To think that, despite it being very sad, the BBC should go private

[SadConclusion]

Generally, privatisation is a dirty word to me, and I am a heavy consumer of the BBC. On paper, I should want it to stay. I think Corbyn's brilliant, I read the Guardian; you get the picture...

However, I've started to think the BBC is an extremely dangerous thing to have. It is anything but impartial. The influence of the government (and secret service allies) in its stance is enormous (and largely unspoken), as acknowledged by its former director general. No news outlet is impartial, but the dangerous thing about the BBC is that we sort of think it is. We trust it. It's nice and cosy - surely this old, fuzzy institution we've had all our lives, full of good old posh Brits, wouldn't lie to us? Yet it does, constantly. The David Kelly debacle was the tip of the iceberg.

It deludes us. We need to get rid of its status as a default, and of the image of kind impartiality it uses. For this reason, I think it should go private to match the status of other news outlets, which we are much more ready to acknowledge as liars and benders of the truth. The BBC leaves us as a population incredibly vulnerable to spin and manipulation.

AIBU?

If you normally watch Russia Today, it's hardly surprising that what is shown on the BBC looks biased.

I think, to be honest, you are being very patronising in assuming that everyone but you takes the BBC totally on trust: manifestly that is not the case. But I really don't think we can afford to lose a broadcaster that is able to take risks on producing less obviously popular programmes, because otherwise we will be doomed to lowest common denominator populist undemanding programmes on every channel. And I am extremely happy to pay 40p per day just to have a few channels where programmes aren't endlessly interrupted by adverts.

I agree with Gruntled. I think it's important to have a broadcaster with a mandate to put on programmes that only a relative handful of people will watch. There are plenty of commercial channels, but personally I find it refreshing that the BBC doesn't have to be bound by the commercial/financial imperative.

And I don't think people really watch the Beeb and blindly believe and don't question it.

YABU by calling it sad! If it can't exist without the licence fee it should go.

I think Radio 4 alone is worth 40p a day....and I don't think everyone watches the news and takes it all on trust - any more than they do with any of the other commercial broadcasters. Some of the C4 and ITV news is shockingly bad. I never watch Sky news so can't comment on it, but if it's as biased as other Murdoch owned news such as the Times etc, then I think the BBC is worth its weight in gold, frankly!

I think the lack of adverts is fantastic and the depth and breadth of programming is amazing - I just don't think it would happen if it was a fully commercial entity.

It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

The thing with the way the BBC is currently funded is that it has an impact on other news services, and not just ones in the UK.

The effect is that news services are largely not subscription online meaning that news and information is free to access around the world. This includes other newspapers and tv stations. Its a good check and balance for the bias that does exist in the BBC.

The BBC is flawed, but I don't believe that the alternative is better, and that's what you should be looking at in addition to criticising the BBC.

Dear old Fox News in the USA needs to be looked at as a shining example.

The BBC fills a gap in being half way between state sponsored and commercial. It is unique. Other countries admire it and have tried (and failed) to copy.

Personally I think that the BBC is needed, as it helps information poverty, which whilst it may have bias, is often better than the other news sources available or indeed having no news at all.

In terms of other programming - which is both education and entertainment, I think there are similar arguments to be had as few programmes are completely free of agenda even if its not as obvious as the news.

I don't think you have to either like or watch the BBC to still feel its benefit. The trouble is convincing people who don't fully comprehend the wider implications of abolishing the BBC as it stands. People may complain about paying for the licence fee, but while it may be more than some can afford, its still not expensive in reality. Without it, there would be less incentive for other broadcasters to be as competitive as they currently are.

At least then it's lefty bias would be open for discussion

If I am being "patronising", then I am being equally so towards myself and, in fact, the whole of humanity. We cannot help but be more influenced by things which are as omnipresent as BBC.
You can question, but that does not solve the problem of undue influence.

If you normally watch Russia Today, it's hardly surprising that what is shown on the BBC looks biased.
Again, this is precisely my point. Similarly, if you always watch the BBC, it's not surprising that Russia today looks biased. What I am arguing against is the level of influence on our society of something which is (like ALL sources) biased and heavily influenced by the government but whose biases it is very hard to detect.

If you think we are conscious of all the biasing influences we are subject to, or that thinking/reasoning/questioning about them can completely mitigate this, then we fundamentally disagree about the nature of human psychology.

You would just be influenced by something else though.

The real issue is, for me, the lack of proper education in schools about media. Media studies is looked on with a really snotty attitude.

