Gosh yes, under Labour’s plans, deficit reduction doesn’t have to start until next month.

Personally, I’m fully in favour of the BBC reporting on the context of the public spending cuts:

“Britain is at increased risk of a double-dip recession because of the scale and speed of the Coalition cuts, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has warned.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7970485/Coalition-cuts-increase-risk-of-double-dip-recession-BCC-warns.html

@Bob B

I don’t think anyone doesn’t want the BBC to report on the cuts, it’s how they go about it that might be worrying if they only report the coalition’s side of the story. And no I don’t mean that the other side is simply Labour, there are lots of people going to be (and currently being) affected by the cuts and it’s important for them to have their voice out there.

At last we can agree – the BBC has immense power to control public opinion, and this isn’t always a good thing. Maybe “Biased BBC” was right all along? If the BBC can serve a really nice liberal government like Brown’s or Blair’s, then the BBC can also serve a totally evil fascist government like Cameron’s. Maybe it would be better not to have such a thing, or at least not force everyone to pay for it*.

However, what you’re missing here is the direction of political influence. The BBC doesn’t answer to Cameron – Cameron answers to the BBC. In a democracy, whoever controls public opinion controls the government. This is why the Conservative Party shifted so far leftwards, why the deal with the Lib Dems was not only possible but actually easy, and why the Conservatives are being run by Cameron instead of a conservative. Without all that, they would never have secured the BBC’s support, and without the BBC’s support they could never have even come close to an election victory. It wasn’t just The Sun wot won it…

(* I’m aware this is an exaggeration, because I opted out of the TV licence. No sense being objecting to the BBC *and* paying for it.)

@4

Please give some examples of the BBC supporting the Conservative Party at the last election…

@3: “there are lots of people going to be (and currently being) affected by the cuts and it’s important for them to have their voice out there.”

Absolutely. Context is wonderful stuff. This was the assessment in the Telegraph of Osborne’s budget delivered on 22 June:

Pensioners came out as one of its biggest losers in George Osborne’s emergency Budget.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/how-budget-affect-me/7847875/Budget-2010-Pensioners-are-the-biggest-losers.html

” If the BBC can serve a really nice liberal government like Brown’s or Blair’s, then the BBC can also serve a totally evil fascist government like Cameron’s.”

It didn’t, and it won’t. The BBC is incredibly neutral, more so than ought to be possible. Of all the media sources out there, you’re worried about the Beeb being biased?

One man’s rampant bias is…?

Well, not very effectively addressed by it being abused in any other direction.

Or by seeking to be seen as ‘balanced’ by selectively perusing agenda and/or opinion in various areas, or at various times, and trying to claim that it all sort of ‘evens’ out.

Personally, I am now truly worried by Miliband D. being in the hands of The Scott Trust press, and will rely on the BBC to act to counter this on my behalf.

That is their job isn’t it? Countering stuff on an idealogical basis?

I think that was in the Charter.

To be honest, I don’t think the leftwing press generally is doing much of a job of covering the cuts full stop.

The Guardian has been particularly awful. In the last few weeks, I’ve seen more than I ever wanted to know about American Apparel, Lady Gaga, and the so-called cricket ‘scandal’. I’m guessing Rusbridger has already had his meeting at No 10. Thompson must have been further down the queue.

A few CiF rants here and there hardly count – what is needed is sustained front-page coverage and analysis of the realities of the deficit, public sector spending, the lives of people who need public services and so on. Those who run comment pages today simply aim to create controversy in the interests of sales, rather than an improved human condition – the latest wheeze seems to be pitting the generations against each other, as though in a couple of months’ time an ipad will be awarded to anyone who can prove that poverty affects their generation to a greater extent than others. The articles being produced on this are dire – no numbers, no interviews, no research and no logic. A lot of them are really difficult to follow. They’re forgotten as soon as they’re delivered.

