Bbc Reporting

[LoneWolf]

The BBC is funded by British citizens who pay licence fees under pain of prosecution.

The organisation also has a privileged status as a public service broadcaster.

Its becoming less and less clear as whom the BBC consider is the public.

It certainly doesnt seem to be British citizens.

This news item has to be the worst example of anti British reporting this year.

BBC & the Taliban

If ever there was a case for refusing to pay the licence fee ....

[Chinahand]

Can you amplify your concerns Lonewolf.

 

Is it because the article describes the Talibs as hardy, devoute and fast moving.

 

Is it because it doesn't mention their intolerence and oppression of women.

 

Is it because it talks about the Brits using tanks and killing women and children.

 

I have to admit I find the report very very neutral, I suppose I'd have expected a negative last paragraph or something.

 

But most of what I read is factual reporting and not alot more. Its the absence of comment that makes it seem odd to me ... these are the enemy surely you should be showing this ... but the journalist doesn't ... its just reporting without deeper background.

 

Do you really find it biased to such an extent?

 

The fact he can say things about seem complimentary, but are really just factual ... free and fast moving ... shows how out of control Afghanistan is at the moment.

 

They are learning from the Iraqis ... create chaos, and reap the whirlwind. Not nice. With suicide bombs and IEDs (or whatever the acronym is) its very difficult to stop them.

 

Sad business.

[LoneWolf]

Yep im afraid I find it extremely biased against the British Forces.

I expect the BBC, as an organisation totally funded by the British public, to at least report the actions of British Forces in a supportive manner. The language used by this BBC reporter refers to our troops in the same third party language that a foreign news agency might.

Its legitimate for the BBC to adopt the tone of a flaneur in reporting British politics but not so in reporting a situation where British troops have been deployed as an aid to civil power and are suffering heavy casualties.

Coincidentally an internal memo has been leaked to the Daily Express which concedes the organisation's reporting standards are biased. BBC Memo

I have already posted this link in another thread but here it is again, details of British casualties : ie the sons and husbands of those who pay the TV licences, killed or injured in Afghanistan can be found by using the menu "Operation Enduring Freedom" Afghanistan

Maybe the BBC would have done better sending a reporter to accompany our own guys rather than the people who are fighting them.

No doubt about it in my mind. Biased against the British Forces.

 

edit: go to search database then scroll down to filter your search.

[VinnieK]

I would say that the report, although to all extents and purposes was factual, uses language that romanticise the taliban to a certain degree. The difficulty of this is that I'm open to charges of subjectivity and in turn my own bias, but I would say that the descriptive language employed portrays the taliban as almost quasi-frontiesmen, and endows them with all the romantic notions such an image has.

 

Having said that I'm opposed to the BBC in general principle, even if it agreed with me 100% of the time I would rather it were chopped up, sold off, and relegated to a subscription channel, so bias is of secondary concern to my ultimate aims of decapitating auntie.

[Chinahand]

Lonewolf ... are you saying the exact same report by Agency France Presse or Al Jazera would be ok?

 

I agree with VinnieK ... it romantizes to a certain extent, but its subtle.

 

Surely the use of terms like "our boys" etc would be a bias, a bias you would approve of, but a bias non the less which seems alot less subtle than describing the talibs in the language used.

[LoneWolf]

Lonewolf ... are you saying the exact same report by Agency France Presse or Al Jazera would be ok?

 

I agree with VinnieK ... it romantizes to a certain extent, but its subtle.

 

Surely the use of terms like "our boys" etc would be a bias, a bias you would approve of, but a bias non the less which seems alot less subtle than describing the talibs in the language used.

 

Ok .. describing or referring to British Forces, who have been deployed as an aid to civil power, as "the British" on the one hand ...and then referring to the Taliban in a manner which portrays them as the natural successors of those who fought bravely against the British Empire many years ago [or as Vinnie put it ..romanticises them] is bias by any standard you might care to mention.

