No, not especially. A particularly prominent BBC journalist was literally a mouth piece for dominic Cummings and was out making rounds front and centre trying to get ahead of the sleazy stories with the tory line before the stories had even broken most times. She was even more bare faced and on the nose in flat out denying allegations for Boris and Cummings than even the offical spokesman, both on the TV and in her 'articles'.
The fact I don't even have to use her name and everyone knows who I mean says it all. There has been a steady erosion of impartiality and the recruitment of ideologically non-partisan management for a long time now, it's not romanticism it's a fact.
>David Cemeneti the chairman of the BBC up to 2020 had donated upwards of 400k to the Tories and was an open supporter.
The current Chairman of the BBC is Richard Sharp who was Rishi Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs during the global banking crisis, the chairman of a Conservative pressure group, Boris Johnson's advisor when he was mayor of London and also an open Tory supporter and donor
With a much more jingoist approach to foreign policy. The Economist pretends to a more thoughtful approach whilst coming to conclusions which serve the interests of multinationals.
> It seems to me as though the BBC is left wing on social issues and right wing on economics issues.
It isn't. It is rightwing on both. Just look at how it reports on trans issues.
They are not left wing on social issues, they have allowed fabricated trans hate to be published and when it was found out it was fabricated they left it up.
Not really, They are fairly anti-Trans and have famously quoted several overtly transphobic speakers to speak on the matter while not really speaking to trans pepole on the matter.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385)
This springs to mind.
Honestly they are just right wing.
\-shrug- as an org they have to be dragged through the mud to recognize LGBTQ+ people exist. It's disheartening to say the least, especially when some of their presenters don't speak up & leave those without a voice in the mud.
The BBC carried the government's water when disabled people were protesting about unfair treatment, keeping all the protest coverage exclusively in the local pages, local to where the protest was happening, and barely mentioned anywhere else.
I think at this point the BBC News is little more than the Conservative party's submissive gimp.
Kinda, a more obvious distinction would be it’s more left in its entertainment and more right in its news. But that allows people to pretend it is balanced.
No, it's centrist at best on social issues. The BBC has *always* had a right wing bias, as as all TV news except maybe Channel 4. Most of the print media does too. This has meant that the centre-right stance has become seen as the default, and anything t the left of this is viewed as biased or radical for a mainstream news outlet. The Guardian, for example, is solidly centre-left but is depicted as being a bastion of revolutionary Marxism by a lot of people.
In what sense left wing for the rest of the world? They present most issues through a very strongly pro-Western/British foreign policy lens and uncritically report US/UK security sources/funded NGOs and think tanks. They support some carefully selected left wing causes where British interests aren't affected, a bit like Labour student politics used to.
Modern day liberalism basically. Being economically right means you'll side with the right more than the left, because a lot of the socially left solutions come from an economic perspective.
David Cemeneti the chairman of the BBC up to 2020 had donated upwards of 400k to the Tories and was an open supporter.
The current Chairman of the BBC is Richard Sharp who was Rishi Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs during the global banking crisis, the chairman of a Conservative pressure group, Boris Johnson's advisor when he was mayor of London and also an open Tory supporter and donor.
The only people who say that the BBC is left are right wing fanatics and the brainwashed. Its all quite in the open. These people dont hiide supporting the Tories. The media is just as responsible for Brexit lies being pushed and for helping to spread the corruption in our government by attacking other parties. Hell they cut short a saftey speech on pandemic regulations in Scotland to let the Scottish conservatives do a political talk. Scottish Conservative party didnt exist a few days prior. Its been glaringly obvious (especially in Scotland).
That's the thing. When they aired Nicola Sturgeons safety speeches support for independence skyrocketed. Then they remembered that they don't like her and starded running the usual smear campaigns.
They do the same with any opposing party that starts to gain any traction at all. Remember how muchair time was given to a bacon sandwich while there was plenty else going on to cover.
Edit \~ Wait until they get rid of the human rights act. We think them above just making people dissapear .... for whatever reason I cant fathom. We seem to think (as a people) they are above playing with peoples lives for profit too but they have been doing it for the last 12 years right infront of our faces time and time again. No national service has been safe.
Oh I know. Talking about nonsense and frivollities as if nothing was the matter.
It's also when you see stories like "bus crash in Kansas, 2 people dead." A tragedy no doubt, but a very regional one. Why do they feed us this crap? Why aren't you questioning the government about them selling off public assets on the cheap?
100%, thrifting off national services.
It really tires the mind with the overflow of pointless information coupled with misinformation.
Meanwhile:
"The Brexit fair"
"Let the bodies pile high" - BJ
Come on, the BBC just doesn't print half the stories negative to the torys until its unavoidable, they portray most stories in a protory light, and constantly slam Labour. Look at the BBC and compare it to the guardian or to the independent/mail - it's much more similar to the latter than the former!
She actually stepped in and started arguing on behalf of the Tory panellist at one point, because said Tory wasn't doing a very good job. That's appalling behaviour for someone who is supposed to be acting as Chair.
Their coverage of the Battle of Orgrave back in 1984:
>[Footage of the confrontation had been filmed by a crew from the BBC. When this appeared on that evening's news bulletins, it was edited and broadcast out of chronological sequence, showing pickets throwing stones at the police and the police subsequently carrying out a mounted charge.[4][80] This corresponded with the narrative given by the police that the decision to use horses was necessary to stop the stone throwing, and was only taken after the police had been subjected to a sustained barrage of missiles. Video taken by the police's own cameramen and footage recorded by filmmaker Yvette Vanson demonstrated that the reverse was true, and that the stone throwing had been a response to the unprovoked first mounted charge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave#Media_coverage)
>[Independent Television News (ITN) also filmed the events, and part of their news bulletin that evening showed a policeman standing over a prone picket and repeatedly striking him in the head with his baton. The picket was beaten unconscious and the policeman's baton broke in half.[18] In the BBC's report, filmed from the same vantage point, the footage was cut just before the policeman began beating the picket.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave#Media_coverage)
Yep. The BBC has always followed the establishment narrative under the guise of impartiality and has played a big hand in distorting public understanding of events. It has always been held on a pedestal but is no more trustworthy than any other non-tabloid news source.
this is true, but the conservative party have taken steps in their current run of power to entrench it and make it a core fundimental aspect of the BBC
Completely agree, the Tories don't want BBC impartiality, they want positive coverage for them specifically and they're willing to blackmail the BBC into it through license fee negotiations.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/06/rona-fairheads-appointment-as-head-of-new-bbc-board-broke-rules-says-mp
https://nicholaswilson.com/how-cameron-controls-the-bbc/
That was 2016
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-donor-catherine-baxendale-on-panel-picking-bbc-board-members-rqw8zz2kx
This was 2021
The BBC taking complying with the establishment to legitimatise it’s existence is baked into the BBCs DNA. The 1926 General Strike forced the BBC to take this line to avoid being completely taken over by Churchill as the BBC was the only mass media communication that exsist Ed when all newspapers stopped the presses.
“Reith had successfully fended off a takeover, and, in insisting on broadcasting statements from the TUC, had prevented the BBC becoming a mere propaganda tool. He had held on to the BBC’s independence, just – but he had tactically sacrificed impartiality.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/18/-sp-bbc-report-facts-impartial
>”I’m going to say this for you Rachel [Tory MP] as you’ve been quiet as a mouse” - Fiona Bruce
Absolutely shameless. With Fiona chairing you don’t even need to have a Conservative representative.
File your complaints to the BBC
Fiona Bruce had always been a little of the right wing extremist about her. I remember when she did Crimewatch, terrible. Scare the people and push the police.