The whole thing is utter shit – it really is. Bloggers are doing ten times the job that the mainstream is on this topic – see the 1000 cuts site, etc. There’s real work and real analysis going on there. Fuck the mainstream, basically. It’s not able to deliver, which will not be our problem in the end. There are a lot of people out there who can deliver and they’re doing it – without anything like the resources of the jumped-up sellouts who run the BBC, etc.

@5 and @7. No, it’s subtle. The bias isn’t a glaringly obvious distortion. Nor is it usually a result of an intentional policy. The BBC’s output reflects the views and ideals of the people who work there, and politically speaking, these are quite homogenous. People hire people like themselves.

On the very rare occasions when the BBC is accused of “rightwing” bias, it is always because someone has been allowed to appear on television to state an unpopular viewpoint that is outside the political consensus. This sticks out like a sore thumb. It’s obvious because it’s so rare, so out of place. What does this tell us about the BBC’s regular output?

Furthermore, such “rightwing” bias always attracts a flurry of complaints. People, especially those in the media, appear to be afraid that this power might be used to promote “rightwing” (i.e. not Left) thoughts. What does this tell us about the general perception of the BBC’s influence?

The BBC only appears neutral to those whose political outlook is aligned with the BBC. In politics there is no “neutral”. There is opinion and there is debate. Politics is never resolved with a final “right” answer. And you know this for yourself. How can one be neutral about climate change, or the EU, or the NHS, or gay rights? There is no neutral position, there is merely a consensus position.

The fact that the BBC has managed to convince people – the majority, I suspect – that its strongly Left-leaning bias is actually “neutral” is a sign of just how successful it is. No wonder some at LC are afraid that the BBC will support the Coalition. Fortunately for you all, the political influence runs the other way, and the Coalition will always be seeking the BBC’s favour.

What a load of shit. The BBC is the most neutral media outlet on the planet.

It would be a bit odd if the prime minister’s press secretary didn’t meet senior media figures like Mr Thompson. Representing the government to the media is, after all, the job he’s paid out of the public purse to do.

@ Vladimir (10)

Well, in that case you’re having a go at the BBC for failing to achieve a neutrality that you admit is impossible. While of course there is no true neutrality, the BBC gets as close as possible to the ideal by ensuring that debates are balanced and not letting news turn into editorial comment.

You say that it only appears neutral to those whose viewpoint is aligned with it… I’d say that it only appears biased to those who are annoyed that it doesn’t reflect their own views. You say that it’s left-aligned, while others are convinced it’s a rightwing mouthpiece. What does that tell you? It’s clear from watching the BBC that it tries very, very hard to be as balanced as possible. The idea that it has some specific political agenda is just a conspiracy theory.

@Flowerpower – is it? I don’t pay my licence fee to give the coalition government a hearing. I pay it because I have this fantasy about financing quality independent journalism and programmes that don’t have to whore out to the advertising industry. Bad buy of the century, I admit.

@14 So you don’t mind that the BBC met with Labour government representatives, but the coalition government doesn’t deserve a “hearing”?

I echo what Chaise said @13 – surely if it only quoted critics of the government, that would be proof it were biased?

The absolute proof that the BBC is as impartial as possible with a TV/internet news outlet, is that people who are both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli claim the BBC is biased against their side of the argument. It’s not, but they’re just annoyed that it doesn’t say what they want to hear.

@10

Forgive me if I lol, but you claiming the BBC has (or had) a leftist bias is exactly the same as the lefties claiming it has (or had, or will have) a rightist bias. [irony]After all, they don’t mention anarcho-syndicalist economics everytime there’s a story about capitalism so zomgz they must be right-wing [/irony] As far as I can tell the BBC does a decent job of annoying everyone and sticking to its Charter. Now there are the odd occasions when it slips up – Andrew Marr is obvs a Labour man, and Nick Robinson obvs a Tory – and that’s when we pull them up on stuff. This story is a bit meh until something actually happens ie: the BBC start pushing the Tory agenda come October. I’d advocate holding fire until then…

Spot on Blanco @15, the Israel/Palestine angle is the perfect analogy.

@blanco – yes, I did mind about the Labour govt getting a free pass – particularly on the war and trade union issues. I’m not a Labour party member or supporter.

