quote:

ORIGINAL: Taintedblood

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalloweenWhite

Im sorry...did you think the paper would be in black and white and not the picture on the t.v? is that what you said?. Oh dear, I have days like that too! lol :(.

indeed i did it perplexed me for days as to why it would bother people having colour over black and white until i realised they meant the actual tv set picture

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


BBC News is second to none and looked upon that way by many all over the world. Some regard it as the most objective western source of world news.

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

...

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.

It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Exactly. A hundred and thirty quid for a year's worth of programs isn't very expensive. The BBC can't produce 100% top notch programming... I hear the distress of those that don't actually watch or listen to the BBC, but how can it be funded otherwise than by a general licence fee?

All in all... I say it's pretty good value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalloweenWhite

I agree 100% the BBC are a lazy money grabbing lot. The reason we have to pay is because they're too arrogant to advertise. Then, if you don't pay their rent for them you get find a £1000. The programs they put on are junk-eastenders,all those pointless "homes under the hammer" type shows.

I want companies to -work- to make their money and not be forced to -give- them -My- money to keep them in holiday homes, expensive car and health care.

Get rid of the BBC and see what shite British TV will descend into. Yes there is a lot of junk wallpaper TV but that is due to the demand to have 24 hour channels but the BBC at its best is the best and I've said it before, it sells its best, certainly all over Europe. I have to agree though, most people who watch TV prefer to watch shite, hence the viewing figures for wallpaper TV and only the minority want quality TV. But think about it, do you really want Fox News? Do you really want to confuse programmes with adverts to such a point you don't know if you are watching a programme or an advert as in America?

I have sixty channels from various countries and though I'm not a big TV watcher (I cherry pick), the channel with the most interesting and informative programmes by far, are the BBC's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalloweenWhite
But....why should We -have- to pay for it? we dont have to pay for channel 4,  five, or central except through buying things we see on the adverts, and only then, if we want what's being advertised.

quote:

ORIGINAL RealityLicks

Having done quite a bit there, I can tell you the BBC is definitely not dominated by minority groups - its actually a bit twee and boring in many respects and innately, frustratingly conservative. And, yes as with any massive corporation, there is a degree of waste, layers of pointless management and numerous poor decisions. But when you weigh up what we get for our outlay, I'm not convinced anyone has yet come up with a better way of spending the money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Secondly, the licence fee doesn't just support the BBC, it also subsidises C4 and C5, as well as ITV. They do gain revenue through advertising, but also recieve money from the licence fee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Secondly, the licence fee doesn't just support the BBC, it also subsidises C4 and C5, as well as ITV. They do gain revenue through advertising, but also recieve money from the licence fee.

Hi Philosophy, that isn't actually true. C4 used to be partly funded by the ITV network - when it started out, they even used to cross-promote - and in return, ITV got an annuity from C4's ad sales. That was phased out as planned and C4 have been entirely self-funding since. They got into bother with FilmFour but are now pretty sound financially. Five have never received any state funding either.

There is a notion floated from time to time that other broadcasters should be able to dip into the license fee - but only to make programmes that fit areas of the BBC's remit not sufficiently covered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I really think the Beeb is as unbiased a news media as it could be. Those who argue the contrary feel their interests aren't served as they should be.

And...

quote:

ORIGINAL RealityLicks

Having done quite a bit there, I can tell you the BBC is definitely not dominated by minority groups - its actually a bit twee and boring in many respects and innately, frustratingly conservative. And, yes as with any massive corporation, there is a degree of waste, layers of pointless management and numerous poor decisions. But when you weigh up what we get for our outlay, I'm not convinced anyone has yet come up with a better way of spending the money.

... absolutely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


kittin .... if you notice the links I posted ... they were NOT outside sources saying there was a deep bias at the BBC. It was the BBC and it's employees themselves.

Firm