comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago the licensing enforecmentvisited my flat when I was at work ... someone in the block had let them in and they nailed a notice to my door.
I didn't even have a TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then you wont get prosecuted then
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago the licensing enforecmentvisited my flat when I was at work ... someone in the block had let them in and they nailed a notice to my door.
I didn't even have a TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then you wont get prosecuted then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. They were wasting time and money chasing me.
The procedure back then was you had to WRITE to them to inform them you didn't have a TV ... no email or phone option provided.
Of course there was an easy online/telephone option to pay the license fee!
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't watch anything that contains cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
So that's 50% of the BBC1 programming that's wasted on me but I do watch a lot of BBC2 and BBC4, I also listen to 5live and 6Music so it evens itself out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lets take today then 17/01/22.
BBC 1 schedule from 9.00am to Midnight (15 hrs of content) that includes cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
Doctors (30 mins)
Eastender (1hour)
That is 1.5 hours of 15 hours. Typically too.
Hardly 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've miraculously stumbled on a day that doesn't include cooking, dancing or singing.
Well done.
Thought this was goods from back in the day.
https://twitter.com/adilray/status/1482713205206048771?t=Vkn7RufbzjM0e1OcZGD7uQ&s=19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Aren't dogs ... (U3126)
posted 14 seconds ago
Thought this was goods from back in the day.
https://twitter.com/adilray/status/1482713205206048771?t=Vkn7RufbzjM0e1OcZGD7uQ&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh how things have changed.
Watching that I would agree it was worth the license. Just for the cricket alone, for me. And the snooker too
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Aren't dogs ... (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
Thought this was goods from back in the day.
https://twitter.com/adilray/status/1482713205206048771?t=Vkn7RufbzjM0e1OcZGD7uQ&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty good, shame half of them are no longer with us.
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago the licensing enforecmentvisited my flat when I was at work ... someone in the block had let them in and they nailed a notice to my door.
I didn't even have a TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then you wont get prosecuted then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. They were wasting time and money chasing me.
The procedure back then was you had to WRITE to them to inform them you didn't have a TV ... no email or phone option provided.
Of course there was an easy online/telephone option to pay the license fee!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed the assumption of criminality based on 'address without a TV license' is, in itself, against our justice system.
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't watch anything that contains cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
So that's 50% of the BBC1 programming that's wasted on me but I do watch a lot of BBC2 and BBC4, I also listen to 5live and 6Music so it evens itself out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lets take today then 17/01/22.
BBC 1 schedule from 9.00am to Midnight (15 hrs of content) that includes cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
Doctors (30 mins)
Eastender (1hour)
That is 1.5 hours of 15 hours. Typically too.
Hardly 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've miraculously stumbled on a day that doesn't include cooking, dancing or singing.
Well done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I miraculously stumbled on...... Today?
I still remember my Saturday nights as a nipper - the footy teleprinter, Dr Who, Dixon of Dock Green & The Black & White Minstrel Show. Brilliant! Only 3 channels then, mind.
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't watch anything that contains cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
So that's 50% of the BBC1 programming that's wasted on me but I do watch a lot of BBC2 and BBC4, I also listen to 5live and 6Music so it evens itself out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lets take today then 17/01/22.
BBC 1 schedule from 9.00am to Midnight (15 hrs of content) that includes cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
Doctors (30 mins)
Eastender (1hour)
That is 1.5 hours of 15 hours. Typically too.
Hardly 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've miraculously stumbled on a day that doesn't include cooking, dancing or singing.
Well done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I miraculously stumbled on...... Today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m right though, wait while the week progresses
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 11 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. Detector vans were proven to be a ruse long long ago. Cants like GregAli know this so don’t pay and we enter the ever decreasing circle of lower revenue and more competition.
Lots about the beeb to dislike but lots in its favour too. If nothing else the engineering excellence especially in audio throughout its history is remarkable if not helping it survive nowadays.
It was always a unique institution, an enigma of establishment and latterly woke, leftist agenda, spendthrifts but quality in many respects.
The tax needs abolished because the economics of policing and collection make it ineffective and cants like GregAli can pay for it in other ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true.
