Sit Down To an Evening with the BBC

russellsnr

russellsnr

Messages
3,168
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
So I just looked at tonight's offering from the BBC, so excited to sit down and relax in front on the tele. 1800 News, 1830 Local News, 1855 Conservative Election Broadcast, 1900 The One Show, 1930 Eastenders, 2000 Race across the world, 2100 Master Chef, 2200 back to the news again, 2230 Local news again,2240 Question time, Jesus I can't wait to get to bed!!!
 
russellsnr said:
So I just looked at tonight's offering from the BBC, so excited to sit down and relax in front on the tele. 1800 News, 1830 Local News, 1855 Conservative Election Broadcast, 1900 The One Show, 1930 Eastenders, 2000 Race across the world, 2100 Master Chef, 2200 back to the news again, 2230 Local news again,2240 Question time, Jesus I can't wait to get to bed!!!
Click to expand...
Whilst they may not appeal to you, others like them (well maybe apart from the PPP)
 
I've just watched The Apprentice on catch up and I can't think of another thing I watch on the BBC, maybe the odd FA cup match. As far as I'm concerned the sooner the BBC is either radically reformed or taken off air the better.

We hardly ever watch the traditional channels, we mostly watch Youtube, Amazon and Netflix.
 
The only live tv we can bear to watch now is the news - BBC for local, and several others for national/international, but for entertainment there is none. We can't abide the One Show, soaps are full of misery and violence/nastiness, reality shows are just not actually reality so are unadulterated rubbish. The only thing in that list of programmes I' consider is Question Time, but even that is predictable. The politicians are just very poor quality these days. So we are mostly watching either streamed content, or dvd's. The most entertaining programme I watched this evening, was an episode of Here's Harry - Harry Worth, from the early 70's. Gentle light sitcom.
 
I must admit that I quite like to sit down and watch Bargain Hunt whilst I eat my lunch. (It's interestng to see how many 'experts' have no idea of the real value of old cameras.) The "Lunchtime News" now is torture. "Coming up" - what we are going to tell you. Then The Main story today. A short filler then Today's Main Story (again). A short weather forcast - the complete one coming later! Then just to remind you of our main story (again).
It's not long ago that the BBC Lunchtime News was expanded to an hour. Given the number of times they repeat themselves it could all be over in twenty minutes.
I usually watch the headlines then go to he darkroom. So much more exciting.
 
Eucris said:
Some people seem to be forgetting that there is more to the BBC than just BBC1.
Click to expand...
true, but only rarely does 3 or 4 do something really good like Detectorists
 
lindsay said:
The only live tv we can bear to watch now is the news - BBC for local, and several others for national/international, but for entertainment there is none. We can't abide the One Show, soaps are full of misery and violence/nastiness, reality shows are just not actually reality so are unadulterated rubbish. The only thing in that list of programmes I' consider is Question Time, but even that is predictable. The politicians are just very poor quality these days. So we are mostly watching either streamed content, or dvd's. The most entertaining programme I watched this evening, was an episode of Here's Harry - Harry Worth, from the early 70's. Gentle light sitcom.
Click to expand...

My wife still watches Eastenders. I've tried, but it's awful and is just as you describe.

The only BBC production we watch together is The Traitors. Other than that, I really enjoyed their 24/7 Big Cats. I've watched a few Question Times, but I found far too many instances of bias moderation and hasn't there been some revelations of foul play going on? I can't quite remember.

With all the talk of how the BBC should change to a subscription model like NetFlix etc, I'm not sure that there would be enough for me to warrant it. On saying that, there's not a huge amount I'm watching on NetFlix, Prime and Disney either at the moment, so when adding in the BBC licence fee as well (although it does of course cover much more), I don't really think I'm getting much value for money across them all, but that's just at the moment and specifically for me.
 
We like "Unspun World" which is usually presented by John Simpson on Wednesday nights (BBC2).
 
gman said:
My wife still watches Eastenders. I've tried, but it's awful and is just as you describe.

The only BBC production we watch together is The Traitors. Other than that, I really enjoyed their 24/7 Big Cats. I've watched a few Question Times, but I found far too many instances of bias moderation and hasn't there been some revelations of foul play going on? I can't quite remember.

With all the talk of how the BBC should change to a subscription model like NetFlix etc, I'm not sure that there would be enough for me to warrant it. On saying that, there's not a huge amount I'm watching on NetFlix, Prime and Disney either at the moment, so when adding in the BBC licence fee as well (although it does of course cover much more), I don't really think I'm getting much value for money across them all, but that's just at the moment and specifically for me.
Click to expand...

