Do we really want neutral news?

I'm not talking about someone calling the BBC and demanding they make changes or else. I'm talking about someone who, because they don't like some of what the BBC's done, is less charitable in deciding how much money they get this year; it wouldn't even necessarily be a deliberate message on their part.

Although, does the License Fee have to be reset each year, or does it just stay unchanged unless someone makes a deliberate move to alter it?

Generally, the Licence Fee is increased a little bit each year, but Parliament has decreed it be frozen for this term (at least). And you can't really cut funding to The BBC, because unlike other state services it is funding through a certain tax, and not general taxation. Generally speaking, The BBC's fee is untouchable - mainly because people will notice. And The BBC is the main source of news for a super-majority, so not only will people notice, but The BBC won't not make a fuss about it.

Are these national news services more or less biased than the beer, guns and gold selling networks?

For example, is Voice Of America biased, and if so, in what way?

Not quite sure what you mean.

If you mean an agenda, then probably not. By mere statute law the national broadcasting networks are supposed to be politically-neutral. In fact, The BBC has been accused of supporting the Government and the Opposition at the same time.

Ah, so since it's got its own, seperate tax, the government can't claim they're moving funding from it to something they think is more important? Yeah, that could definitely up the shamed-into-doing-the-right-thing potential.

Correct. The Licence Free is levied separately from general taxation. So, yeah, that money cannot be redistributed, because it goes directly to The BBC, whereas general taxation goes to Government who redistributes it to the State. The BBC is not a State instrument, technically.

However, the Government has the power to appoint the leader of The BBC, but only when his term comes up for renewal.

Okay, this is getting off-topic, but do you mean when you refer to the Government and the State as seperate things?

@ Raven

The government is the current political incumbents, who under Westminster systems, are viewed as fickle and prone to change and populism. That unfortunately is probably all true.

The crown/state is the bureaucratic engine that runs mostly on automatic, according to the giant mountain of laws and regulations that exist. They are politically neutral. The top of their chain of command are the ministers and then the crown, but overall, the day to day procedures are run by bureaucrats. So when you say something like "what if a minister wanted to look good", he has to individually screw with a zillion bureaucrats. That is, never going to happen.

Secondly, as to funding, unless the voters are really voting themselves off a cliff (always possible), it's very difficult to dismantle the democratic institutions that are put into place via arms-lengths committees.

a) You must over-reach your parliamentary powers to change the funding of CBC/BBC

b) You must overrule the department that oversees that (different for Canada and Britain)

c) You must then roll it into your budget without notice

d) You must not take a hit in the polls for your partisan actions

I have to admit, the last two depend on voters being informed and caring. If they just go "oh well, who cares", well you can get a dictatorship within 10-15 years.

And, believe me... people care about the Beeb aka "Auntie" — yup: it's rarer these days, but you still hear the BBC referred to as "Auntie". Does that sound like an institution nobody cares about?

You should have seen the stink about the attempted cutting of Radio 6 Music. Dear Lord, but that attempted change hit a fire storm. The Asian Network could be cut to the bone... but, not 6 Music.

edited 1st Jul '12 11:40:29 PM by Euodiachloris

Huh, must be a difference in terms; in America, elected offices and bureaucratic agencies are collectively referred to as "the government".

That does make all the times I've heard the BBC talk about a country getting "a new government" make a lot more sense.

edited 2nd Jul '12 1:38:27 AM by RavenWilder

You must be really confused when they talk about "rebellions" in Britain then, or Canadian governments "collapsing". :P

For some reason, now I have this image of the British bureaucracy as a train engine controlled and the politicians are the drivers. And there's a boxing glove that will punch the politician in the face if they decide to push buttons at random.

Hehe.

@ Raven. Like breadloaf said, the Government and the State are separate entities. The Government is the elected portion of the State, however the State generally is politically-neutral and refers to the bureaucracy - from the top civil servants, through to a manager in a local government department, down to a refuse collector.

Generally speaking, State Funding, and Government Funding are the same thing; as Government is in control of State Funding.

(We could complicate things and suggest that because ultimate power is vested in the Government, the Government can shape the Crown and State to what it wants the State and Crown to be.)

(In fact, if the Government wanted the Crown to be represented by a bus driver from Dudley, they could simply pass a law in Parliament that decrees so)

Yup: and the House of Lords and the Crown are part of the glove. The Common's screws up too much, they get a *pow* to the mug as they're bundled out of office wholesale. The Crown still reserves the right to choose a government even counter a majority vote in Parliament, but most likely if a form of government cannot be agreed on in the House (not that it has had cause to use it in recent years).

However, using that power would most likely require the abdication of the monarch who did so very soon after, to avoid public backlash and a forced deposing via Parliament once the dust settles.

And, people say a constitutional monarchy directed by Parliament isn't a real democracy... It may not be, but it makes for a damn fine emergency break, should we suddenly get a demagogue trying to control things in Parliament. As well as that, the Commons and the Lords can depose a tyrant should one try to make the throne too big for its britches.

