O/T Even the Tory Party are Blaming Johnson!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

I Can't think of a more Party Political focussed thread title to be honest, about as Tabloidy as it gets!

On two seperate subjects,

I'm hoping from the words I see coming from new BBC DG Tim Davie that the (what I thought were endemic and irreversible) failings of BBC output I've whinged on about will be addressed. Great start from him to be instrumental in the restoration of (a sung) Land Of Hope And Glory into last night of the proms and the reasons given. Tony Hall has been a disaster IMO. I've seen what he's said on my hobby horse, diversity, and he seems bang-on right. He's got a scrap on with the PC brigade though.

What was your decision on your holiday, and if you don't mind sharing, why? We are determined to 'take a break' in late October and our plans have cjanged four times in a week!

---

May be you just can't think? The thread was a response to some on here accusing certain posters of being over the top in judging Johnson and this governments performance in particular with the Covid-19 issue, and shows that even some members of his own party arent happy with him. Not surprised that BJ's apologists ignore this inconvenient truth!

Yes you've whinged (incorrectly IMO) about the endemic "failings" of the BBC, though to be honest your gripes seem to be you don't like an increase in BAME presenters and your "broadly non racist" friends agree with you. (As if that represents a significant proportion of the BBC audience!

That plus you dislike certain programmes, which frankly is not a surprise, theres much I don't like on the BBC, but I do understand that many of these programmes I detest are popular with viewers and it isn't there just to cater to my tastes and views!

Not sure that he was instrumental in restoring the a sung version of "Land and Hope and Glory", but then that was a storm in a tea cup which the right wing media whipped up and frankly not something the vast majority of people in this country were bothered about - the reasons for only having an instrumental only version were absolutely valid, nothing to do with the fake news peddled by the media. Frankly if thats seen as important in these times of crisis then we truly do live in the era of peak stupidity!


You seem not to have understood his views on diversity either so for to avoid any misunderstanding I've quoted his actual words below.

He said he regretted that the BBC had "not gone further to create a more diverse and inclusive" organisation. He pledged to make sure it "reflects more accurately the society we serve" in terms of gender, race, disability, socioeconomic status and s@xuality.

I'd be interested in your explanation as to how this aim would upset the PC brigade (whoever they may be, there really isn't a homogeneous group of people who are obsessed with so called PC, other than that created in the fantasy world of certain media organisations pandering to people who seem unable to cope with progress within society).

Of course I may have misunderstood you and your hobby horse is that the BBC was not diverse enough!

His comments on BBC employees making political or other opinions on social media seem sensible and such policies generally apply in other companies. BBC employees making comments on social media which have appeared biased towards the right and the left are at odds with impartial reporting.

On the whole we should cherish the fact that we have good quality media service that is not under the control of the state or some billionaire with an agenda. That does actually produce as factual a news service (and one that is trusted world wide) as one is likely to get, that produces a wide range of programmes that suits all tastes and is incredibly good value for money.

Of course it does not get everything right and change is bound to upset some people because thats the nature of life.

Interestingly from my perspective, we have yet another senior figure at the BBC whose known political leanings are to the right, he has been a Tory Councillor and stood as an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate for the Tory party but I will reserve judgement until we see what he does, not everyone who is Tory supporter is fanatically right wing but as I demonstrated with some actual facts about the management and some presenters in a post on another thread, claims of a left wing anti Brexit bias, mostly from a right wing press are far from the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manofpride

Farage or Mogg would be perfect replacements for Borris IMO. I'll just put on my tin hat!

---

Nothing more needs to be said, such a statement speaks volumes!

BBC not biased?
The new boss( on £525 000 p.a), recognises it is and also that it needs to move to subscription. Finally, someone recognises that a "neutral" news source has real problems with the way it conducts itself and how it raises its money. For those that don't know, the new guy was in charge of BBC studios, who actually "made" £1.4 billion in profit by selling BBC goods. It also recently aquired one of the internet catch up tv groups which makes its money by(shock/horror- advertising)So it can make money when it wants to, but choses to hound OAP's instead.
Johnson announced today, that it will be decriminalised and they know the writing is on the wall.
It's outdated and was dying on its feet anyway. Much as those on here that love the BBC, the youngsters dont care for terrestrial tv and won't get a license anyway. Game over.

However, these are Tim Davies words on it.

Rallying the troops as he took over from Lord Hall this week, he said that staff should work hard to deliver on the views of the entire nation, not a select elite.

The Beeb has faced a string of controversies over recent years - with accusations of left-wing bias and hiring a string of anti-Tory reporters.

And it has been accused of only representing the views of the London elite, rather than the people and down the country.

"I do not want a subscription BBC that serves the few," Mr Davie said today.

