Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
I don't see the relevance of the BBC's history. I entirely disagree about the claims that the BBC don't editorialise or campaign. They have their own agenda and pursue it accordingly. The demographics of the staff within the BBC are quite abnormal within the UK, they have a far higher proportion of Guardianistas and Europhiles and their news output corresponds with this, they aren't robots who leave their own personal bias at home.
The stories they don't see fit to cover on TV speak volumes, as do the parts of stories they do and don't cover.
|
The BBC's history is relevant because I am pointing out that it would be far more difficult to break it up than it would be to prevent to obtaining such dominance in the first place. There is a legacy and a public affection that makes the BBC different to a standard commercial provider. So using a public service broadcaster as a reference point to a commercial provider is rather pointless IMO.
The BBC isn't perfect but they do not intentionally set out to promote an agenda. They often do reports into their reporting and have found, as you mention, that there sometimes is a bias because of the staff that is typically employed by the BBC. Although it should be remembered that most this complaints are generated from their standard, non-news, programming which is quite often left wing.
The BBC also has a charter which is intent on preventing bias which was pointed out in the Ofcom report which also noted it not present in a commercial provider as a News International which also has a history of intervention on the part of it's owner. Which is important because...
Quote:
|
I'm at a loss as to the relevance of that to plurality within the news.
|
One of the largest issues within plurality of news is if the agenda can be set by it's owner. Murdoch being able to set an agenda across all platforms including Sky, News International's Papers is not a welcoming thought.
Not sure where the BBC Staff are 'Guardianistas' comes from either.