So thats why.

[habbiner]

The sunday morning politics programme on the BBC has answered my ignorance as to how the BBC can display political views overtly, and get away with it.

There was a discussion in regards to newspapers freedoms being reigned in or capped. The point was made against the right wing papers that they functioned under political influence. Noooo, stop, i know. Apparently the royal charter prevents overt political influence being exerted on the media. This is being looked at and possibly changed in regards to the press.

If this bag of worms is opened, then surely the BBC would then be open to change from whatever government is in power. It is not in the BBCS interest to have this changed, i wouldnt have thought. This change cannot be limited to the press alone. Surely.

There are so many paradoxes in life. The freedom enjoyed by the BBC and the Guardian to subvert, lie, manipulate, destroy, be ignorant, childish,perverted, is protected by.....THE ROYAL FAMILY.

The corruption of the left can not be described as left any longer, but dangerous right wing extremists. God help us all.

Andrew Neil, this man needs to be fired. Obnoxious doesnt describe it.



Here we have The Guardian and the BBC undermining decency and fairness, doing its best to detroy democracy, and its right to do that is............PROTECTED BY THE ROYAL FAMILY.

There are so many paradoxes in life, it is more than fair to describe the BBC and the Guardian as right wing.

[Teddy Bear]

I don't quite get why you would describe the BBC/Guardian et al as right wing.

I really don't mind if a particular media outlet is biased or otherwise. It's then easy to see the particular slant or agenda it has, and balance it with one from the other end of the spectrum. It is when in the case of the BBC, it is supposed to operate according to the terms of the Royal Charter, wherein it should be fair, impartial, balanced, and independent. Then when it's not, as we know it isn't, it can do far more damage as more people are likely to trust it.

Take away the licence fee, and the false cloak that the charter gives it, and I couldn't care less what it chooses to report.

Seeing that the Guardian/Independent have such a low circulation compared to the Mail and Telegraph, I don't think the BBC could survive as a privately operated media outlet, at least maintaining their present mindset.

[steevo]

Take away the licence fee, and the false cloak that the charter gives it, and I couldn't care less what it chooses to report.

I'm not so sure about that. Assuming they survived even a little bit the remainder would be more than enough for you to continue to pull your hair out old diehard.

[Teddy Bear]

Actually, really not Steevo.
There are many biased media companies with agendas I find disturbing, I don't bother covering their output. It's because many people figure that if the BBC continues to be publicly funded on the basis that they are fair, impartial, balanced, etc, that therefore their reporting should be accurate. For this reason they do far more damage than any other media organisation.

It's the same when you find crooked cops. They are far worse than plain criminals because of their betrayal of the trust bestowed on them. Using that power for evil makes them especially dangerous.