He warned reporters and editors that surrounding the office with "people like us" who were only interested in "political shenanigans, internal dramas and the latest press flare-up" would damage the corporation and lead to its decline.

He said: "This is dangerous. It means that we can take our eyes off the key issue of how much value we are delivering to each member of the public, and the UK as a whole."

The Beeb will "renew our commitment to impartiality" in a bid to win back the trust of the nation, he promised.

"I want a radical shift in our focus from the internal to the external, to focus on those we serve: the public."

And he added: "Our research shows that too many perceive us to be shaped by a particular perspective.

"We urgently need to champion and recommit to impartiality. It is deliverable and it is essential."

BBC's string of controversies

Andy - might dickdockingstation be the female form of dickhead?

Swale - Diversity. I agree it should be there but has it gone too far? Over here, especially in TV ads, I think it has. Why? Almost every ad which shows a couple shows them as a "diverse" couple. The only ad I can currently think of with a Caucasian, hetero family is the ones for Jumbo supermarket and that has a family unit that has been the centrepoint of their TV ads for a good 10 years or more. All the others show every possible mix you can think of. IMO, ads, overall, are as unrepresentative of the actual diversity in society today as they were 30 years ago. The pendulum has swung the other way. Is it the same picture in the UK?

Also with regard to impartiality. I disagree with the idea that newsreaders and presenters aren't allowed to voice their own personal thoughts on social media. At work they should report the facts as impartially as possible. When interviewing someone they should dig and delve and be critical to both the left and the right. They should also be allowed to put their own views on their own personal social media accounts. Having an extreme view on something shouldn't prevent them doing their unbiased job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

May be you just can't think? The thread was a response to some on here accusing certain posters of being over the top in judging Johnson and this governments performance in particular with the Covid-19 issue, and shows that even some members of his own party arent happy with him. Not surprised that BJ's apologists ignore this inconvenient truth!

Yes you've whinged (incorrectly IMO) about the endemic "failings" of the BBC, though to be honest your gripes seem to be you don't like an increase in BAME presenters and your "broadly non racist" friends agree with you. (As if that represents a significant proportion of the BBC audience!

That plus you dislike certain programmes, which frankly is not a surprise, theres much I don't like on the BBC, but I do understand that many of these programmes I detest are popular with viewers and it isn't there just to cater to my tastes and views!

Not sure that he was instrumental in restoring the a sung version of "Land and Hope and Glory", but then that was a storm in a tea cup which the right wing media whipped up and frankly not something the vast majority of people in this country were bothered about - the reasons for only having an instrumental only version were absolutely valid, nothing to do with the fake news peddled by the media. Frankly if thats seen as important in these times of crisis then we truly do live in the era of peak stupidity!


You seem not to have understood his views on diversity either so for to avoid any misunderstanding I've quoted his actual words below.

He said he regretted that the BBC had "not gone further to create a more diverse and inclusive" organisation. He pledged to make sure it "reflects more accurately the society we serve" in terms of gender, race, disability, socioeconomic status and s@xuality.

I'd be interested in your explanation as to how this aim would upset the PC brigade (whoever they may be, there really isn't a homogeneous group of people who are obsessed with so called PC, other than that created in the fantasy world of certain media organisations pandering to people who seem unable to cope with progress within society).

Of course I may have misunderstood you and your hobby horse is that the BBC was not diverse enough!

His comments on BBC employees making political or other opinions on social media seem sensible and such policies generally apply in other companies. BBC employees making comments on social media which have appeared biased towards the right and the left are at odds with impartial reporting.

On the whole we should cherish the fact that we have good quality media service that is not under the control of the state or some billionaire with an agenda. That does actually produce as factual a news service (and one that is trusted world wide) as one is likely to get, that produces a wide range of programmes that suits all tastes and is incredibly good value for money.

Of course it does not get everything right and change is bound to upset some people because thats the nature of life.

Interestingly from my perspective, we have yet another senior figure at the BBC whose known political leanings are to the right, he has been a Tory Councillor and stood as an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate for the Tory party but I will reserve judgement until we see what he does, not everyone who is Tory supporter is fanatically right wing but as I demonstrated with some actual facts about the management and some presenters in a post on another thread, claims of a left wing anti Brexit bias, mostly from a right wing press are far from the truth.

---

yes you have misunderstood. Back of the class

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

Andy - might dickdockingstation be the female form of dickhead?

Swale - Diversity. I agree it should be there but has it gone too far? Over here, especially in TV ads, I think it has. Why? Almost every ad which shows a couple shows them as a "diverse" couple. The only ad I can currently think of with a Caucasian, hetero family is the ones for Jumbo supermarket and that has a family unit that has been the centrepoint of their TV ads for a good 10 years or more. All the others show every possible mix you can think of. IMO, ads, overall, are as unrepresentative of the actual diversity in society today as they were 30 years ago. The pendulum has swung the other way. Is it the same picture in the UK?

