent thought did not utter one single pipsqueak in support of the HK protesters.
Marshall logging in to like his own post twice, here.
I’m sure when his peat-fired brain is at running temperature he can tell us what the fvck the HK protests have to do with whether the BBC should remain editorially castrated by impartiality
Risky you dolt, the link you posted says news reporting must not be biased, it doesnt say anything about a broadcaster having to be politically balanced.
4
0
VERY GOOD QUESTION!!
THE BBC SHOULD ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND SURELY THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS TO DO THE RIGHT THING!
THE RIGHT THING!
AND WHAT COULD BE MORE RIGHT THAN SUPPORTING THE NATURAL PARTY OF GOVERNMENT?!?
2
0
Why should it be? Because the free market provides partial commentary. Free choice as to which one. A taxpayer-funded service to the population as a whole needs to be impartial to avoid rampant schizophrenia whenever the popular agenda changes.
4
0
And the next stoopid question from the back of the classroom is…?
0
0
there are no stupid questions
and even if there were, this one would still be the glittering opposite of stupid
now shut your hole
4
0
Speak to yer handler about what it’s like to have state-controlled media.
0
0
I dont have any issues with the BBC. I like the fact it challenges me to revisit my prejudices, and doesnt take the status quo for granted, that it's a bit of a magnet for alternates; it remains my go to for journalism.
I dont care that it challenges my occasional prejudices, as long as it doesn't get into bed with gypsies (sorry Jim, not sorry Occam).
The day that it's buttoned up will be a very sad day. It's a force for good.
If you disagree, please quietly fook off.
0
0
Because it is paid for by everyone, serves everyone, and people have different opinions.
0
0
Precisely Cumquat
1
0
It should be politically impartial in that it should pursue truth and accurate reporting. It's not the BBC's fault that the Tories and right wingers do nothing but lie. Impartiality =/= giving two unequal arguments equal airtime.
0
0
How do you expect me to sleep with that thought in mind 3pwd.
I just want to drift off and you go philophosising.
1
0
Heh burn from Marshall at 2300
1
0
In a sign of Marshall’s stupidity, he appears in his little brain to be conflating the issues of impartiality and editorial independence.
The BBC should not be “state controlled media” editorially, But like any (completely independent, privately owned) newspaper or tv channel, it or its presenters should be perfectly free to express political opinions.
Learn to think.
1
0
No laz, because people can choose whether or not to pay for the private newspaper
1
0
Anyway all uk broadcast channels are required to be politically balanced. I think you’d regret moving to a US system
0
0
Whether or not the licence fee is a good idea has nothing to do with whether or not BBC people are allowed to express political opinions,
The assumption (always on the paranoid freak khunt Right, ofc) is always that the BBC would, if allowed to adopt political positions, consistently adopt the same position to the left or right. This is of course not the case.
In any event Lineker was not posting on social media in his capacity as a BBC employee, and his opinions expressed on Twitter should not have anything to do with his job (and yes I think the same position should apply to employees in our general slightly pathetic private sector).
0
0
I don’t think they should be. Does the impartiality requirement only apply to TV? We seem to have some rampantly political radio channels (although, weirdly, radio has no watershed for swearing which is blanket banned - British media regulation is really fuktup).
0
0
Bollocks Risky, 4 words GB News Nigel Farage
3
0
I think we can all recall, when Laz was resident in HK, that this brave purveyor of independent thought did not utter one single pipsqueak in support of the HK protesters.
0
0
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy
0
0
Marshall logging in to like his own post twice, here.
I’m sure when his peat-fired brain is at running temperature he can tell us what the fvck the HK protests have to do with whether the BBC should remain editorially castrated by impartiality
1
0
Why would he have done Marshall? His work helped uphold the regime!
0
0
support the team, not the regime
0
0
Risky you dolt, the link you posted says news reporting must not be biased, it doesnt say anything about a broadcaster having to be politically balanced.
0
0
I doesn't need to be impartial if it is a private business
Join the discussion