@Kate I do not think that “giving the government a hearing” = “giving the government a free pass”. It is true that BBC reporters could be a bit more incisive in their questioning/cross-analysis of government representatives, but so could all journalists. And I’d rather have Nick “here’s what the government says about this” Robinson over Jeremy “I’ll ask the same question 22 times because I’m a massive twat” Paxman any day.

So many nutters on comments forums say the BBC is “Marxist”. Here on LC people are saying they are stooges for the Tories. What that tells me is that the BBC isn’t out to please either side of the debate!

You might say giving equal air time to both sides of a debate, possibly even simplifying it to two “sides” and no more, is not the best way to treat complex issues – e.g. a Palestinian spokesperson whose English could be a lot better, up against some **** like Mark Regev who practically has a PhD is misdirection and spin, with both getting an equal amount of time to make their points, is not fair or balanced: that it’s false balance, because in reality the Palestinian person is more wronged and so needs more time to make their case because there is so much more of a case to be made in their favour.

That isn’t the job of the BBC, and it’s not why millions of people read its website/listen to the World Service/tune into their News Channel. We go to the BBC to find out what’s happening. Just the facts, as they used to say back in the 1980s. Then we go off to editorials, opinion pages, blogs and whatever else we use to analyse the bare-boned facts of the day.

Really, people need to let the general public make up their own mind about stuff, rather than just constantly claim people are being deceived by objectively objective news sources like the BBC.

About cuts specifically, you might say the BBC is parroting the government line that cuts in public expenditure are necessary given the deficit. Well, all three main parties subscribe to that view, and the vast majority of people can be judged to subscribe to that view as well based on the fact that they voted for one of the three main parties. It’s only Labour that has turned around since the election, and pissed all over its own deficit reduction plan in an attempt to generate negativity towards the government.

If you want to hear lefties ranting about how no cuts are needed, and how we should let 9 million people live off benefit without even trying to nudge them into work so they can actually improve their material and social wellbeing, then that’s what blogs are for. But that view, sad to say, is held by a very small number of inward-looking leftist bloggers and tweeters. I would think it bizarre that a mainstream news organisation should prioritise the coverage of such fringe views over the conventional wisdom.

Conventional media = conventional wisdom. That’s why we have alternatives.

The memo can be seen here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308561/Is-biased-BBC-trying-cosy-Coalition-No-10-meeting.html

Yes, it says Andy Coulson said the BBC should give ‘context’ to its coverage. The memo continues: ‘I said that’s what we always try to do and part of the reason … inform the public about the whys and wherefores’.

Sounds much more like defending current output than colluding.

As for the ‘bias’ debate going on above, I suspect that a fairly large proportion of staff at the BBC are to some extent left-of-centre – the question is how much that affects its journalism. I wouldn’t say it has no effect at all, and I wouldn’t say it ever could have no effect at all, but compared to probably any other media organisation on the planet it minimises it very well.

@9: “To be honest, I don’t think the leftwing press generally is doing much of a job of covering the cuts full stop.”

This is not surprising as the official details of the government’s planned forthcoming spending cuts won’t appear until HM Treasury publishes its Public Spending Review for 2010 on 20 October – for the background to the Spending Review, see this page on HM Treasury’s website:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_index.htm

In the meantime, “the left wing press”, as well as other commenators, are only placed to comment on the basis of leaks and rumours about spending cuts, or to warn about the risk of a double-dip recession if the scale of the cuts is too steep, too soon, or to insist on the importance of fairness about the incidence of the spending cuts, the impact of the increases taxes announced so far – like the rise in VAT next January from 17.5% to 20% – and whatever emerges in due course on the changes in welfare benefits.

More worrying news about the risk of a double-dip recession ahead:

“Economists fear the dangers of a double-dip recession are ‘growing alarmingly’ after the release of the latest ‘grim’ survey of business confidence in the service sector, and evidence of collapsing order books in the construction industry.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/economy-suffers-slowdown-as-double-dip-looms-2070141.html

Straight out of the brownshirts play book.

