Fewer people believe the BBC to be an impartial broadcaster than ever before, with the corporation’s news output falling below Sky, ITV/STV, Channel 5, and Channel 4 in the latest Ofcom report.
According to Ofcom’s BBC Performance Tracker, only 54% of UK adults agree that the BBC provides news that is impartial. However, separate research comparing the BBC to other UK broadcasters found that 58% of people thought the corporation was impartial. This is compared to Sky’s 69%, Channel 4’s 66%, ITV/STV’s 63%, and Channel 5’s 61%.
Perception of the trustworthiness of the BBC’s news output also varied across the socio-economic spectrum. The Ofcom report found that 60% of people in the higher AB socio-economic group thought the corporation was impartial, compared to just 49% in the lower CD group.
Younger audiences are treating BBC services such as iPlayer as an afterthought, according to a warning from Ofcom, as the media regulator revealed that people aged 16-34 spend less than an hour a day consuming BBC content.
This age group has reduced its use of the BBC by 22% in three years, according to Ofcom’s annual appraisal of the corporation’s performance. People in the age bracket are drifting away from traditional broadcast channels such as BBC One and instinctively heading towards YouTube, Netflix and Spotify, rather than the corporation’s online services. As a result younger audiences tend to only use iPlayer “when they know what they want to watch, rather than as a destination to browse for new content”.
The loyalty of older and wealthier BBC viewers is draining away as the corporation desperately tries to attract younger audiences, a report from the media regulator has revealed. Ofcom also said yesterday that the corporation was out of touch with large swathes of licence fee payers around the UK, as its audience continues to fall.
>>40591 Quite, they've had it too good these last few years, being allowed to get married, being treated like people, not being beaten to death on the streets. Perhaps there should be some discussion around your licence fee (not mine) being spent on keeping gay teenagers in crack and gay sex now that is has been brought to light, yes. In essence Huw's salary is private once it goes in to his pocket, and in fact the licence fee is private once it goes in to the Corporation's pocket, but that doesn't change the fact this incident leaves a bad taste in the mouth, no pun intended gaylad. We can argue it's his business and the law is the law and shut up you're just a homophobe all we like, but that doesn't change the fact the licence fee just got a little bit easier to abolish.
>>40573 No the law is also regularly developed to change social behaviours and attitudes in response to evidence. Smoking bans etc. In this instance you're talking about legal grey areas where a Judge must interpret the law based on the vogue which isn't democratic and it's frankly silly to rely on judge's to be bellwethers for wider society. Just look at the recent Italian judgement about the '10 second rule' for groping to be real https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66174352
Judge's are after all civil servants.
>>40591 How is pictures of naked men not one of the better uses of taxpayer money? It delivers in minutes, satisfies the target demographic, funds our local LGBT community and you don't have to pay an annual fee to keep what you already have. And it's what elderly men evidently go crazy over.
You heard me. Rent boys on the NHS. State-run brothels to calm everyone down.
I guess this means we can exact harsher penalties on all such as the cornershop proprietor when he fucks up by defrauding British Gas of all the leccy key top-up money, because "you paid his wages" at some point. We all pay everyone's wages, in some capacity, and it gives none of us any rights to get the cat o' nine tails out or stuff anybody into a wicker man. What a bloody stupid stance. Go and stand in the corner and think about what you've done. And don't come back until you do.
>>40600 It's funny you should say that, because when you addressed me (>>40596) I hadn't been previously involved in that particular back and fourth, I was just correcting his statement about Edwards' pay coming from tax money, nothing else. Keep your chin up though, I'm sure being this much of a ponce on an anonymous imageboard will pay dividends soon enough.
>You heard me. Rent boys on the NHS. State-run brothels to calm everyone down.
You say something like that and I think well yeah wouldn't mind giving it a go, but then I remember the awful people at the other place discussing how a government should license puberty, on an individual basis, and assign partners between citizens.
Your proposal doesn't seem that far removed and my initial thought of it is shameful.
Sex should be private and personal, not something to be governed.
Although that does bring up some interesting questions - could we possibly let people run 'out of control' raping and murdering? Why does it always come round to that - is that actually what becomes of anarchy?