You need a licence if you watch ANY live TV on any device.
That includes sky, virgin, YouTube, Amazon, anything that is live, you need a licence for.
You also need a licence for BBC I player, even if you only watch catch up.
You ain't exactly gonna buy a TV licence just to watch dodgy football streams are you?
I should have included inane game shows in my list.
The tax needs abolished because the economics of policing and collection make it ineffective and cants like GregAli can pay for it in other ways
---
Fack off
You can continue paying £100 a month for TV, I'd rather save the cash.
You mug.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
BBC is far from perfect but look at the American media landscape, Foxification of discourse and the mainstreaming of disinformation as a reminder of what greets us if we get rid of a strong public service broadcaster. The interests that are campaigning to bring down the BBC will eagerly usher in similar degradation of our national discourse and democracy (and are actively pushing it in that direction now, and only slightly held back by the strength of reasonably impartial TV news) for base political and commercial reasons.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of it? Literally every single one? And you want me to post their conclusions as well? Isn't that what you're supposed to discover when you read them?
I'm of course happy to get you started, but you'll have to do a little of the legwork yourself, too. There's absolutely zero point in me trying to give summary conclusions. The work is just too varied and vast to adequately attempt it and in any case, I'd much rather people spent the time to learn this stuff as it's incredibly important. I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for any conclusion I'd written, and I'd rather presume that most would dismiss those conclusions as they'd challenge base assumptions too much. Better to just look at the evidence for yourself:
1. Start with: https://www.medialens.org/ - go to 'alerts' and read through 20 years of careful analysis of UK media output on various subjects, with a particular focus on foreign policy & international affairs. I recommend not just reading one or two 'alerts' but to seriously jump back in time and go through a whole load of them. You'll see the same patterns emerging relentlessly and repeatedly. And it's all free! In their earlier days they used to try to engage with journalists and present their work to them for response and commentary, most of which ends up being quite hilarious (journalists don't much like being shown with evidence that their work is crap), so I'd definitely go to their earlier works as they include exchanges from time to time.
2. Same as above, but graduate to their books, which are even more thorough (obviously not free!)
3. I'm putting this at 3 rather than 1 simply because it's the US rather than UK media, however it applies exactly and forms the basis for all serious work on media analysis. It's easily one of the most important books written outside of the sciences. You'll find plenty of essays by the authors and large sections of the word reproduced online if you search for it. But here's the book itself, which is largely comprised of historical matched pairs: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent
4. Multiple works by Glasgow Uni Media Group led by Mike Berry & Greg Philo, with a particular focus on broadcast coverage of various subjects, including Israel/Palestine, coverage of Corbyn's Labour etc... See their various "Bad News..." titles: https://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/about-us/books
5. James Curran: Power Without Responsibility https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428
6. Work by The Media Reform Coalition: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/ I would highly recommend some of their papers & studies. They produced an absolutely devastating indictment of the BBC & Guardian's coverage of the so called "Labour antisemitism crisis", which showed both outlets had been guilty of more misrepresentation of the issue than The Sun (not far behind, mind). I'm not saying only check that one out, but I am saying that you shouldn't miss it!
There's other works by other Uni's, too, such as Loughborough, Cardiff etc... Off the top of my head, Cardiff & an organisation called Media Tenor had produced some of the best work examining broadcast coverage across the UK, US and others in the lead up to the attack on Iraq in 2003. The paper is hard as hell to find but I may have a copy kicking about on my old home computer somwhere in the garage. The BBC were found to have given the least amount of airtime to anti-war voices than virtually every other broadcaster, including the ones we all deride (for good reasons) in the US.
If you'd rather watch than read, these are a couple of very worthwhile investments of anyone's time:
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow (skip the stupid 4 minute vox-pop at the start, it does the issue a major disservice and sets a very poor tone for what is to follow).
Enjoy.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of it? Literally every single one? And you want me to post their conclusions as well? Isn't that what you're supposed to discover when you read them?
