BBC v SKY

[zemas tendon 0]

Why is it when BBC show us on MOTD, there is no Atmosphere or Noise, but when Sky shows us on Match Choice you get a Atmosphere and hear Chanting, is this because BBC have microphones in the N+P or that Sky have put theres in the Snakepit/Barclay

[lake district canary 0]

Its just the BBC mixing down the crowd so abusive words can''t be easily heard.  Sky are not so sensitive.BBC should be renamed - PCBBC

[Shyster 0]

The BBC could start by removing the initial ''B'' from its logo, because it certainly doesn''t pertain to Britain''s best interests.Better still it should be closed down, hence no more rip-off  TV License.

[Bury Yellow 2]

Well said Shyster. That organisation is out of control and unrepresentative of the public in general.

They are beginning to get found out. I resent paying for a clique that is dangerously biased.

[Branston Pickle 3,683]

Sky''s football coverage may be better, but it has paid a huge amount for it and its domination of the game has come at a very high price with the rich gaining the most at the expense of the rest. Not a good thing unless you are extremely blinkered.

[Mister Chops 7]

The "TV licence" should really be renamed as it covers radio, TV and the Internet, which I think the BBC have really done great things with.  The idea of getting rid of the BBC and having channels which are only driven by commercial pressures to sell product is laughable to anyone who cares about art or culture.  But typically I find the people who want to get rid of the BBC are the same ones who want us to have nothing to do with Europe, have no welfare state and send all the "immigrants" home, and I tend to ignore these people as in my experience they are either trolls or heartless imbeciles.Now if you were suggesting closing down the Daily Express...

[Herman 9,820]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]The "TV licence" should really be renamed as it covers radio, TV and the Internet, which I think the BBC have really done great things with.  The idea of getting rid of the BBC and having channels which are only driven by commercial pressures to sell product is laughable to anyone who cares about art or culture.  But typically I find the people who want to get rid of the BBC are the same ones who want us to have nothing to do with Europe, have no welfare state and send all the "immigrants" home, and I tend to ignore these people as in my experience they are either trolls or heartless imbeciles.

Now if you were suggesting closing down the Daily Express...

[/quote]

[Y]

Absolutely spot on!!

The radio stations alone are worth the license fee!

[Branston Pickle 3,683]

Spot on mr chops....I had a long para that I binned saying much the same (though I''d prefer to bin the Daily Fail, it is just vicious, whereas theExpress is just a bit laughable).

[Aggy 766]

And yet you can listen to the radio without a tv licence can you not?

Pretty sure the licence just covers tv as it is being broadcast (ie; you can watch it an hour later on iplayer without one).

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Aggy"]And yet you can listen to the radio without a tv licence can you not? Pretty sure the licence just covers tv as it is being broadcast (ie; you can watch it an hour later on iplayer without one).[/quote]

 

In practice, no. By a long way the majority of the BBC''s funding comes from the licence fee. Without that there would be no BBC, whether TV or radio or anything else.

[Herman 9,820]

[quote user="Aggy"]And yet you can listen to the radio without a tv licence can you not? Pretty sure the licence just covers tv as it is being broadcast (ie; you can watch it an hour later on iplayer without one).[/quote]

Of course,but without the license fee BBC radio wouldn''t exist as it wouldn''t have any funding,therefore leaving only stations like Heart or Talksport.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]The "TV licence" should really be renamed as it covers radio, TV and the Internet, which I think the BBC have really done great things with.  The idea of getting rid of the BBC and having channels which are only driven by commercial pressures to sell product is laughable to anyone who cares about art or culture.  But typically I find the people who want to get rid of the BBC are the same ones who want us to have nothing to do with Europe, have no welfare state and send all the "immigrants" home, and I tend to ignore these people as in my experience they are either trolls or heartless imbeciles.Now if you were suggesting closing down the Daily Express...[/quote]

Well, Chops, the Times had an online Populus poll on the European veto earlier and 57% of people thought that Cameron was right to use the veto, with 14%

disagreeing and 29% don’t know. 53% thought that the use of the veto

showed that Cameron was standing up for Britain.What a crass statement it is to accuse the majority of people for being heartless & imbecilic for thinking it right to stand up for their country?

