The BBC should lose the license fee and be forced to operate like any other streaming service after the complete destruction of trust this week

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Thats it really, the BBC lied to us, all of us.

They edited a Trump speech to make him look like he said something he did not.

They pushed one side of the transgender debate relentlessly, deliberately hiding negative stories on detransitioners, the US WPATH file and thousands of more cases

https://archive.ph/wWdMS

https://archive.ph/uiEKW

They have cancelled people for wrong-think at every opportunity, pushed drag queens over women, turned woman hours into mens hour, constantly attacked anyone who does not share their extreme liberal left wing views and kept them off the news cycle

They have utterly and completely lost all trust, they ARE biased they DON'T give balance in the news

Everyone thought it was a conspiracy, now we know it's actually true and we have PROOF

Today the BBC Director and News Director have both quit in absolute disgrace.

It is time the BBC was consigned to the dustbin because we are never getting back to the BBC I loved and trusted, the one that ran programmes to inform and entertain and educate, that BBC is long gone.

Replace it, completely.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt

This post could have been written by a rival media corporation, dont you think Rupert? 🤣🤣🤣

And now trump is considering suing them, he's been successful before suing media outlets, if he does the BBC had better not expect the licence payers to bail them out. Why haven't the producers, editors and production company who fucked up with their lie been sacked.

In what way is it not?

Yeh don’t put it on to us. It was obvious to many that the BBC was institutionally biased before this. They didn’t want to hear it.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

I can see that an industry insider advising on recruitment for OFCOM Chair would raise a conflict of interest. Not so much for this role, I don't think.

Sky has a profile of him:

Studying at Oxford, he worked for 17 years as a journalist, with a decade spent working at the Sunday Times, initially as chief political correspondent before rising to political editor.

No stranger to showbiz, he has previously advised high-net-worth individuals and Hollywood stars on sensitive disputes and had a regular spot on Michael Parkinson's weekly Radio 2 show, Parkinson's Sunday Supplement, giving the newspaper review.

Mr Prescott has also worked in a series of corporate advisory roles - as corporate affairs director for BT, where he helped launch BT Sport and was part of the telecoms company's merger with EE.

Ahead of that, he was managing director of corporate communications and public affairs at global PR company Weber Shandwick, where he advised organisations including Virgin Media, Balfour Beatty, British Nuclear Fuels, MasterCard, IKEA, air traffic control body NATS and numerous universities.

He currently holds roles at Hanover Communications, an international communications and PR agency.

Mr Prescott is also a member of the government's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, offering independent advice to the Prime Minister, among others.

https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-michael-prescott-the-man-behind-the-leaked-bbc-memo-13467937

It just reads like a long and varied career in media, journalism and PR with some more recent advisory roles. I think that's right for this sort of role. It shouldn't be someone who doesn't know the industry or someone who has only ever worked for the BBC.

I also doubt any BBC reporters will get a question answered by the POTUS at any press conferences, he will shut them down, and rightfully so as fake news as he does with CNN etc.

Fairly representative of half of it.

@PencilsInSpace maybe he is just the chap to advocate for decency, out of altruism or adherence to his job spec, or maybe he is in Murdoch's pocket. I honestly don't know.

But my point is that unless I had mentioned it, many people might have assumed the former, rather than doing a bit of research and then considering the likelihood that he may have different motivations, or not.

We need to make some careful decisions, grounded in facts, not emotion, is all.

The minute we remove the licence fee. We don’t have a national broadcaster. The bbc could become Fox via subscription. It would be a fight for survival. It’s still way better than nearly any other broadcaster.

However, it’s not had clear guidance on how to stay neutral. Far too many executives with a hand in decisions. The other issue is, we are a polarised nation. Neither left nor right think it represents them! Jews and Islamists both think it’s against them. And so it goes on. The tightrope gets more difficult every day. We continually hear about woke at the BBC and then it tries too hard to please minorities. There’s always someone bellowing at it and saying it’s unfair.

It’s also commissioning programmes and not making them. As a result it has to ask the right questions of the programme makers. This has happened due to lack of money and cuts in the wrong places. Cut out layers of management and become sleek and nimble. This might ensure its survival because I’d hate a future without it. Fox News would be in like a shot.

However, it’s not had clear guidance on how to stay neutral.

Are the finest journalists in the country supposed to need help with that? They need to be told that you can't splice videos to create a misleading impression, or not to suppress stories that don't sit well with the political activists on your newsdesk?

'Ratings based on online, U.S. political content only - not TV, print, or radio. Ratings do not reflect accuracy or credibility; they reflect perspective only'

There's a more detailed page about BBC news here:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bbc-news-media-bias

Over time their rating has repeatedly switched from left-leaning to just over the line into the centre category, and then back again. Which is about where I would place them generally - centre-left. They've never wandered anywhere close to the right-leaning category.

But I think on certain specific issues, e.g. immigration and Gaza, they have been pulled a very long way from their centre-ish home ground. It doen't take many activists to do that. And other specific issues, e.g. sex and gender, are really not right/left issues at all. There are other axes of bias.

Hoyo films made the Gaza documentary and October films made the Trump independent productions but should have been under scrutiny by the panorama editor and head of current affairs.

Apologies, edited. Responded to wrong post.

For all its faults, I believe it would be far better to reform the BBC to have integrity than to dismantle it. Once the publicly funded broadcaster is destroyed, we will never get it back. I still believe it is on balance a force for good, and I hope the resignations mean they are taking these issues seriously.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if we replace the licence fee with just another advert-funded channel, we will be losing something significant.

I am a licence fee payer who has complained multiple times about their treatment of gender critical women.

@PencilsInSpace thank you. Helpful build

But not everybody wants. You're happy to pay the TVL and use bbc services, many don't and couldn't care less if they survive or not.
The BBC should fund themselves.

Why would it need to be advert-funded? Why not subscription?

TV licence works out at £14.54/month which is in the same ball park as a Netflix or Sky subscription.

Totally agree. I pay Netflix, but not TVL. Choosing to watch bbc should be a choice (although is, but with a side order of scare mongering).
Forcing people to pay for a tv channel is very North Korea

Good point. If the content is good people can choose to pay.

Towards the right wing perhaps.

Anyone ever wondered how the BBC manage to have Farage on QT quite so many times?

Nick Robinson former head of the youth conservatives, president of the Tory association at Oxford Uni heads up their flag ship radio news program, the board has Tory appointees on it, indeed there has been a 3 year old campaign by right wingers on the board, they blocked the investigation in the Panorama report.

Because they knew it would come out cause max embarrassment.

When right wingers complain about the BBC, its because they do not want a unbiased national broadcaster.

Yes they messed up but its not as if Trump did say these things either.

Are you saying you think the BBC is favourable to the right?

National Radio, local radio, world service, huge amount of shows, sport, nature programs, kids TV.

Its remarkable value for money, a subs BBC would mean much of the above would go.

It would be a shame if licence payers had to pay damages to Trump.

I think sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

Which means they've pretty much got it right, though on news, i find Sky, overall, is more balanced.

Do they get it right all the time? no.