[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 28996)
Message
File  []
close
36171444-8992059-image-a-125_1606477001411.jpg
289962899628996
>> No. 28996 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 3:49 pm
28996 spacer
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.


https://www.thenational.scot/news/18901196.bbc-ofcom-report-shows-corporations-impartiality-score-record-low/

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”.


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/25/ofcom-bbc-services-such-as-iplayer-an-afterthought-for-younger-audiences

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.

https://www.dailymale.co.uk/news/article-8988223/BBCs-alienating-older-middle-class-viewers-satisfaction-levels-starting-wane.html

Is the BBC fucked? I can't even remember the last time I actually watched it on the telly.
Expand all images.
>> No. 28997 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 3:51 pm
28997 spacer
>>28996
>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
Yet if you try and say poor people are stupid and easily-influenced, people get offended.
>> No. 28998 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 3:55 pm
28998 spacer
>>28997
It could be that it's confirmation bias for those in the AB group and they're less likely to challenge the BBC because its output fits with the worldview of their cozy little bubble.
>> No. 28999 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 3:59 pm
28999 spacer
>>28998
It could be, but it isn't.
>> No. 29001 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 4:12 pm
29001 spacer
>>28999
Oh, why isn't it?
>> No. 29002 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 4:24 pm
29002 spacer
I question any poll that shows Sky News and Channel 4 as impartial. It reads more like people are responding to confirmation bias which the BBC doesn't do outside of those areas I'm on my soapbox about.

But yeah, the BBC is fucked. Poor management and subpar content have only added to a machine not suited to the current model of broadcasting. This week I watched that documentary on Thatcher but only because I currently lack a daily programme to eat my dinner to.

>>28998
Excuse me but your scepticism of BBC impartiality has identified you as someone neither wealthy nor educated. Please delete your posts and leave the premises at once.
>> No. 29004 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 4:31 pm
29004 spacer
To be fair, BBC News has really gone downhill in the last couple of years. I want to see the news, not five minutes of news interspersed with 25 minutes of vox-pops from morons and "human interest stories". I don't give a toss about what people in Burnley Market think and I don't give a toss about how Joe Arsehole's life has been affected by this story.

I'm a wishy-washy liberal in the metropolitan elite bubble, but I feel that Sky News are just doing a better job at the moment. The less said about ITV news the better.
>> No. 29005 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 4:51 pm
29005 spacer
>>29004

Perfect opportunity to post this classic Sky News bit


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybiM51194MA

All the news channels today are bad due to being owned by a very small group of Oligarchs who generally use their position to influence Political Policy via campaign donations.

I'm particularly concerned about recent developments regarding the Govt's Clearing House which is responding to journalists differently if it suspects their reporting might hurt its image.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/how-uk-government-undermining-freedom-information-act/

Right now the level of corruption and incompetence is so high that if journalists were to report accurately and honestly on it this would likely result in mass civil unrest (esp. once the ramifications of Brexit start being felt by the people what voted for it).
>> No. 29008 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 5:13 pm
29008 spacer
By definition it is impossible to be impartial.

All this poll shows is that sky's Audience is thicker than any of the others.

If you asked me in a poll if the BBC was impartial I would say no. If you asked me if it was less bias than the other news broadcasters named I would say yes.
>> No. 29009 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 5:13 pm
29009 spacer
>>29005
>All the news channels today are bad due to being owned by a very small group of Oligarchs who generally use their position to influence Political Policy via campaign donations.

This.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nao53PcFLus
>> No. 29010 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 5:13 pm
29010 spacer
>>29005
Fuck, if only Open Democracy had a TV channel.
>> No. 29013 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 5:31 pm
29013 spacer
>>29004
BBC being heavily reliant on vox pop has been going on for a lot longer than a couple of years, usually interspersed with field reports making puns on whatever they've decided to connect their report together with.

There's simply fuck all worth watching on the BBC these days. When was the last time the BBC actually broadcast a genuinely funny comedy series? I think they have it better in Scotland but for the rest of us the only ones I'd class as being above par in at least the past 10 years are Detectorists and Episodes, possibly also The Trip and the fishing one with Monkhouse and Whitehouse if they count. BBC Three was largely shit but if you couldn't sleep then you could at least put on utter mindless bollocks like Family Guy, Don't Tell the Bride or Snog, Marry, Avoid.

Question Time has been ridiculous ever since Brexit and the rest of their political output has gone off the boil. I'll probably watch the new series of Line of Duty when that's out but that is literally it. Nothing appeals.
>> No. 29014 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 6:11 pm
29014 spacer
>>29013

>When was the last time the BBC actually broadcast a genuinely funny comedy series?