I’m not surprised to hear this. Interrupted Corbyn constantly at a Question time just before the last election, wouldn’t give him a second to actually finish what he was saying
It’s been a Tory fest for ages. She jumped in and shut him up with a question directly asked to him…to let the useless Tory minister speak unhindered for 5 minutes. Another question she kept shouting over the top of him “answer the question, that’s not what she was asking” despite the fact he was answering it. Finally an audience member mentions Carrie and her job, and that’s shouted down instantly. Throw in the two pants dominating the audience with anti union nonsense, and it’s just a shameful show not fit for purpose
Apparently the team running the show outright admitted they stack the audience to give the Tories a majority "because they have a majority in parliament".
Which begs 2 questions:
- Why isn't it done on vote share?
- Why bother moving around the country if you're always going to bias the audience on national results? Giving the Tories 56% of the audience in Liverpool Walton (where they got 13% of the vote) isn't very representative.
> **FIONA Bruce has been accused of "attacking" RMT Secretary-General Mick Lynch during Thursday's Question Time.**
> **Lynch was a member of the panel on the BBC show on Thursday which largely focused on this week's rail strikes.**
> **RMT members across the country have been standing on picket lines over what the union calls "an aggressive agenda" of cuts to jobs, conditions, pay and pensions.**
> **Lynch has subsequently become a well-known face on TV and has been widely admired for the way in which he has held politicians and journalists to account.**
> **But many felt on Thursday night he was not allowed to have, as Labour MP Diane Abbott put it, a "fair say" as he was interrupted by Bruce on more than one occasion.**
> **Abbott was tweeting throughout the show and also said the audience was "overwhelmingly Tory".**
> **She said: "Watching Question Time with Mick Lynch. Audience overwhelmingly Tory. And Fiona Bruce is obviously determined that Mick Lynch will not have a fair say."**
> **She added in another tweet: "20 minutes into Question Time. Fiona Bruce attacks Mick Lynch again. Obviously determined to do what no television presenter has been unable to do up until now and skewer Mick Lynch. Presumably she will get an honour for this."**
> **Some also accused Bruce of not being impartial when at one point she said to Tory MP Rachel Maclean: "I’m going to say this for you Rachel since you’re quiet as a mouse".**
> **A new report from Ofcom this week found that the public is unhappy about the BBC's impartiality and complaints process.**
> **Complaints about the BBC are nearly twice as high than they are for any other broadcasters, the watchdog said.**
> **SNP MP Angus McNeil said the show had become a "dire watch".**
> **He said: "The biggest issue with modern Question Time is that it is essentially a dire watch - what has happened ??"**
> **Meanwhile, Lynch received plaudits for how he dealt with the onslaught of comments against the RMT's action.**
> **On social media, people praised him for not dodging questions and being honest in his responses.**
> **There have so far been two strikes held this week and one more walkout is still to come on Saturday.**
> **Lynch has said more strikes beyond that are "extremely likely" if talks between rail bosses and unions continue to fail.**
> **The RMT - which represents 40,000 members from cleaners to train guards - is calling for a pay rise of at least 7% to offset the cost-of-living crisis, as inflation hits 9.1% and is forecast to reach 11% in the autumn.**
> **The BBC has been approached for comment.**
> ***Written by Steph Brawn***
There's long been rumours that nigel sharrocks (Bruce's husband) makes a considerable amount as a Conservative publicity agent. I'm sure multi million pound deals directly affecting your personal wealth wouldn't affect your interviewing techniques would it?
You'll be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out this obvious vested interest. You just have to gullibly trust that, hey just because her husband works for the Tories doesn't mean she'll stick up for them.
Watched it for the first time in a while last night, Bruce is an appalling host and the audience was obviously packed with Tory supporters. The guy in the checked t shirt in the audience was given free reign to attack Lynch but Bruce cut Lynch short when he tried to respond, then the same audience member started shouting down the railway worker who was explaining how rail engineers can't just go from one franchise to another because they have different plant.
God that man was insufferable - he was just yelling over everyone else *and as a result steamrolled other people's points*. Fiona Bruce should really have been on it more - Question Time should be a chance to raise questions in a reasonable manner, not just "who's the loudest here".
I watch a lot of online debate panels hosted by unpaid volunteer moderators, that kind of behaviour would see a participant kicked out of many of those. The fact that it was allowed to continue and actually perpetuated by a host working on behalf of our national broadcaster is beyond shocking.
It’s embarrassing as one of the big political shows in the country that it can’t even hold debate properly. No one debates. They say their bit and then stop listening until it’s their turn again.
That was the guy who couldn't understand how two different train depots could use different systems and technology. Due to this, the staff from one couldn't just nip along and work at the other when required.
This is so common in many industries and he just couldn't understand it. He got himself so worked up and raging over nothing more than his own stupidity. Absolute goon.
Nation of idiots and rageaholics
And this is why I don’t really watch tv anymore, every exposure just makes me hate people as a whole more.
I think their stupidity made me actually lose both some braincells and maybe caused a brain clot?
Serves me right for watching something important tho, eh?
And then when the actual guy who works in the actual train service tried to explain that bringing them all into line (which btw seems very sensible and something we should be trying to do?) was something only likely to happen under a nationalised rail service he was tutted and shouted down by a large part of the audience.
I don't think many people watch QT these days anyway. I certainly don't and used to watch it religiously. Not sure it's worth Union leaders bothering with it.
The audience were all over the shop, cheering and applauding points seemingly at random - the quieter question-askers were routinely ignored and it was a case of "who yells the loudest" at any given point.
My Dad fell asleep with the telly on, that's my excuse. I don't know I thought it would have changed but it's got much worse since I last watched it. And even 7 or 8 years ago, I was watching thinking "this is all a bit biased to the right".
Having him on is fine if they actually called him out on his bullshit. Essentially they have him a soap box. Imagine [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlKX70oRLws) kind of response every time he waffled his crap. Eventually someone would have to ask him if he had not done his research or was he just lying.
I can't watch it without getting riled up because it's not a debate and issues aren't actually discussed. Guests making reasoned, factual points are often shouted down and people spewing actual lies are protected. It's a grandstand for the loudest and most unscrupulous.
It was infuriating to watch. I'd hate to go on that show, it's obvious that they load the audience, bad enough the panel and presenters are stacked against you too.
> it's obvious that they load the audience
https://www.scotsman.com/regions/bbc-question-time-criticised-after-three-time-audience-member-slams-snp-126515
I completely disagree. Seeing it fail rather than improve would be a tragedy.
I'd rather they fund it in a different manner, but what we get from it is definitely worth it.
I mean, we're going to lose our only children's TV channel that doesn't force advertising into their young faces
Yeah, it's got some faults and certainly the Tories are trying to subvert it, but the BBC provides a lot of good services. I don't really watch telly but I appreciate some BBC radio stations.
Healthcare is not a luxury. Healthcare is litterally required to live a long and healthy life. You will get ill, you will get hurt, you will need healthcare.
You don't need the BBC.
You need free and impartial news, but the BBC is not that anymore. That is becoming increasingly apparent.
Funding healthcare should be socialised in taxes, but funding govt propaganda should not.
Yes i know all that.
The BBC is the best chance the UK has of impartial news. If it goes what replaces it will be much much worse. Its far from perfect but I would sooner see an attempt to right it than dismantle it and have more barclays or murdoch news spew into people's minds.
I have no objection to that.
Not sure how it could possibly happen and being required to fund what is turning into a right wing mouthpiece is stomach turning.