Intimidate the media. They tory scum don’t have to intimidate much of it because most of the media in this country is nothing but tory propaganda, but the BBC must be made to kneel before the tory scum.

What do you expect from a govt that has no mandate to do jack shit. The tories could not win an election out right with all the money and media backing. They are only in power because of the Lie Dems who were supported by people who did not in their worst nightmares imagine a coalition with brown shirts.

Not that the tories have to worry. I am sure Nick Robinson and Andrew Neil will do their usual tory brownnosing without having to be told. But the brownsirts want to make sure.

Anyone who thinks the BBC has a left-wing bias is terminally wrong and needs to stop trying to contribute to political debate, because they just don’t understand.

most definitley, the BBC’s coverage is so disgustingly pro-cuts that I have actually turned off there programming because it has reached such a point that I can no longer stand to watch them.

Let’s not overlook the BBC’s concerns about the forthcoming negotiations over the renewal of its licence fee – a poll tax on any who watch TV – and how the BBC caved in to the previous government:

“In the summer of 2003, Today once again found itself at the centre of allegations of political bias, this time against a Labour government. The controversy arose after Today broadcast a report by its correspondent Andrew Gilligan. The report alleged that a dossier the British Government had produced to convince the British public of the need to invade Iraq was deliberately exaggerated, and that the government had known this prior to publishing it. In his live 2-way (interview with presenter John Humphrys), just after 6.07 a.m., Gilligan asserted that the Government ‘probably knew’ that one of the main claims in its dossier ‘was wrong’. Gilligan’s anonymous source for the claim was Dr David Kelly, a key adviser on biological weapons who had worked in Iraq – though it was never established whether Dr Kelly had actually used the words Gilligan attributed to him.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)

The Director of the BBC, Greg Dyke, resigned as did the chairman of the governors, Gavyn Davies, who, btw, had worked as a policy adviser in Downing St in the 1970s when Jim Callaghan was PM. Andrew Gilligan also resigned.

Readers can judge for themselves about the government’s dossier on Iraq’s WMD published for a special session of Parliament on 24 September 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf

It mentions no less than four times the government’s claim that Iraq was able to use WMD within 45 minutes of a command from Saddam Hussein, the first time in a forward signed by Tony Blair.

As for whether the government knew the claim was based on flimsy evidence, see the Butler Report (paras 573-578) on the handling of intelligence relating to Iraq’s WMD and the 45-minute claim:
http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

Note in particular this passage in para 578 of The Butler Report:

“[David Manning] briefed [on 12 September] the Prime Minister on each of SIS’s [SIS = MI6] main sources including the new source on trial. He told us that he had underlined to the Prime Minister the potential importance of the new source and what SIS understood his access to be; but also said that the case was developmental and that the source remained unproven. Nevertheless, it may be that, in the context of the intense interest at that moment in the status of Iraq’s prohibited weapons programmes, and in particular continuing work on the dossier, this concurrence of events caused more weight to be given to this unvalidated new source than would normally have been the case.”

According to the (secret) Manning Memo to Blair of 14 March 2002, the objective of the Iraq invasion all along was regime change – which is illegal under international law without UN sanction:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/manningtext.html

The resumed inspection of Iraq by UN inspectors, led by Hans Blix, after the invasion of March 2003, found no WMD.

@13, Chaise Guevara, and @16, Mr S. Pill “Forgive me if I lol, but you claiming the BBC has (or had) a leftist bias is exactly the same as the lefties claiming it has (or had, or will have) a rightist bias.”

Yes, that’s right. On political matters, neutrality is impossible, so all media is biased. For example, suppose you need to write an article on privatisation of the NHS. How can you do it without letting your own feelings on the issue affect your writing? In good conscience, how can you write from a neutral perspective? You are not living in 2210 and writing a historical account about Britain 2010, which is isolated by two centuries from the effects of what you write. No: you *actually* live in 2010, your writing has an effect on what happens, and what happens to the NHS will affect you and your contemporaries.