For me it's not really the cost of the BBC it's the news output with the allegations of bias, the fake news, the stories they just wont go near and the endless scandals. For me this taints the enjoyment of the programs which themselves are open to allegations of nudge, propaganda and bias. Oh and the efforts to infect every platform to justify forcing everyone to have a licence annoys me too.
 
Eucris said:
Is that because they don't tell you what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

No. It's because I don't want to swallow their bias and fake news and turn a blind eye to the news stories they wont cover.

There's been such a long list of news stories the BBC have got drastically wrong and have had to grudgingly and as quietly as possible back track on that I find it incredible that anyone can trust them to provide unbiased accurate impartial news coverage.

Perhaps you've missed all that?

I think the days when legacy news outlets can be relied upon and trusted are over. These days I get my news from more than one source and if need be I do my own research such as watching a full interview rather than relying on mainstream media edited together misinformation.
 
I take a more pragmatic approach, as I don't have the time nor inclination to watch several news programmes (and don't look at any print media): I mentally skip anything that is not actually happening. Much "news" is actually either journalist opinion or otherwise, journalist speculation on future events. EG they will say "is expected to announce" or "is set to...". No, I'm only interested in the past tense and sometimes present tense of actual occurrences.
So then having filtered out the non-news, I can then follow up anything that has apparent incomplete or biased descriptions if it is a subject that interests me. It makes for a much less contentious current affairs perspective.
 
Eucris said:
But that doesn't mean that the news you are listening to is any less biased than the BBC or any more accurate. All you are doing is cherry picking the sources that tell you what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

No. I'm really not.

What I'm doing is trying to be well informed. Getting news from more than one source could well mean that you spot any conflicts and can then go on to do more research. These days you don't have to be a sheep and swallow whatever the mainstream wants to feed you as there are other sources and you can choose to at least try and be well informed of the facts.

I seem to have hit a nerve with you. You can rely on the BBC or other mainstream media if you want but you should at least be willing to look at the times the BBC have undeniably and arguably deliberately mislead you and wonder if they're worth trusting without question. IMO the days when the BBC news could be trusted are well and truly gone.
 
Last edited:
As I started it I'd better put some input. Escape to the country the wife loves this one not that we could afford £500,000 house, Beyond Paradise as find it humorous, The repair shop, as it seems to be real world so to speak, The Capture was really good, Hidden assets worth a watch and Blood Lands again very good. Russ.
 
russellsnr said:
As I started it I'd better put some input. Escape to the country the wife loves this one not that we could afford £500,000 house, Beyond Paradise as find it humorous, The repair shop, as it seems to be real world so to speak, The Capture was really good, Hidden assets worth a watch and Blood Lands again very good. Russ.
Click to expand...

I forgot about The Capture. Yes, enjoying that.
 
woof woof said:
No. I'm really not.

What I'm doing is trying to be well informed. Getting news from more than one source could well mean that you spot any conflicts and can then go on to do more research. These days you don't have to be a sheep and swallow whatever the mainstream wants to feed you as there are other sources and you can choose to at least try and be well informed of the facts.

I seem to have hit a nerve with you. You can rely on the BBC or other mainstream media if you want but you should at least be willing to look at the times the BBC have undeniably and arguably deliberately mislead you and wonder if they're worth trusting without question. IMO the days when the BBC news could be trusted are well and truly gone.
Click to expand...

You made a statement about the BBC and I questioned it. That is what debate and discussion is about, is it not. Just because I have questioned your replies in this thread does not mean that I am biased either for or against the BBC. By questioning your posts I am trying to get a better understanding of why you dislike the BBC so much, and where you are getting your “trusted” news from, and why you think it is more reliable than the BBC. People are naturally biased and they believe what they want to believe.
 
lindsay said:
TBH, World Service radio is the best part of the BBC, yet the one that is always facing the chop.
Click to expand...
The world service used to be financed by the home office, then the government of the day made the BBC stand the cost, the same as another government of the day transfered the cost of free licenses to the BBC and let them take the stick when they had to make changes.
The TV license used to be a license to operate the reciever (A bit like how you used to have a license to operate a CB radio.) and the BBC was financed through those funds. Then at some point it became a license to "consume" the BBC...a politically astute move!
 
Happy to say I've not watched live broadcast TV from any channel for over 10 years now. The old saying "they treat you like mushrooms and feed you sh*t" was never so accurate as it is with broadcast TV (IMO)
 
I'm currently watching the Snooker, I enjoy it but it makes me feel totally inadequate:)

Other than that, I have a near-daily routine, I switch the machine on, scroll through all of the channels and switch it off again. I'm just glad that I don't need to pay for a licence.