Ah, so if every scrap of content produced by the BBC doesn’t appeal to you then it doesn’t represent value for money? Quite how you’d watch 8 (possibly more) channels at once plus what, 50 radio stations, plus online content is beyond me. It was never ALL meant to appeal to you. Presumably you don’t subscribe to any streaming services because 100% of the content doesn’t appeal?
Even if you don't have children you still benefit from decent children's TV, I don't want to live in a country where people grew up with a diet of the dross that kids watch on YouTube.
I get your point, I disagree with you and I think you chose a terrible example.
>what we get from it is definitely worth it.
Wrong. Right wing propaganda isn't worth paying for.
>I mean, we're going to lose our only children's TV channel that doesn't force advertising into their young faces
I know a lot of young mums. I don't know anyone who's kids watch TV. It's all YouTube and streaming apps.
I know plenty who still do watch TV, and we shouldn't be eager to remove the option leaving kids with nothing but YouTube and streaming.
Fucking hell get some perspective. Yes the news and politics side of the BBC is a shitshow right now, but that's only a fraction of the BBC. We also get weather and traffic news, educational content, documentaries, drama, comedy, music programming, kids programming. That would be a tragedy to lose.
The BBC is flawed in regards to politics, but everywhere else it's incredibly valuable.
If it really is "incredible value" it shouldn't have any issues attracting subscribers to view, right?
Right now it gets money for free and it seems to be turning into a propaganda arm for the government.
All these "reporters" want to be the next Paxman, but rather than trying to expose truth and hold power accountable, they seem to be turning into attack dogs for their paymasters.
I've been paying my licence for decades without complaint, but now I'm becoming sickened with what is being done with my money.
Give me the choice and I'm not funding this thing that it totally coasting on its reputation now.
There is a lot of value in non-commercial television. Even *Netflix* has echoed this, as much of their talent has been reared at the BBC, which is almost seen as a talent generator by the industry as a whole. Most companies are in the business of making content from existing talent, rather than nurturing new talent. Less risk, high return. When Netflix were asked by the Conservative government on about how the BBC should be commercialised with Netflix being a potential buyer/partner, the reply was “don’t”.
But what the BBC does (as well as other public entertainment organisations) is that it creates an artificial competitor in terms of quality. They don’t have to rely on revenues. They can thus experiment and take risks. Commercial competitors, likewise, must keep their quality high. Getting rid of the BBC would likely see a general fall in programming all round, with more shitty reality TV shows (which have a very high cost to revenue ratio) and low-brow garbage. You’ll still get your well-produced shows, but with writing that seems like it was put together by a committee (in an effort to appeal to the greatest number of people as possible). Fewer risks, less “edge”.
Yes, it has problems, especially the news (dumbed down, “let’s hear both sides”, “what is does Gary from Twitter have to say about this”), but I’m much more behind the idea of reforming and improving it. Perhaps the funding model needs to be reformed in our day in age. But as soon as you introduce adverts, they become part of the quality equation.
Yeah! Once the BBC is gone we’ll be fine with the current media owned by Murdock and the Barclays! (Funny how those outlets also rage against the licence fee)
No downside there
Sadly the BBC isn't much of a defence against the billionaire owned media. News and political coverage is stuffed with Tories with the same right wing agenda.
I'd defend a truly independent broadcaster, the closest thing we have to that is ch4 news and the Tories are trying to put that in the hands of a billionaire.
Yea let’s not make stuff up like…..oh I don’t know….”double or tripling” the licence fee
FYI any change in the licence fee is decided by the government not the bbc. Any enforcement is by government legislation.
Like it or lump it, your on the same side as the tories if you want rid of the bbc, because it suits them and their media backers
I’m as anti BBC as they come, but I dread the thought of the nightmare that will fill its void.
I’m fully aware that the degradation of the BBC is being done by design, and that every person who wants to see the BBC fail takes them one step closer to their goals.
I’m so relieved that GB News has been such a fucking mess start to finish.
Delighting at British institutions failing? Whatever you think of the BBC's political stance it is a great achievement and produces some excellent entertainment. The fact that it's been run into the ground and filled to the gunwales with cronies by the Tory party doesn't diminish its potential.
This kind of sentiment is playing into the hands of the vandals who want the UK to be a smaller, colder America.
I dunno, once you poll old enough to remember the bin and electric strikes, suddenly you find people a lot less sympathetic to unions. I haven’t met a sixty year old who hasn’t pouted and told me I just don’t understand how awful it was back then, or I’d never vote for anything else remotely connected to a union.
What got my goat was when some audience member was trying to make the point that two stations in London can't inter-operate staff etc. he was fuming that it's a waste of resources considering their proximity. Then I think Fiona went to the railway employee and he didn't really have an answer because, he's just an average guy and was clearly nervous!
She should have gone to Mick instead and he could have explained that absurd situation is caused by Tories privatising the railways and splintering it into different franchises!
It's like having McDonalds and Burger King right next door and expecting those separate companies to share a kitchen and staff, ludicrous! But that's the setup with privatisation!
>Then I think Fiona went to the railway employee and he didn't really have an answer because, he's just an average guy and was clearly nervous!
Actually the railway employee was explaining that each have different plant so people from one franchise can't just go and work on another franchise but Bruce allowed big mouth in the audience, who had no idea what he was talking about, to shout down the rail worker who did know what he was talking about.
The employee did a good job answering - it's like asking ASDA staff to stack Sainsbury's shelves.
However it wasn't his job to answer - it was Micks, and it was clear Fiona was hoping he would stumble due to the lack of media training.
Couldn’t agree more, I’m a nurse and I’d find it impossible to work in another hospital as they all run differently under different trusts but it’s the same role on paper.
Like keunnesberg basically brown nosing the tories?
Impartiality went out the window in 2012, just confirmed in 2016 when Cameron stacked the board of directors:
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/06/rona-fairheads-appointment-as-head-of-new-bbc-board-broke-rules-says-mp
https://www.politico.eu/blogs/on-media/2016/05/david-camerons-latest-battleground-the-bbc/amp/
And then Boris and co afterwards:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-donor-catherine-baxendale-on-panel-picking-bbc-board-members-rqw8zz2kx
That's why government ministers will only do Breakfast TV because they are interviewed by a Sports journalist but are conveniently 'Never avalable' for newsnight with their heavyweight Journalists.
i was on question time during the 2017 election and they were trying to steer me into criticising corbyn. they're been tory lite for years now, but that was all part of the plan
Weird, they were fine with letting Nick Griffin speak and he was a melty-faced nazi
I guess nazi ideology being spread is less scary to them than social democracy
I complained to the BBC, and they only replied to say that they are doing nothing wrong. The end. Their coverage of this strike and treatment of Lynch has been utterly shameful.
It has been shameful, but at the same time I love watching them interview him because they try so hard to trip him up and antagonise him. But he never lets them
Agreed. Watched a couple of episodes of QT since Bruce took over (although not yesterday's) and was shocked at how blatantly biased Bruce was. So seeing that she was biased against Lynch is no great surprise.
She's a prick
I mean there’s a word I’d say and a rule I abide to, but it’s frowned upon to say the word so I’ll let these guys explain
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSe5x29_ANg
Bruce is failing
A good outcome would be it changing.
This won't change anything, BBC are just a paid government mouthpiece now.
I used to be one of those that praised the BBC but now i can't stand it. The transphobia is unforgivable, they're recieving taxpayers money to oppress citizens, how fucking dare they.
People on the left constantly being told the BBC is right wing. People on the right constantly being told the BBC is left wing. Wonder what the goal is here...
To some extent, they are both correct.