I'm of course happy to get you started, but you'll have to do a little of the legwork yourself, too. There's absolutely zero point in me trying to give summary conclusions. The work is just too varied and vast to adequately attempt it and in any case, I'd much rather people spent the time to learn this stuff as it's incredibly important. I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for any conclusion I'd written, and I'd rather presume that most would dismiss those conclusions as they'd challenge base assumptions too much. Better to just look at the evidence for yourself:
1. Start with: https://www.medialens.org/ - go to 'alerts' and read through 20 years of careful analysis of UK media output on various subjects, with a particular focus on foreign policy & international affairs. I recommend not just reading one or two 'alerts' but to seriously jump back in time and go through a whole load of them. You'll see the same patterns emerging relentlessly and repeatedly. And it's all free! In their earlier days they used to try to engage with journalists and present their work to them for response and commentary, most of which ends up being quite hilarious (journalists don't much like being shown with evidence that their work is crap), so I'd definitely go to their earlier works as they include exchanges from time to time.
2. Same as above, but graduate to their books, which are even more thorough (obviously not free!)
3. I'm putting this at 3 rather than 1 simply because it's the US rather than UK media, however it applies exactly and forms the basis for all serious work on media analysis. It's easily one of the most important books written outside of the sciences. You'll find plenty of essays by the authors and large sections of the word reproduced online if you search for it. But here's the book itself, which is largely comprised of historical matched pairs: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent
4. Multiple works by Glasgow Uni Media Group led by Mike Berry & Greg Philo, with a particular focus on broadcast coverage of various subjects, including Israel/Palestine, coverage of Corbyn's Labour etc... See their various "Bad News..." titles: https://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/about-us/books
5. James Curran: Power Without Responsibility https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428
6. Work by The Media Reform Coalition: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/ I would highly recommend some of their papers & studies. They produced an absolutely devastating indictment of the BBC & Guardian's coverage of the so called "Labour antisemitism crisis", which showed both outlets had been guilty of more misrepresentation of the issue than The Sun (not far behind, mind). I'm not saying only check that one out, but I am saying that you shouldn't miss it!
There's other works by other Uni's, too, such as Loughborough, Cardiff etc... Off the top of my head, Cardiff & an organisation called Media Tenor had produced some of the best work examining broadcast coverage across the UK, US and others in the lead up to the attack on Iraq in 2003. The paper is hard as hell to find but I may have a copy kicking about on my old home computer somwhere in the garage. The BBC were found to have given the least amount of airtime to anti-war voices than virtually every other broadcaster, including the ones we all deride (for good reasons) in the US.
If you'd rather watch than read, these are a couple of very worthwhile investments of anyone's time:
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow (skip the stupid 4 minute vox-pop at the start, it does the issue a major disservice and sets a very poor tone for what is to follow).
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I had your patience when responding to such posts.
Kudos my friend kudos
Ps John pilger has done some great work on other topics. Shame he isn't used as a source/reference more often
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
Also, over 40 comments in and no one’s mentioned BBC radio or the Sounds app.
Commercial radio stations are the absolute worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
People talking about value for money, and I don't use the BBC that much.
I must pay around £150 a month, for mobile phone bills in our house, and 90% of the time, the kids and the missus are using the house WiFi on their phones, in the house.
That's not value for money, but most people don't blink when paying these ridiculous sums of money.
After making the announcement via her Twitter feed, (rather than in the HoCs) here's Dorries trying to correct the record claiming she was only trying to start the debate.
And when questioned on her (unresearched) proposals on future BBC funding, she asserts her oldest colleague "may not even be here by then"
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1483124529215979526?t=go_Gu8LnvBSE1AOCSAakSg&s=19
Hard to believe she's actually an MP never mind in the cabinet
comment by GregAli (U1192)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
The tax needs abolished because the economics of policing and collection make it ineffective and cants like GregAli can pay for it in other ways
---
Fack off
You can continue paying £100 a month for TV, I'd rather save the cash.
You mug.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't be assed reading through all of this but the gist I'm getting is that you, like me, don't pay for a licence. Good on you.
I haven't paid for a licence in over 10 years, despite watching whatever the hell I want. I absolutely love it when they send their black jacket idiots around and I can toy with the pieces of sh-t like a cat with a half-dead mouse. Anyone who pays the BBC a penny needs their heads seeing to.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of it? Literally every single one? And you want me to post their conclusions as well? Isn't that what you're supposed to discover when you read them?
