Our left wing BBC [with evidence]

PhylPho

Attributing a Leftwing bias to the BBC's TV news operations presupposes the existence of a professional outfit skilled in the ways of slanted journalism.

Er. . . Not so. It isn't political bias that hallmarks BBC TV News nowadays but downright amateurism, as if the programme Editors and Director of News have no more idea what a story is than my cat.

Today's idiocy was but a further example of that: BBC TV leading with a story that was already many hours ouf of date, whilst Sky News led with news, background, and comment on the breaking situation in Tunisia, and the impact of that upon thousands of UK holidaymakers either out there already or about to depart.

I sometimes wish the CVs of the BBC's journalistic hierarchy were publicly available. Then again though, looking at what passes for news sense in BBC TV nowadays is sufficient: you just know these massively overpaid individuals most likely never even made it as far as a job on a local free sheet.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Then there's the ITV model: stick on loads of tat and bung in adverts in between. Or the Sky model: buy up all the sport and make people buy everything else to be able to watch the soccer.

You gone native on us Gen?

Generali wrote: »

They sell a lot of programs over here and to the mainstream, free-to-air channels too.

I don't think they make huge sums on them apart from the odd exception (eg Top Gear).

Here's the BBC Worldwide Annual Review so you can see what they make from what:

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/media/19346/bbc%20worldwide%20annual%20review%202009-10.pdf

Looks like content and production are pretty lucrative, not only from the fact that Torchwood and Dr Who have taken off in the US, but also from owning formats such as Strictly aka Dancing with the Stars.

wotsthat

PhylPho wrote: »

Er. . . Not so. It isn't political bias that hallmarks BBC TV News nowadays but downright amateurism, as if the programme Editors and Director of News have no more idea what a story is than my cat.

If you are saying that your cat isn't particularly aware of current affairs then I'd agree. What gets me wound up is that the BBC think their viewers/ listeners are stupid.

Next time you listen to an interview with the chancellor on the Today programme I guarantee that as soon as it finishes Nick Robinson will be wheeled in to explain to us simple souls what we just heard with our own ears. The explanation will likely take longer than the original interview did in the first place.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

You gone native on us Gen?

Football covers many sports (Association football, rugbies, AFL, NFL, Shrove Tuesday football etc). Soccer is short for association like rugger is short for rugby.

I used to use the term soccer in the UK too. Mostly to annoy people that think that it's an Americanism.

Basically I'm a WUM in real life as well as on the interweb.

Profit to the BBC from commercial activities seems to be £87,900,000. BBC's total spending is £4,268,000,000.

michaels

The BBC are 'institutionally biased' so it is hard for them to realise.

What annoyed me is the other day ETA renounced violence for good (anyone notice? BBC didn't see it as the main story - for them another shooting in the US was much bigger news) but the BBC had this as a small story and the US shooting for a couple of days as the top story - reason? The US shooting highlights the 'crazy' attitude to guns they have in the USA. People like them (BBC employees) can see that Europe is much more advanced and civilised than the US and so every time there is something that seems to reflect badly on the US it needs to be headlined in the hope of educating some of the Disney loving plebs who think that actually the US (with twice the GDP per head that we have) has a lot going for it.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

Profit to the BBC from commercial activities seems to be £87,900,000. BBC's total spending is £4,268,000,000.

2% not subsidising much then. It's better than nothing don't get me wrong.

Looking in to it the top 5 programs bring in £40M of that.

So as you say your advert guy "how the BBC is uniquely funded" is right. Without it it would not have serious issues supporting it's spending

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

Profit to the BBC from commercial activities seems to be £87,900,000. BBC's total spending is £4,268,000,000.

Are you sure the commercial activities includes foreign TV sales? I have a lurking feeling that what the BBC means by commercial services is Books, DVD's and memorabilia sales.

Not foreign TV channels and sales of TV programs.

I could be wrong about it, I am not a BBC expert.

michaels wrote: »

The BBC are 'institutionally biased' so it is hard for them to realise.

What annoyed me is the other day ETA renounced violence for good (anyone notice? BBC didn't see it as the main story - for them another shooting in the US was much bigger news) but the BBC had this as a small story and the US shooting for a couple of days as the top story - reason?

First congresscritter shot for 30 years, it's a pretty big story, especially when a kid and Judge was shot as well. Whereas, no one in Britain cares much about what happens in Spain.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

Are you sure the commercial activities includes foreign TV sales? I have a lurking feeling that what the BBC means by commercial services is Books, DVD's and memorabilia sales.

Not foreign TV channels and sales of TV programs.

I could be wrong about it, I am not a BBC expert.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/06/top-gear-bbc-worldwide-profit

Top Gear was BBC Worldwide's biggest-selling TV show internationally last year and – alongside its fellow mega-brands Doctor Who, BBC Earth and Lonely Planet – helped earn more than £200m in revenue and more than £40m in profits.
The exploitation of everything from TV programme sales to live events, DVDs and magazines from Doctor Who, Top Gear and BBC Earth – an umbrella brand for natural history output – raked in £147.3m in revenue for BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm, in the year to the end of March.

They turn over a fair bit, but looks like they cost a fair bit to sell also, may be loss making lines etc?

PhylPho

If you're referring to BBC TV news, then it's actually not alone in giving more broadcast time to a story with "good video" (Arizona shootings) than to one without (two ETA blokes giving a newspaper interview): image is all.

Besides, the BBC may have been faced with the same difficulty as any other broadcaster where ETA is concerned, i.e., just how many times is violence going to be renounced "for good"?

ETA announced a "permanent cease fire" in March 2006, bombed Madrid Airport just six months later, and then announced in June 2007 that the, er, "permanent ceasefire" was cancelled.

The_White_Horse

Generali wrote: »

like rugger is short for rugby.

isn't it longer?