Rupert Murdoch's Paywall

[Centurion1]

It's not free, no. You have to pay what amounts to a tax on your telly every year, of about £130.

That said, it's great value for money. No adverts, quality news reporting, free websites, a mandate to provide for every person in Britain; broadcasting is seen as a public service, and it is the right of all Britons to be able to both expect something they will enjoy from their television, and also experience balanced journalism.

The point is you have no choice. I enjoy the BBC's educational programs but i would disagree the news is actually neutral. The one good thing about foreign news is it does alot less local and national stuff so i can see what going on in the world. It has to be an act of god for the news here to cover anything beyond the US's borders.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The BBC is the world's best broadcaster by far.

Don't destroy this prized British institution, the envy of the world, over 'liberal media bias' hysteria that crossed the Atlantic via aggresive media moguls.

[Pannonian]

The BBC is the world's best broadcaster by far.

Don't destroy this prized British institution, the envy of the world, over 'liberal media bias' hysteria that crossed the Atlantic via aggresive media moguls.

The BBC is actually famously conservative, in the British tradition. The British tradition of conservatism isn't so much an accepted range of thinking a la a mos maiorum, but an accepted approach to thinking and doing. Nothing very fast, but don't shy away from different things. That's why the paradigm-breaking premiership of Thatcher was very unconservative, while the decades-long campaign to end slavery was in the conservative tradition. The BBC is in the latter school. Conservative does not equal reactionary.

John Reith

The term 'Reithianism' describes certain principles of broadcasting associated with Lord Reith. These include an equal consideration of all viewpoints, probity, universality and a commitment to public service. It can be distinguished from the free-market approach to broadcasting, where programming aims to attract the largest audiences or advertising revenues, ahead of - and, in practice, often contrary to - any artistic merit, impartiality, educative or entertainment values, that a programme may have.

Reith summarized the BBC's purpose in three words: educate, inform, entertain; this remains part of the organisation's mission statement to this day.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think the BBC has a distinctly biased "David Cameron-esque" lean to it. PC, but stodgy. Not a Tory, but clearly no Labour. Add a sprinkle of Liberal for flavouring.

[Furunculus]

The BBC is actually famously conservative, in the British tradition. The British tradition of conservatism isn't so much an accepted range of thinking a la a mos maiorum, but an accepted approach to thinking and doing. Nothing very fast, but don't shy away from different things. That's why the paradigm-breaking premiership of Thatcher was very unconservative, while the decades-long campaign to end slavery was in the conservative tradition. The BBC is in the latter school. Conservative does not equal reactionary.

John Reith

The term 'Reithianism' describes certain principles of broadcasting associated with Lord Reith. These include an equal consideration of all viewpoints, probity, universality and a commitment to public service. It can be distinguished from the free-market approach to broadcasting, where programming aims to attract the largest audiences or advertising revenues, ahead of - and, in practice, often contrary to - any artistic merit, impartiality, educative or entertainment values, that a programme may have.

Reith summarized the BBC's purpose in three words: educate, inform, entertain; this remains part of the organisation's mission statement to this day.

that may be how it started, that is not how it is now.

show me that report into BBC bias and i'll be willing to concede the point, as long as they keep it locked up I won't.

[bobbin]

I think that, considering the BBC gets accused by both right and left wingers of being too biasied to the other side, shows it is infact pretty neutral (by UK standards).

[Beskar]

I think that, considering the BBC gets accused by both right and left wingers of being too biasied to the other side, shows it is infact pretty neutral (by UK standards).

Indeed. It definitely isn't left-wing paradise, it gets most of its foreign policy news for instance from the government propaganda machine.

[Subotan]

The point is you have no choice. I enjoy the BBC's educational programs but i would disagree the news is actually neutral. The one good thing about foreign news is it does alot less local and national stuff so i can see what going on in the world. It has to be an act of god for the news here to cover anything beyond the US's borders.

How is it biased? Can you give some examples?

I do remember seeing in America some news program called "WORLD NEWS", that only had pieces about America.

