O/T:- Banks

[jackal2]

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

My issue with the BBC is that it gets to demand money (with menaces) for its upkeep rather than earning its income on merit, which is an unfair competitive advantage no longer justified in an age when the broadcasting market is fully mature and broadcasters should be perfectly capable of fending for themselves. Maybe that's why the public feel the BBC should be held to a different standard, but actually in this case I agree that the "fault" lies with the bank who spread the misinformation rather than the broadcaster. Given the seniority of the people who apparently communicated this misleading information, you can forgive the BBC (or any other) journalist for assuming it was coming from a 'reliable' source.

[forwardmagpie]

Apologies for the delayed reply, Elite, I'm only here sporadically at present!

You're right that the internet carries varied opinion on any subject, but I referred you to the wide range of opinion on how Brexit has benefited us or will benefit us rather than arrogantly assuming that you were specifically/just interested in my own specific take. My view is actually incredibly straight-forward and has little to do with immigration, economic advantages or disadvantages, public funding or who lied about what.

The reason I consider that Britain benefits from Brexit is because I just fundamentally don't accept that we are 'European' and so I believe we should never have joined its political framework, frankly regardless of the supposed 'advantages' or 'disadvantages' people might argue this offers us at any given point in time. Therefore, I believe our identity as a nation benefits from now being "not" part of the European Union. It's as fundamental as that.

Others may disagree either with my choice to vote for Brexit, or my particular reason for doing so, but that's why I referred to the whole range of opinion out there. I can't really speak for anyone else and it's not my job to judge the validity or otherwise of their views, but I recognise there a many!




I suppose my view comes closest to the first part of reason three (i.e. Let's rid ourselves of the EU shackles), but with regard to the other reasons you raise, and several more besides, I agree with you that Britain has not yet 'exploited' (if that's the word) Brexit to anything like it's fullest potential. For that I blame a partially inept and forever shape-shifting Government and, as referenced earlier, anti-Brexit forces (some of whom are inside said Government!) who were always going to do their everything within their very considerable power to prevent the benefits of Brexit from being delivered quickly or fully. That doesn't surprise me. Anyone who voted for Brexit should have known that these dark forces would not suddenly admit defeat, pack up and go home. Winning a Brexit vote was only ever going to be a step in a particular direction.

That does not however mean the Brexit decision was "wrong" or has "failed". From my viewpoint, anything that (at least significantly) removed us from the tanglehairs of the EU represents an automatic and immediate benefit, even if not a full or complete one to date. If there was another Brexit vote in the future - and for precisely the reasons stated above I wouldn't be at all surprised - then I'd vote exactly the same way for exactly the same personal reason and hope many others would too.

This very much matches by views.
In 1975 I voted to remain in a common market which I thought was a good idea.
Since then despite the common market changed, rapidly becoming the EU with treaties that changed our membership. Neither political parties gave us a vote to get our agreement to these fairly radical changes.

I wasn’t taken in or hoodwinked by the various scares, untruths and downright lies told by both sides of the argument.

I am glad we are out of the EU and hope that despite slow progress with some difficulties I foresee that long term (I have always thought 10 years) we will see the benefits outweighs the downsides.

I feel that the quality of our politics and politicians has diminished over the last 40 to 50 years as a lot of legislation taken by the EU.
See the massive amount of EU legislation in our statue book. If you look at all the parties in my opinion we have a dearth of quality.

Members of my family voted in different ways but we manage to have civil discussions.

It is always interesting to be put right by many Brexit experts who know much more than I do !


Nobody on the remain side seems to discuss what the EU will be like in 10 years time.
I for one think it may be a busted flush but what does a council house lad from Gedling know.

[Magpies1959]

Newish Pie, I do not object to balance and diversity, as I said it is the 'supposed' balance and diversity I do not like. Where is the balance, when you always have at least one woman on pundit's panel, for a men's game of all the main sports, but barely a man in sight for the women's equivalents, and without wishing to upset the particularly sensitive to possible racist comments on here, in general those panels do seem to have a higher proportion of black people than white. This is not racist, just a fact. I like what they have to say in the main, as I do with the white panelists, but it just seems that, to be fair, all TV channels, not just the BBC, are going overboard in their attempts to be seen as balanced and diverse, and in doing so are anything but balanced certainly.

Also to make it quite clear I am not one of the, 'some people', that you describe in your response to my post. The addition of pundits to panels, from opposing countries/teams, of all races, colour and *** has given a new perspective to the way a game is seen.