Pr@t.

[Guest]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Mister Chops"]The "TV licence" should really be renamed as it covers radio, TV and the Internet, which I think the BBC have really done great things with.  The idea of getting rid of the BBC and having channels which are only driven by commercial pressures to sell product is laughable to anyone who cares about art or culture.  But typically I find the people who want to get rid of the BBC are the same ones who want us to have nothing to do with Europe, have no welfare state and send all the "immigrants" home, and I tend to ignore these people as in my experience they are either trolls or heartless imbeciles.Now if you were suggesting closing down the Daily Express...[/quote]

Well, Chops, the Times had an online Populus poll on the European veto earlier and 57% of people thought that Cameron was right to use the veto, with 14%

disagreeing and 29% don’t know. 53% thought that the use of the veto

showed that Cameron was standing up for Britain.What a crass statement it is to accuse the majority of people for being heartless & imbecilic for thinking it right to stand up for their country?

Pr@t.[/quote]But regardless of the arguments for and against the veto, it is the BBC''s responsibility to report it fairly and without bias. Their coverage has been anything but, as it is on so many other topics. Perhaps getting rid of the BBC is not the answer, as it provides many good programmes and services, but without doubt it needs a massive shake-up to get rid of those modern-day "journalists" and editors who earn a living at the tax-payers'' expense but simply don''t uphold their charter.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Mister Chops"]The "TV licence" should really be renamed as it covers radio, TV and the Internet, which I think the BBC have really done great things with.  The idea of getting rid of the BBC and having channels which are only driven by commercial pressures to sell product is laughable to anyone who cares about art or culture.  But typically I find the people who want to get rid of the BBC are the same ones who want us to have nothing to do with Europe, have no welfare state and send all the "immigrants" home, and I tend to ignore these people as in my experience they are either trolls or heartless imbeciles.

Now if you were suggesting closing down the Daily Express...

[/quote]


Well, Chops, the Times had an online Populus poll on the European veto earlier and 57% of people thought that Cameron was right to use the veto, with 14% disagreeing and 29% don’t know. 53% thought that the use of the veto showed that Cameron was standing up for Britain.

What a crass statement it is to accuse the majority of people for being heartless & imbecilic for thinking it right to stand up for their country?


Pr@t.
[/quote]

 

An online poll - and therefore by definition only representative of people with internet access - in the immediate aftermath of a decision that can be sold in  a headline as, say, "standing up for Britain" but which has highly complex ramifications which may only become clear over time. Hmm. Not sure I would pay too much attention to that.

 

But in any event I am not clear what the connection is with the BBC. As far as I know the BBC doesn''t have an editorial line against what Cameron did. What it has are experts who are paid to see beyond the "standing up for Britain" headline to see if that is really true. If some of them have expressed doubts it''s probably because of that expertise. Even the blessed Daily Mail has given prominence to serious doubts about whether what whether Cameron''s veto will do Britain any good at all, and might even be harmful.

 

The editor of the Financial Times, which is often seen as the house magazine of the City of London - for which Cameron was supposedly standing up - thinks the veto was a catastrophic mistake. Hard to paint the editor of the FT as some anti-capitalist leftie.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="I.S."][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Mister Chops"]The "TV licence" should really be renamed as it covers radio, TV and the Internet, which I think the BBC have really done great things with.  The idea of getting rid of the BBC and having channels which are only driven by commercial pressures to sell product is laughable to anyone who cares about art or culture.  But typically I find the people who want to get rid of the BBC are the same ones who want us to have nothing to do with Europe, have no welfare state and send all the "immigrants" home, and I tend to ignore these people as in my experience they are either trolls or heartless imbeciles.Now if you were suggesting closing down the Daily Express...[/quote]

Well, Chops, the Times had an online Populus poll on the European veto earlier and 57% of people thought that Cameron was right to use the veto, with 14%

disagreeing and 29% don’t know. 53% thought that the use of the veto

showed that Cameron was standing up for Britain.What a crass statement it is to accuse the majority of people for being heartless & imbecilic for thinking it right to stand up for their country?