I'm of course happy to get you started, but you'll have to do a little of the legwork yourself, too. There's absolutely zero point in me trying to give summary conclusions. The work is just too varied and vast to adequately attempt it and in any case, I'd much rather people spent the time to learn this stuff as it's incredibly important. I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for any conclusion I'd written, and I'd rather presume that most would dismiss those conclusions as they'd challenge base assumptions too much. Better to just look at the evidence for yourself:
1. Start with: https://www.medialens.org/ - go to 'alerts' and read through 20 years of careful analysis of UK media output on various subjects, with a particular focus on foreign policy & international affairs. I recommend not just reading one or two 'alerts' but to seriously jump back in time and go through a whole load of them. You'll see the same patterns emerging relentlessly and repeatedly. And it's all free! In their earlier days they used to try to engage with journalists and present their work to them for response and commentary, most of which ends up being quite hilarious (journalists don't much like being shown with evidence that their work is crap), so I'd definitely go to their earlier works as they include exchanges from time to time.
2. Same as above, but graduate to their books, which are even more thorough (obviously not free!)
3. I'm putting this at 3 rather than 1 simply because it's the US rather than UK media, however it applies exactly and forms the basis for all serious work on media analysis. It's easily one of the most important books written outside of the sciences. You'll find plenty of essays by the authors and large sections of the word reproduced online if you search for it. But here's the book itself, which is largely comprised of historical matched pairs: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent
4. Multiple works by Glasgow Uni Media Group led by Mike Berry & Greg Philo, with a particular focus on broadcast coverage of various subjects, including Israel/Palestine, coverage of Corbyn's Labour etc... See their various "Bad News..." titles: https://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/about-us/books
5. James Curran: Power Without Responsibility https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428
6. Work by The Media Reform Coalition: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/ I would highly recommend some of their papers & studies. They produced an absolutely devastating indictment of the BBC & Guardian's coverage of the so called "Labour antisemitism crisis", which showed both outlets had been guilty of more misrepresentation of the issue than The Sun (not far behind, mind). I'm not saying only check that one out, but I am saying that you shouldn't miss it!
There's other works by other Uni's, too, such as Loughborough, Cardiff etc... Off the top of my head, Cardiff & an organisation called Media Tenor had produced some of the best work examining broadcast coverage across the UK, US and others in the lead up to the attack on Iraq in 2003. The paper is hard as hell to find but I may have a copy kicking about on my old home computer somwhere in the garage. The BBC were found to have given the least amount of airtime to anti-war voices than virtually every other broadcaster, including the ones we all deride (for good reasons) in the US.
If you'd rather watch than read, these are a couple of very worthwhile investments of anyone's time:
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow (skip the stupid 4 minute vox-pop at the start, it does the issue a major disservice and sets a very poor tone for what is to follow).
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I only asked for links.
Anyway, thanks for the links. I will look into them in my own time. Seems quite interesting and I'm always willing to learn from people more knowledgeable on a subject.
Maybe next time though, try not cutting half of my post out to take it out of context and then coming in with the put downs. Then getting all shirty when asked for links acting as if I've told you to summarise all studies and their conclusions so I don't have to do any work. I genuinely asked for links so I could look for myself.
Quite ironic that someone applauded you for 'patience' in this thread when you actually showed anything but patience. Just a load of anger and frustration. Chill out.
Sign in if you want to comment
The BBC
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago the licensing enforecmentvisited my flat when I was at work ... someone in the block had let them in and they nailed a notice to my door.
I didn't even have a TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then you wont get prosecuted then
posted on 17/1/22
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago the licensing enforecmentvisited my flat when I was at work ... someone in the block had let them in and they nailed a notice to my door.
I didn't even have a TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then you wont get prosecuted then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. They were wasting time and money chasing me.
The procedure back then was you had to WRITE to them to inform them you didn't have a TV ... no email or phone option provided.
Of course there was an easy online/telephone option to pay the license fee!
posted on 17/1/22
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't watch anything that contains cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
So that's 50% of the BBC1 programming that's wasted on me but I do watch a lot of BBC2 and BBC4, I also listen to 5live and 6Music so it evens itself out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lets take today then 17/01/22.
