Our beloved Prime Minister, surprisingly, made public (sort of) his views on the BBC’s attitude to covering government cuts. Or bias, as Cameron seems to be hinting at. The Prime Minister dubbed the BBC, “BBCC” or “British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation.”
Some might be rather critical that the Prime Minister, head of the government, has taken a patronising and somewhat insulting manner towards the impartiality of the BBC. Even though Dave has a point – the Beeb’s political analysis and coverage is extremely questionable on the coalition, especially the Liberal Democrats, and the selection of commentators.
We are willing to, without justification at times, question Skynews and elements of the Murdoch press but it seems to be blasphemy to contradict the BBC. Why is that? All media, especially public funded outlets, should face a higher level of scrutiny.
In fact, we should not have to pay a license fee – especially if the receiver is deliberately opposing the government for idealogical and political reasons.
But is sarcastic remarks to a journalist the best way to go about it?
danielfurr
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Daniel Furr, Daniel Furr. Daniel Furr said: British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation: Our beloved Prime Minister, surprisingly, made public (sort of) his views… http://bit.ly/h0eA9D [...]
Have you not watched Channel 4′s News recently? Far more critical than the BBC. Why limit yourself? Shoot all the messengers! Wake up.
Oh Graham, I totally agree with you. Do not get me started on Channel 4
Daniel,
I fear you miss my point. I voted LibDem (and have done all my life) so feel very angry to have got this TORY government. The LibDem carpetbaggers do not represent the manifesto they ran on and I am furious. The BBC is covering the cuts because they are the important issues of the day. It isn’t BBC spin as you seems to suggest because other news providers are covering it too – as you concede. Do you want all news to be qualified with the Tory’s assertion these radical cuts are necessary, when that is a highly contentious issue. There are many non-partisan commentators who argue otherwise. You’ve got 4 years to ride roughshod over the democratic process. Don’t expect the media to not report it.
Graham:
1) Liberals have argued all my life for coalitions. That is what you get with PR, AV etc and they have always said that is one of the reasons they would like electoral reform. In coalitions the parties are bound to rejig their manifestoes, horsetrading policies behind the scenes, without going back to the electorate for their permission. So, while Conservatives can reasonably be annoyed at the compromises of the coalition, Liberals haven’t a leg to stand on. Coalition is what they want even more of in the future, and this is a modern taste of what it is like.
2) the BBC are saying expediture is being swingeingly cut, when it is still rising – about 7% – 10% which is above inflation. That is the lie, not whether we should do something about a debt interest payment which costs us more than the unreformed MOD. Some think that is unsustainable and some don’t. But the BBC should come out honestly for a higher debt interest repayment if that is what they want. and they should stop saying expenditure is being cut when ti is increasing.
The author of this blog says: “we should not have to pay a license fee – especially if the receiver is deliberately opposing the government for idealogical and political reasons.”
Presumably he (or you) would say that if it was a left wing government that was in charge. You’d want them to be as critical as possible. I happen to believe the BBC and most other news agencies attempt to reflect the truth – even when that is uncomfortable for whatever government is in charge.
The BBC, Channel 4, ITV or even Sky doesn’t ‘come out honestly for a higher debt interest repayment if that is what they want.’ as you put it because they are not the political mouthpiece for one party or another. I think you’re getting them mixed up with totalitarian states like North Korea and Libya.