The disgraceful BBC

[Capetonian]

This will ruffle some feathers. I suspect it might be pulled before screening.

Meghan Markle will be portrayed as a 'trailer trash' American in a BBC show tonight, in which a cartoon of the Duchess threatens to stab Kate Middleton.

The spoof comedy called Tonight With Vladimir Putin, which airs on BBC Two, has already drawn huge criticism from viewers.

[4mastacker]

I think the the words "BBC" comedy" is a relic of the far distant past.

[Ibbie]

They are as bad as the Guardian and the other papers for keep going on about Boris's private life.

[Capetonian]

Earlier I switched off Andrew Marr's usually worthwhile programme, and then BBC news, for this reason. Who cares?

[ian16th]

BBC don't like blue collar audience!

Watched Episode 1 of this last night. It didn't impress this household.

Good news that Doc Martin is returning

[Ibbie]

Nick Robinson and Justin Webb must have a left winger for producer this morning on Radio 4´s Today.

Crazy attempts at forceful questioning. Jeremy Hunt has put Webb back in his box a couple of times during their latest exchange......and still Webb persists with stupid questioning.

Unfit for purpose. It is not fit to be on the airwaves.

[om15]

I watched "Countryfile" for the first time last night, it was riven with anti Brexit propaganda, it is never ending.

[OFSO]

That great mental giant Liam Gallagher is on BBC right now. Someone whose aspirations we can only look at with amazement and wonder.

[llondel]

That great mental giant Liam Gallagher is on BBC right now. Someone whose aspirations we can only look at with amazement and wonder.

I think he was Khan-bashing, based on a snippet I heard on the news. Expressing concern about knife crime, because his kids are around the age range where most of the fatalities occur and he lives in the area.

[OFSO]

Quote: "I fink ders a problem wiv knives an' death 'n all that". (Makes backhanded slapping motion, nearly falls off his hair.)

[Capetonian]

great mental giant Liam Gallagher

Who?
Footballer?
TV non-entity?
Big Bruvver non-personality?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Musician - Oasis (Mancunian Beatles tribute band )

[Capetonian]

Thanks. Oasis rings a vague bell, but a Beatles tribute band,. why?
I know the Beatles no longer exist but all their music is available.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Note the wink. Their music sounds a lot like the Beatles. You can't quite prove they nicked a lot of their stuff off the Beatles, but... Bung in some nonsensical wivvit yoof lyrics and Bingo, you're superstars!

[Capetonian]

I've just seen him now on BBC news, know wot I mean, like. Prick.
Why do the BBC give cretins like that airtime?

[OFSO]

Why ?

1) he is 'performing' in some way at Glastonbury.
2) the BBC have a multitude of 'commentators' at Glastonbury. (For which we viewers are paying.)

[4mastacker]

I've copied this post from another forum. The author puts the issue into words far better than I could.

The thing is, I want a BBC. I just don't want this one.

With respect to @bigeye, whatever the provenance of the individuals within the organisation, it has become too bound up in non-issues and side-issues. It is there to educate, inform and entertain. It is emphatically not there to engage in social engineering - and if it's going to challenge the government of the day, it should do with equal vigour no matter which party is in power. I don't perceive of Corbyn being pursued in anything like the way Johnson is being, and I'm content that that's not as a result of confirmation bias on my part.

I don't need to be patronised about race or ethnicity. If someone is reporting on something from some far-flung part of the world, it's less important to me that the reporter is of an ethnicity close(r) to those affected by the events being described. What's more important is spoken English of sufficient fluency and clarity that I can actually understand what's being said - and I'm widely travelled, I have an 'ear'. Moreover, that policy patronises some very good reporters, in that it implies an inability to empathise.

What's more important is a fair and balanced news agenda. The deliberate ignorance of veterans' marches is a case in point; even when the guys were right outside the BBC they were given a stiff ignoring. Even when the BBC was finally forced to 'notice', the numbers were played down.

Just because something is politically uncomfortable doesn't mean it's to be blanked. Actually, hang on: several thousand veterans, versus a couple of hundred climate campaigners...

Just one example.

The manic pursuit of 'balance' in reporting renders a lot of news coverage indecipherable. Because, for example, in pursuing 'fairness' it becomes impossible to gauge where the mood of the country is - and that's very important. Too often it feels like 'balance' is being used by the organisation to brief against political issues it doesn't like. Well, the organisation isn't there to have such an opinion. It's there to reflect.

Here's a thing: I'm quite happy for groups such as IS, which have vowed to destroy my society, being described as terrorists and criminals by my national broadcaster. I'm less concerned if that offends a small percentage of the population even if it's indigenous - their sympathy and support for terrorists and criminals renders their desire to be considered null and void.

I want my national broadcaster to reflect the broader views of the wider population. I don't want it to relentlessly pursue a small, very cosmopolitan agenda. I don't care about someone's ethnicity, sexuality or whatever. I take as I find. I don't want to be viewed as part of a huge 'rump' who are ignorant and need to be constantly educated and brought on-message - not least because most people are similar to me. This isn't an inherently racist country, whatever some people with agendas might be pushing for their own ends.

I don't care about quotas. I don't need needless over-representation to provide 'balance' (there's that word again). If someone's good at what they do - whomever - get 'em out there. But don't alienate me and don't patronise me, not least because I'm increasingly convinced that I've been to more places and seen more than many of you. That goes for so many other 'gammons'.

And I'm including here drama as well as factual coverage.

[Pontius Navigator]

it should do with equal vigour no matter which party is in power. I don't perceive of Corbyn being pursued in anything like the way Johnson is being,

He overlooks the point that Corbyn's party is not in power.

Reflecting the mood of the population is difficult. If they reflect my view they are clearly impartial. If they reflect an opposite view they are clearly biased.

[Capetonian]

Johnson is colourful and likely to be the next PM and he has a track record of infidelity and indiscretions of a nature that is likely to appeal to the base interests of the public and media.

Corbin is a dull and grey personality, and unless he is discovered knobbing Dianne Abbott (yuck!) behind the benches in parliament or dipping his wick with one of his assistants, or found to have £15 million in a trust in the Cayman Islands or Vanuatu, he won't attract any media attention.

[Slasher]

I just wish someone would give the Boris boy a bloody comb.