[Newish Pie]

In terms of unfair treatment on a personal level, I think the attacks on Corbyn were off the scale, so in that sense you're maybe correct that few other politicians have been subjected to the something literally 'equivalent', but let's take, for example... Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The very mention of Jacon Rees-Mogg's name gets a lot of liberals and lefties frothing at the mouth, and through their lens it's perhaps impossible to expect them to have any sympathy for him, but whatever you think of Jacon Rees-Mogg's arguments and opinion, I've never seen or heard him be anything other than calm, patient and immensely courteous in making his case, despite sometimes facing some of the rudest and most hostile characterisation and interviewing I've ever seen directed at any right-wing politician. A couple of interviews with James O'Brien on LBC spring to mind as particularly outrageous examples, but I've seen several other interviews where the treatment of Jacob has not been dissimilar to that meted out to Corbyn.

Of course politically, Jeremy and Jacob could hardly be more polar opposites, but they are actually very similar in the way they seek to politely explain their views, and yet because they are both politicians with views well outside the centrist tram lines, they certainly get the 'hounds of hell' treatment.

Of course, Jacob has one advantage over Jeremy in that he has now found a news/opinion channel which is positively welcoming to him, and Jeremy never really had that (the late Russia Today, maybe? ), but nobody should be subjected to outright rudeness, constant interruption, character assassination and scorn just for expressing views that are assertively Socialist or Conservative. They should be respected for articulating a particular perspective, engaging the public, and giving people choice.

Thanks for the post... I hadn't considered Rees-Mogg as a possible right wing candidate for a monstering. I think we agree, though, that even if there is a case for Rees-Mogg getting monstered (and on balance, I'm not sure there is), it's nothing on the scale of what Corbyn got. It's good to hear that this is obvious even to people who disagree with Corbyn more than I do.

I agree that Rees-Mogg is generally courteous in interviews... I think he comes over as sneery and condescending, but that's just my impression. Corbyn could be peevish and irritable in interviews in the face of persistent and hostile questioning, and he'd often snap at journalists when out and about. To be fair, they were pestering him, but to be doubly fair, that's kind of their job.

I'd like to think I'd respect someone who had principles and stuck to them, even if I disagreed with them. But for me, Rees-Mogg doesn't meet that standard. Campaigns for a hard Brexit, but moves his investment company to Ireland. Goes on about respect and parliamentary sovereignty, but then colludes with lying to the monarch and lounging around in parliament. Actively tries to undermine the work of the Parliamentary Privileges Committee. I've got a particular issue with people who claim to be Catholic, but take only homophobia and anti-abortion bits and ignore everything else... including being part of a government that's presided over such a rise in child poverty.

I guess he is treated as a bit of a comic character by some.... I'm not sure whether it's something that he deliberately cultivates, or whether he's just a genuine eccentric. I'd say Eric Pickles (the target of every fat joke for a political generation) was more hard done by than him. And at least with Dorries you can say that she must have had something about her to get to the top in politics, given her background, but Rees-Mogg has had every possible privilege and advantage.

He does have a distinct and unique (if inconsistent and highly partial) political voice. But he's an active politician and a member of parliament... he should not be presenting current affairs programmes. Being a guest, an interviewee, a panellist, fine. But not a presenter and not an interviewer. Corbyn shouldn't either - and isn't - that's just not how these things should work.

[Newish Pie]

My issue with the BBC is that it gets to demand money (with menaces) for its upkeep rather than earning its income on merit, which is an unfair competitive advantage no longer justified in an age when the broadcasting market is fully mature and broadcasters should be perfectly capable of fending for themselves. Maybe that's why the public feel the BBC should be held to a different standard, but actually in this case I agree that the "fault" lies with the bank who spread the misinformation rather than the broadcaster. Given the seniority of the people who apparently communicated this misleading information, you can forgive the BBC (or any other) journalist for assuming it was coming from a 'reliable' source.

About 71% of the BBC's income is from licence fee payments, so they're also attracting substantial commercial income. I'm not a fan of the licence fee because (a) it's a flat tax that makes no account of the ability of people to pay; (b) it's inefficient and expensive to collect and enforce. But the alternative is direct government funding, which people seem resistant to, because it might imply greater control and a threat to editorial independence. I'm sure there's a way of managing that through consensus, multi-year settlements etc.

The alternative is not to have a national broadcaster, cut it right down to something like PBS in the US, or put it entirely behind a paywall like Netflix or Sky. Or introduce adverts. Or put it behind some sort of paywall. Or some combination of all of them.

But as I've said before, I think we need a national broadcaster for national coherence and for soft power and influence around the world, where the BBC is globally respected because of the quality of cultural output, news, and the world service.
Otherwise, we risk ending up like the US where a percentage of the population live in a parallel Fox universe, and they can't have meaningful political discussions any more because there's no agreement on basic facts. It's bad enough that we've got the billionaire press with outsize influence, but billionaire TV would just be a political and cultural disaster.

The only thing worse than the BBC is not having the BBC. And long may we argue about how balanced it is, and long may we hold it to the highest of standards. While not neglecting to apply those standards to other media outlets once every so often.

