The BBC

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
Not a bad idea to cut BBC four and CBBC imo. Time to put highbrow stuff back on BBC two. They expanded too much just because they could when things went digital. Now the world has changed with streaming.

---

BBC Four and CBBC will be scrapped as normal TV channels amid a huge shake up that will see 1,000 jobs cut.

The channels will appear in their current format until 2025.

www.thesun.co.uk

BBC Four & CBBC will END with 1,000 jobs slashed in £500m broadcaster cuts

BBC Four and CBBC will be scrapped as normal TV channels amid a huge shake up that will see 1,000 jobs cut. The channels will appear in their current format until 2025. BBC chief Tim Davie announce…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
BBC Four doesn't have original content commissions anymore anyway, so like you say, put it back on BBC Two. Going online with CBBC makes sense, and can easily do a linear broadcast section on BBC Two, like they used to do before digital channels. They are right to go online. But the truth is, the BBC deserves to be properly funded, not some 10 year deal that they have to fight over tooth and nail every time. It deserves to be able to compete against streaming and commercial channels, but needs to be properly funded to do so because it has huge commitments to things like local radio, that doesn't exist in a commercial radio space. Because commercial radio has obliterated local radio broadcasting. Most stations part of larger groups, and lucky to get a regional breakfast or drivetime show and everything else is national broadcast.
 
I can’t believe they are making this boring rubbish for prime time tv!
1675536533172.jpeg
 
In the last 24 hours
Fiona Bruce saying Stanley Johnson hitting his wife was a one off on question time.
Gary stepping back from motd
Attenborough documentary allegedly (according to the guardian) iplayer only to not offend people on the right.

Add to that all the mess of BBC radio 😬, what a state that organisation is.
 
I enjoy BBC programmes and I think their news is decent enough but it’s been somewhat obvious over the years that they don’t challenge the leading party enough, and now it’s looking like the very MPs calling for impartiality are encouraging not very impartial behaviour too

I often find their certain political news not in depth enough too. Presumably because reporting on it may risk taking a side
 
The BBC is run at the top by a bunch of Tories, they have totally given up on the concept of independence and impartiality.

So while the Tories are trying to run the BBC into the ground financially and operationally, they are still willing at the same time to force the BBC into become deeply partisan and become a government propaganda machine at the same time.

And all the right wing people who tout free speech, will also all be the people telling Gary Lineker to shut up and say how he shouldn't have political opinions etc. Because all of a sudden someone is saying something the right wing folk don't like, they suddenly don't want freedom of speech. They just want freedom of speech for their own hate.and rhetoric.

The BBC does have guidelines for its presenters, I accept, but a football broadcaster having a political opinion isn't a problem. A BBC news reporter is who should be independent. Nobody believe the opinion of Gary Lineker is the opinion of the BBC.

Tory honchos forcing the BBC into a place it doesn't want to be right now. All because the BBC is trying to preserve its very existence.
 
The BBC has impartially guidelines which is fair enough but they should make everyone stick to it 100% or not have it all. But then I imagine for it to be impartial it would cease to exist really- looking at the points @Yel made above, ‘Fiona Bruce saying Stanley Johnson hitting his wife was a one off’ - surely that’s her opinion on the matter? Wouldn’t that be seen as not being impartial? Same as having an episode of David Attenborough’s new show only on iPlayer, surely David giving any sort of commentary on the planet would be his opinion? And therefore he couldn’t be impartial?
I don’t think they can have impartially like they’ve said because nearly everything, even minor, can be considered an opinion. Unless they say you can’t use social media or talk about X, Y, Z on social media but that would be silencing their talent.
I don’t know, it’s a tricky one.
 
I just want to say about the David Attenborough show, the new series is five episodes and was always commissioned as five episodes. All five of which are being broadcast on TV.

The iPlayer only episode was a totally separate commission and the BBC acquired it specifically for iPlayer. It was never planned to be broadcast on TV. It's just extra iPlayer exclusive bonus content of you like.

The Guardian have made a story out of nothing, or at least a purposefully manipulative move to ignore the actual facts of the situation. Because even all the original commissioning news articles refer to the series as a five part series, not a six part series.
 
In my opinion the reason impartiality is such a red line for the BBC is because of it’s funding model. Let’s face it the licence fee is a tax. Call it what you want but it is backed up by an enforcement apparatus and if you refuse to pay a criminal prosecution is a potential outcome. It certainly sounds like a tax. I know of no such dire consequences for for cancelling a Sky Subscription. And when you are funded by a tax it is essential that all views arevcovered fairly. And at any given time, or any given election, it will show roughly 30-40% Tory 30-40% Labour. There are people who support the legislation. The problem in my view is not that Lineker opposed the legislation, that it his right, but more the language he chose to do it in. To compare it to Nazi Germany is clearly ridiculous. No one has any idea how this legislation will turn out, and all indications are there will be a change of government at the next election. If Labour want to repeal it they can. The question is will they want to?

It’s not like Lineker’s views aren’t well known. He is a man of complex contradiction. The mental gymnastics he and Alex Scott carried out to justify their presence in Qatar despite their LGBTQ allyship were truly impressive. And he is a committed environmentalist who drew a (very large) pay check from Nagoya Grampus 8 towards the end of his playing career. A club owned entirely by Toyota, one of the worlds largest manufacturers of environmentally destructive fossil fuel burning cars. Also apparently a white man who was racially abused during his playing days. What was perhaps more surprising was Shearer, who if he is now a champion of the oppressed you would think would have been more vocal about the current Saudi regime who run his beloved Newcastle United, instead of mumbling something about “not knowing enough” and appearing in the directors box during their recently Wembley sojourn. But as I say, complex.

My company had a stated social media policy if I was to violate it I would expect to face disciplinary action. Surely that must also apply In this case?
 

This thread from someone who used to work for BBC Compliance explains that Gary hasn't done wrong.

Also the big problem is how inconsistent the BBC have been with social media use and what is allowed to be posted.

Alan Sugar has regularly posted political tweets, normally attacking Labour and supporting the Tories, including this post someone refers to on twitter. Silence from the BBC.



Even if you can stretch social media policy being in breach by Gary, it is clear that the real issue is the inconsistency, any anti-Labour postings, silence, anti Tory postings, suddenly it's an issue.

And where are the free speech brigade now? Telling TV presenters to shut up and just talk about football presumably? But will also probably be happy to listen to TV personality Donald Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top