Brexit brands and the BBC

[longfingernails]

www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/top-10-brands-favoured-remainers-brexiters/1403991#

I'm not surprised by the difference in brand choices between the metropolitan hipsters and the patriotic working class. However, whilst the likes of Instagram and LinkedIn are free to target themselves at whosoever they feel best advances their business objectives, it is disgusting but not surprising that the BBC finds itself at the helm of the Remainder brand choices (twice) whilst not even being mentioned in the top 10 for leavers.

If we are forced to continue paying the TV tax, then the BBC should produce more output whose editorial tone is in line with the values of the Brexiteer majority. Of course, it won't do so unless compelled.

In general, I am solidly against quotas in hiring policy - but, in view of the fact that BBC is so poisonous to our political discourse with its ultra-PC claptrap, AIBU to suggest that they be forced to hire e.g. more UKIP supporters from the provincial towns and shires until they make up around 15% of its workforce, in line with the population?

I would prefer them just to hire people from somewhere other than north London. That would solve the problem.

Alright. Suppose 'X' were a profoundly misguided and destructive choice. Suppose also that 'Y' were a reasonably sensible news broadcaster. Would you expect fans of X to be keen on Y?

Are you Claig's longwinded twin?

Christ Almighty.

You've already got Mrs Brown's Boys. What more do you want?

albertcampionscat No - as you can see from the list, supporters of remain (a profoundly misguided and destructive choice) did not rate the more sensible broadcasters highly enough to make the Remainder top 10 brands.

The point is we can all choose whether or not we want to pay for Spotify. Practically, we do not have the same freedom to choose whether or not we want to pay for the BBC - and therefore, the BBC must be compelled to become more representative of the public.

PickAChew I like claig, but our political views are very different. For a start, she is a fan of Jeremy Corbyn - I am too, I suppose, in the sense that he makes Tory governments and Tory/UKIP coalitions more likely.

You don't have to pay for Spotify.

I prefer the BBC one million times over Rupert Cunting Murdoch owned Sky.

But you Might be onto something OP. Let's start with quotas to ensure 51% of the country (ie women) are proportionally represented in govt, media and business.

Once we've got women equally represented you might find less of a disparity overall left to address.

BeMorePanda

The BBC is paid for by Remainders and Brexiteers, but still feels it can pander to a metropolitan Remainder mindset whilst denigrating or outright ignoring the concerns of ordinary people.

BeMorePanda It is instructive to compare the results of the Tory party's internal attitude to quotas (in spite of Cameron's failed attempts at A-lists) versus the Labour party's attitude.

With the Tories you have the greatest postwar PM of them all - Maggie - and Theresa May (who, for all her pathetically centrist viewpoints, at least has a certain steely competence). With Labour you get nonentities like Angela Eagle.

Quotas may be necessary over short term periods, to redress balances where it is not possible for organic selection because of fundamental structural problems. It is a sign of deep-rooted failure where quotas are necessary - but the BBC has a structural bias towards middle-class snobs.

You're sounding positively Stalinist LFN

A better solution than quotas would be to let the BBC simply wither away. We could decriminalise licence fee non-payment, and force the shutting of ancillary services. We could spread the licence fee much more widely with independent broadcasters (without the BBC playnig any commissioning role). We could force disclosure of all presenter salaries and contracts.

However, as John Whittingdale has sadly been sacked as Culture Secretary, this path seems unlikely. UKIP quotas seem like the best way forward given that the real solution isn't feasible.

Are you Claig's longwinded twin?

I'm pretty sure they've had a UKIP quota for some time judging by Question Time, Any Questions etc

The BBC is paid for by Remainders and Brexiteers, but still feels it can pander to a metropolitan Remainder mindset whilst denigrating or outright ignoring the concerns of ordinary people.

I'm sure many of the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland will be surprised to learn they are metropolitan and therefore not ordinary.

Wtf are you on about? Stereotypes abounding and deliberately trying to be divisive?

Good luck with whatever you are trying to achieve with this.

The idea that there are BBC households and ITV ones reminds me of the 1970s, before we had remote control tvs. So it is nothing new.

I don't think you have to share the OP's politics to think the BBC does a poor job of reflecting the political diversity of the U.K. This is a criticism levelled at it by Scots Nats, Brexiters, Ukippers, Corbynists and many other distinct political viewpoints. It is a fair point that as we don't have a choice about paying for it, the BBC should make an effort to be more representative.

A better solution than quotas would be to let the BBC simply wither away. We could decriminalise licence fee non-payment, and force the shutting of ancillary services. We could spread the licence fee much more widely with independent broadcasters (without the BBC playnig any commissioning role). We could force disclosure of all presenter salaries and contracts.

Just how many independent broadcasters are there in Britain? Just wondering ....

Was just about to say the same HughManatee but yours is more eloquent. I love Radio 4, currently watching Thirteen on iPlayer but the BBC News is unwatchable or readable if you want actual news. A broadcaster paid for by the whole country should be more independent.

People who live in The UK and bemoan the BBC, which is broadly neutral, are nuts.

Live in a country (Aus/USA) where the majority of news is literally owned (not "run by" in the way they imagine the bbc is) by a very, very few rich men, utterly unaccountable in any meaningful way, who want to push their own political view point in to the unthinking masses.

We do have a choice.

Watch live TV (and from next month iplayer) and pay for it.

Don't watch live TV, and don't.

Nobody is forced to pay for a TV licence nowadays. There are many options available.

And yes, unthinking masses sounds really snobby. But the news here is like a sodding echo chamber. It's the daily mail on TV. Without a public broadcaster most people don't get to really see any kind of balance.

I think the article is tosh so the fact the beeb isn't top of the Brexiters list is neither here nor there.

Ring wingers have long complained the BBC is left leaning.

What other options 99gbp? You can't de tune the bbc, so, if you want to watch tv, they want you to pay even if you hate the bbc.

The BBC losing its place and focus and its funding method becoming outdated is an issue. It's lack of breadth of recruitment is an issue too. These are things that need to be addressed to keep our BBC healthy and functioning. But I don't see that it has much to do with Brexit.