The same thought experiment can be usefully applied to anything political: climate change? Israel? EU membership? abortion rights? gay rights? What is “neutral” when it comes to these issues? There is no neutral.

Ah yes, Israel/Palestine (@15). Yes, both groups get annoyed by the BBC. But this does not mean that the BBC is neutral. Why would it? The BBC could be heavily biased towards one of them (and it is) and yet still annoy the other by occasionally saying pro-Israeli things. This is a very false sort of neutrality. Nobody decides to support Israel because of the BBC. Palestine, on the other hand…

At @24, if your idea of “rightwing” is the BBC’s idea of “rightwing” then I suppose you may have a point. They do after all employ Nick Robinson (shockingly rightwing) and they are on speaking terms with David Cameron. Why, he’s practically a Nazi (sally @23). But in reality, both are exactly the sort of “rightwing” that the BBC staff like. It’s a safe, triangulated, Tony Blair variety of “rightwing” that never opposes anything that the Left wants.

So.. what? Well, like Bob B (@26) I don’t think TV viewers should be forced to pay for this modern day Pravda. Surely we’d all object to everyone in the country being forced to pay for Sky TV just in order to watch, say, ITV1. Same argument applies to the license fee.

@27

Actually there is a neutral way of writing or reporting about those things. It’s very dull but very simple: just report both sides of the argument/dispute. It’s hardly the BBCs fault if one side comes off looking silly (ie with gay rights, most people think they should be equal now but back when the age of consent debate was going on the Tory Lords view had to be reported obvs and they came off looking v out of touch). Media only gets biased when opinions come in to play, and the Beeb isn’t really that kind of media. Check out any of their blogs, for example, and they are full of equivications and caveats and “putting both sides” – and very dull for it. The comments are normally amusing though.
If you want biased news watch “fair and balanced” Fox, or Sky, or Al-Jazeera, or Channel 4. Then compare and contrast with the BBC.

@28. Unfortunately the problem with just reporting both sides is that there are so many facts to choose from – too many to cover in the space of an article or two minutes of video. Who selects what makes it in? Why, that would be the journalist and editor. Bingo, there’s your bias.

They have the power to frame the discussion, and that’s all that is necessary.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Channel 4, Al-Jazeera, Sky and Fox all have biased news output, but (uniquely amongst all news organisations) the BBC is completely free of bias?

“Yes, that’s right. On political matters, neutrality is impossible, so all media is biased. For example, suppose you need to write an article on privatisation of the NHS. How can you do it without letting your own feelings on the issue affect your writing? In good conscience, how can you write from a neutral perspective? You are not living in 2210 and writing a historical account about Britain 2010, which is isolated by two centuries from the effects of what you write. No: you *actually* live in 2010, your writing has an effect on what happens, and what happens to the NHS will affect you and your contemporaries.

The same thought experiment can be usefully applied to anything political: climate change? Israel? EU membership? abortion rights? gay rights? What is “neutral” when it comes to these issues? There is no neutral.”

Thing is, you’ve shifted so much since the start of this thread that you’re now arguing my position! If you recall, you started by saying that the BBC ‘serves’ the government politically. There’s a world of difference between admitting true objectivity is impossible and claiming that BBC is a mouthpiece for Westminster.

Also, remember that bias is not the same as presenting two sides as equally valid and/or right. Covering the Holocaust in an unbiased way would not mean placing 50% of the blame on the Nazis and 50% on the Jews. Possibly a similar thing, albeit in a far less clear-cut way, happens when covering the Israel/Palestine issue (and no, I’m not comparing Israel to the Nazis). While the historic debate is unresolvable, the current situation is that one state is committing atrocities against a weaker one, and presenting that in a 50/50 light could be considered biased in itself.

@30 “Thing is, you’ve shifted so much since the start of this thread that you’re now arguing my position! If you recall, you started by saying that the BBC ‘serves’ the government politically. There’s a world of difference between admitting true objectivity is impossible and claiming that BBC is a mouthpiece for Westminster.”

