Talk:BBC/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Removed "Purpose and Future Evolution" discussion

I removed the following section, on the grounds that it was completely inapprporiate for an encyclopedia entry:

This can be split into various thought streams and it falls as a challenge to the wikipedia community to arrive at a impartial summary of the perceived current aims and future state of this revered public service institution, both with a British and global perspective. Even the top bosses and the British Government can not agree on a meaningful, practical and concise definition and as an exercise in the intelligence of crowds it may be useful to compile a growing definition here. This can be inspired by refering to specific parts of BBC output (TV, radio and online) and arriving at a kind of messianic mission statement that acts as a clear guiding philosophy for the future. This defined purpose contains people's current perception of the structure and the type of institution everyone expects it to be in future.

The current aims and purpose of the BBC are

* to inform educate and entertain.

* to act as an impartial source of news and current affairs without commercial or political pressure.

BBC Future

The validity and practicality of the above definition can be tested by compiling a list of predictions. With reference to the above, the BBC is likely to change in the following way:  :

* increase coverage of Europe and World Affairs

* maintain a non-subscription model to maintain impartiality and minimise government or commercial bias

* reduce reality and lifestyle shows

Article too pro-bbc

I'm concerned about the strong pro-bbc stance of this article. Also in the section "Television" some sections need to be changed to remove factual errors:

The passage:

"The nations of the United Kingdom (Wales and Scotland, and the province of Northern Ireland) have been granted more autonomy from the UK network; for example, programmes are mostly introduced by local announcers, rather than by those in London. BBC One and BBC Two schedules in the UK nations can vary immensely from BBC One and BBC Two in England."

should be changed to something like:

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been granted more autonomy within the UK network. BBC One and BBC Two schedules in different parts of the UK can vary immensely from those of BBC One and BBC Two in England.

The passage:

"Programmes, such as the politically fuelled Give My Head Peace (produced by BBC Northern Ireland) and the soap opera River City (produced by BBC Scotland), have been created specifically to cater for viewers in their respective nations, who may have found programmes created for English audiences irrelevant."

should be changed to something like:

Programmes, such as the politically fuelled Give My Head Peace (produced by BBC Northern Ireland) and the soap opera River City (produced by BBC Scotland), have been created specifically to cater for viewers in their respective countries.

The passage:

"However, the BBC produces many programmes shown across the UK, such as The Good Life, One Foot in the Grave, Harry Enfield and Chums and EastEnders. The UK nations also produce a number of programmes that are shown across the UK, such as BBC Scotland's comedy series Chewin' the Fat, and BBC Northern Ireland's talk show Patrick Kielty: Almost Live. "

should be changed to something like:

However, most BBC programmes are shown across the UK. Such as The Good Life, One Foot in the Grave, Harry Enfield and Chums and EastEnders. The UK regions also produce a number of programmes that are shown across the UK. Such as BBC Scotland's comedy series Chewin' the Fat, and BBC Northern Ireland's talk show Patrick Kielty: Almost Live. WikiUser 20:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first one is fine, though a bit pointless, the second uses the wrong word (W/S/NI are nations, but not countries), and the third has slightly poor grammar (". Such as" rather than ", such as"), but other than that, why not just make the edits yourself?

James F. (talk) 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biased?

As a Scot I know how biased the BBC can be, especially when covering matters concerning our politics and history, however, I think it is a bit much of Fox News to paint the BBC as "anti-American"... I find the major American news networks such as Fox and CNN to be a lot less impartial than the BBC is.

The BBC's other bias may be "queen kissing", but this is not as common as it once was. ("Queen kissing" means excessive coverage and fawning over the Royal family... one purveyor being Jenny Bond)

To be fair, Jenny Bond was the Royal correspondent. She wouldn't have had a job without the royal family. I'm a republican with longstanding antiroyalist views but I wouldn't accuse the BBC of being too indulgent of royalty. They seldom seem to faun in the way that was common back in the seventies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. I have my gripes with the BBC, oen of them being that like the NHS and other organisations they are pretending to be commercial in the UK too much, especially Radio 1... but when you see what else is out there, I'm happy with them.