The more so if you trawl through the casualty figures and also recall who is paying the bill for the reporter to be there!

[matty]

Lonewolf ... are you saying the exact same report by Agency France Presse or Al Jazera would be ok?

 

I agree with VinnieK ... it romantizes to a certain extent, but its subtle.

 

Surely the use of terms like "our boys" etc would be a bias, a bias you would approve of, but a bias non the less which seems alot less subtle than describing the talibs in the language used.

 

Ok .. describing or referring to British Forces, who have been deployed as an aid to civil power, as "the British" on the one hand ...and then referring to the Taliban in a manner which portrays them as the natural successors of those who fought bravely against the British Empire many years ago [or as Vinnie put it ..romanticises them] is bias by any standard you might care to mention.

The more so if you trawl through the casualty figures and also recall who is paying the bill for the reporter to be there!

 

Personally I found the report very interesting, and 'unbiased' in the way that a reporter was allowed to give a 'version of events' as he saw it, not moulded with in the sort of veign that one would expect from something like Fox 'News'.

 

This alone IMHO is worth every penny of the 'TV license' - I don't feel the report was 'glorifying' the 'Talibs', just as much as it wan't glorifying or putting down the British troops out there.

 

I would much prefer to let the Beeb have some of my money every year and give me IMHO a very bloody good version of events, than pay Murdoch a penny for some of the bullshit that comes from Sky.

 

The BBC is unique, I sincerely hope it can carry on and not be taken over by an individual, or a dodgy business with an agenda of its own.

[Albert Tatlock]

This alone IMHO is worth every penny of the 'TV license' - I don't feel the report was 'glorifying' the 'Talibs', just as much as it wan't glorifying or putting down the British troops out there.

I diagree that th TV Licence is 'worth every penny'.

From the BBC's REPORT BY THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

 

The total cost of collecting the television licence fee was £132 million in 2000-01, representing 5.6 per cent of the £2,371 million collected. The cost of collection per licence was virtually the same, at constant 2000-01 prices, as it was in 1991-92. Over this period the evasion rate, the proportion of potential licence fee revenue that remains uncollected, has fallen - from an estimated 9.9 per cent to 5.2 per cent.

 

This would suggest that if the money came out of direct taxation (from the government by statute) that we would save £132 million + Cost of Evasion (about £120 Million) i.e. about £25 each every year. Those who do not have a television could claim a tax exemption thus saying 'legally' that they do not own a television and claim the money back. It is also unfair on pensioners, who should get a far greater reduction, if not an exemption or perhaps even a one-off licence built into the cost of the TV (small TV small fee - big TV large fee) when they buy it. There are lots of ways of making the licence fee relate to how much people can afford that need exploring. For the Isle of Man a pro-rata payment could be arranged, based on the same calculations.

 

I also don't believe the licence fee should be used to pay for a lot of the additional stuff the BBC are doing, and that some of this should be down as an option on the licence form. Basics such as BBC1 & 2, Radios 1 - 4, World Service and a website yes - add ons no.

 

As has been mentioned by a few people, I think the TV Licence will come under scruitiny in a few years as digital TV evolves.

[matty]

This alone IMHO is worth every penny of the 'TV license' - I don't feel the report was 'glorifying' the 'Talibs', just as much as it wan't glorifying or putting down the British troops out there.

I diagree that th TV Licence is 'worth every penny'.

From the BBC's REPORT BY THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

 

The total cost of collecting the television licence fee was £132 million in 2000-01, representing 5.6 per cent of the £2,371 million collected. The cost of collection per licence was virtually the same, at constant 2000-01 prices, as it was in 1991-92. Over this period the evasion rate, the proportion of potential licence fee revenue that remains uncollected, has fallen - from an estimated 9.9 per cent to 5.2 per cent.