Also with regard to impartiality. I disagree with the idea that newsreaders and presenters aren't allowed to voice their own personal thoughts on social media. At work they should report the facts as impartially as possible. When interviewing someone they should dig and delve and be critical to both the left and the right. They should also be allowed to put their own views on their own personal social media accounts. Having an extreme view on something shouldn't prevent them doing their unbiased job.

---

You won't get a sensible answer off Swale but your response is interesting, and I'll contrast it with Spain, who's TV I watch a lot in bars etc, and the mix on their TV in general (including ads) seems to much more reflect the overall demographic in respect of colour at least ( I will add though that I almost never see a visibly disabled person on Spanish TV)

In UK visibly mixed race couples are featured significantly more in adverts, and on TV in general, than they exist in the population as a whole, and its the same with visibly BAME folk as individuals. That's not an opinion, its just fact, and is supported by the UK's own diversity-on-TV watchdog, the independant Creative Diversity Network. It doesn't 'bother' me in itself, it bothers me that it is beginning to bother other people, from an increasing number who are starting to vocalise it on social media (not pressure groups, individuals) to people in my friendship group who I'd never dream of having to address such a subject with but who now feel compelled/emboldened to do so. Its particularly awkward for me as the head of a household with two black lads in it as I believe this approach is fuelling racial division, not racial harmony

Changing the subject slightly, not least because this isn’t a BBC thread, I understand today is a big day for HS2.
Doubtless we’ll see countless photo opportunities of Johnson in a hard hat and fluorescent jacket working out which end of the spade goes in the ground...but seriously...isn’t one of the outcomes of the pandemic that more and more people are likely to work - long term - from home via online conferencing etc?
If that’s the case then why on earth is this government continuing with its commitment to this extravagant ‘white elephant’...especially at a time when a combination of Covid (unavoidable cost) and Brexit (self inflicted cost) see the country on the brink of economic catastrophe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

You won't get a sensible answer off Swale but your response is interesting, and I'll contrast it with Spain, who's TV I watch a lot in bars etc, and the mix on their TV in general (including ads) seems to much more reflect the overall demographic in respect of colour at least ( I will add though that I almost never see a visibly disabled person on Spanish TV)

In UK visibly mixed race couples are featured significantly more in adverts, and on TV in general, than they exist in the population as a whole, and its the same with visibly BAME folk as individuals. That's not an opinion, its just fact, and is supported by the UK's own diversity-on-TV watchdog, the independant Creative Diversity Network. It doesn't 'bother' me in itself, it bothers me that it is beginning to bother other people, from an increasing number who are starting to vocalise it on social media (not pressure groups, individuals) to people in my friendship group who I'd never dream of having to address such a subject with but who now feel compelled/emboldened to do so. Its particularly awkward for me as the head of a household with two black lads in it as I believe this approach is fuelling racial division, not racial harmony

---

Andy...surely the only people who are likely to object to ‘diversity’ on TV are those who themselves have ‘issues’ with such matters as racism and homophobia etc.

Sixty years ago we lived in a world where dehumanising signs saying such things as ‘No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish’ were relatively common.
35-40 years ago ‘people’ (I use the word loosely) were throwing abuse - and bananas - at black footballers.
Likewise Muslims, homo***uals, AIDS sufferers, transgender people are amongst those who have, more recently, been victimised for no good reason.

TV has, imo, gone a long way to addressing such issues. It has, imo, done far more good than harm, and I’d suggest those who are vocalising things on social media are probably far more worthy of your concern than TV itself.

For once I agree with you rA. Not about Johnson photo bombing, but about HS2 which is just a colossal waste of money, even more so as pressure on the entire transportation sector is easing in the new post covid work environment.

Same is true regarding London commuting overloads - nature may have found a way to help here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Changing the subject slightly, not least because this isn’t a BBC thread, I understand today is a big day for HS2.
Doubtless we’ll see countless photo opportunities of Johnson in a hard hat and fluorescent jacket working out which end of the spade goes in the ground...but seriously...isn’t one of the outcomes of the pandemic that more and more people are likely to work - long term - from home via online conferencing etc?
If that’s the case then why on earth is this government continuing with its commitment to this extravagant ‘white elephant’...especially at a time when a combination of Covid (unavoidable cost) and Brexit (self inflicted cost) see the country on the brink of economic catastrophe?

---

Agree with you on this one. I'm of course not privy to any analysis or projections of future gains from the HS2 projects, and I'm sure any decision to stop proceedings would be trashed by media & opposition as having wasted so much money on it, a U turn etc (so it's a no win situation in terms of saving face). But maybe we'd be better investing in other infrastructure to support a growing population, working in a more decentralised fashion.