Many feel BBC is too pro US and UK governments, especially during war time. This is legitimate criticism backed by facts and statistics. POV pushers need to back off and stop propagandizing Wikipedia.

Eh? So the controversies about Peter Snow on Newsnight during the Falklands War, or the Gilligan affair last year were all a figment of everyone's imagination?? It's nonsense to say the BBC is "pro the UK government", it applies a proper standard of journalistic detachment, and accordingly frequently finds itself under fire from the UK government (of any political persuasion). -- Arwel 22:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really wouldn't consider that Fox News is impartial. It stands, in my opinion, as one of the worst news services in the world 81.179.67.231 00:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

recent changes

I'm sorry MPLX, but I really don't like the recent changes you've made to this article. Specifically I don't like the way that the history about the establishment of the BBC has been moved out of this article. The history section was very useful in quickly bring you up to speed and why the BBC exists and how it evolved. But now you're just left in the dark unless you click on British Broadcasting Company. Unless you intend to VASTLY expand the British Broadcasting Company article, I see no reason why it shouldn't be re-incorporated back into this article. Jooler 12:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original article was too long and the Wiki edit notice stated that it was so. There was duplication in a LOT of articles about radio and television. I have also expanded the radio article.

On the question of events prior to 1927. The Corporation began in 1927 and the events prior to 1927 have nothing to do with the history of the Corporation but a separate company with its own history which I DO intend to EXPAND in a major way. I am very knowledgeable in this area and I will be able to bring together a LOT of new information. I have also begun stubs for the International Broadcasting Company and Captain Plugge, MP. which also factors in on events within the Corporation. I have also already added beginning links to WWII broadcasting by the Corporation which I also intend to EXPAND.

Back on the history of the British Broadcasting Company, Ltd. I have only been able to begin to schedule new copy by removing the existing history which had been placed on the Corporation pages because of the slowness of the Wiki editing system which I am sure you have experienced yourself. In fact it took me twice the time that it would normally have taken to accomplish what I have already accomplished because of these server problems. Finally the mere fact that the prior arrangement seemed fine reveals the need for adding a lot of new text because the original layout looked as if it had been lifted straight out of a BBC Handbook. Aside from other things I am also a broadcasting historian.

Your comment that The history section was very useful in quickly bring you up to speed and why the BBC exists and how it evolved reveals the problem. What had been posted was NOT a true picture at all and yes, I do intend to DOCUMENT all information added. MPLX/MH 15:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a follow-up. I discovered that there was no foundation article about the British General Post Office and so I had to create a disambiguation page to untangle the stub that did exist. Without understanding what the British General Post Office was, it is impossible to understand why the British Broadcasting Company, Ltd., was created in 1922 and why the subsequent Crown Corporation was created in 1927. My problem in terms of speed in doing this work is the slow speed of Wikipedia which has now gone to snail's pace again. I am going to break off for a few hours until the peak traffic falls off with the hope that I can then edit with a degree of efficiency and not time-wasting waiting for something to happen. However, I am working on these articles. MPLX/MH 17:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nearly all of the "reputation" section seems to be about the Gilligan-Kelly-Hutton-WMD controversy which, while undoubtedly important to the BBC doesn't deserve quite such extensive coverage in the main article. I recommend scything deep into the article and taking out nearly all of this into a seperate page. The question of the BBC's reputation is best answered by a look at the whole history of the corporation, not a scandal/whitewash/whatever that occurred a matter of months ago. Also, while of course we must be careful not to be too pro-BBC, the fact is that it's hugely respected around the globe, and has a standing that Hutton's garbage didn't seem to dent in any serious way. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In answer to (Talk): Someone else was the author of the Hutton stuff and it was originally of massive proportions that overwhelmed the article. If you will notice my history of editing I wrote that this needed to be cut down. I did so but I did not delete it. The problem with including it made it look as if that was the only scandal that the BBC had been involved in so I wrote and included the section on the Secret Society scandals which really did rock both BBC television and radio and cause the Director General to resign. There were NO references on this article and I included those as well. I don't object to your suggestion of a separate article regarding BBC scandals and directing attention to that page. I fear that if too much pruning is done then nothing will make any sense. So a brief one line mention of the Milne and Hutton incidents with directed reference to a larger article is fine by me and I will take you up on the idea. MPLX/MH 00:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree that the article has not been improved. The Secret Society incident needs limiting to about the same volume of text as the other incidents, and the position of the GPO as former regulator of the RF spectrum in the UK belongs exactly there - in the article on the GPO - as it actually bears very little relevance to the founding of the BBC beyond the fact that, well, the GPO was the regulator of the time. Big deal. The BBC was originally founded (as in, financed) by a consortium of manufacturers of radio receivers in order to give people something to listen to, and the GPO issued a transmitting licence to do it. The licencing bit is pretty inaccurate - no revenue from transmitting licences has ever gone to the BBC. The licence fee was for a licence specifically to receive broadcast radio and (later) television signals within the UK, not some all-encompassing idea of "electrically coded signals". The problem with writing about the BBC is that there are millions of areas in which people are going to claim bias, so POV is more or less inevitable... Mpk 23:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding comments by Mpk concerning BBC scandals, I am in agreement with the idea of Trilobite above and moving this to a separate article. The big problem with the original article was that it was a rambling and repetitious mess before I started working on it. It had NO references at all! I have now begun to add a number of those.