I don’t think I’ve shifted. I started by saying that the BBC isn’t neutral. In post nr 4, I said “the BBC has immense power to control public opinion, and this isn’t always a good thing. Maybe “Biased BBC” was right all along?”

During the same post, I also said “what you’re missing here is the direction of political influence. The BBC doesn’t answer to Cameron – Cameron answers to the BBC. In a democracy, whoever controls public opinion controls the government.”

My explanation for the leftwards shift of the Conservative party is the bias of the BBC, as I stated in my first post. The BBC is unable to be objective about “rightwing” politics, because neutrality is impossible on political matters (as we apparently agree). But the BBC is so powerful and so influential that its lack of neutrality has a strong influence on the sort of government we get. That power is strong at least partly because we have to pay for it. That’s my solution – that paying for the BBC should be optional, even if you watch TV.

It’s tricky to get people to object to bias that appears to suit them, and I know that the licence fee is popular amongst the Left. (Unacknowledged, but I suspect this has much to do with the BBC’s politics.) So, the whole business with Cameron meeting the BBC and apparently asking them to change their coverage of “cuts” is an opportunity for me. Here is some BBC bias that won’t be popular with LC. Therefore, I rhetorically ask how you would like it if the BBC used it’s propaganda power (and your money) to prop up an “evil” government by telling everyone that the “evil” government is actually good. In principle the BBC can do this, and (I’d say) they have spent the last decade doing exactly that.

I don’t see the inconsistency here. However, some of my posts have not been as clear and well-written as they should be, for which I can only apologise.

@Vladimir

I’ll reply to yr post @29 properly when I have more time later but anecdotally with reference to @31 I know some traditional Tory types who are also keen on the license fee (well, in principle – just the cost that’s bothersome I think).

This video clip is a worrying example of the systematic harassment of a household which is refusing to buy a TV Licence because they don’t have a TV set and don’t want to watch TV – well worth watching IMO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Sa1DgmCww

“I don’t think I’ve shifted. ”

Yeah, my fault. I think I skim-read your first post a bit, because I placed too much emphasis on one sentence.

“During the same post, I also said “what you’re missing here is the direction of political influence. The BBC doesn’t answer to Cameron – Cameron answers to the BBC. In a democracy, whoever controls public opinion controls the government.””

Meh. I think the BBC’s inability to create a perfect lack of bias pales in significance to the threat to democracy posed by every single paper and most other TV channels. As the BBC’s bias is a form of imperfection rather than (I assume, based on the total lack of contradictory evidence) a deliberate strategem, it is both minor and likely to swing both ways. Total effect on democracy: trace.

“My explanation for the leftwards shift of the Conservative party is the bias of the BBC, as I stated in my first post. The BBC is unable to be objective about “rightwing” politics, because neutrality is impossible on political matters (as we apparently agree). But the BBC is so powerful and so influential that its lack of neutrality has a strong influence on the sort of government we get. That power is strong at least partly because we have to pay for it. That’s my solution – that paying for the BBC should be optional, even if you watch TV.

It’s tricky to get people to object to bias that appears to suit them, and I know that the licence fee is popular amongst the Left. (Unacknowledged, but I suspect this has much to do with the BBC’s politics.) So, the whole business with Cameron meeting the BBC and apparently asking them to change their coverage of “cuts” is an opportunity for me. Here is some BBC bias that won’t be popular with LC. Therefore, I rhetorically ask how you would like it if the BBC used it’s propaganda power (and your money) to prop up an “evil” government by telling everyone that the “evil” government is actually good. In principle the BBC can do this, and (I’d say) they have spent the last decade doing exactly that.”

Sure, but you have no reason to claim that the BBC is biased (at least, I have yet to see any). As it is, I think you’re just annoyed that the BBC isn’t biased in your favour, and have rationalized that as anti-right bias. If the Beeb is so anti-Tory, I wonder why they’re the natural party of power. This is cognitive bias on your part, I feel (as it is among those who claim the BBC is anti-left): you place greater weight on BBC stories that harm the Tories, as these annoy you, as you do those that harm Labour, as you agree with these and thus consider them non-contraversial. I realise I’m oversimplifying there, but how many people have you heard down the pub say something like “I saw this report on TV the other day and it was just SO REASONABLE AND BALANCED!”? We remember things that make us emotional, not the mundane.