[Magpies1959]

You seem to be a tad obsessed with billionaire TV, I am assuming this is directed mainly at GB News, if it is run by a billionaire/s, they could do with digging a bit deeper in their pockets to help with the production, which is way behind the levels put into the BBC and the likes.

[Newish Pie]

Newish Pie, I do not object to balance and diversity, as I said it is the 'supposed' balance and diversity I do not like. Where is the balance, when you always have at least one woman on pundit's panel, for a men's game of all the main sports, but barely a man in sight for the women's equivalents, and without wishing to upset the particularly sensitive to possible racist comments on here, in general those panels do seem to have a higher proportion of black people than white. This is not racist, just a fact. I like what they have to say in the main, as I do with the white panelists, but it just seems that, to be fair, all TV channels, not just the BBC, are going overboard in their attempts to be seen as balanced and diverse, and in doing so are anything but balanced certainly.

Also to make it quite clear I am not one of the, 'some people', that you describe in your response to my post. The addition of pundits to panels, from opposing countries/teams, of all races, colour and *** has given a new perspective to the way a game is seen.

Absolutely agree... non-UK pundits have been great, both in terms of football knowledge and different national perspectives. And I've tried to be careful - as I hope I always do - not to jump to uncharitable or unfair conclusions about people.

But I have to say that I find it a bit of an odd thing to get annoyed about. If - on the whole - they're pretty good panellists, though obviously we'll all have our favourites and anti-favourites. Representation is a tricky issue, especially when we're talking about small numbers of people on any one panel - usually the representation I'm most interested in is team perspective or lack thereof. I'm not clear why it would be an issue if most of a panel were black. It's certainly more noticeable, because we're much more used to panels being entirely or mostly white.

I think also there's context of historical under-representation. As the number of black players in the men's game increased, there wasn't a significant increase in the number of black journalists and pundits (or managers, but that's another story) There were no female pundits or commentators at all until very recently - though to be fair Sky did have women presenting the sports news. In that historical context, I think representation matters, and perhaps that's why we're now seeing what some might see as an over-correction.

But, again... I'm not sure why this matters, or why I'd feel strongly about it. Or why it would make me angry. Especially if we agree that there's been no loss in quality overall. Which I think tells us a lot.

To be fair... and I'm trying to be really fair and think about issues with over-representation - there is a habit in some TV dramas to have more diverse casting than the supposed setting. So... my brother lives in Brighton, and he's said that some of the TV series set in Brighton (mainly a couple of recent cop dramas) are significantly more racially diverse than Brighton is. Politically, he's to the left of me, so he's not racially motivated in that comment. He just finds it funny. Mainly he objects to the butchering of geography (chase sequences that make no sense etc). But again... I'm not seeing any change in quality of the production/acting... it's in the context of historial under-representation of diversity on TV and in access to particular roles, and I find it hard to get upset about.

[Newish Pie]

You seem to be a tad obsessed with billionaire TV, I am assuming this is directed mainly at GB News, if it is run by a billionaire/s, they could do with digging a bit deeper in their pockets to help with the production, which is way behind the levels put into the BBC and the likes.

Yeah, guilty as charged, I suppose. I think politicised news channels (of whatever stripe or shade) are fundamentally a very bad thing for democracy in this country, and I'm surprised that more people can't see that. Or at the very least see that active politicians should not be presenting current affairs shows. Maybe I'd include Talk TV in this category too, but I don't know much about them.

If you don't already know who funds GB "News", I'd suggest looking into their backers. It's not only the "News" element of the title that should be in inverted commas, it's the "GB" bit too. They're like the "Taxpayers Alliance" and "Islamic State" in that sense - nothing about their name is accurate.

[Magpies1959]

Newish Pie are you suggesting that every programme, sports team or 'thing' etc, should only be named to give a representation of who/what it's owners are all about.

There is nothing to stop a left leaning, (if you see GB News as right leaning) news or political content channel from starting up. So no 'very bad thing for democracy' issues. GB News only came about because the TV media was leaning so heavily to the left.

I think you are deliberately trying to portray me as one of your 'some people', this not the case. There is a difference between 'not liking' something, i.e. the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, and being annoyed or even angry about it.

[Old_pie]

Nobody on the remain side seems to discuss what the EU will be like in 10 years time.
I for one think it may be a busted flush but what does a council house lad from Gedling know.

Lifted from a financial forum so not BBC Verified!!:

As for GDP size....

EU GDP. 16 Trillion USD (2022)

CPTPP. 12 Trillion USD (2021)

Smaller ATM, but not by that much. And other countries waiting to join. Its expected to eclipse the EU around 2028-30

And the advantage of less political competition (hopefully), plus more friends!