Pr@t.[/quote]But regardless of the arguments for and against the veto, it is the BBC''s responsibility to report it fairly and without bias. Their coverage has been anything but, as it is on so many other topics. Perhaps getting rid of the BBC is not the answer, as it provides many good programmes and services, but without doubt it needs a massive shake-up to get rid of those modern-day "journalists" and editors who earn a living at the tax-payers'' expense but simply don''t uphold their charter.[/quote]

The BBC''s behaviour is bizarre to say the least, I.S., and its left-wing bias is quite shocking -- it seems to have constituted itself as the official opposition and propagandist for the failing EU and the foul French dwarf, Sarkosy.I''ve rarely witnessed an organisation with such an obvious death wish - it''s become too expensive, out of touch and seemingly entirely inhabited by Nu-Labour shills clearly too stupid to see the tide is moving against them at lightening speed.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Mister Chops"]The "TV licence" should really be renamed as it covers radio, TV and the Internet, which I think the BBC have really done great things with.  The idea of getting rid of the BBC and having channels which are only driven by commercial pressures to sell product is laughable to anyone who cares about art or culture.  But typically I find the people who want to get rid of the BBC are the same ones who want us to have nothing to do with Europe, have no welfare state and send all the "immigrants" home, and I tend to ignore these people as in my experience they are either trolls or heartless imbeciles.Now if you were suggesting closing down the Daily Express...[/quote]

Well, Chops, the Times had an online Populus poll on the European veto earlier and 57% of people thought that Cameron was right to use the veto, with 14%

disagreeing and 29% don’t know. 53% thought that the use of the veto

showed that Cameron was standing up for Britain.What a crass statement it is to accuse the majority of people for being heartless & imbecilic for thinking it right to stand up for their country?

Pr@t.[/quote]If you want to gauge crassness, let''s revisit your attempted paedo efforts from yesterday.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="zemas tendon"]Why is it when BBC show us on MOTD, there is no Atmosphere or Noise, but when Sky shows us on Match Choice you get a Atmosphere and hear Chanting, is this because BBC have microphones in the N+P or that Sky have put theres in the Snakepit/Barclay[/quote]

At the game I thought the Barclay (except those near the Snakepit) were quieter than normal until we scored but I wondered if that was due to the Toon Army being on my right. Then when I watched and listened to SKY''s Match Choice you do indeed hear the chanting etc.

 

["""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0]

Sky have more microphones when they televise game compared to the BBC . You can see them all when they''ve covered our games this season.

[Bill 1,788]

"its left-wing bias is quite shocking"as oppposed to your reasoned and thoughful discourse "and the foul French dwarf, Sarkosy."

[Guest]

[quote user="City1st"]"its left-wing bias is quite shocking"as oppposed to your reasoned and thoughful discourse "and the foul French dwarf, Sarkosy."[/quote]Just as well you, I and all the other TV users on this forum don''t have to pay for his bias then, isn''t it?

[Bill 1,788]

it only appears as bias when you are coming from his position

[Guest]

[quote user="City1st"]it only appears as bias when you are coming from his position[/quote]I''m afraid your assumptions are well wide of the mark - into Row Z on this occasion perhaps? I am actually a lukewarm supporter of the EU in general, but that view doesn''t mean that I can''t see the BBC is continually biased, and more importantly, very poorly regulated. We all have our own opinions, but I would dearly love to see both sides of an important argument well represented on our nation''s publically funded broadcaster so I can stay informed.Plus, they have a very poor crowd audio mixing policy which I am truly disgusted about [;)].