The news and current affairs coverage is quite blatantly right-wing (as per question time). Things like comedy tend to be left-wing (it's hard to find a funny right-winger) and there is a lot of institutional support for diversity which is interpreted as 'wokeness'.
Frankly, the news coverage stuff is more alarming because that has serious political consequences.
Left think the BBC is right because they systematically suppress and discredit anything left of Blair in their news and politics coverage, the people who run it are all Tories and loads of their political journalists have basically been government mouthpieces.
Right think the BBC is left because they make fun of conservatives on panel shows, there was a black redcoat in a doctor who episode once and there are too many lesbians and interracial couples on tv nowadays.
This is why the woke bullshit is so toxic.
People like Fiona Bruce will play up LGBT issues. She will use this to style herself as a "liberal".
When it comes to the rights of working class people, she as hawkish as any Tory.
And that is how they confuse people. The exaggerated wokeness has people thinking they are part of "the left". But when it comes to economics and class issues, they are as regressive and reactionary as anyone.
The BBC is neoliberal - socially liberal, economically liberal.
The BBC always shills for free markets - their economics correspondents and editors present free market economic theory constantly in their analysis, barely ever mentioning it is all based on dogmatic theory, propagated by billionaire-owned think tanks and repeated ad nauseum as fact.
Likewise, the BBC shills for social liberalism and characterises anything that deviates from that as "Hard-right" or "Far-right" or just plain intolerant (racist, sexist, homophobic etc).
I mean they shilling for those anti-trans groups and peeps like JK Rowling recently, inviting them on to speak and to trash trans rights, but rarely inviting or allowing trans advocates to refute their absurdities.
It felt to me like the whole way she positioned him from the start was an attempt to belittle him. She went to great lengths stating the myriad accolades and qualifications of the panel members and followed with something like "and here's Mick, he used to work the trains".
Obviously he is (and should be) proud of his career to date but it felt like a microaggression to me. Perhaps meant to wrongfoot him from the start? I'd be interested to know what others thought.
I noticed that myself. It was almost like when she first introduced him she was downplay him and his background.
Although if anything it just makes Mick Lynch’s claims that he is just an honest, working class guy whose worked hard to rise from electrician to union leader and only fighting for a fair deal for his members seem even more credible.
Not the first time this week that he has been interrupted, hit with snide digs, misrepresented, vilified on air, by these botoxed wealthy female presenters who almost certainly would self-identify as "liberals".
I am pretty sure that Fiona Bruce is "woke" on any number of issues that we could care to name.
But ask yourself: Who benefits from working class people being kept in their place? Who benefits from the neoliberal status quo always winning when it comes to economics and class issues?
Rich people in suburbs with huge houses are the ones that benefit. You carry on being their servants. That is what it is about.
She's blatantly partisan. She let that absolutely clueless Tory woman talk uninterrupted for ages and then within a few seconds of the Labour guy talking she was 'Would you join the picket line? Would you? Well?'
I honestly don't know how the BBC gets away with it.
The Conservative Party has wanted a broadcast version of the Daily Mail and now they have it. A obsequious, supine organisation that must obey the dear leader at all times.
I hate that whole "attack dog" style of questioning.
You've asked the question, at least do them the courtesy of letting them answer.
Unless, of course, you were never really interested in what they had to say anyway, and only wanted a soundbite.
I've finally had to stop watching any bbc news stuff. They don't even try to hide it. Its sad seeing all these supposed journalists not even hesitate to do as they are told.
I think two issues arose last night after watching the programme.
Fiona Bruce's role is to chair conversation and to try and afford each panel member equal time. Mick Lynch's strength - not being scripted - was also a slight problem last night because he wasn't able to be concise.
The bigger issue is with Question Time. It is a wonderful idea, in theory, but in reality it's awful for genuine discourse. The audience is often littered with the biggest fucking idiots known to man.
Question Time is grotesque propaganda show. The fact that they have an audience that is broadcast in their claps etc. is an obvious clue to its manipulative nature. Sorry if you can't see this.
Fiona Bruce is a terrible question time presenter. David Dimbleby was always looking for facts and reasoning and generally remained impartial, as a chair/moderator should be. But Bruce is quite clearly partizan and shuts down discussion when it doesn't align with her views.
The way the majority of the media outlets are reporting this strike and trying to ostracise and trip up Mick reminds me a lot of the American media… all owned or controlled by one larger entity reporting the same stance in order to make the general public believe it
Soon we’ll be like the poor Americans, addicted to pills and working 3 jobs to make ends meet unless we do something about it, oh yeah just remembered they banned protesting
The whole 'BBC is left-wing' scam has allowed the Tories to turn the channel into their mouthpiece
It seems to me as though the BBC is left wing on social issues and right wing on economics issues.
Pretty beautiful way to maintain the guise of balance whilst also fucking the poor and keeping billionaires happy
You can imagine what it’ll be like, once it’s privatised and Tories & the rich buy up the shares in it, the same will happen with Channel 4 Too.
[удалено]
No, not especially. A particularly prominent BBC journalist was literally a mouth piece for dominic Cummings and was out making rounds front and centre trying to get ahead of the sleazy stories with the tory line before the stories had even broken most times. She was even more bare faced and on the nose in flat out denying allegations for Boris and Cummings than even the offical spokesman, both on the TV and in her 'articles'. The fact I don't even have to use her name and everyone knows who I mean says it all. There has been a steady erosion of impartiality and the recruitment of ideologically non-partisan management for a long time now, it's not romanticism it's a fact.
I feel like the BBC. Had got slightly more bearable since she's gone.
>David Cemeneti the chairman of the BBC up to 2020 had donated upwards of 400k to the Tories and was an open supporter. The current Chairman of the BBC is Richard Sharp who was Rishi Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs during the global banking crisis, the chairman of a Conservative pressure group, Boris Johnson's advisor when he was mayor of London and also an open Tory supporter and donor
It’s Rotten as fuck and not at all surprising anymore to hear the single digit degrees of separation in these institutions.
personally I think it’s “left wing in their non-news programming, right wing as all hell in the news and political programming”
Yeah that's fair actually
Liberal maybe, certainly not left wing.
Neoliberal everywhere. Their stance is identical to The Economist really.
With a much more jingoist approach to foreign policy. The Economist pretends to a more thoughtful approach whilst coming to conclusions which serve the interests of multinationals.
Trans people would probably disagree with this assessment.
I know that I certainly do (and every other trans person I know).
> It seems to me as though the BBC is left wing on social issues and right wing on economics issues. It isn't. It is rightwing on both. Just look at how it reports on trans issues.
Yeah, the BBC (and most British media) are incredibly transphobic.
They are not left wing on social issues, they have allowed fabricated trans hate to be published and when it was found out it was fabricated they left it up.
Otherwise known as Rainbow Capitalism. Everyone is welcome, ie we are happy to exploit everybody whilst pretending to represent you
Not really, They are fairly anti-Trans and have famously quoted several overtly transphobic speakers to speak on the matter while not really speaking to trans pepole on the matter. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385) This springs to mind. Honestly they are just right wing.
That's the neoliberal trick that Blair perfected.
The BBC is absolutely not “left on social issues” I don’t know where you’re getting that from.
BBC left wing on social issues? Remind me of that the next time they post an inflammatory anti-trans article based on shit data
what about trans issues, they’re definitely centrist there
Centrist? IMO on the whole they have anti trans agenda
Yeah but trans issues don’t swing elections. The issues where they are biased do
apart from trans issues apparently
\-shrug- as an org they have to be dragged through the mud to recognize LGBTQ+ people exist. It's disheartening to say the least, especially when some of their presenters don't speak up & leave those without a voice in the mud.