This Country. Fleabag, The Young Offenders and There She Goes were all bloody brilliant. On the other hand, Not Going Out does make me think that ISIS have got a point.
>> No. 29016 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 6:53 pm
29016 spacer
>>29014

You have a very low bar for quality.
>> No. 29017 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 6:56 pm
29017 spacer
With the amount of content available online, from all over the world, there is little reason for anyone under 70 to watch the BBC. Even my parenta have got around to cancelling their licence.
>> No. 29019 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 7:00 pm
29019 spacer
It's very metropolitan-centric isn't it the BBC?
>> No. 29025 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 10:33 pm
29025 spacer
>>29017

I'm quite a bit under 70, although middle age has been creeping up on me, and I quite like BBC Four's late night documentaries. They are perfect for me because I often work at home till late at night on some projects, especially now with the whole lockdown what-have-you, and having Jim Al-Khalili explain quantum physics to me is just the kind of come down I need so that I can drift off to sleep.
>> No. 29026 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 10:58 pm
29026 spacer
>>29025

I'd keep the license fee just for BBC Four and Radio 4 alone, frankly. Besides you don't get stuff like Horizon anywhere other than the BBC, unless you like your documentaries directly funded by the interest groups and supporting/opposing lobbies of the matter at hand. Whichever way you look at it the BBC has to modernise how it gets its funding, but there's definitely a place for a broadcaster which isn't beholden to the insidious will of the free market- Just look at the kind of shite Discovery or the History Channel has to pump out these days.

Personally I think where the BBC went wrong is in trying to compete with commercial channels for their trashy ad-supported junk-TV. The BBC should doggedly retain focus on snooker, gardening and archaeology, in that order, regardless what people think they want to watch. People are idiots and don't know what's good for them, the BBC should be giving them brain nourishment whether they like it or not, even if they only see snippets of it while the adverts are on on the other channels. Gradually it'll start to take root.
>> No. 29028 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 11:25 pm
29028 spacer
>>29026

You're right that free markets don't always lead to the best results when it comes to broadcast quality.

The Discovery Channel gets away with its shite pseudoscience programmes because the market for actual science programmes the way the Beeb commissions them is much too small to be profitable. Jim Al-Khalili talking quantum physics is aimed at the discerning, university educated viewer with not just a passing interest in science but also the capacity to follow quite complex thought. And with that, you're then talking about maybe ten to fifteen percent of the entire TV audience, at the most.

Meanwhile, the Discovery Channel makes shedloads pandering to the lowest common denominator by asking what would happen if the Sun disappeared tomorrow. Which is exactly the high mark of the common, thick as pig shit viewer who thinks science and all that suff is somehow "awesome", but whose understanding of science is GCSE-level at best.
>> No. 29029 Anonymous
27th November 2020
Friday 11:53 pm
29029 spacer
>>29028

>Jim Al-Khalili talking quantum physics is aimed at the discerning, university educated viewer with not just a passing interest in science but also the capacity to follow quite complex thought. And with that, you're then talking about maybe ten to fifteen percent of the entire TV audience, at the most.

You say that, but I'm the lad supporting it and I'm not university educated. I dropped out of college twice, and I spent those years of my life taking drugs in between casual jobs. I like watching that sort of stuff probably all the more because I never formally studied any of it.

You could be right and I'm a fringe case, but that's kind of the thing. Services like the BBC should be there to provide knowledge and mental enrichment to people who haven't gone through the typical middle-class routes to education and culture. Even the quantum physics documentaries you are referring to didn't just dive in with an assumption the viewer knew his strange quarks from his Higgs Bosons, it gave a relatively simple and digestible overview before it tackled the meatier topics.
>> No. 29030 Anonymous
28th November 2020
Saturday 12:02 am
29030 spacer
>>29028
The BBC used to have quality scientific programmes on its mainstream channels. They dumbed things down horrendously.
>> No. 29044 Anonymous
28th November 2020
Saturday 12:18 pm
29044 spacer
>>29030
>They dumbed things down horrendously.

And apparently it's still too smart.
>> No. 29045 Anonymous
28th November 2020
Saturday 12:42 pm
29045 spacer
>>28996
>Is the BBC fucked? I can't even remember the last time I actually watched it on the telly.
I hope not. Everyone else has said it already, but compare Classic FM and Radio 3.
>> No. 29046 Anonymous
28th November 2020
Saturday 12:51 pm
29046 spacer
>>29045
What's Scala like?
>> No. 29047 Anonymous
28th November 2020
Saturday 4:08 pm
29047 spacer
>>29045
Classical programming, radio or otherwise, is still sadly largely dominated by drawing a broader audience in with more popular pieces. Not that they're bad pieces by any means, just that total overexposure makes them banal and washes away any contextual significance, take The Ride of the Valkyries which has taken on a different flavour than setting the scene for deceiving and defying a vengeful god.

That said, your point does stand. Radio 3 really does go out of its way to introduce the listeners to something "unusual" or not as well known.

The BBC's main charm is in local radio, Radios 3, 4 and 6, BBC Four and the occasional televised sport.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password