Same battle for the CBC. Leftist; multiculturalist; representing the opposing view to half of all Canadians. The large C conservative gov cut their funding; the large L liberal gov reestablished their funding.

CBC is running on the ticket to prove their fundworthiness to the public, by putting forth convincing arguments and slogans which assert that funding is a fun ding.

And everyone puts their money where their mouth is.

Taking a step a back from the particular case of the BBC, I don't really see how any public broadcaster could ever avoid the accusation of political bias from at least some of the citizens who are obliged to provide it with funding. However, I don't know whether this is an argument for public broadcasters or against public broadcasters.

Unfortunately, to those on the RIGHT from almost any country...

...reporting the truth is leaning to the left.

Ya know what...it is, because the last thing in the world the right wants...is to hear the truth. They want news artificially slanted toward the right.

So...if you guys get control in England or Canada or the United States...do your best to dismantle the media. Then you can get Rupert Murdoch to do the broadcasting of right-wing fiction...and you will feel better. Your country, and its ethics, will go down the drain, but don't let that bother you.

I consider myself to be on the left, although I don't hold with the left's current obsession with LGTBQ+, feminism, and race (all once worthy causes but resolved, and certainly not foundationally substantive enough on which to build a national policy).

The BBC's experiment with multiculturalism & identity has produced some absolute crap radio and TV, which strongly suggests that politically correct orthodoxies are not the way to nurture media talent.

Given that it's marketed to the 6th grade read level or other 100 IQ audiences and so on (as is most mass media, regards of the false public or private dichotomies to begin with), and probably isn't very irrelevant to thinking men or thinking women Britions who have ever so much as picked up or read a serious book whether in their local library, their law library, their Kindle e-reader, or anything else, presently or historically, I'm not overly concerned about it one way or another, though I'm leaning toward having it defunded, much as a am PBS (though said networks likely do have private backers as well, and wouldn't necessarily go out of business simply due to the public defunding thereof).

I’m against state TV as a matter of principle, but I also think people should be careful when ridding themselves of long-standing institutions. The PC stuff is dreadful and decadent, but I don’t think it’s enough to drop funding for the BBC.

The BBC's experiment with multiculturalism & identity has produced some absolute crap radio and TV, which strongly suggests that politically correct orthodoxies are not the way to nurture media talent. — Txastopher

Like what?

Besides, there's crap radio and TV that has nothing to do with "multiculturalism & identity." Sometimes writers, directors, and actors just suck.

LGTBQ+, feminism, and race (all once worthy causes but resolved, and certainly not foundationally substantive enough on which to build a national policy). — Txastopher

We will ignore the "resolved" aspect for now...what "national policy" are you referring to that is based on LGBTQ+, feminism, and race?

What was the previous policy that this new one replaced?

That's, for the most part, just silly little 6th grade reading level propaganda devoid of anything akin to logic, proper uses (and abuses) of facts, and so on, regardless of any serious "left" or "right" paradigm

Whatever archaic philosophical axioms that nonsense is predicated on to begin with (generally probably an outdated philosophical tidbit from Bentham or Mill, or some other philosophical or psychological axiom such as 'behaviorism' which is known to be considered nonsense, and arguably even was during the archaic era when it was supposedly popular or trendy, such as more serious philosophy of the law and its various rational and intentional axioms, as per Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others (coupled with a bare basic ignorance of the simple cause and effect which such an archaic philosophy and the proposals predicated on the archaic logic and nonsensical and impractical approximations and averagings thereof were apt to ignore entirely due to want of any intellectual reasoning that approximating or attempting to measure or estimate would require the use of mental and mathematical faculties lacking, or be entirely stupid and/or ignorant of to begin with, in both theories and in practice...

...falsely conflated either dishonestly or through sheer ignorance, lack of education, or stupidity with other domains of knowledge and abstractions), kind of akin to those idiots who conflate a scientific "theory" with a "conspiracy theory", due to the simple mutual inclusions of the word "theory", for example.

Most if not all, mass media, BBC, "liberal", "conservative", or otherwise, would be mostly obsolete if most people read, wrote, or had basic reading comprehension above the bare minimum 6th grade reading level which most of it is marketed to and for, such as having actually ever read and fully comprehended a treatise on Aristotelian logic and how it is and/or should actually be used in theory or practice.