The BBC is the world's best broadcaster by far.

Don't destroy this prized British institution, the envy of the world, over 'liberal media bias' hysteria that crossed the Atlantic via aggresive media moguls.

I notice how News Corp likes to use the arguments "Ooh help us! The mighty state is crowding us out! We're helpless in the face of such mighty government muscle!" and "Come on, the state is useless. The private sector is far better at delivering what the public wants." simultaneously.

I think that, considering the BBC gets accused by both right and left wingers of being too biasied to the other side, shows it is infact pretty neutral (by UK standards).

During the Thatcher years, the Labour Party and especially Militant accused the BBC of being too Tory.
Considering that the BBC has a natural closer fit with the Labour Party than the Conservative Party, I think the BBC does very well to treat both sides fairly (As well as the Libdems, lol)

[Furunculus]

show. me. the. report!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-to-Lords.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecre...n_the_bbc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...za-paranoia.do

[HoreTore]

show. me. the. report!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-to-Lords.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecre...n_the_bbc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...za-paranoia.do

So.... The BBC is:

- Biased against Israel
- Biased towards supporting the war in Iraq
- Racist towards indians
- Politically correct because they discuss whether burning holy books is comedy and if headscarfs are okay
- And a bunch of other stuff...

Just how is that "liberal bias"? How many liberals supported the war in Iraq? How many liberals would need a discussion to decide whether people can dress themselves as they please?

Not to mention that your last source is heavily biased as well, against the bbc! An internal report is internal, it's not secret.

[Furunculus]

An internal report is internal, it's not secret.

your optimism is impressive, and irrelevant as you are not asked to pay for it.

i want to see that report before i even contemplate paying for a license fee. not saying it is the sole or even principle reason why i don't have a tele, but it is certainly a nail in the coffin.

[KukriKhan]

Re: "pay to read"; I remember when Slate magazine first came out as a $15 per year subscription. Eyeballs stayed away in droves. Micro$oft changed its mind and ran it for free, with adverts. Now it's quite popular. But then, we have to remember it's bankrolled by MS, which can presumably afford a loss-leader. In this day and age, I don't know how any hard copy indie newspaper makes it. Even the big chains (Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Times-Mirror) are groaning.

On television license fees: I was astonished at that Euro procedure when I learned of it. My German girlfriend pointed out the little truck that cruised neighborhoods, detecting TV receivers, sending a bill to homes that hadn't reported an extra TV in the bedroom, for example. Nowadays, I watch less than 2 hours of TV daily on average, preferring radio and internet.

Thank you Brits for the BBC; it can be a breath of fresh air in the swamp of American media. I always look forward to their World News on the radio, as I watch the sun go down from my back porch, smoking a ciggy & having an end-of-day brewski (I suppose I should drink tea than, but hey...).

[Lemur]

Took me ages to convince the wife that I wasn't having her on when I explained the British system of TV. She was sure I was making it up to mess with her mind. And truthfully, if you've been raised in the American system, it sounds like something from Atlantis. But yeah, thanks for the BBC, they really are a resource. Like Kukri says, World News makes driving bearable.

[gaelic cowboy]

I like the fact is not afraid to do unusual programmes I mean last night I came in from throwing some silage in the feeder to the cattle to see a programme on lambing live on BBC was a bit mistified as to the broader appeal to the british public of this but who cares it was interesting to watch

[Meneldil]

Re: "pay to read"; I remember when Slate magazine first came out as a $15 per year subscription. Eyeballs stayed away in droves. Micro$oft changed its mind and ran it for free, with adverts. Now it's quite popular. But then, we have to remember it's bankrolled by MS, which can presumably afford a loss-leader. In this day and age, I don't know how any hard copy indie newspaper makes it. Even the big chains (Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Times-Mirror) are groaning.

You point the issue pretty well. News networks owned by other companies can afford to lose money. And news networks owned by other companies aren't usually ranking high in the "free and independant press" department (I like Slate, but it certainly isn't top notch journalism, rather a blog for somewhat well known liberals).