BBC 1 schedule from 9.00am to Midnight (15 hrs of content) that includes cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
Doctors (30 mins)
Eastender (1hour)
That is 1.5 hours of 15 hours. Typically too.
Hardly 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've miraculously stumbled on a day that doesn't include cooking, dancing or singing.
Well done.
posted on 17/1/22
Thought this was goods from back in the day.
https://twitter.com/adilray/status/1482713205206048771?t=Vkn7RufbzjM0e1OcZGD7uQ&s=19
posted on 17/1/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Aren't dogs ... (U3126)
posted 14 seconds ago
Thought this was goods from back in the day.
https://twitter.com/adilray/status/1482713205206048771?t=Vkn7RufbzjM0e1OcZGD7uQ&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh how things have changed.
Watching that I would agree it was worth the license. Just for the cricket alone, for me. And the snooker too
posted on 17/1/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Aren't dogs ... (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
Thought this was goods from back in the day.
https://twitter.com/adilray/status/1482713205206048771?t=Vkn7RufbzjM0e1OcZGD7uQ&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty good, shame half of them are no longer with us.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago the licensing enforecmentvisited my flat when I was at work ... someone in the block had let them in and they nailed a notice to my door.
I didn't even have a TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then you wont get prosecuted then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. They were wasting time and money chasing me.
The procedure back then was you had to WRITE to them to inform them you didn't have a TV ... no email or phone option provided.
Of course there was an easy online/telephone option to pay the license fee!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed the assumption of criminality based on 'address without a TV license' is, in itself, against our justice system.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't watch anything that contains cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
So that's 50% of the BBC1 programming that's wasted on me but I do watch a lot of BBC2 and BBC4, I also listen to 5live and 6Music so it evens itself out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lets take today then 17/01/22.
BBC 1 schedule from 9.00am to Midnight (15 hrs of content) that includes cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
Doctors (30 mins)
Eastender (1hour)
That is 1.5 hours of 15 hours. Typically too.
Hardly 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've miraculously stumbled on a day that doesn't include cooking, dancing or singing.
Well done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I miraculously stumbled on...... Today?
posted on 17/1/22
I still remember my Saturday nights as a nipper - the footy teleprinter, Dr Who, Dixon of Dock Green & The Black & White Minstrel Show. Brilliant! Only 3 channels then, mind.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't watch anything that contains cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
So that's 50% of the BBC1 programming that's wasted on me but I do watch a lot of BBC2 and BBC4, I also listen to 5live and 6Music so it evens itself out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lets take today then 17/01/22.
BBC 1 schedule from 9.00am to Midnight (15 hrs of content) that includes cooking, dancing, singing or soaps.
Doctors (30 mins)
Eastender (1hour)
That is 1.5 hours of 15 hours. Typically too.
Hardly 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've miraculously stumbled on a day that doesn't include cooking, dancing or singing.
Well done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I miraculously stumbled on...... Today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m right though, wait while the week progresses
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 11 minutes ago
If you dont watch BBC output you dont have to buy a licence if you own a TV. Its as sinple as that.
The problem is many do watch the BBC without a licence and they detect it and knock on your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. Detector vans were proven to be a ruse long long ago. Cants like GregAli know this so don’t pay and we enter the ever decreasing circle of lower revenue and more competition.
Lots about the beeb to dislike but lots in its favour too. If nothing else the engineering excellence especially in audio throughout its history is remarkable if not helping it survive nowadays.
It was always a unique institution, an enigma of establishment and latterly woke, leftist agenda, spendthrifts but quality in many respects.
The tax needs abolished because the economics of policing and collection make it ineffective and cants like GregAli can pay for it in other ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true.
You need a licence if you watch ANY live TV on any device.
That includes sky, virgin, YouTube, Amazon, anything that is live, you need a licence for.
You also need a licence for BBC I player, even if you only watch catch up.
