Is BBC absolute crap?

[Texpat]

Often it is.
I used to cringe watching FOX three years ago. I haven't seen it since.
Now I have UBC which sadly, has CNN and BBC.
Honestly, they're no better. Every report (especially BBC) is biased.
I'm starting to understand why the Poms (sorry) Brittles (sorry again) feel so insignificant and put out.
The BBC is the least objective of all. Whiny and complaining. I prefer ABC (Oz)and China's CCTV.
That which I least regard is BBC. It does reflect well the sentiments of it's citizenry (only game in town).

NHK gives the best international news -- even if the daytime presenter has unusually large ears.

[Khun Paul]

Although one may consider the BBC crap and obviously being an American you are entitled to your views, al the times I lived ion the USA and recieve US news from a variety of sources, I feel that the US telivision is not a lot better, but as USA is not my home country I would not critise it or its main news provider.

The BBC may appear to be biased but over the years it has done sterling service, and it does provide an unbiased view in my opinion on many items, perhaps the one you watched is not in agreement to your finely tuned news information skills, or it is at variance withyour ideals.

[MALC]

the bbc has been biased big time ever since labour got in. and im not into politics just the truth

[Stantheman]

KP, I agree with what you are saying about BBC, At least the news. I watch it on a local Public Broadcast Station and do not find it biased and much much better the CNBC and FOX news.

[nkstan]

I can't remember ever watching a news channel that didn't have a bias in their reporting!

BBC has some interesting programming that examines issues from several points of view,whether the moderator seems biased or not.

If I accept the obvious bias of the presenter as a natural human element,that the programming is designed to entertain and make profit,then I am able to get something out of a presentation,whether I agree or not!

[jackspratt]

Bias, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

[UdonExpat]

Television news is entertainment, plain and not so simple.

They all have their agendas and report only the things that fit their agendas in the manner that supports their biases. News organizations have always done this and always will. Newspapers and weeklies are no different.

If we agree with their biases we tend to like them, if not, the opposite.

[Galee]

Yes, it probably is, and I'm glad my TV license money is no longer paying for it, but it will always be better than most other TV news stations. Why? No commercial ads.

[BobHelm]

Personally I think the BBC still runs some quite good programs.
Hard Talk is still one of the best interview programs available.
Click far out reaches information on new technology offered by any other news service.
Most of the reporting at least treats its viewers as adults and not children.
It has a healthy history of always taking an anti-UK Government stance. So when a Conservative Government was in power it would point out their ideological failings & equally when the Labour Government was in power.
With New Labour taking most of British politics to the right the BBC has, more often than not, criticized them from a more Liberal perspective. I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing - when Labour & Conservative politicians are in the same room now they rather blend together like the pigs & humans at the end of Orwell's Animal Farm.
As Jack has already said the 'truth' is all to often what people want to believe, and 'bias' is information that challenges personal belief.

[rick]

Here in UK i have access to about a dozen news service channels. Some are obviously closely following their governments policies and beliefs on news events (Russia and china). Best services are BBC and Aljazeera. Aljazeera is very good at providing in depth reports on the middle east and developing world, which we see little of on other services. As for Fox, used to watch it for a laugh (about on a par to russian news for being impartial) but then they wanted me to pay for it just over a year ago! Would you pay for a dictionary with half the pages missing?! I will stick to the others.

As for other BBC content, they still do dramas, not just game shows and imports. ITV has died a death over the last 5 years; if you have shares, sell them for whatever you can get. There idea of good TV is a talent contest.... the alternative ITV's (ITV2,3,4) showing re-runs of old series are much better. Channel 4 is also a strong contender. but i do not suppose any of that gets Udon way.

[MALC]

hi believe one can get bbc itv 1-2-4-5-on i player. on computer. in udon.if so will make the wife happy on our return

[patriot]

Good morning

Is there a specific time when we can pick up "The Rafferty File" on CNN.