>>40601 Right mate, before you start mincing toward me with your flaming self righteous fury, I never suggested you had previously been involved in that particular back and forth. I was just correcting your statement where you corrected his statement unnecessarily, because as I said, if you understood him enough to correct him you understood him enough to understand him. Afterwards, someone, I assume the other lad now, posted a well thought out clearly expressed opinion, a wrong opinion, but a well presented one nonetheless. Unfortunately I believed you had lazily addressed me, the one correcting your flamboyant correction rather than the lad you corrected in the first place. There's been a bit of a mix up, there's no need for this extravagant teary you're having over it. Both of us should seek employment immediately.
>>40603 I was being flippant but if you seriously want to argue about this then state run/regulated brothels would provide better protection for women and undo a major source of slavery in the UK. The current model is better than outright criminalisation but still incredibly dangerous, encourages exploitation and complicates efforts to improve conditions.
>Sex should be private and personal, not something to be governed.
Sounds like something a paedophile would say. It's not wonder you immediately follow it with a very statist ideological argument.
I bloody hate The Sun. If they hadn’t made such a big deal out of a wholesome man’s less-than-wholesome legal hobby, I would never have had to read all these utterly barmy posts by obvious nutcases.
Is anyone even saying buggery went on?
More that people who hadn't heard of onlyfans have now heard of it, and are feeling all righteous, whipped up by the scum.
Not my cup of tea, but stick your willy where you like, I'm far from upset.
Well, I'm miffed that nobody's offering me piles of cash for my erotic photos, but it'd be a pretty specialist market.
If anyone on .gs wants to start dropping 35 grand on arse pics of middle aged (nu-middle aged, so 30+) men who may or may not be morbidly obese let it be known that I'm first in the queue.
>Rupert Murdoch’s News UK has offered tens of thousands of pounds to the parents who made allegations about Huw Edwards, in return for a television interview, according to sources at the media company.
>The Guardian understands that an interview with the couple has been recorded and is being edited for broadcast on TalkTV, the sister station of the Sun. Sources said the parents have been offered a significant sum for this.
Using my office as a barometer for public mood, I'd say that it's the young folk (under 25) that are being extremely anti-BBC about the entire thing. I got the impression they view it as an old fashioned institution that is largely irrelevant to their lives.
>>40614 It's very simple: the state is a lot like your mum, it climbs into bed with all of us and loves to watch. What goes on in the bedroom is absolutely the state's business and always has been because it's the business of regulating relationships and behaviour.
You can't live like a libertarian meme and bring child sex slave into the bedroom and your wife doesn't owe you sex either.
In principle I don't like the license fee, I don't really like a lot of what the BBC does as an institution, but without them who would make good documentaries?
I know it makes me a massive sperglord, but I think YouTube has made a mockery of factual TV. Some bloke in his spare bedroom with no budget can cover a topic with infinitely more depth and nuance than anything that would be allowed on TV.
Commissioners believe that dumbing down is necessary to reach a mass audience, but they're trapped in a pre-internet mindset. A channel like Wendover or Technology Connections can routinely get a million views for some arse-achingly detailed video about transport logistics or the inner workings of electrical appliances.
In some ways it's great, yes, but in other ways it's terrible.
It's undeniably opened up an entire new world of nerdy rabbitholes you can go down watching TechMoan or TC or something where somebody gives you every intricate detail about the precise composition of the PCBs used in Atari cartridges.
But when it comes to bigger picture, higher concept stuff, I really don't think a YouTube channel will ever be able to deliver us quality to rival stuff like Planet Earth and what have you. There's scope for it, big Patreon funded projects or whatever maybe, but even then- It's inherently too free market.
Look at the difference between the BBC's documentaries, and the Yank equivalent. The watered down kiddy shite on Netflix, lowest common denominator true crime bollocks- That's what the libertarian wild west of internet Content Creators will give us. The BBC has always had the ability to do higher brow, classier stuff precisely because it isn't reliant on a cut-throat commercial funding model.