The question was raised in France, where the printed press is usually extremely weak (it receives 2 billions of euros each year from the governement, to ensure it doesn't completely disappear). Instead of trying to think about a working economical model, most online news networks whined and bitched until the government agreed to give them money too. Ridiculous. French press is doomed.

[HoreTore]

your optimism is impressive, and irrelevant as you are not asked to pay for it.

i want to see that report before i even contemplate paying for a license fee. not saying it is the sole or even principle reason why i don't have a tele, but it is certainly a nail in the coffin.

Uhm..... Do you even know what internal reports are, and what they are for?

If people want to know whether the BBC's coverage of something is biased or not, why not get an independant study to find that out? Why do you have to get your hands on a tool no respectable organization will ever let an outsider see?

@Lemur: The reason we do it this way instead of just financing it over the national budget, is that the funding will be stable and it won't rely on the goodwill of the politicians in control, a rather important point for a broadcaster, as they have absolutely no fear that smearing those in power will result in less funding.

The big downside is, of course, that it's not progressive.

[Pannonian]

your optimism is impressive, and irrelevant as you are not asked to pay for it.

i want to see that report before i even contemplate paying for a license fee. not saying it is the sole or even principle reason why i don't have a tele, but it is certainly a nail in the coffin.

You judge the BBC by the position it takes on one issue?

[Furunculus]

Uhm..... Do you even know what internal reports are, and what they are for?

If people want to know whether the BBC's coverage of something is biased or not, why not get an independant study to find that out? Why do you have to get your hands on a tool no respectable organization will ever let an outsider see?

i don't care, if they want me to pay a license fee, then they can explain their apparent bias.

[HoreTore]

i don't care, if they want me to pay a license fee, then they can explain their apparent bias.

Sucks to be you then, seeing as you don't have much influence but is still required to pay the license....

EDIT: but you do realize that forcing the BBC to release internal documents will reduce debate within the BBC? People will word themselves differently and more carefully the larger the audience is... So, if there actually is an anti-Israeli bias in the BBC, forcing them to hold the debate on whether they have a bias or not in public as opposed to internally will actually reduce the likelihood of them correcting said bias.

So in other words, you forcing them to release that report will give you a BBC even less to your liking. Enjoy the fruits of your labour.

[Furunculus]

"not saying it is the sole or even principle reason why i don't have a tele, but it is certainly a nail in the coffin."

You judge the BBC by the position it takes on one issue?

;)

[Furunculus]

Sucks to be you then, seeing as you don't have much influence but is still required to pay the license....

i'm not, and i don't. ;)

[Pannonian]

"not saying it is the sole or even principle reason why i don't have a tele, but it is certainly a nail in the coffin."


;)

It's the decisive factor for you, and the only one you mention.

"i don't care, if they want me to pay a license fee, then they can explain their apparent bias. "

Despite its reputation around the world of being the least biased of all news organisations, you judge against it because it deems itself to be less than perfect. Tell me, where do you get your news from?

[Pannonian]

Sucks to be you then, seeing as you don't have much influence but is still required to pay the license....

EDIT: but you do realize that forcing the BBC to release internal documents will reduce debate within the BBC? People will word themselves differently and more carefully the larger the audience is... So, if there actually is an anti-Israeli bias in the BBC, forcing them to hold the debate on whether they have a bias or not in public as opposed to internally will actually reduce the likelihood of them correcting said bias.

So in other words, you forcing them to release that report will give you a BBC even less to your liking. Enjoy the fruits of your labour.

More importantly, the very fact that there is internal debate makes the BBC progressive, even if it remains conservative. The British conservative tradition has always had a touch of progressivism, never fearing to analyse itself and adjust if necessary (see Wellington for an example of an arch-conservative who accepted change). The opposite of this can probably be most closely described as reactionism. Procedurally, this takes the form of rejecting self-analysis, or not even seeing the need to do so.