Now with regards to your comments about the GPO I am afraid you are totally mistaken in your beliefs. I suggest that you read the history of the GPO to see how all of this evolved. It was NOT at all the way in which you described but exactly as stated which is why British and American broadcasting evolved from two entirely different legal roots. If you will notice it has been my habit to document and reference everything that I write. If you would like more documentation and sourced references I will gladly provide them. MPLX/MH 00:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section inappropriate

The "criticism" section of this article is the opinion of one person, and is not at all neutral. As a matter of fact, it seems to be written in the first person. This section should OUTLINE critiicsm, not MAKE it itself. This is an encyclopaedia, not an opinon page, a blog, or anything else, and it is inappropriate (not to mention ironic given the content of the section in question) to use it as a platform for one's own opinions.

--Deregnaucourt 14:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check the history, this section was added recently by an anonymous contributor, so I have removed it. ed g2s • talk 14:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On top of that, even if it were NPOV, it needed to be removed anyway, as it is a copyviol. The words were originally written by John Pilger, in his 2002 article "Impartiality of British Journalism." [1] --khaosworks 15:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

REMOVED SECTION

I removed the following contribution by an anon on the grounds that is itself not impartial. There is much valid criticism contained within it, but it is expressed in a way that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I would support its reinsertion if it were rewritten to stick more closely to the topic and avoid flights of rhetoric. Tannin 14:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is the standard-bearer of liberal journalism with it's emphasis on "impartiality". But has impartiality become a "principle" that can be suspended whenever the established authority is threatened? : John Pilger :28 Nov 2002

During a debate on the coverage of the miners' strike at the Edinburgh Television Festival, the BBC's industrial editor at the time, Martin Adeney, described trucks bringing coal to a steelworks as having made a "successful run". As Ken Loach pointed out, it was a successful run only if you were on the side of the government, not if you were a striking miner.

The assumption in Adeney's statement runs deep throughout liberal journalism, of which the BBC is the standard-bearer. It is currently expressed in the reporting of the firefighters, whose modest pay demand is represented as a percentage, not a decent living wage and invariably set against the public risk. This is "impartiality", a sacred word in the lexicon of British broadcasting, which has long lost its dictionary meaning and is a euphemism for the consensual view of established authority. Indeed, it was John Reith, the BBC's founder, who understood the power of establishment myths about "impartiality" and "balance". To Reith, impartiality was a "principle" that could be suspended whenever the established authority was threatened. He demonstrated this during the General Strike in 1926 by writing much of Prime Minister Baldwin's propaganda, and broadcasting it on the BBC. The same "principle" has since applied to every major social upheaval, notably national strikes and popular opposition to war. From the General Strike to the 1980s miners' strikes, from the colonial wars to the present-day devastation of Iraq, "impartiality" has held sway over truth.