(Hint, merely pointing out a textbook "fallacy" in another's argument isn't actually necessarily a good debate tactic, since the use of fallacies isn't necessarily or automatically "bad", it simply has the potential to be wrong in varying degrees (as opposed to pure mathematical abstractions).

Sometime I'd be interested in doing a more serious, critical history of marketing, journalism, and so on (something which doesn't boil down to or degenerate into childish fandom of a specific "network" devoid of any further facts, or critical assements of the reality thereof to begin with, and what the primary and various marketing methods, axioms and target demographics are to begin with.

(Beyond those who primarily or only read or write at a 6th grade reading level, or have at most a 100 IQ, since that much is already obvious,... or should be anyway, and who rarely or never even so much as visit either a local library or online Kindle or E-reader and read such much as a serious book written at the graduate or postgraduate school level, which would render 99% of what at worst, nonsense, at best, extremely dumbed down, "fast food" variants of much deeper stuff existing in said full length books at the best of superior thinking men and women who read and who write them).

Sometime I'd be interested in doing a more serious, critical history of marketing, journalism, and so on (something which doesn't boil down to or degenerate into childish fandom of a specific "network" devoid of any further facts, or critical assements of the reality thereof to begin with, and what the primary and various marketing methods, axioms and target demographics are to begin with. — IvoryBlackBishop

Sounds great :smile: I would love to see the summary when competed. However, it sounds like a complicated and potentially tedious study to complete. So I am interested, but not enough to put in actual effort...but if I ever have a few spare million dollars lying around, I would be happy to fund such a study.

Should the BBC continue to receive public money?

No.

That's, for the most part, just silly little 6th grade reading level propaganda devoid of anything akin to logic, proper uses (and abuses) of facts, and so on, regardless of any serious "left" or "right" paradigm

Whatever archaic philosophical axioms that nonsense is predicated on to begin with (generally probably an outdated philosophical tidbit from Bentham or Mill, or some other philosophical or psychological axiom such as 'behaviorism' which is known to be considered nonsense, and arguably even was during the archaic era when it was supposedly popular or trendy, such as more serious philosophy of the law and its various rational and intentional axioms, as per Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others (coupled with a bare basic ignorance of the simple cause and effect which such an archaic philosophy and the proposals predicated on the archaic logic and nonsensical and impractical approximations and averagings thereof were apt to ignore entirely due to want of any intellectual reasoning that approximating or attempting to measure or estimate would require the use of mental and mathematical faculties lacking, or be entirely stupid and/or ignorant of to begin with, in both theories and in practice...

...falsely conflated either dishonestly or through sheer ignorance, lack of education, or stupidity with other domains of knowledge and abstractions), kind of akin to those idiots who conflate a scientific "theory" with a "conspiracy theory", due to the simple mutual inclusions of the word "theory", for example.

Most if not all, mass media, BBC, "liberal", "conservative", or otherwise, would be mostly obsolete if most people read, wrote, or had basic reading comprehension above the bare minimum 6th grade reading level which most of it is marketed to and for, such as having actually ever read and fully comprehended a treatise on Aristotelian logic and how it is and/or should actually be used in theory or practice.

(Hint, merely pointing out a textbook "fallacy" in another's argument isn't actually necessarily a good debate tactic, since the use of fallacies isn't necessarily or automatically "bad", it simply has the potential to be wrong in varying degrees (as opposed to pure mathematical abstractions). — IvoryBlackBishop

Yes!

It seems to me that variety of funding and ownership is conducive to a balance of media. So if we have some media owned by the rich, some owned by the people who work for it, some publicly owned, and also funded in different ways, then there will be something more like balanced reporting.

The BBC is inevitably biased towards the establishment that funds it, and this has been minimised by establishing a degree of independence which is often attacked by that establishment. It needs a change in funding method along the lines of a block grant from general taxation and a renewed and strengthened charter and perhaps charitable status that would bring it under the ambit of the Charity Commisioners, or perhaps even some direct democratic control. But to leave all the media in the hands of the super rich, and funded by big business advertising will not lead to a fair, honest high quality media.

And now, sport...