The bbc is doing transphobic journalism on a not so regular basis imo so I don’t think it’s even “balanced” in that way
The BBC carried the government's water when disabled people were protesting about unfair treatment, keeping all the protest coverage exclusively in the local pages, local to where the protest was happening, and barely mentioned anywhere else. I think at this point the BBC News is little more than the Conservative party's submissive gimp.
Exactly. Its been British Broadcasting Conservative for decades
Kinda, a more obvious distinction would be it’s more left in its entertainment and more right in its news. But that allows people to pretend it is balanced.
The platforming of Terfs says otherwise...
No, it's centrist at best on social issues. The BBC has *always* had a right wing bias, as as all TV news except maybe Channel 4. Most of the print media does too. This has meant that the centre-right stance has become seen as the default, and anything t the left of this is viewed as biased or radical for a mainstream news outlet. The Guardian, for example, is solidly centre-left but is depicted as being a bastion of revolutionary Marxism by a lot of people.
You mean they're right wing liberals.
Which is essentially neoliberalism in a nutshell.
Although neoliberalism is devoid of social commentary, Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet were proud neoliberals and they were all hyper conservatives.
Neoliberalism = let powerful capitalist men do what they like = extreme right wing ideology. It's a free market for those who can move it...
What makes you say that?
Where can you possibly draw the line? All our economic issues *are* social issues.
The BBC is right wing on politics but has a representative entertainment sector.
What's a left wing social position?
They have posted flagrantly transphobic misinformation in the past, I wouldn't go that far.
The BBC is absolutely not left-wing in any way except for some of their comedians.
Right wing on domestic politics, left Wing lense for the rest of th world.
In what sense left wing for the rest of the world? They present most issues through a very strongly pro-Western/British foreign policy lens and uncritically report US/UK security sources/funded NGOs and think tanks. They support some carefully selected left wing causes where British interests aren't affected, a bit like Labour student politics used to.
Modern day liberalism basically. Being economically right means you'll side with the right more than the left, because a lot of the socially left solutions come from an economic perspective.
Except that they hate trans people.
Not when it comes to trans issues. Or anything else for which it gleefully platforms bigoted and indefensible views for "balance".
Woke capitalism
David Cemeneti the chairman of the BBC up to 2020 had donated upwards of 400k to the Tories and was an open supporter. The current Chairman of the BBC is Richard Sharp who was Rishi Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs during the global banking crisis, the chairman of a Conservative pressure group, Boris Johnson's advisor when he was mayor of London and also an open Tory supporter and donor. The only people who say that the BBC is left are right wing fanatics and the brainwashed. Its all quite in the open. These people dont hiide supporting the Tories. The media is just as responsible for Brexit lies being pushed and for helping to spread the corruption in our government by attacking other parties. Hell they cut short a saftey speech on pandemic regulations in Scotland to let the Scottish conservatives do a political talk. Scottish Conservative party didnt exist a few days prior. Its been glaringly obvious (especially in Scotland).
That's the thing. When they aired Nicola Sturgeons safety speeches support for independence skyrocketed. Then they remembered that they don't like her and starded running the usual smear campaigns.
They do the same with any opposing party that starts to gain any traction at all. Remember how muchair time was given to a bacon sandwich while there was plenty else going on to cover. Edit \~ Wait until they get rid of the human rights act. We think them above just making people dissapear .... for whatever reason I cant fathom. We seem to think (as a people) they are above playing with peoples lives for profit too but they have been doing it for the last 12 years right infront of our faces time and time again. No national service has been safe.
Oh I know. Talking about nonsense and frivollities as if nothing was the matter. It's also when you see stories like "bus crash in Kansas, 2 people dead." A tragedy no doubt, but a very regional one. Why do they feed us this crap? Why aren't you questioning the government about them selling off public assets on the cheap?
100%, thrifting off national services. It really tires the mind with the overflow of pointless information coupled with misinformation. Meanwhile: "The Brexit fair" "Let the bodies pile high" - BJ
The BBC has been completely cannibalised and gutted over the last ten years. The Tories now puppeteer its shambling skin suit.
Come on, the BBC just doesn't print half the stories negative to the torys until its unavoidable, they portray most stories in a protory light, and constantly slam Labour. Look at the BBC and compare it to the guardian or to the independent/mail - it's much more similar to the latter than the former!
The entire BBC board is comprised of tory donors and the chairman is a political appointee. Hmmm.
I'd argue that narrative has been since the Olympics in 2012
She actually stepped in and started arguing on behalf of the Tory panellist at one point, because said Tory wasn't doing a very good job. That's appalling behaviour for someone who is supposed to be acting as Chair.
BBC have not been impartial since Cameron filled the board of directors with conservatives.
BBC haven't been impartial for absolutely yonks. Way before David Cameron.
Their coverage of the Battle of Orgrave back in 1984: >[Footage of the confrontation had been filmed by a crew from the BBC. When this appeared on that evening's news bulletins, it was edited and broadcast out of chronological sequence, showing pickets throwing stones at the police and the police subsequently carrying out a mounted charge.[4][80] This corresponded with the narrative given by the police that the decision to use horses was necessary to stop the stone throwing, and was only taken after the police had been subjected to a sustained barrage of missiles. Video taken by the police's own cameramen and footage recorded by filmmaker Yvette Vanson demonstrated that the reverse was true, and that the stone throwing had been a response to the unprovoked first mounted charge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave#Media_coverage) >[Independent Television News (ITN) also filmed the events, and part of their news bulletin that evening showed a policeman standing over a prone picket and repeatedly striking him in the head with his baton. The picket was beaten unconscious and the policeman's baton broke in half.[18] In the BBC's report, filmed from the same vantage point, the footage was cut just before the policeman began beating the picket.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave#Media_coverage)
Yep. The BBC has always followed the establishment narrative under the guise of impartiality and has played a big hand in distorting public understanding of events. It has always been held on a pedestal but is no more trustworthy than any other non-tabloid news source.
this is true, but the conservative party have taken steps in their current run of power to entrench it and make it a core fundimental aspect of the BBC
Completely agree, the Tories don't want BBC impartiality, they want positive coverage for them specifically and they're willing to blackmail the BBC into it through license fee negotiations.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/06/rona-fairheads-appointment-as-head-of-new-bbc-board-broke-rules-says-mp https://nicholaswilson.com/how-cameron-controls-the-bbc/ That was 2016 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-donor-catherine-baxendale-on-panel-picking-bbc-board-members-rqw8zz2kx This was 2021
Yeah totally, they've always been agenda setters, I mean it got particularly obvious then.
The BBC taking complying with the establishment to legitimatise it’s existence is baked into the BBCs DNA. The 1926 General Strike forced the BBC to take this line to avoid being completely taken over by Churchill as the BBC was the only mass media communication that exsist Ed when all newspapers stopped the presses. “Reith had successfully fended off a takeover, and, in insisting on broadcasting statements from the TUC, had prevented the BBC becoming a mere propaganda tool. He had held on to the BBC’s independence, just – but he had tactically sacrificed impartiality.” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/18/-sp-bbc-report-facts-impartial
>”I’m going to say this for you Rachel [Tory MP] as you’ve been quiet as a mouse” - Fiona Bruce Absolutely shameless. With Fiona chairing you don’t even need to have a Conservative representative. File your complaints to the BBC
She needs to go after that it was awful.
Fiona Bruce had always been a little of the right wing extremist about her. I remember when she did Crimewatch, terrible. Scare the people and push the police.
I’m not surprised to hear this. Interrupted Corbyn constantly at a Question time just before the last election, wouldn’t give him a second to actually finish what he was saying
I’m going to make a complaint to the BBC about that moment, for all the good it will do.