[Louis VI the Fat]

BBC has anti-Muslim bias
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-network.html

No! The BBC has anti-Sikh bias
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100235284.html

The BBC has anti-Catholic bias
http://www.zenit.org/article-28330?l=english

The BBC has biased reporting in Iran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j6lfk

The BBC has anti-Israel bias
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/ar.../00000268.html

Research shows that the BBC has a pro-Israel bias
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=9307

Maybe its the Anti-Palestines bias then
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BBC+ex...as-a0192659707

The BBC has pro-Europe bias
http://www.globalbritain.org/BBC.asp

The BBC has a pro-Oxbridge bias
http://www.newstatesman.com/educatio...dge-university

The BBC has a pro-Eco bias
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/me...n-bbc-eco-bias

The BBC has anti-English bias
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/BBC...ish.4306245.jp

Thee BBC has pro-Microsoft bias
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/...oft-pro-1.html

The BBC has pro-West End Musicals bias, says Kevin Spacey
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/03/...s-bbc-of-bias/

I'm so bored with BBC bias conspiracy: http://dizzythinks.net/2009/09/im-so...onspiracy.html

[Lemur]

BBC has anti-Muslim bias
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-network.html

No! The BBC has anti-Sikh bias
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100235284.html

The BBC has anti-Catholic bias
http://www.zenit.org/article-28330?l=english

The BBC has biased reporting in Iran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j6lfk

The BBC has anti-Israel bias
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/ar.../00000268.html

Research shows that the BBC has a pro-Israel bias
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=9307

Maybe its the Anti-Palestines bias then
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BBC+ex...as-a0192659707

The BBC has pro-Europe bias
http://www.globalbritain.org/BBC.asp

The BBC has a pro-Oxbridge bias
http://www.newstatesman.com/educatio...dge-university

The BBC has a pro-Eco bias
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/me...n-bbc-eco-bias

The BBC has anti-English bias
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/BBC...ish.4306245.jp

Thee BBC has pro-Microsoft bias
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/...oft-pro-1.html

The BBC has pro-West End Musicals bias, says Kevin Spacey
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/03/...s-bbc-of-bias/

I'm so bored with BBC bias conspiracy: http://dizzythinks.net/2009/09/im-so...onspiracy.html

Epic, Louis, just epic.

[Subotan]

I love that post, and I love Orson Welles. Here's a better res version: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/...f47bd486_o.gif

[Furunculus]

It's the decisive factor for you, and the only one you mention.

Despite its reputation around the world of being the least biased of all news organisations, you judge against it because it deems itself to be less than perfect. Tell me, where do you get your news from?

no it isn't, i specifically said so.

doing an open all tabs on my news (not inc blogs) subfolder in firefox we get:
http://www.atimes.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.reuters.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.theatlantic.com/
http://www.time.com/time/
http://www.economist.com/index.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/
http://www.medialens.org/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
http://www.ft.com/home/europe
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
http://www.nrc.nl/international/
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/english/
http://www.icenews.is/
http://europe.wsj.com/home-page
http://www.independent.ie/ (thanks Gaelic Cowboy)

[Idaho]

So many people bandy about the the term 'bias' as if just to say the word explained fully why a particular source critically appraises something they don't want critically appraised.

If I investigate Israeli military atrocities I am not 'biased'. If I report on the successful private healthcare system of x country I am not 'biased'.

Selection of what to cover may well reflect a bias toward a particular type of story or issue. And if I then selectively present evidence from what I see, that would also reflect a bias. But just saying x source is biased is inane and dull, and is what one would expect from 12 year olds on their first outing on a message board and have once heard a big boy use a word they didn't fully understand.

[Beskar]

But just saying x source is biased is inane and dull, and is what one would expect from 12 year olds on their first outing on a message board and have once heard a big boy use a word they didn't fully understand.

You are so cliché.

[HoreTore]

12 year olds on their first outing on a message board and have once heard a big boy use a word they didn't fully understand.

This is the reaction I get every time I read something that comes from the marketing department....

except the part about the message board...