Not sure what you mean by that. Can't see anything in bold in your post or mine. Other channels rip off tax payers, how? I'm forced by law to pay for something I never watch. Those that want too watch it can pay for it. BBC are not impartial. I posted a while back a huge list of apologies they have had to make and I think, sorry if I'm, wrong that your response was at least they apologized. They may well have done, but they should research it better before putting it out there, and the fact is that millions see the original, but few ever see the correction. If, as you conceded it will eventually go, that can only be because it isn't doing it's job properly, if it was people wouldn't object to paying for it. They pay for loads of media stuff, because they see relevance in it. ITN news is free, and is excellent, and their programming is free at the point of viewing. Fact is you come at this from a professional background, so you see it through a different spectrum. If you put your every day punters hat on it's not worth £14 a month.
Oh, by the way good morning.
I bolded a part in your response to me mate, it's showing for - for ease it was '
something like refusing to call Hamas terrorists,'. Might make my reply make a bit more sense if you know what I'm on about.
I've still seen nothing that contradicts Simpson or my own memory of the BBC calling ISIS militants etc. They have the archives, yet they rely on Twitter posts that don't disprove a long held neutrality approach?
Sounds a bit convenient.
As for other channels and, commercial radio, print newspapers etc, the BBC have a generous fund that is rarely spoken about and almost anyone who is accredited within the media can apply for grants for anything ranging from training subsidies for newbies, inter BBC funded work experience placements, funds and extra staff support for investigative stories that continue in effect to remain the copyright of the applicant outlet and even though the BBC would fund/share the workload - more often than not the BBC still report on it as a third party rather than co-party investigation.
There's loads more that they do for the wider press in general that I've long forgot, but no, our taxpayer money just doesn't go to the BBC body, millions go wider than that, and not always with thanks or accreditation.
That was point, many would still understandably disagree it's a good use of money, but that's a separate debate.
Again difference between impartial and a fuck up. They make plenty of fuck ups, I call them out as well as you know, but in terms of a lack of true bias they are closer than anyone else. It's why they are favourite Government whipping boys because apart from the truly woeful they have employed over the years, the good never bow or favour.
But no wasn't arguing at least they apologise, media apologies count for crap but their mistakes are usually more genuine, and not driven by a pure motive is my point. Don't forget I've made press complaints in the past, dug in, and won against legal departments. The article changed - people only read an article once, they don't look for a correction 6 months later.
My argument was an obvious point of law that they had mis-explained, and they still tried to out argue me lol
I agree on better research, you know I moan when they only use one source as opposed to two independent and so on. But at least they don't use social media as truth, like others.
Which also addresses Col's response. Big difference between knowingly misrepresenting and then unknowingly believing a misrepresentation.
But no, it'll go because the world is getting dumber. It's easier to believe those who shout loudest or get their tits out and dismiss all experts because chancers who call themselves experts actually have no knowledge of what they claim to be experts on. People will pay is also a misnomer, the growth in privacy, IPTV, music sharing, have much of an issue have Netflix made over sharing passwords - the next generation will be more entitled on that front, as each generation has slowly become.
And as said, the world will be poorer for it. Doesn't make them perfect or above criticism, and I'm no licence fee fan either, but they have still made major changes people believed they wouldn't 24 months ago.
It's a start, it can't be the finish.
ITV is basic, C4 is actually my next go to for the record, but yes fair point, I do have a hat in the ring so to speak, which is why I look at outlets with the prism I do - truth and accuracy over sensationalism, and commercial enterprise. You aren't wrong to raise it mate
Evening lol.
And as for your last point Col, Trump, GBN and that ilk - it's the flat out lies that irk people who pay attention. GB News that promotes itself as not being a news broadcaster to avoid scrutiny - you know who owns it?