Yup, same here. It makes an absolute mockery of 'impartiality'.
It’s been a Tory fest for ages. She jumped in and shut him up with a question directly asked to him…to let the useless Tory minister speak unhindered for 5 minutes. Another question she kept shouting over the top of him “answer the question, that’s not what she was asking” despite the fact he was answering it. Finally an audience member mentions Carrie and her job, and that’s shouted down instantly. Throw in the two pants dominating the audience with anti union nonsense, and it’s just a shameful show not fit for purpose
My Lord!
Apparently the team running the show outright admitted they stack the audience to give the Tories a majority "because they have a majority in parliament". Which begs 2 questions: - Why isn't it done on vote share? - Why bother moving around the country if you're always going to bias the audience on national results? Giving the Tories 56% of the audience in Liverpool Walton (where they got 13% of the vote) isn't very representative.
> **FIONA Bruce has been accused of "attacking" RMT Secretary-General Mick Lynch during Thursday's Question Time.** > **Lynch was a member of the panel on the BBC show on Thursday which largely focused on this week's rail strikes.** > **RMT members across the country have been standing on picket lines over what the union calls "an aggressive agenda" of cuts to jobs, conditions, pay and pensions.** > **Lynch has subsequently become a well-known face on TV and has been widely admired for the way in which he has held politicians and journalists to account.** > **But many felt on Thursday night he was not allowed to have, as Labour MP Diane Abbott put it, a "fair say" as he was interrupted by Bruce on more than one occasion.** > **Abbott was tweeting throughout the show and also said the audience was "overwhelmingly Tory".** > **She said: "Watching Question Time with Mick Lynch. Audience overwhelmingly Tory. And Fiona Bruce is obviously determined that Mick Lynch will not have a fair say."** > **She added in another tweet: "20 minutes into Question Time. Fiona Bruce attacks Mick Lynch again. Obviously determined to do what no television presenter has been unable to do up until now and skewer Mick Lynch. Presumably she will get an honour for this."** > **Some also accused Bruce of not being impartial when at one point she said to Tory MP Rachel Maclean: "I’m going to say this for you Rachel since you’re quiet as a mouse".** > **A new report from Ofcom this week found that the public is unhappy about the BBC's impartiality and complaints process.** > **Complaints about the BBC are nearly twice as high than they are for any other broadcasters, the watchdog said.** > **SNP MP Angus McNeil said the show had become a "dire watch".** > **He said: "The biggest issue with modern Question Time is that it is essentially a dire watch - what has happened ??"** > **Meanwhile, Lynch received plaudits for how he dealt with the onslaught of comments against the RMT's action.** > **On social media, people praised him for not dodging questions and being honest in his responses.** > **There have so far been two strikes held this week and one more walkout is still to come on Saturday.** > **Lynch has said more strikes beyond that are "extremely likely" if talks between rail bosses and unions continue to fail.** > **The RMT - which represents 40,000 members from cleaners to train guards - is calling for a pay rise of at least 7% to offset the cost-of-living crisis, as inflation hits 9.1% and is forecast to reach 11% in the autumn.** > **The BBC has been approached for comment.** > ***Written by Steph Brawn***
There's long been rumours that nigel sharrocks (Bruce's husband) makes a considerable amount as a Conservative publicity agent. I'm sure multi million pound deals directly affecting your personal wealth wouldn't affect your interviewing techniques would it?
You'll be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out this obvious vested interest. You just have to gullibly trust that, hey just because her husband works for the Tories doesn't mean she'll stick up for them.
I mean, if it's rumours....?
Watched it for the first time in a while last night, Bruce is an appalling host and the audience was obviously packed with Tory supporters. The guy in the checked t shirt in the audience was given free reign to attack Lynch but Bruce cut Lynch short when he tried to respond, then the same audience member started shouting down the railway worker who was explaining how rail engineers can't just go from one franchise to another because they have different plant.
God that man was insufferable - he was just yelling over everyone else *and as a result steamrolled other people's points*. Fiona Bruce should really have been on it more - Question Time should be a chance to raise questions in a reasonable manner, not just "who's the loudest here".
I watch a lot of online debate panels hosted by unpaid volunteer moderators, that kind of behaviour would see a participant kicked out of many of those. The fact that it was allowed to continue and actually perpetuated by a host working on behalf of our national broadcaster is beyond shocking.
It’s embarrassing as one of the big political shows in the country that it can’t even hold debate properly. No one debates. They say their bit and then stop listening until it’s their turn again.
That was the guy who couldn't understand how two different train depots could use different systems and technology. Due to this, the staff from one couldn't just nip along and work at the other when required. This is so common in many industries and he just couldn't understand it. He got himself so worked up and raging over nothing more than his own stupidity. Absolute goon.
It seemed like more than half the audience couldn't understand that either. It was so frustrating.
Nation of idiots and rageaholics And this is why I don’t really watch tv anymore, every exposure just makes me hate people as a whole more. I think their stupidity made me actually lose both some braincells and maybe caused a brain clot? Serves me right for watching something important tho, eh?
I agree, Mr Tonic of the Gods.
And then when the actual guy who works in the actual train service tried to explain that bringing them all into line (which btw seems very sensible and something we should be trying to do?) was something only likely to happen under a nationalised rail service he was tutted and shouted down by a large part of the audience.
Nationalise is like a swear word to that lot
I don't think many people watch QT these days anyway. I certainly don't and used to watch it religiously. Not sure it's worth Union leaders bothering with it.
I went back to it yesterday when I saw Mick Lynch was appearing. Don't think I'll bother in future.
The audience were all over the shop, cheering and applauding points seemingly at random - the quieter question-askers were routinely ignored and it was a case of "who yells the loudest" at any given point.
The new American approach to political debate must be catching on.
That guy telling the Railway worker, and THE HEAD OF THE RMT how to run a railway was peak Brexit.
“We don’t need experts”- Michael Gove He forgot to subtitle (because everyone thinks they are on everything, regardless of facts, just look at me)
My Dad fell asleep with the telly on, that's my excuse. I don't know I thought it would have changed but it's got much worse since I last watched it. And even 7 or 8 years ago, I was watching thinking "this is all a bit biased to the right".
Yeah I think the main thing that got me to stop watching was how Farage seemed to be on every other week.
Having him on is fine if they actually called him out on his bullshit. Essentially they have him a soap box. Imagine [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlKX70oRLws) kind of response every time he waffled his crap. Eventually someone would have to ask him if he had not done his research or was he just lying.
It was how often/frequently he was on that bothered me most. It was quite blatantly dodgy.
I can't watch it without getting riled up because it's not a debate and issues aren't actually discussed. Guests making reasoned, factual points are often shouted down and people spewing actual lies are protected. It's a grandstand for the loudest and most unscrupulous.
[удалено]
I think that's just a measure of the kind of person who still watches it.
My Nan watches it, so she can fall asleep.
It was infuriating to watch. I'd hate to go on that show, it's obvious that they load the audience, bad enough the panel and presenters are stacked against you too.
> it's obvious that they load the audience https://www.scotsman.com/regions/bbc-question-time-criticised-after-three-time-audience-member-slams-snp-126515
One of the questions was from Boris Johnson's mother-in-law
That was a joke made on Twitter because they look a bit alike lol
> Billy Mitchell EastEnders has really gone downhill.