I think it's during Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room", not sure.

Thanks

(Apologies as this is not exactly on topic)

[patriot]

Oops! Sorry fols, I meant CAFFERTY File

[virginprune]

hi believe one can get bbc itv 1-2-4-5-on i player. on computer. in udon.if so will make the wife happy on our return

I think you will find that bbc i player is not available outside the uk, something to do with copyright I believe.I have tried to access it myself but it comes up as not allowed...it can tell by your IP address where you are. You can access bbc radio via the internet though!

Personally I like the bbc as a channel, news or otherwise and believe that it is worth the license fee.

[KHONDAHM]

I echo the sentiments of other posters regarding bias being relative. It's like the high school English essay: "What is Truth?" - it boils down to perspective.

That said, I tend to believe that BBC, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, and (help me out with the leading station names) France TV news and German TV news each attempt to show enough perspectives for one to be able to stay well informed with the least amount of bias. As an active consumer of news, one should not rely to a great degree on any single source. Doing so, will undoubtedly lead to an egocentric bias of what is being consumed both actively and passively.

If one is an active and conscious consumer of news, it quickly becomes quite clear which news networks use an abundance of bias in their imagery and presentation (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.). Background colors, sound effects/music, editors' picture choices (lighting, angles, timeliness - or lack thereof), choice of leading and closing stories, etc. as well as hosts' emotion filled presentations and body language are are rampantly biased on the major US news programming. Really, make a game of "spot the bias" and the methods they employ become quite obvious.

Research the Yellow Journalism tactics employed in the early 20th century American newspapers, then examine FOX. Talk about history repeating itself...

[jackspratt]

Research the Yellow Journalism tactics employed in the early 20th century American newspapers, then examine FOX. Talk about history repeating itself...

I see that FOX has raised the quality and standards of its newsroom even further

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Sarah Palin is coming to your television -- as long as it's tuned to the Fox News Channel.

The conservative firebrand has signed a multi-year deal to serve as a Fox News contributor, the cable channel's executive vice president for programming, Bill Shine, said in a statement.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wo ... ntributor/

[old-timer]

On BBC news this morning there is a report on Gay marriage in America.
Very interesting if you are a homo which 99% of the worlds population is not.
Maybe the entire remaining 1% being homos watches BBC, in which case BBC is gay.

[Galee]

At least the BBC has had to sense not to renew Jonathan Ross's contract. Allegedly saving themselves 6M a year.
If ever there was proof that the nuckle heads that run the BBC are out of touch with reality it was giving this waste of space a 6m contract in the first place. Only when Ross made continuous c*ck-ups and there was public outrage about his behaviour and salary did they realise they may have made a mistake.

[BobHelm]

Initially I was puzzled by your attempt at logic OT then I realized that in order to know what the beeb was saying, you had to be watching & so maybe your post was more of an announcement than anything else.

Galee, Mr. Ross is just the latest in a long line of overpaid wasters that they ditched. Sadly some prat at the beeb actually offered them these sort of deals in the first place. Rumor had it that the beeb had offered him a new deal, but much reduced (figures of 30% to 50% have been banded about) & so he said he was not interested. 3M (at worst estimate) is still one hell of a lot of money - & probably nearly 3M too much..

[KHONDAHM]

I see that FOX has raised the quality and standards of its newsroom even further

Uuugh. Incredible, but typical. If one makes the effort to research the background of FOX talking head "journalists" (many of whom don't even have proper journalism credentials), every single one of them has a career laden with clusterfoookups and/or career killing incompetence or scandal - those are obviously desirable qualities when showing up at a FOX job interview.

I challenge anyone to find ONE FOX News journalist without a history of clusterfoookups and/or career killing incompetence or scandal. Just ONE person.

BBC, on the other hand, has a long record of holding its people to professional standards and making them accountable for what is released to the public. ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICAN MEDIA to the degree that it should - that is a huge part of the problem with it.