As to the license fee: I disagree. The existence of a major media outlet that isn’t answerable to corporate interests is almost as essential to democracy as the existence of those not answerable to state interests. The reason the Left favours the licence fee more than the right, I suspect, is that we don’t have the same knee-jerk resentment of taxes, and that we don’t trust corporations to do the right thing. It’s not caused by the non-existent bias of the national broadcaster. I think we should keep the fee, but it should come straight out of income tax, as I’m not sure why radio listeners currently get a free ride.

Interesting one this.

And more than valuable for the often fair points and mostly civilised manner they are being made.

I appreciate that views may differ. I also appreciate that human nature suggests one empathises more with those one tends to agree with, just as it’s harder to do so with that which is counter to one’s beliefs.

Like many media, the ‘medium’ being used here both offers its opinions… as well as its mechanisms for debate… for free and without censure.

I may of may not agree with its opinions on this topic, or many things, but this function is a most gratefully accepted fact. Hence I visit, accept what it offers/puts out into my inbox for review, and can be moved to comment on occasion.

However, above my views, welcome or not, my ‘custom’ (in this case I presume ad revenue supporting eyeball time) can be withdrawn, without fear or favour.

Now let us ponder what some seem to be advocating, beyond the current debate on whether the output the national broadcaster is, has been or should be ‘balanced/unbiased/objective’, or if indeed it is possible for it to be so.

Chaise Guevara makes many good points. I may agree with some; not with others. Equally Vladimir.

Should Chaise Guevara move to demand that I pay for these views I would probably demur. To get those from Vladimir separately, paid or unpaid, only by first paying for those of Chaise Guevara on top, seems unreasonable.

I’d be interested in learning how that is ‘different’ or, as some like to think it, ‘unique’, especially in this day and age, and near unmatched in any other democracy, being based mainly on some outdated historical precedents.

And precedents can often prove to be double-edged, though hypocrisies can conspire to ensure that some are retained where others are deemed beyond the pale. A famous ex-employee of a very famous protagonist in this discussion penned a few cautionary tales about these very points.

Where who ‘we’ are vs. ‘them’ does now get to matter, especially when it comes to who ‘you’ are, and what ‘side’ ‘you’ reside upon for benefits of a system… or its less savoury impositions.

Freedom of speech is fortunately enshrined in democracy, but like democracy can be tweaked to suit, often compromising a flawed system that is yet still the best on offer. However, the former is under the umbrella of the latter. So for both one thing I do treasure is my ability to vote out my Parliamentary representatives based on what they and their parties say and/or do over an often brief period of years by which they can be judged. Important, as they have the power to shape much of my family’s life, and futures.

Bearing in mind the immense impact a national broadcast entity can have, through budget and reach and reputation and from guest selection to editorial post-production techniques, does it seem right that this level of check and/or balance by free opt-in or out choice is not open to those required to pay for its output?

Or is the view simply that as some like it this way, so others should simply be required to fund news, information and entertainment that may not be to their tastes because… er… they just should.

If so, I raise the caution of precedent. If… when things turn out less to one’s tastes, where a currently comfortable stance that satisfies one’s prejudices may ultimately prove less appealing.

“Bearing in mind the immense impact a national broadcast entity can have, through budget and reach and reputation and from guest selection to editorial post-production techniques, does it seem right that this level of check and/or balance by free opt-in or out choice is not open to those required to pay for its output?

Or is the view simply that as some like it this way, so others should simply be required to fund news, information and entertainment that may not be to their tastes because… er… they just should.”

It certainly shouldn’t be. I see the BBC as an important service, one we need to keep corporate interests in check. The reason we should all pay for this is not that we may wish to use the service, but that society as a whole benefits from it. I don’t actually watch a lot of BBC myself, and there are many other tax-funded schemes that I either don’t use or am a net contributer to (despite being in a low tax bracket), but I don’t object because it’s for the good of society. That’s the basic principle behind taxation in a democracy, and I for one support it.