[Bill 1,788]

"they have a very poor crowd audio mixing policy"whereas it should reflect one side of the crowds contribution

[Guest]

[quote user="City1st"]"they have a very poor crowd audio mixing policy"whereas it should reflect one side of the crowds contribution[/quote]Dearie me, I thought it would be clear enough from the wink that I was not being entirely serious with that comment. Still, that''s a lovely bit of selective quoting - perhaps a career as a BBC journo is beckoning?(That was just a silly joke by the way, to save you the trouble of misinterpreting it).

[Joanna Grey 0]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23873043-bbc-chief-mark-thompson-admits-left-wing-bias.do

And the stink still lingers.

[Patches OHoolahan 0]

Impartiality is an impossibility. Read Foucault, Edmund Carr or any number of other theoreticians and you will come to realise that there is no such thing as objectivity. The BBC is a publicly owned corporation, as such should we be surprised if their bias is to the left? The best that can be done is to hold them to account, call on them to recognise the nature of their subjectivity, and rejoice in the fact that we have a news organisation that at least aspires to objectivity unlike the ''fair and balanced'' Fox News or MSNBC in America.

[Shyster 0]

[quote]The best that can be done is to hold them to account[/quote]

Too right they should be held to account - the BBC are at it again this morning still pushing Cameron''s "Crime" and the coalition split - you can almost hear the anticipatory glee from their "impartial" news editorial teams as they work hard to keep the story

going - and still not a word about the damning of Blair, Brown and Balls

by the FSA.

It''s not even pretence any more - the Tories should go after the BBC ruthlessly and rip them a new one.

Even Sky appears to have been infected with the BBC anti Cameron disease as

well since Friday, but at least people aren''t forced by law to pay a fee

to them - people can simply withdraw their subscription if they feel sky

are being biassed.

I''ve personally made official complaints to the BBC and their MP insisting the licence fee is removed

and the labour corporation forced to become a subscriber channel - and I urge others to follow suit [img]http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote]The best that can be done is to hold them to account[/quote]


Too right they should be held to account - the BBC are at it again this morning still pushing Cameron''s "Crime" and the coalition split - you can almost hear the anticipatory glee from their "impartial" news editorial teams as they work hard to keep the story going - and still not a word about the damning of Blair, Brown and Balls by the FSA.

It''s not even pretence any more - the Tories should go after the BBC ruthlessly and rip them a new one.

Even Sky appears to have been infected with the BBC anti Cameron disease as well since Friday, but at least people aren''t forced by law to pay a fee to them - people can simply withdraw their subscription if they feel sky are being biassed.

I''ve personally made official complaints to the BBC and their MP insisting the licence fee is removed and the labour corporation forced to become a subscriber channel - and I urge others to follow suit [img]http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

[/quote]

 

No surprise about Sky; that Murdoch has always been a closet Trot.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,589]

In the words of Stephen Colbert;

 

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"

[ron obvious 1,514]

[quote user="Patches OHoolahan"]Impartiality is an impossibility. Read Foucault, Edmund Carr or any number of other theoreticians and you will come to realise that there is no such thing as objectivity. The BBC is a publicly owned corporation, as such should we be surprised if their bias is to the left? The best that can be done is to hold them to account, call on them to recognise the nature of their subjectivity, and rejoice in the fact that we have a news organisation that at least aspires to objectivity unlike the ''fair and balanced'' Fox News or MSNBC in America.[/quote]

Although it is self evident that total impartiality is impossible (like any other ideal), it is noticeable how some commentators achieve greater impartiality than others. If you watch Paxo or Andrew Neil''s technique they give any politician a hard time & ask as many awkward questions as possible. I would suggest this is the best method to attain a balanced view

From what I have seen, the BBC is desperate to bring the Coalition down. If you watch News24 for any length of time it soon becomes apparent that anti-government views are given far more airtime than their supporters, of whatever stripe. I accept that it is healthy in a democracy for opposition to be given a fair & full hearing, but BBC bias goes far beyond that.

A particular example is Question Time. I don''t bother to watch it anymore. The audience is supposed to be representative, but if that were the case Labour would win every election by a landslide.