Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 26, 2014 22:20:02 GMT
Douglas Carswell is a Conservative politician who also writes articles for the Telegraph. Here he states his thoughts about the BBC, particularly in light of the recent vote to decriminalize non payment of the licence fee. It's interesting to see just how certain politicians have themselves been aware of BBC bias, and how they might have discussed these issues among themselves.
Questions the biased BBC never seems to ask
By Douglas Carswell
Faced with a threat to their £3.7 billion-a-year licence fee, the BBC is going into overdrive to try to demonstrate to MPs how jolly balanced and fair it really is.
Not for one moment do I doubt that the BBC gives equal airtime to different political parties. But it is the lack of balance in terms of outlook and assumption that I find so appalling. Again and again, the premise behind so much of the BBC's output - not simply current affairs programmes - is leftist and corporatist.
With £3.7 billion to spend each year, you can ask a lot of questions. When did the following questions ever form the premise of any BBC programmes?
The digital revolution is making the world better in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. As well as dooming the licence fee, it is democratising the process of opinion forming. The priesthood of liberal-leftie pundits and commentators, so long used to telling the rest of us what to think, are being displaced.
I delight at the prospect of self-styled “progressives” raging against modernity and the implications of the digital revolution.
By Douglas Carswell
Faced with a threat to their £3.7 billion-a-year licence fee, the BBC is going into overdrive to try to demonstrate to MPs how jolly balanced and fair it really is.
Not for one moment do I doubt that the BBC gives equal airtime to different political parties. But it is the lack of balance in terms of outlook and assumption that I find so appalling. Again and again, the premise behind so much of the BBC's output - not simply current affairs programmes - is leftist and corporatist.
With £3.7 billion to spend each year, you can ask a lot of questions. When did the following questions ever form the premise of any BBC programmes?
The economy: How can you call it austerity when the government continues to spend £100 billion a year more than it takes in tax? That’s a spending stimulus, by definition, no?
Education: If your child can have a personalised music playlist on Spotify, why can’t they have a personalised curriculum for their learning? Why have a national curriculum at all?
European Union: Why do otherwise rational people imagine that Britain would be better off being run by unelected officials in Brussels rather than by deciding things for ourselves?
Bankers: Instead of blaming “neo liberalism” for the banking crisis, wasn’t it the incompetence of state-run central bankers, who stoked up a credit bubble with low interest rates?
Health: If supermarkets manage to be open 24 hours a day, why are most GP surgeries shut on weekends? Where is the consumer power?
International affairs: Why do we at the BBC always characterise baddies in Russia, Iran or any place else as being “Right wing”?
Middle East: In a region of turbulence and strife, what is it about the liberal democratic state of Israel that makes it such a remarkable success story?
Immigration: When considering the pros and the cons, shouldn’t we look at more than just the economic implications?
Climate change: Isn’t the climate in constant flux? And if the Roman or Medieval warmings weren’t caused by industrial activity, why do we suppose that any contemporary warming, if it exists, must be down to human activity?
BBC: The BBC has the most extraordinary sense of self-regard, with changes in personnel within the corporation reported though they were stories of national significance. Yet strangely the Beeb never seems to find the time to ask why its top management trousers over a quarter of a million pounds a year each. Or why the same clique of opinion-formers seem to be commissioned to tell the rest of us what to think.
Education: If your child can have a personalised music playlist on Spotify, why can’t they have a personalised curriculum for their learning? Why have a national curriculum at all?
European Union: Why do otherwise rational people imagine that Britain would be better off being run by unelected officials in Brussels rather than by deciding things for ourselves?
Bankers: Instead of blaming “neo liberalism” for the banking crisis, wasn’t it the incompetence of state-run central bankers, who stoked up a credit bubble with low interest rates?
Health: If supermarkets manage to be open 24 hours a day, why are most GP surgeries shut on weekends? Where is the consumer power?
International affairs: Why do we at the BBC always characterise baddies in Russia, Iran or any place else as being “Right wing”?
Middle East: In a region of turbulence and strife, what is it about the liberal democratic state of Israel that makes it such a remarkable success story?
Immigration: When considering the pros and the cons, shouldn’t we look at more than just the economic implications?
Climate change: Isn’t the climate in constant flux? And if the Roman or Medieval warmings weren’t caused by industrial activity, why do we suppose that any contemporary warming, if it exists, must be down to human activity?
BBC: The BBC has the most extraordinary sense of self-regard, with changes in personnel within the corporation reported though they were stories of national significance. Yet strangely the Beeb never seems to find the time to ask why its top management trousers over a quarter of a million pounds a year each. Or why the same clique of opinion-formers seem to be commissioned to tell the rest of us what to think.
The digital revolution is making the world better in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. As well as dooming the licence fee, it is democratising the process of opinion forming. The priesthood of liberal-leftie pundits and commentators, so long used to telling the rest of us what to think, are being displaced.
I delight at the prospect of self-styled “progressives” raging against modernity and the implications of the digital revolution.