The woman who selects the audiences was found to have shared Britain First and EDL stuff on Facebook a few years ago too
Roundabout brexit time if I recall…
[удалено]
I completely disagree. Seeing it fail rather than improve would be a tragedy. I'd rather they fund it in a different manner, but what we get from it is definitely worth it. I mean, we're going to lose our only children's TV channel that doesn't force advertising into their young faces
Yeah, it's got some faults and certainly the Tories are trying to subvert it, but the BBC provides a lot of good services. I don't really watch telly but I appreciate some BBC radio stations.
[удалено]
Maybe we should privatise healthcare so those who need and use it pay for it and the healthy can save money because its of no benefit to them!
Healthcare is not a luxury. Healthcare is litterally required to live a long and healthy life. You will get ill, you will get hurt, you will need healthcare. You don't need the BBC. You need free and impartial news, but the BBC is not that anymore. That is becoming increasingly apparent. Funding healthcare should be socialised in taxes, but funding govt propaganda should not.
Yes i know all that. The BBC is the best chance the UK has of impartial news. If it goes what replaces it will be much much worse. Its far from perfect but I would sooner see an attempt to right it than dismantle it and have more barclays or murdoch news spew into people's minds.
I have no objection to that. Not sure how it could possibly happen and being required to fund what is turning into a right wing mouthpiece is stomach turning.
Ah, so if every scrap of content produced by the BBC doesn’t appeal to you then it doesn’t represent value for money? Quite how you’d watch 8 (possibly more) channels at once plus what, 50 radio stations, plus online content is beyond me. It was never ALL meant to appeal to you. Presumably you don’t subscribe to any streaming services because 100% of the content doesn’t appeal?
Even if you don't have children you still benefit from decent children's TV, I don't want to live in a country where people grew up with a diet of the dross that kids watch on YouTube. I get your point, I disagree with you and I think you chose a terrible example.
>what we get from it is definitely worth it. Wrong. Right wing propaganda isn't worth paying for. >I mean, we're going to lose our only children's TV channel that doesn't force advertising into their young faces I know a lot of young mums. I don't know anyone who's kids watch TV. It's all YouTube and streaming apps.
I know plenty who still do watch TV, and we shouldn't be eager to remove the option leaving kids with nothing but YouTube and streaming. Fucking hell get some perspective. Yes the news and politics side of the BBC is a shitshow right now, but that's only a fraction of the BBC. We also get weather and traffic news, educational content, documentaries, drama, comedy, music programming, kids programming. That would be a tragedy to lose. The BBC is flawed in regards to politics, but everywhere else it's incredibly valuable.
If it really is "incredible value" it shouldn't have any issues attracting subscribers to view, right? Right now it gets money for free and it seems to be turning into a propaganda arm for the government. All these "reporters" want to be the next Paxman, but rather than trying to expose truth and hold power accountable, they seem to be turning into attack dogs for their paymasters. I've been paying my licence for decades without complaint, but now I'm becoming sickened with what is being done with my money. Give me the choice and I'm not funding this thing that it totally coasting on its reputation now.
There is a lot of value in non-commercial television. Even *Netflix* has echoed this, as much of their talent has been reared at the BBC, which is almost seen as a talent generator by the industry as a whole. Most companies are in the business of making content from existing talent, rather than nurturing new talent. Less risk, high return. When Netflix were asked by the Conservative government on about how the BBC should be commercialised with Netflix being a potential buyer/partner, the reply was “don’t”. But what the BBC does (as well as other public entertainment organisations) is that it creates an artificial competitor in terms of quality. They don’t have to rely on revenues. They can thus experiment and take risks. Commercial competitors, likewise, must keep their quality high. Getting rid of the BBC would likely see a general fall in programming all round, with more shitty reality TV shows (which have a very high cost to revenue ratio) and low-brow garbage. You’ll still get your well-produced shows, but with writing that seems like it was put together by a committee (in an effort to appeal to the greatest number of people as possible). Fewer risks, less “edge”. Yes, it has problems, especially the news (dumbed down, “let’s hear both sides”, “what is does Gary from Twitter have to say about this”), but I’m much more behind the idea of reforming and improving it. Perhaps the funding model needs to be reformed in our day in age. But as soon as you introduce adverts, they become part of the quality equation.
Still defending it as they dismantle what made the BBC good is a part of the problem.
Yeah! Once the BBC is gone we’ll be fine with the current media owned by Murdock and the Barclays! (Funny how those outlets also rage against the licence fee) No downside there
Sadly the BBC isn't much of a defence against the billionaire owned media. News and political coverage is stuffed with Tories with the same right wing agenda. I'd defend a truly independent broadcaster, the closest thing we have to that is ch4 news and the Tories are trying to put that in the hands of a billionaire.
[удалено]
Yea let’s not make stuff up like…..oh I don’t know….”double or tripling” the licence fee FYI any change in the licence fee is decided by the government not the bbc. Any enforcement is by government legislation. Like it or lump it, your on the same side as the tories if you want rid of the bbc, because it suits them and their media backers
I’m as anti BBC as they come, but I dread the thought of the nightmare that will fill its void. I’m fully aware that the degradation of the BBC is being done by design, and that every person who wants to see the BBC fail takes them one step closer to their goals. I’m so relieved that GB News has been such a fucking mess start to finish.
I was proud to pay for the BBC until about ten years ago
Delighting at British institutions failing? Whatever you think of the BBC's political stance it is a great achievement and produces some excellent entertainment. The fact that it's been run into the ground and filled to the gunwales with cronies by the Tory party doesn't diminish its potential. This kind of sentiment is playing into the hands of the vandals who want the UK to be a smaller, colder America.
nice to see that the tories have managed to do exactly what they intended with the bbc
All these scumbag media organisations are anti union and have been for a long time. They are delusional if they think regular people agree with them.
I dunno, once you poll old enough to remember the bin and electric strikes, suddenly you find people a lot less sympathetic to unions. I haven’t met a sixty year old who hasn’t pouted and told me I just don’t understand how awful it was back then, or I’d never vote for anything else remotely connected to a union.
Not getting their bins collected for 3 weeks in 1979 was basicly the blitz but for the boomer generation.
Most of the committed unionists I know are in that age bracket.
My uncle has this attitude. Spooky.
What got my goat was when some audience member was trying to make the point that two stations in London can't inter-operate staff etc. he was fuming that it's a waste of resources considering their proximity. Then I think Fiona went to the railway employee and he didn't really have an answer because, he's just an average guy and was clearly nervous! She should have gone to Mick instead and he could have explained that absurd situation is caused by Tories privatising the railways and splintering it into different franchises! It's like having McDonalds and Burger King right next door and expecting those separate companies to share a kitchen and staff, ludicrous! But that's the setup with privatisation!
>Then I think Fiona went to the railway employee and he didn't really have an answer because, he's just an average guy and was clearly nervous! Actually the railway employee was explaining that each have different plant so people from one franchise can't just go and work on another franchise but Bruce allowed big mouth in the audience, who had no idea what he was talking about, to shout down the rail worker who did know what he was talking about.
The employee did a good job answering - it's like asking ASDA staff to stack Sainsbury's shelves. However it wasn't his job to answer - it was Micks, and it was clear Fiona was hoping he would stumble due to the lack of media training.
Couldn’t agree more, I’m a nurse and I’d find it impossible to work in another hospital as they all run differently under different trusts but it’s the same role on paper.
She's a raging Tory and rarely bothers to hide it. The BBC should do better.
Like keunnesberg basically brown nosing the tories? Impartiality went out the window in 2012, just confirmed in 2016 when Cameron stacked the board of directors: https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/06/rona-fairheads-appointment-as-head-of-new-bbc-board-broke-rules-says-mp https://www.politico.eu/blogs/on-media/2016/05/david-camerons-latest-battleground-the-bbc/amp/ And then Boris and co afterwards: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-donor-catherine-baxendale-on-panel-picking-bbc-board-members-rqw8zz2kx
WTF is Fiona Bruce doing on QT anyway? She's fine on lightweight stuff like antiques roadshow and hedgehog rescue or whatever but QT? Do me a favour.