On the other hand, I fully understand that people resent paying for a service that they may not want, and were it not for the above-mentioned benefits, I’d be on their side.

Thank you for a considered reply.

I sense we may be agreeing to disagree on much, though perhaps the thorny issue of my paying (perhaps against my will) for what you agree with, currently, remains unresolved. There is some irony perhaps in the level of discomfort being expressed by some that this current level may swing away from what they feel is required. Especially when it is more by way of a counter-balance in some eyes already…

‘I see the BBC as an important service, one we need to keep corporate interests in check.’

I, too, see it as important, but as a means to provide news and entertainment; not to act as a ‘check’ ‘against’ anything, corporate or otherwise. That, I humbly suggest, is what is causing a wee bit of an issue here and elsewhere

‘The reason we should all pay for this is not that we may wish to use the service, but that society as a whole benefits from it.’

That is a view, for sure. But already we may drift apart as to what constitutes which benefits to which aspects of society.

‘I don’t actually watch a lot of BBC myself..’

Me either, in many areas, for various reasons. Though I do very much enjoy some aspects, especially where social engineering to ‘enhance narratives’ or ‘interpret events’ offers less temptations to add views to news.

‘..there are many other tax-funded schemes that I either don’t use or am a net contributor to (despite being in a low tax bracket), but I don’t object because it’s for the good of society. That’s the basic principle behind taxation in a democracy, and I for one support it.’

I guess we here get into scale and reasonableness and a few other areas less easy to pin down objectively in black or white. But I fear I cannot equate most other tax-funded benefits of a just and caring society, from social services to policing, with the provision of broadcast news and entertainment. These are hardly essentials.

Especially when the content and output seems defined by a large number of folk on some rather hefty salaries whose judgement I have to swallow even if of a different view and less than impressed. And who, if all I read lately is to be any guide, are immune from most means I usually have to express dissatisfaction, be it in the private or indeed public sectors.

I know there are national broadcasters in other, highly respected, democracies, but submit that few equate in nearly any terms to the BBC. Yet these do still able to function, and indeed are those whose societies do appear to thrive without the guidance we ‘enjoy’ here.

I suspect we may start to be spinning on our own respective axes, but am happy to jog along simply by virtue of enjoying a rare opportunity to exchange firmly held counter views in a civilised manner.

Without wishing to provoke, but as a small example of possible precedent, might I wonder what reaction you perceive might be should those that can impose such things, I presume the government, announced that, say, recruitment advertising should be placed in media equally across the political spectrum or, perhaps more controversially, to represent actual public readerships?

Surely no one could object that this would be, at one fell swoop, more fairer in public outreach and, consequentially, over a period of time (HR and management comfort levels might need to bed in to accommodate) ensure the political views of any one medium doesn’t skew the number of applicants (and hence hires) embraced, inevitably to a certain corporate mindset?

Hmm. I think I agree with the largest portion of your objections, although perhaps from a different angle (due to us valuing the Beeb for different reasons). I have to admit that it’s unfair the license fee is used to provide entertainment that many don’t watch; perhaps the BBC’s charter should state that aside from news and educational services, the shows it buys and produces must pay for themselves overall? Aside from anything else, this might mean it would do less buying and more producing, which is good news for jobs and the diversity of terrestial TV. It would also make ridiculous salaries harder to justify. I should also repeat that, were it not for the fact that I see it as a democratic safeguard, I would certainly be opposed to the licence fee.

As for your final question: that’s a new idea on me, and I’m unsure whether it’s a good one from a theoretical angle, but it certainly seems unworkable. For a start, defining ‘across the political spectrum’ is tricky; would a socialist paper with a ‘hang ‘em all’ attitude to crime be seen as left or right wing? Also, the papers could take advantage of the law to charge exorbitant rates, unless the government also set advertising costs, which is more state control that even I feel happy about.

I have to agree, by the way, that the sensible and courteous tone on this thread is a nice change from the internet at large!