And then that's before even getting to more political or ideological material. There's a lot of quite good factual channels I watch on YouTube, but their biases are much more blatant than any mainstream outlet ever dares to be. They have no obligation to be impartial, and in some ways at least it's good that they're not trying to deceive you- But the trouble is so many people just never even think about that.
One good example is Real Life Lore. On the face of it it's purely factual content, and when I first started watching it it was just about interesting geographical facts and notable events and so on. But of late it has started to drift into what feel very much like soothing geopolitical bedtime stories for insecure Americans. It might not be factually inaccurate, but choosing to focus on those things (although no doubt simply chasing the algorithm) means there's a pretty specific worldview being endorsed.
>>40622 Is there a model in which these things can exist together? Or are we doomed to choose between big picture, world spanning, high production value documentaries or narrow band, technically accurate, made in my bedroom instruction booklets as our entertainment of choice? It looks like there's scope for these things to exist together if you absent mindedly point at the now, but we're in a transition phase where one of these formats is dying and the other is emerging, transition phases are inherently unsustainable.
It's quite possible we live in a factual-entertainment golden era, and nobody will realise it until it's over.
>>40621 Being on the internet means that an audience share of about 1/10000 over a period of several years is perfectly acceptable. The equivalent for TV in the UK is a programme getting 70,000 viewers total across a dozen repeat showings. That's about the viewership Piers Morgan Uncensored gets these days.
>Look at the difference between the BBC's documentaries, and the Yank equivalent.
This reflects a bit of a misnomer about how the BBC operates. Those blockbuster documentaries are made by BBC Studios, a for-profit subsidiary of the BBC that isn't funded by the license fee. The revenues from BBC Studios are used to cross-subsidise the license-fee-supported BBC.
We get to watch that stuff as part of our license fee, but it was made by a commercial production company that happens to have "BBC" in the name. The BBC buy rights to broadcast it from BBC Studios, but so do dozens of other broadcasters around the world. The most profitable market for that content is the US. If the government decided to abolish the license fee, all of that content would still get made.
Obviously YouTube can't produce that kind of content, but in a very real sense, neither can the BBC. Those massive projects are complicated international collaborations that are far too expensive for any one broadcaster and are funded more for prestige than for viewing figures.
>>40605 >>40604 I can't believe my perfectly innocent comment about having the death penalty for bumders has caused such a storm and lead you both to advocating ridiculous and unworkable things like regulated brothels and privacy from the government. Shame on you both.
>>40646 I could intricately explain how in my original post I wasn't entirely sure about Huw Edwards'salary being provided by taxpayers, but thought that my question about public trust was worth getting across regardless, but did it never occur to you that I just like using the word bumder, and would happily be wrong in every claim I ever made as long as I could use it?
>>40648 I'm trying to get my head around all this. How do you even get yourself into the position of offering your work colleagues money for nudes and...why?
There's a few women I wouldn't mind a go on in my office but the idea of collecting naked pictures of them is definitely odd. The glimpse of a woman bending over in some sensible trousers is as erotic as this can get, actual pictures of a bare arse of an office woman surely won't be better than your imagination.
>No censorship
When is GBeebies going to post a cartoon of Muhammad then?
>>40651 Why is a very good question. I can't tell if he was doing it just to get his rocks off and/or trying to get comprimising material on people, but either option seems incredibly stupid. However, if your CV is as follows: News of the World, The Sun, The Daily Mail and lately GB News, rational thought was probably never your forté to begin with, but being a creep who lacks basic ehtical boundaries most people take for granted? Could be.
>>40654 Many a youngling will ask you to tell the tale of Quiggins and the lad who should have returned to it, but really they'll be after your opiates and viagra.
>>40753 I'm not sure I follow, so Nolan sent naughty pictures of Bloke A around the station, Bloke A later went to jail for a few months because he [Bloke A] posted revenge porn on the internet. Also Nolan is a bit of a bully and called some of his professional colleagues cunts.
If that's the whole story I'm not sure what's wrong here. I'm sure Nolan is only getting away with the bullying etc because he's useful to MI5, but the sexually explicit images of a later convicted sex offender thing seems like a good punt at making a word salad designed to confuse people in to thinking he's a carpet-bagger.