Until recently, television journalism enjoyed more credibility in Britain than in other countries. This is probably because in many countries the bias of the state is crude and clearly understood, if not always acknowledged. In totalitarian states, the bias is universally regarded as implicit in all media, and a conscious or unconscious adjustment is made by the viewing, and reading, public. "In one respect, we are luckier than you in the free west," the Czech dissident writer Zdenek Urb?nek told me in the 1970s, "because we have learnt to read between the lines, and you believe you have no need; but you do." This adjustment, this reading between the lines, is now happening in Britain, as more and more people recognise the depth and subtlety of the bias of the state in the "impartial" broadcast media. So embedded are journalistic myths of a neutral, non-political centre - the "fine fulcrum of balance", as Raymond Williams called it ironically - that few broadcasters seem aware of the shift in public regard for mainstream news, especially among the young. was the assumption that impartiality actually existed: not that news channels were already following a political agenda based on a convergent parliamentary system and a market liberalism that has moved so far to the right that it accommodates and consumes "official" conservatism. Listen to British broadcasting's drumbeat on Iraq: the channelling and echoing of black propaganda dressed up as news. Take, for example, the strange speech by Tony Blair, "warning the nation of the grim threat in our midst". BBC television news faithfully echoed word for word this propaganda designed to soften up the public for Blair's attack on Iraq - an attack to which the great majority are opposed. Where is the evidence of these "daily threats we face"? And if a terrorist attack is coming, surely an unprovoked assault on a Muslim country will create the very terrorists Blair says we should fear? Therefore, isn't the British government endangering its own people with its incessant belligerence? These are vital questions that independent journalism ought to raise.

Leading the pack, the BBC has allowed the outrageous bribery and manipulation of the members of the United Nations Security Council, and the red herring of weapons inspections, to dominate the news while all but ignoring the true reasons for the American obsession with Iraq. "These media blitzes," wrote Gore Vidal, "resemble the magician's classic gesture of distraction: as you watch the rippling bright colours of his silk handkerchief in one hand, he is planting the rabbit in your pocket with the other." This has happened every time the war drums have been beaten, from the great slaughter of 1914-18 to the Afghanistan bombing. Time and again, the real reason for killing innocent people is obfuscated, made to vanish from the news. Who speaks of the depleted uranium that the Americans will use against Iraq, a country already suffering an epidemic of cancer as a result of the last use of this weapon of mass destruction by America and Britain in 1991? Who recalls the truth in the Medical Education Trust report that a quarter of a million Iraqis died during and in the immediate aftermath of the so-called Gulf war? Who knows about the nation of infants who, as Unicef has reported, have perished as a result of a medieval blockade run from Washington and Whitehall?

(end removed section)

PS via edit conflict. I was about to do that same revert, Ed_G2S. You beat me to it. Tannin 14:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this should not have been in the article which is about as sterile and NPOV as it can get. The writer should have used the controversies article but from the length and structure of the "objection" the writer did not have a clear idea of what he/she was trying to express - but the structure of the criticism article requires fitting the critique into slots in a short and concise manner with references and footnotes so as to avoid both POV and original "research". The writer provided an editorial opinion of his/her own and not facts for an encyclopedia and the best place for an opinion of that type is a Blog site somewhere - but not here. MPLX/MH 16:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The" British Broadcasting Corp

Just to remove any doubt as to the status of the definite article in the first paragraph, here is a link (and the relevant part below) to the Royal Charter which capitalises "The" in "The British Broadcasting Corporation".

NOW KNOW YE that We by Our Prerogative Royal and of Our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion do by this Our Charter for Us, Our Heirs and Successors will, ordain and declare as follows:—

INCORPORATION

1. The Corporation shall continue to be a body corporate by the name of The British Broadcasting Corporation with perpetual succession and a common seal with power to break, alter and renew the same at discretion; willing and ordaining that the Corporation shall and may sue and be sued in all Courts and be capable in law to take and hold real and personal property and do all matters and things incidental or pertaining to a body corporate, but so that the Corporation shall apply the whole of its income solely in promoting its objects. The Governors of the Corporation shall be the members thereof.

(my emphasis)

202.0.40.101 08:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)