You ain't exactly gonna buy a TV licence just to watch dodgy football streams are you?
posted on 17/1/22
I should have included inane game shows in my list.
posted on 17/1/22
The tax needs abolished because the economics of policing and collection make it ineffective and cants like GregAli can pay for it in other ways
---
Fack off
You can continue paying £100 a month for TV, I'd rather save the cash.
You mug.
posted on 17/1/22
Thief
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
posted on 17/1/22
BBC is far from perfect but look at the American media landscape, Foxification of discourse and the mainstreaming of disinformation as a reminder of what greets us if we get rid of a strong public service broadcaster. The interests that are campaigning to bring down the BBC will eagerly usher in similar degradation of our national discourse and democracy (and are actively pushing it in that direction now, and only slightly held back by the strength of reasonably impartial TV news) for base political and commercial reasons.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of it? Literally every single one? And you want me to post their conclusions as well? Isn't that what you're supposed to discover when you read them?
I'm of course happy to get you started, but you'll have to do a little of the legwork yourself, too. There's absolutely zero point in me trying to give summary conclusions. The work is just too varied and vast to adequately attempt it and in any case, I'd much rather people spent the time to learn this stuff as it's incredibly important. I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for any conclusion I'd written, and I'd rather presume that most would dismiss those conclusions as they'd challenge base assumptions too much. Better to just look at the evidence for yourself:
1. Start with: https://www.medialens.org/ - go to 'alerts' and read through 20 years of careful analysis of UK media output on various subjects, with a particular focus on foreign policy & international affairs. I recommend not just reading one or two 'alerts' but to seriously jump back in time and go through a whole load of them. You'll see the same patterns emerging relentlessly and repeatedly. And it's all free! In their earlier days they used to try to engage with journalists and present their work to them for response and commentary, most of which ends up being quite hilarious (journalists don't much like being shown with evidence that their work is crap), so I'd definitely go to their earlier works as they include exchanges from time to time.
2. Same as above, but graduate to their books, which are even more thorough (obviously not free!)
3. I'm putting this at 3 rather than 1 simply because it's the US rather than UK media, however it applies exactly and forms the basis for all serious work on media analysis. It's easily one of the most important books written outside of the sciences. You'll find plenty of essays by the authors and large sections of the word reproduced online if you search for it. But here's the book itself, which is largely comprised of historical matched pairs: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent
4. Multiple works by Glasgow Uni Media Group led by Mike Berry & Greg Philo, with a particular focus on broadcast coverage of various subjects, including Israel/Palestine, coverage of Corbyn's Labour etc... See their various "Bad News..." titles: https://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/about-us/books
5. James Curran: Power Without Responsibility https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428
6. Work by The Media Reform Coalition: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/ I would highly recommend some of their papers & studies. They produced an absolutely devastating indictment of the BBC & Guardian's coverage of the so called "Labour antisemitism crisis", which showed both outlets had been guilty of more misrepresentation of the issue than The Sun (not far behind, mind). I'm not saying only check that one out, but I am saying that you shouldn't miss it!
There's other works by other Uni's, too, such as Loughborough, Cardiff etc... Off the top of my head, Cardiff & an organisation called Media Tenor had produced some of the best work examining broadcast coverage across the UK, US and others in the lead up to the attack on Iraq in 2003. The paper is hard as hell to find but I may have a copy kicking about on my old home computer somwhere in the garage. The BBC were found to have given the least amount of airtime to anti-war voices than virtually every other broadcaster, including the ones we all deride (for good reasons) in the US.
If you'd rather watch than read, these are a couple of very worthwhile investments of anyone's time:
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow (skip the stupid 4 minute vox-pop at the start, it does the issue a major disservice and sets a very poor tone for what is to follow).
Enjoy.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of it? Literally every single one? And you want me to post their conclusions as well? Isn't that what you're supposed to discover when you read them?