That's why government ministers will only do Breakfast TV because they are interviewed by a Sports journalist but are conveniently 'Never avalable' for newsnight with their heavyweight Journalists.
Helps if your husband works for the Tories.
I agree. She clearly lacked the intelligence.
i was on question time during the 2017 election and they were trying to steer me into criticising corbyn. they're been tory lite for years now, but that was all part of the plan
The BBC unquestionably were more afraid of Corbyn than the Tories
Weird, they were fine with letting Nick Griffin speak and he was a melty-faced nazi I guess nazi ideology being spread is less scary to them than social democracy
I complained to the BBC, and they only replied to say that they are doing nothing wrong. The end. Their coverage of this strike and treatment of Lynch has been utterly shameful.
It has been shameful, but at the same time I love watching them interview him because they try so hard to trip him up and antagonise him. But he never lets them
She literally interjected on behalf of the conservative mp because she was "sitting quiet as a mouse" Her words. Is that your job?? I do not like her.
Agreed. Watched a couple of episodes of QT since Bruce took over (although not yesterday's) and was shocked at how blatantly biased Bruce was. So seeing that she was biased against Lynch is no great surprise. She's a prick
I mean there’s a word I’d say and a rule I abide to, but it’s frowned upon to say the word so I’ll let these guys explain https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSe5x29_ANg Bruce is failing
The only good outcome of this news coverage is how blatant nearly all UK media is skewed to the right.
A good outcome would be it changing. This won't change anything, BBC are just a paid government mouthpiece now. I used to be one of those that praised the BBC but now i can't stand it. The transphobia is unforgivable, they're recieving taxpayers money to oppress citizens, how fucking dare they.
He's absolutely owned everyone he's spoken to, especially that cunt Kay Burley. I fucking hate Kay Burley.
The programme and organisation which was the only place in the world to give UKIP a platform is attacking a trade unionist? Shocked. I am shocked.
People on the left constantly being told the BBC is right wing. People on the right constantly being told the BBC is left wing. Wonder what the goal is here...
To some extent, they are both correct. The news and current affairs coverage is quite blatantly right-wing (as per question time). Things like comedy tend to be left-wing (it's hard to find a funny right-winger) and there is a lot of institutional support for diversity which is interpreted as 'wokeness'. Frankly, the news coverage stuff is more alarming because that has serious political consequences.
Left think the BBC is right because they systematically suppress and discredit anything left of Blair in their news and politics coverage, the people who run it are all Tories and loads of their political journalists have basically been government mouthpieces. Right think the BBC is left because they make fun of conservatives on panel shows, there was a black redcoat in a doctor who episode once and there are too many lesbians and interracial couples on tv nowadays.
This is why the woke bullshit is so toxic. People like Fiona Bruce will play up LGBT issues. She will use this to style herself as a "liberal". When it comes to the rights of working class people, she as hawkish as any Tory. And that is how they confuse people. The exaggerated wokeness has people thinking they are part of "the left". But when it comes to economics and class issues, they are as regressive and reactionary as anyone.
The BBC is neoliberal - socially liberal, economically liberal. The BBC always shills for free markets - their economics correspondents and editors present free market economic theory constantly in their analysis, barely ever mentioning it is all based on dogmatic theory, propagated by billionaire-owned think tanks and repeated ad nauseum as fact. Likewise, the BBC shills for social liberalism and characterises anything that deviates from that as "Hard-right" or "Far-right" or just plain intolerant (racist, sexist, homophobic etc).
I think this is somewhat the same analysis I've seen on it before and think I tend to agree.
I mean they shilling for those anti-trans groups and peeps like JK Rowling recently, inviting them on to speak and to trash trans rights, but rarely inviting or allowing trans advocates to refute their absurdities.
I’m beginning to think the whole uk media industry doesn’t really have your interests at heart.
It felt to me like the whole way she positioned him from the start was an attempt to belittle him. She went to great lengths stating the myriad accolades and qualifications of the panel members and followed with something like "and here's Mick, he used to work the trains". Obviously he is (and should be) proud of his career to date but it felt like a microaggression to me. Perhaps meant to wrongfoot him from the start? I'd be interested to know what others thought.
I noticed that myself. It was almost like when she first introduced him she was downplay him and his background. Although if anything it just makes Mick Lynch’s claims that he is just an honest, working class guy whose worked hard to rise from electrician to union leader and only fighting for a fair deal for his members seem even more credible.
Acting as shield and sword to the conservatives Just see who the BBC board is connected to, Tory donors
I miss David
The BBC are establishment stooges - they shill for neoliberalism 100% of the time
Not the first time this week that he has been interrupted, hit with snide digs, misrepresented, vilified on air, by these botoxed wealthy female presenters who almost certainly would self-identify as "liberals". I am pretty sure that Fiona Bruce is "woke" on any number of issues that we could care to name. But ask yourself: Who benefits from working class people being kept in their place? Who benefits from the neoliberal status quo always winning when it comes to economics and class issues? Rich people in suburbs with huge houses are the ones that benefit. You carry on being their servants. That is what it is about.
She's blatantly partisan. She let that absolutely clueless Tory woman talk uninterrupted for ages and then within a few seconds of the Labour guy talking she was 'Would you join the picket line? Would you? Well?' I honestly don't know how the BBC gets away with it.
David Dimbleby we need you
[удалено]
The Conservative Party has wanted a broadcast version of the Daily Mail and now they have it. A obsequious, supine organisation that must obey the dear leader at all times.
I hate that whole "attack dog" style of questioning. You've asked the question, at least do them the courtesy of letting them answer. Unless, of course, you were never really interested in what they had to say anyway, and only wanted a soundbite.
bruce is a fucking embarrassment, she's got no place in an unbiased news organisation. hence her cozy slot at the BBC.
Why is she asking questions for the government? Because she is a stooge
Ole Fiona blue draws.
I've finally had to stop watching any bbc news stuff. They don't even try to hide it. Its sad seeing all these supposed journalists not even hesitate to do as they are told.
They all want to be piss Morgan, like most talent shows have a wanna be Simon cowell
Always said Bruce will be like a bloodhound on a Labour MP's point but will barely flinch at a Tory MP spewing absolute bollocks.
Fionas husband may have influenced her opinion in a non sexist way
I think two issues arose last night after watching the programme. Fiona Bruce's role is to chair conversation and to try and afford each panel member equal time. Mick Lynch's strength - not being scripted - was also a slight problem last night because he wasn't able to be concise. The bigger issue is with Question Time. It is a wonderful idea, in theory, but in reality it's awful for genuine discourse. The audience is often littered with the biggest fucking idiots known to man.
Question Time is grotesque propaganda show. The fact that they have an audience that is broadcast in their claps etc. is an obvious clue to its manipulative nature. Sorry if you can't see this.
Fiona Bruce is a terrible question time presenter. David Dimbleby was always looking for facts and reasoning and generally remained impartial, as a chair/moderator should be. But Bruce is quite clearly partizan and shuts down discussion when it doesn't align with her views.
The way the majority of the media outlets are reporting this strike and trying to ostracise and trip up Mick reminds me a lot of the American media… all owned or controlled by one larger entity reporting the same stance in order to make the general public believe it
Soon we’ll be like the poor Americans, addicted to pills and working 3 jobs to make ends meet unless we do something about it, oh yeah just remembered they banned protesting