Tuesday, 12 May 2015

A note to the BBC on 'Full Public Consultation'

I'd like to pen a brief note to the BBC on the meaning of 'Full Public Consultation'. Firstly, the report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, chaired by the new Culture Secretary, can be found HERE. Those at the BBC who couldn't be bothered to read it when it was published in February but who are now eager to do so will find it less threatening than the headlines in the Telegraph suggest. Amongst the many recommendations are those for full consultation with licence fee payers in advance of changes. 

For the benefit of BBC executives, this means:-

1. You must allow everyone to respond, not just those from your specially selected audience focus group of people who agree with you

2. You must publish the results of all consultation, and not just those results that bolster your case

3. You cannot exclude voices from comment because you don't like what they're saying

4. You cannot restrict the agenda to issues that you want to discuss and exclude matters the public wants to discuss

5. You cannot exhibit the sort of pro central State pro mega public service pro collectivist bias that you exhibited so shamefully during the election campaign, at times so arrogantly that you barely bothered to disguise it. 

And BTW my FOI request on the 7 leaders programme is still outstanding. You have exactly 20 days before the matter is referred to the Information Commissioner.

That's All.


john miller said...

It's a shame that satire is dead.

The increasingly sad expressions of the preenters during the election night coverage were hilarious. In particular, Huw Edwards looked as though he was getting hourly bulletins on the progress of the evisceration of his pet sheep.

Anonymous said...

When did Britain last give pause, to stop to think?

And the TPTB, when was it, how did they, blitz the population and erase the critical faculties of this nation?

The beeb, is run by the shitehawks of the metropolitan elite, purely for the benefit of the metropolitan elite, the joke is - the proles pay for the propaganda, ha, ha, ha. Though they weren't laughing the other night though - were they? Woe and thrice WOE! For the people gave the wrong answer, hence the utter disconslate visage at the bbc.

Aye, tis a long time since I watched anything genuinely funny on any of the al beeb channels. However, the al-beeb coverage of May 7th election night delivered.

It was something to behold, what with their Biased Broadcasting collective displaying total consternation and with their visual displays of desperate hope. It all went belly up so early, post the exit polls and still they [the Socialists] were abjectly clinging on to the fabulous notion of a win for Milistone's lav party, it would have taken a heart of stone......

In the immortal words of Pete Cook [Clive] in 'Derek and Clive', "Larf? I nearly shat".

Strewth, Cook [and his Ilk] would have made it a 'field day' everyday on all matters concerning the al-beeb output - of arrogance, bias, the feeble but wanton crass adoration of all things politically 'progressive' - if ever there was a word which denoted the opposite meaning?

The bbc and in toe, goose step actually: with everything the lav party vomits forth.

Though, isn't it telling that the death of real, piercing political satire actually encourages, it begets the fuckwit pap the public is fed through the hands of our national broadcasters?

The dearth or, death of professional critique, particularly from political observers and satirists means that any balance has vanished. Balance gone, thus - it grants the gullible idiots current metropolitan 'cognoscenti', they who believe in the 'received wisdom' - of Socialist dogmas, the Cultural Marxist - it grants them free rein.
Free rein, to pump out the stagnant lies, the political idiocies....ie, "we know better than you" guff and al-beeb is by far the biggest problem.

Make it pay, and bin the licence fee, better yet, bin the bbc.

G. Tingey said...

Err ... points 1-4 should be rammed into the heads of all serving politicians, too!
Sorry, but that soort of "pre-skewing" is standard tactics for all political parties & is one reason for people's disillusionment with the bastards.

As for point 5 - err, I must be lviing on/in a different planet to you.
I heard none of this on radio 4 or 3, so what the fuck are you whingeing about?
[ Note: I listen, carefully, to the "Today" programme, which has dealt, fairly, with the run-up to this election, I think.

Anonymous [ how brave of you to spit such bile, without a name ]
"the shitehawks of the metropolitan elite"
I see, so you are a rural hoblledahooy from Lower Piddle, I take it?
Just because the BBC doesn't crawl up the arse of Murdoch (euw) or faux "news" you don't like it.
Grow & grow some brain cells.

Anonymous said...

Nah.... I think this has it nailed

[...]We’re now well into the 21st Century and, astonishingly, that State monopoly still holds. The BBC’s resources are vast, crowding out any realistic competition. According to Roger Mosey (former Head of BBC Television News, and Editor of the Today Programme), the BBC enjoys a 70 per cent share of ‘news consumption’ on British TV and Radio.

The BBC shares the same dire failings as every other State producer. Those of us who have worked there know the staggeringly vast waste, the meaningless jobs, the corruption (look at the salaries).

But the waste is the least of it. To repeat, the BBC controls 70 per cent of news output on British TV and radio. The people who run the BBC (like others who work for large State organisations) tend to look favourably on high public spending and increased State regulation.

They cannot but have a huge influence on public debate in Britain, subtly colouring our views on everything from the EU and global warming, to ‘austerity’ and debt, the NHS, welfare reform and the size of the public sector.

The BBC reflects perfectly the worldview of the class that really runs Britain. Not the capitalists – if it were the capitalists do you think State spending would account for almost half of GDP? No, the BBC is the propaganda wing of the New Class, a class which is all the more powerful because it slips under the radar (that’s because there isn’t enough good old-fashioned Marxist class analysis among Libertarians).
The name ‘New Class’ may be unfamiliar to you, but close your eyes and you can see them: the cultured, educated but underpaid (according to them), the snob socialist paternalists, the market-hating tax-consuming regulators. If you want understand them better, read John Carey’s Pride and Prejudice: Intellectuals and the Masses. They are confident, self-righteous, parasitic and poisonous. And in Britain, the BBC is their most powerful weapon.[/quote]

Anonymous said...

Synergy, that's what you're up against. Sure they'll go through the motions but the outcome is assured:

BBC 1 Joe Public 0

And thank you for watching.


Budgie said...

G Tingey, you may think the "... Today" programme ... has dealt fairly with the run-up to this election ...".

I don't.

So either you must ask me (nicely!) to fund your chosen propaganda, which, as you know, I am rather loathe to do, or the BBC becomes pay to view.

It is always funny to hear BBC apologists froth when that fair suggestion is made. It simply reinforces my view that such people are, deep down, aware of the BBC's bigotry and partiality.

Plantman said...

or, perhaps they work for them. Employed by them to troll the blogs even?

Bill Quango MP said...

BBc report says pretty much 'we are loved and respected by everyone.'

But when it mentions pay to view it thinks that would deprive people of BBc services.

Now..surely..if it really is loved by everyone, then it would be subscribed to by everyone.
Especially if the subscription was the same, or even less, than the current fee?

BBc wants to have it both ways. Loved by everyone and paid for by everyone.

They would be so much happier on a subscription model I don't know why they don't just do it. The BBc could make any sort of program it likes. Any bias it wants.
it would be free to do as it pleases and if the Daily mail gives it a kicking it could say 'if you don't like it..don't buy it."

G. Tingey said...

I don't pay to view now & I won't pay to view in the future.
I don't pay a licence fee & I won't give Murdoch (Sky) any of my money either.
Fair enough?

Budgie said...

G Tingey, it is disappointing that you don't put your money where your mouth is (ie supporting the BBC). Perhaps you don't think the BBC is worth it. Neither do I.

And you forgot the bit where I am of the opinion that R4 Today did not deal "fairly" with the election coverage. You do, as you said and as you're entitled to, but that is your opinion only, not a fact.