I'm of course happy to get you started, but you'll have to do a little of the legwork yourself, too. There's absolutely zero point in me trying to give summary conclusions. The work is just too varied and vast to adequately attempt it and in any case, I'd much rather people spent the time to learn this stuff as it's incredibly important. I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for any conclusion I'd written, and I'd rather presume that most would dismiss those conclusions as they'd challenge base assumptions too much. Better to just look at the evidence for yourself:
1. Start with: https://www.medialens.org/ - go to 'alerts' and read through 20 years of careful analysis of UK media output on various subjects, with a particular focus on foreign policy & international affairs. I recommend not just reading one or two 'alerts' but to seriously jump back in time and go through a whole load of them. You'll see the same patterns emerging relentlessly and repeatedly. And it's all free! In their earlier days they used to try to engage with journalists and present their work to them for response and commentary, most of which ends up being quite hilarious (journalists don't much like being shown with evidence that their work is crap), so I'd definitely go to their earlier works as they include exchanges from time to time.
2. Same as above, but graduate to their books, which are even more thorough (obviously not free!)
3. I'm putting this at 3 rather than 1 simply because it's the US rather than UK media, however it applies exactly and forms the basis for all serious work on media analysis. It's easily one of the most important books written outside of the sciences. You'll find plenty of essays by the authors and large sections of the word reproduced online if you search for it. But here's the book itself, which is largely comprised of historical matched pairs: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent
4. Multiple works by Glasgow Uni Media Group led by Mike Berry & Greg Philo, with a particular focus on broadcast coverage of various subjects, including Israel/Palestine, coverage of Corbyn's Labour etc... See their various "Bad News..." titles: https://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/about-us/books
5. James Curran: Power Without Responsibility https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428
6. Work by The Media Reform Coalition: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/ I would highly recommend some of their papers & studies. They produced an absolutely devastating indictment of the BBC & Guardian's coverage of the so called "Labour antisemitism crisis", which showed both outlets had been guilty of more misrepresentation of the issue than The Sun (not far behind, mind). I'm not saying only check that one out, but I am saying that you shouldn't miss it!
There's other works by other Uni's, too, such as Loughborough, Cardiff etc... Off the top of my head, Cardiff & an organisation called Media Tenor had produced some of the best work examining broadcast coverage across the UK, US and others in the lead up to the attack on Iraq in 2003. The paper is hard as hell to find but I may have a copy kicking about on my old home computer somwhere in the garage. The BBC were found to have given the least amount of airtime to anti-war voices than virtually every other broadcaster, including the ones we all deride (for good reasons) in the US.
If you'd rather watch than read, these are a couple of very worthwhile investments of anyone's time:
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow (skip the stupid 4 minute vox-pop at the start, it does the issue a major disservice and sets a very poor tone for what is to follow).
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I had your patience when responding to such posts.
Kudos my friend kudos
Ps John pilger has done some great work on other topics. Shame he isn't used as a source/reference more often
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
Also, over 40 comments in and no one’s mentioned BBC radio or the Sounds app.
Commercial radio stations are the absolute worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
posted on 17/1/22
People talking about value for money, and I don't use the BBC that much.
I must pay around £150 a month, for mobile phone bills in our house, and 90% of the time, the kids and the missus are using the house WiFi on their phones, in the house.
That's not value for money, but most people don't blink when paying these ridiculous sums of money.
posted on 17/1/22
After making the announcement via her Twitter feed, (rather than in the HoCs) here's Dorries trying to correct the record claiming she was only trying to start the debate.
And when questioned on her (unresearched) proposals on future BBC funding, she asserts her oldest colleague "may not even be here by then"
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1483124529215979526?t=go_Gu8LnvBSE1AOCSAakSg&s=19
Hard to believe she's actually an MP never mind in the cabinet
posted on 17/1/22
comment by GregAli (U1192)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
The tax needs abolished because the economics of policing and collection make it ineffective and cants like GregAli can pay for it in other ways
---
Fack off
You can continue paying £100 a month for TV, I'd rather save the cash.
You mug.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't be assed reading through all of this but the gist I'm getting is that you, like me, don't pay for a licence. Good on you.
I haven't paid for a licence in over 10 years, despite watching whatever the hell I want. I absolutely love it when they send their black jacket idiots around and I can toy with the pieces of sh-t like a cat with a half-dead mouse. Anyone who pays the BBC a penny needs their heads seeing to.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Given both Labour and Tory supporters think the BBC is against them. Leave and Remain both think it was biased to the other side. I'd suggest it has been pretty neutral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than [wrongly] "suggest" this, why not look at the numerous studies and analysis of systemic bias in British print & broadcast media, conducted over long periods of time and by multiple independent sources on a wide variety of news topics? It's an impeccably well researched, documented & studied subject, if you know where to look of course.