I also do think its worth pointing out that we live at a time when twitter and other social media - mn included - do encourage people to question things far more than they ever did.

We are all sat here discussing the BBC's left leaning. So it is under debate. The only real rival in the UK now, is Sky which is decidedly right leaning. As are the majority of the British newspapers (the Guardian really is the only one that isn't).

So I genuinely don't really see what the problem with a left leaning BBC is. Its about the overall picture rather than the BBC in isolation for me and that's the problem I have with debates on the BBC as they really fail to address that, and merely focus on the flaws in the BBC.

You would just be influenced by something else though.
This is true, but the more different sources you have to go to, the less they are government-controlled/influenced, and the less implicitly trusted any individual source is, the better. IMHO.
The BBC makes it far too easy to influence too many people all at once. Perhaps especially middle class educated professionals who listen to Radio 4 and watch Newsnight.

"People may complain about paying for the licence fee, but while it may be more than some can afford, its still not expensive in reality. Without it, there would be less incentive for other broadcasters to be as competitive as they currently are."

I would disagree with how you put this. By striking out the words "licence fee" and replace by "public funding".

A licence fee is not the only way to underpin a publicly funded channel. So I think "without it" should refer to the freedom from commercial pressure, not specifically to a licensing mechanism backed by criminal penalty.

And I am extremely happy to pay 40p per day just to have a few channels where programmes aren't endlessly interrupted by adverts.

I love this about the BBC, too. As I said, I am a big BBC watcher and listener.
I would be gutted to see it go, but I also think it might be better for us as a society.

RT did a really interesting report on the number of university students in the USA who are raped by other students and how the universities cover this up if it involves their sports stars, who generate a lot of income for said universities. I'd like to see some of that on the BBC!

I disagree with being compelled by law to finance a corporation which is not impartial. I agree with the OP that on some level we trust the BBC in a way that we don't automatically trust other news outlets.
As with all tv news reporting, I've noticed a huge increase in the emotive language and opinion based reporting at the BBC. If BBC journalists are reading this, please confine yourselves to the facts and stop with all the emotive shit, designed to wring out my emotions. I don't need you to tell me how I should be feeling about any given news story. The news is not a 'made for tv' tearjerker movie! Honestly, some of it is the equivalent of reading misery lit, at times.

While I am having a moan, do you think it would be possible for BBC news and Sky not to do the sports reports at the same time? Sometimes I want the headlines but the same old sports shit is on both channels simultaneously. Drives me batshit!

RT might be in a position to provide better insight into Russian social ills - the US campus issue is one I'm very aware of from US media.

I am in total agreement about sports however - tis not news!

but I also think it might be better for us as a society.

That's might fine of you, anything else you'd like to get rid of "to help us"?

Red Top Newspapers, pesky "cutural" local radio stations - they only show a snapshot.....

In fact, what form of media doesn't have a bias??

In fact, what form of media doesn't have a bias??

Please do feel free to RTFT, IKnow.

I think the BBC should go in the opposite direction, and be co-owned by all license fee payers with a democratic system of governance, a la John Lewis. Interestingly Ed Miliband had this in his leadership election manifesto - best idea he's ever had!

It is closer to impartial. It is self critical in a way nothing else is. It's positive yo have that. Just have more specific biased news won't help.

Who would use the BBC for news? I resent paying my fee for entertainment,of which there is a minimal amount.

Please do feel free to RTFT

I have, there are none.

Thus your point is meaningless.

Erm, Iknow, I'm not sure which thread you're reading, but my whole point is that there are no objective news outlets and that therefore any individual outlet should not have such a large influence as the BBC does. I have said this repeatedly.

It is closer to impartial.

If anything, I would argue the opposite. It is completely under the thumb of the government and its allies.

(name change, IKnow. I'm the OP).

So you think the BBC has more influence than Rupert Murdoch? You are daft and BU. I would pay ten times the current licence fee to keep the BBC. It has educated, entertained and informed me over the last 40 odd years through various media to an exceptionally high standard. We totally take it for granted and will be sorry indeed if it goes. It has no parallel and we underestimate how much it is respected throughout the world.

underestimate how much it is respected throughout the world.

This is one of the reasons it is potentially dangerous.
Don't get me wrong - I bloody love the BBC. I listen/watch every day. It makes me feel all secure and trusting and nod along with all the clever sensible people. That's partly how I know its huge level of influence amongst educated professional people. And it's in the pocket of the government.