 

This would suggest that if the money came out of direct taxation (from the government by statute) that we would save £132 million + Cost of Evasion (about £120 Million) i.e. about £25 each every year. Those who do not have a television could claim a tax exemption thus saying 'legally' that they do not own a television and claim the money back. It is also unfair on pensioners, who should get a far greater reduction, if not an exemption or perhaps even a one-off licence built into the cost of the TV (small TV small fee - big TV large fee) when they buy it. There are lots of ways of making the licence fee relate to how much people can afford that need exploring. For the Isle of Man a pro-rata payment could be arranged, based on the same calculations.

 

I also don't believe the licence fee should be used to pay for a lot of the additional stuff the BBC are doing, and that some of this should be down as an option on the licence form. Basics such as BBC1 & 2, Radios 1 - 4, World Service and a website yes - add ons no.

 

As has been mentioned by a few people, I think the TV Licence will come under scruitiny in a few years as digital TV evolves.

 

 

Totally see some of your points there, - maybe it would be a good idea to explore ways the fee could be arranged to how much people can afford (not really an issue for pensioners over here as they get it for free anyway don't they?)

 

I also don't really like some of the 'stuff' the BBC do - I don't particularly like Radio 1, but can accept that some of my licence fee goes towards supporting this as well as it supports some of the things I really like about the BBC (especially no commercials).

 

 

What I do find totaly ridiculous is some people can complain about the TV licence fees, yet can happily pay £30 or more a month for subscription digital channels and spend 2 hours watching a 90 minute film or documentary because it is totally interupted with adverts.

 

 

Maybe it would be a good idea for the Beeb to be funded/partially by taxes rather than the present licence fee (something possibly akin to Manx Radio?) but I would really dislike it if the Beeb had to have advertisements or 'advertorials' every few minutes to keep it going.

[John Wright]

If what the BBC reported was true we must be told so we can influence politicians to withdraw and stop being so stupid.

I would rather the news upset a few complacent listeners viewers than we were fed censored news or perverted versions like Fox et al in USA

We have to be able tio think for ourselevs, that means being well informed and heraing both side of the argument.

 

Good on the BBC.

I watched the programme. Well worth every penny of this weeks licence fee, and more.

[VinnieK]

If what the BBC reported was true we must be told so we can influence politicians to withdraw and stop being so stupid.

I would rather the news upset a few complacent listeners viewers than we were fed censored news or perverted versions like Fox et al in USA

We have to be able tio think for ourselevs, that means being well informed and heraing both side of the argument.

 

That's a bit of a distorted view of the news available in the US. Every time I've watched, say, CNN, the news has always appeared balanced, as well as providing a more comprehensive coverage of international affairs than the BBC often offers (which often tends to just hammer away relentlessly on a hot topic at the expense of equally important stories).

[Mr. Sausages]

I expect the BBC, as an organisation totally funded by the British public, to at least report the actions of British Forces in a supportive manner.

Why? Just because they're British? There are two sides to every story, and thankfully the BBC show us both sides of every story.

 

Granted, that story seems to be written by someone who almost admires the Taleban, but it's politically neutral, and for every story like that you'll find a dozen questioning the Taleban's actions.

 

The last thing we need is for the BBC to dumb down and become like Fox news.

[John Wright]

CNN may or may not be politically biased. I didn't mention them.

 

I specifically mentioned FOX, and for good reason.

 

That a quarter of the people in the US get their news from FOX is truly frightening.

[thebees]

Not really Theawin, they dont really understand any of the news they see, they are only watching for the next food or pills advert to show.

 

Edit: I thought the article was excellent, I have always wondered about the Taliban and reading that gave me an insight into their ways. Not everyone thinks the British Army are ace, I have several friends who used to be in the British Army, trained killers....released onto the streets after they have served their time, with no form of re-habilitation, oh yeah the British Army is just great. NOT!

[simon]

I also don't believe the licence fee should be used to pay for a lot of the additional stuff the BBC are doing, and that some of this should be down as an option on the licence form. Basics such as BBC1 & 2, Radios 1 - 4, World Service and a website yes - add ons no.

 

BBC World Service (the radio) is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

 

BBC World (the television service) is commercially funded.