The "both sides say it's biased so therefore it must be neutral" is simply wrong on every level and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic bias in media reporting actually works and looks. You're absolutely right that there are people who accuse certain media outlets of bias from all sorts of angles and directions, much of it angrily and without recourse to evidence. But that's the point; we have all the evidence on this particular subject we need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than needlessly post about how 'impeccably well researched' the subject is, why don't you post links to all the research and its conclusions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of it? Literally every single one? And you want me to post their conclusions as well? Isn't that what you're supposed to discover when you read them?
I'm of course happy to get you started, but you'll have to do a little of the legwork yourself, too. There's absolutely zero point in me trying to give summary conclusions. The work is just too varied and vast to adequately attempt it and in any case, I'd much rather people spent the time to learn this stuff as it's incredibly important. I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for any conclusion I'd written, and I'd rather presume that most would dismiss those conclusions as they'd challenge base assumptions too much. Better to just look at the evidence for yourself:
1. Start with: https://www.medialens.org/ - go to 'alerts' and read through 20 years of careful analysis of UK media output on various subjects, with a particular focus on foreign policy & international affairs. I recommend not just reading one or two 'alerts' but to seriously jump back in time and go through a whole load of them. You'll see the same patterns emerging relentlessly and repeatedly. And it's all free! In their earlier days they used to try to engage with journalists and present their work to them for response and commentary, most of which ends up being quite hilarious (journalists don't much like being shown with evidence that their work is crap), so I'd definitely go to their earlier works as they include exchanges from time to time.
2. Same as above, but graduate to their books, which are even more thorough (obviously not free!)
3. I'm putting this at 3 rather than 1 simply because it's the US rather than UK media, however it applies exactly and forms the basis for all serious work on media analysis. It's easily one of the most important books written outside of the sciences. You'll find plenty of essays by the authors and large sections of the word reproduced online if you search for it. But here's the book itself, which is largely comprised of historical matched pairs: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent
4. Multiple works by Glasgow Uni Media Group led by Mike Berry & Greg Philo, with a particular focus on broadcast coverage of various subjects, including Israel/Palestine, coverage of Corbyn's Labour etc... See their various "Bad News..." titles: https://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/about-us/books
5. James Curran: Power Without Responsibility https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428
6. Work by The Media Reform Coalition: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/ I would highly recommend some of their papers & studies. They produced an absolutely devastating indictment of the BBC & Guardian's coverage of the so called "Labour antisemitism crisis", which showed both outlets had been guilty of more misrepresentation of the issue than The Sun (not far behind, mind). I'm not saying only check that one out, but I am saying that you shouldn't miss it!
There's other works by other Uni's, too, such as Loughborough, Cardiff etc... Off the top of my head, Cardiff & an organisation called Media Tenor had produced some of the best work examining broadcast coverage across the UK, US and others in the lead up to the attack on Iraq in 2003. The paper is hard as hell to find but I may have a copy kicking about on my old home computer somwhere in the garage. The BBC were found to have given the least amount of airtime to anti-war voices than virtually every other broadcaster, including the ones we all deride (for good reasons) in the US.
If you'd rather watch than read, these are a couple of very worthwhile investments of anyone's time:
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow (skip the stupid 4 minute vox-pop at the start, it does the issue a major disservice and sets a very poor tone for what is to follow).
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I only asked for links.
posted on 17/1/22
Anyway, thanks for the links. I will look into them in my own time. Seems quite interesting and I'm always willing to learn from people more knowledgeable on a subject.
Maybe next time though, try not cutting half of my post out to take it out of context and then coming in with the put downs. Then getting all shirty when asked for links acting as if I've told you to summarise all studies and their conclusions so I don't have to do any work. I genuinely asked for links so I could look for myself.
Quite ironic that someone applauded you for 'patience' in this thread when you actually showed anything but patience. Just a load of anger and frustration. Chill out.
Page 5 of 6
6