BBC and "balance"

[BillyStubbsTears]

Possibly the biggest abdication of responsibility by the BBC is this obsession with false "balance".

So, although 90% of economists think Brexit will make us poorer and 99% of climate change scientists think it is man made and serious, everytime they put one of those on a programme, they always out someone from the other side on for "balance".

So what do you do now, when the Tories decide they are not going on the BBC programmes to defend their record?

Apparently you also kick off the Labour MP too. For "balance".

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyMcDonaldMP/status/1233429546034225152

Absolutely outrageous.

[BigH]

It's partly for this reason that I support the licence fee going.

The BBC is so far up its own ares that it's embarrassing.

In the run up to Brexit I made numerous complaints about how the organisation kept recruiting the same has-been motormouths on to it's news programmes in a way that reflected zero balance.

Of course, I got swatted away time after time by pliant grad interns.

The whole effing place needs a reboot.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It's partly for this reason that I support the licence fee going.

The BBC is so far up its own ares that it's embarrassing.

In the run up to Brexit I made numerous complaints about how the organisation kept recruiting the same has-been motormouths on to it's news programmes in a way that reflected zero balance.

Of course, I got swatted away time after time by pliant grad interns.

The whole effing place needs a reboot.

It's not the BBC's fault, it's the Charter it's held to.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's not correct Glyn. It's the way senior management choose to interpret the Charter. There is nothing in the Charter that says if you have a climate change scientists in for interview, you must also interview Nigel Lawson (who is paid by the petrochemical industry to denigrate climate change) for balance.

There is nothing in the Charter that says you must invite someone from the IEA onto your politics programmes every single week. The IEA which is funded by American businesses to push an extreme free-market, anti-Govt economic argument whilst claiming to be an independent think tank, which therefore doesn't need "balance" by interviewing someone from the other side of the argument.

There's nothing in the Charter that says that if the Tories choose not to send an MP to a public debate, you must eject the Labour MP for balance.

It's management choices.

[BobG]

Snag is, if they replace the missing Tory with, say, a tub of lard, the high and mighty get all upset and threaten the BBC charter renewal all over again. The fear inside the BBC is palpable. You only have to look at what happened to teletext last month to see that. And for me, that is utterly despicable behaviour by our elected politicians.

BobG

[Donnywolf]

The BBC has lost my "confidence" due to one issue

When Johnson was asked in a live debate "is it imperative that Politicians tell the truth" he replied "Yes vitally" important. The audience laughed out loud and made him look a d***

Next morning as most will know when the BBC cherry picked the supposed best bits they edited out the laughter

Shameful Shameless c**** - maybe rebrand as SSC ? I avoid watching them these days

[SydneyRover]

It's partly for this reason that I support the licence fee going.

The BBC is so far up its own ares that it's embarrassing.

In the run up to Brexit I made numerous complaints about how the organisation kept recruiting the same has-been motormouths on to it's news programmes in a way that reflected zero balance.

Of course, I got swatted away time after time by pliant grad interns.

The whole effing place needs a reboot.

I would like bbc funding and the board to be excised from political interference. I haven't read it's charter but it needs to be amended to cover this extraordinary 'balance' in reporting fiasco.

[albie]

It is interesting to think if the BBC should "balance" the coverage of Coronovirus by matching scientific opinion with inputs from internet conspiracy cranks.

There is a difference between expert opinion changing with new information, and the theories of people with no expertise in the subject.

The example of climate change is very important. The idea that an unqualified contribution from a paid advocate like Nigel Lawson is of equal worth to professional opinion is a gross distortion of the debate.

The BBC may believe that balance is essential to news coverage, but does that apply to material which is factual in nature?