I do sometimes watch news programmes, whichever channel happens to be convenient at the time, and none of them impress me. There was an item a few days ago, related to the American/Iran war, they said that pig products are likely to be in short supply due to the lack of C02, which they said was used for humane stunning of pigs. They must have known that CO2 is used to suffocate pigs, not to stun them, so this was really just reading out a meat industry press release, not journalism.
 
cancelled my TV licence about 2 years ago its just garbage,
plenty of cheap alternatives now like Discovery and Prime.
 
woof woof said:
No. It's because I don't want to swallow their bias and fake news and turn a blind eye to the news stories they wont cover.

There's been such a long list of news stories the BBC have got drastically wrong and have had to grudgingly and as quietly as possible back track on that I find it incredible that anyone can trust them to provide unbiased accurate impartial news coverage.

Perhaps you've missed all that?

I think the days when legacy news outlets can be relied upon and trusted are over. These days I get my news from more than one source and if need be I do my own research such as watching a full interview rather than relying on mainstream media edited together misinformation.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree the BBC is an absolute disgrace and not fit for purpose. It is not just their news coverage that tries to set an agenda they do that throughout their other programming as well. And thats before you even get into all of the other scandals that surround it.

The worm has turned though and people are cancelling their t.v licences at a record rate. Hopefully it won't be long before its completely defunct.
 
I think that the idea the BBC turns out fake news is, at best, strange.

On the whole, the BBC seems to be one of the most trusted and trustworthy broadcasters at the moment, rivalled only by its local competitors Channel 4 and ITV. This study from the Reuters Institute provides a much more detailed assessment...

United Kingdom

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
 
benc98 said:
I don't watch as much as I used to - Race Across the World is brilliant! Loved The Capture.

I don't really consume BBC news tbh, but imo , The BBC is our last hope against polairsed news coverage that you see in the USA
Click to expand...
Having spent 11 years in the USA I can only agree with you. The BBC isn't perfect and it has got things wrong but it's as close to trustworthy as we are going to get these days.

I watch very little TV these days other than motorbike racing, F1 and the occasional series that come recommended to me from friends. I do however listen to Radio 4 every day.

I do think it will need to find a different funding methodology in this modern era but I don't know what the best option is.
 
moggi1964 said:
The BBC isn't perfect and it has got things wrong but it's as close to trustworthy as we are going to get these days.
Click to expand...
This is true but it isn't what some people want,

They want to read, hear and see what fits with their prejudices. This is not a new phenomenon, as witnessed by the large number of competing newspapers that came on the British market from the 17th century onwards. What was important to the proprietors of most of these publications? Circulation and not accuracy. Thus there came about a tradition of having left wing and right wing newspapers, which persists today.

I think that this is why a vociferous minority, despite clear evidence to the contrary, claim that the BBC is biased. Of course, in their eyes it is biased, because it doggedly insists on being neutral, rather than reporting events in the way they want them reported.
 
As always, the main issue I have with the legacy media isn't what they report, but what they don't report and even if they do report on something, if it isn't the full story then it's still factual but not necessarily the truth. Social media can help fill in the gaps, but obviously care has to be taken.
 
57 channels and nothing on! As Bruce once sang

It's so true, more like 100's of channels these days and still nothing on! You spend more time flicking through them than actually watching anything.

Netflix, Prime, Hulu etc ... choosing what YOU want to watchsoon as you sit down is where it's at
 
Cagey75 said:
57 channels and nothing on! As Bruce once sang

It's so true, more like 100's of channels these days and still nothing on! You spend more time flicking through them than actually watching anything.

Netflix, Prime, Hulu etc ... choosing what YOU want to watchsoon as you sit down is where it's at
Click to expand...

TBH that's how it is with prime for me - a thousand movies, but nothing I want to see.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH that's how it is with prime for me - a thousand movies, but nothing I want to see.
Click to expand...

Apart from Clarkson's farm and The Boys I've watched little else on Prime to be fair. I only ever check it because 'herself' has Prime set for the family, so it's basically free for me :D

Netflix is better, but can get stale at times when you start motoring through the available series

But still better than standard TV where you're relying on whatever they have to offer at any time [yes you can set up record for specific shows but it feels like a chore]
 
Another slight annoyance is that iPlayer doesn't support surround sound, despite live broadcasts supporting it.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Thus there came about a tradition of having left wing and right wing newspapers, which persists today.
Click to expand...
That’s debatable, M’Lud.

One left wing mainstream paper, one liberal, and then a cohort of right wing ones, about half of which are screaming extreme.
 
Pound Coin said:
That’s debatable, M’Lud.

One left wing mainstream paper, one liberal, and then a cohort of right wing ones, about half of which are screaming extreme.
Click to expand...

Isn't that more about a single owner putting out multiple titles?
 
For some reason I'd thought the Murdoch empire had acquired several titles, but maybe I have that wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top