And, between them all... lie the bureaucrats keeping the whole thing cemented together. And, they can make the whole lot look like fools, if they really want to.

edited 2nd Jul '12 8:28:02 AM by Euodiachloris

Indeed. The Lords and Crown are the 'dignified' extent of our constitution.

Of course, our democracy is pretty effective. We don't need a fancy-pants "codified" constitution to make things run.

Then again, we could talk about 'elective dictatorship', but that's muddying up the waters a lot.

The further one goes from Westminster, the larger the State is as an employer. :P

This finely tuned machine (well, it does has its quirks... but they are well known quirks) is why I start steaming when people who don't know a thing about it go on about how a republic with an elected president, Lords and written constitution would make for a better system. We'd need to create the checks and balances wholesale from the ground up.

It's a bit like taking the engine out the car while it's still going, without checking to see if you've balanced the axles as well. We've got our vintage Jaguar purring nicely, thanks. Hands off: in some ways, it's still better on the road than a lot of others are. As long as you give it regular servicing and check-ups, there's no need for a total overhaul.

edited 2nd Jul '12 8:45:10 AM by Euodiachloris

Exactly. Our constitution (yes, it exists. And is the largest in the world - technically) is based on evolution; not revolution. What would take an age to do in the US takes a mere flick of a wrist here.

Shit, people going on killing sprees? We need to ban handguns! That law took a few months to get through.

In America? Well, we have that kerfuffle with majorities and states and other nonsense. Heck, other European democracies make do with referendums for constitutional change.

And the Lords may be unelected, but they're bloody good experts, I tell you. An effective check on the Commons, that no elected upper-house could.

It's big alright, and that's the problem. No-one knows what it says, much less how to interpret it. Government usually works by custom and institutional loyalty. They certainly have more power, but they are far more opaque and difficult to reason over.

On the matter of the neutrality of news, and how funding affects it: all respectable news outlets keep their advertising and editorial departments separate. Conflicts of interests can happen, but any network that refuses to go against some company because it provides revenue is not going to do well, because a) large companies are generally unpopular b) reporting news, biased or not, is going to offend someone somewhere.

The problem with many American outlets is not that they pander to advertisers, it's that they pander to a certain demographic of listeners. The BBC does this to an extent, but it has an institutional tradition and a somewhat more sophisticated audience.

But look instead at Britain's tabloids; they pander to the remaining audience. Uniquely in Western Europe, they have no reporting norms and do not try to be unbiased. They can be ugly, especially when they put pressure on the government; but they also fill a space that is taken up on the continent by xenophobic, demagoguic right-wing parties. It is in many ways a preferable setup.

"The British have centrist politics, and a spectrum of papers. The Continentals have a spectrum of politics, and centrist papers."

Of course, this can cause trouble when the papers put so much pressure on the Government when they can actually influence policy directives.

... *AHEM* MURDOCH *AHEM*

Murdoch is a symptom more than a cause. Most of his politics is posturing to attract publicity.

But there is indeed a problem when one person is head of a corporation owing several newspapers. Hopefully rivals to him will appear, and the formula he has used will not work with more sophisticated news outlets.

After being in USA for three weeks in trip... Oh deal lord, your news are horrible... I mean, seriously, advertisements and celebrity news main ones?........ And thats not even getting into insane stuff

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:29:24 PM

We're talking relative degrees of bias, here, fanty. Yup, it does lean a little to the left. But, yeouch, it is nowhere near as biased as the various new sources you generally find in places like the States, were there is no chartered mandate to even play proper lip-service to the idea of balance. Yes, chat shows and discussion panels will still take on the appearance of balanced debate, there, but for far more than half the time, it's a very bad case of strawmanning and masks. Very obviously so.

The Beeb pushes the left a little too far, and it gets its nose snapped off. At best, it's slightly left of centre.

edited 5th Jul '12 2:38:54 PM by Euodiachloris

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:29:37 PM

Actually, I don't think it is BBC's fault at all. They rely on journalists and are very equitable about it. However, journalists they hire are mainly British (or various nearby regions) and those tend toward being left, as is the case for those well educated (for instance, the NDP in Canada enjoy the highest support amongst university students). As such, BBC on the whole is slightly left even though the organisation strives to be as balanced as possible.

It's the same with CBC and many other news organisation that don't hire based on ideology. If you look at Reuters, AP and CP (Canadian Press), they all tend toward being left a bit but they're all very factual and well done journalism (whether their reports get hacked up when purchased is another story). You'll notice that if you get to read original AP/CP articles and compare them against what the BBC or CBC actually posts up on their websites, they (BBC/CBC) tend to shift those stories toward the right before posting them.

I also notice, as one might expect, BBC tends to be more pro-British as possible and dislikes nations that are not British allies or are their competitors (like for instance, it tends to dislike China and there being so much crap wrong with China, it has a field day on slapping on irrelevant negative facts to unrelated stories based in China).

edited 5th Jul '12 3:42:35 PM by breadloaf