Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by neuroma 1569 days ago
Seriously? Nobody beyojd a few OAPs actually thinks the BBC is a font of perfect vision. It's simply a but less crassly propaganda ridden then most other sources, and more centrist (if you believe in the 1d political tribalism meme).

The anti BBC narrative is largely political posturing to discredit one if the few remaining sources that aren't bought by private individuals to further their personal objectives. It's an obvious business move to increase their traction and value proposition.

3 comments

Within the UK the "anti-BBC narrative" as you call it is indeed political, but I don't think it's posturing or a business plot, at least at grassroots level. I think it's based on the perception that the BBC itself tends to have a political and geographical bias.
Most European public broadcasters have a deep political bias, so much so that many advocate for their privatization. Previously in Norway you at least had the option to not pay the mandatory subscription by claiming that you didn't own a TV, but then the leader of the party with the most voters who wanted it privatized, the Progress Party (FRP), made sure that it came on the tax bill instead...
Those people who advocate for privatisation just want to replace it with their own bullshit. You'll be amazed how few actually want unbiased reporting.
So that's why they should be forced to pay for biased reporting that they do not want in the first place? Tell you what, Norway has a proud tradition of honest biased reporting; the party press. It's been toned down now, but I'm not sure it's for the better. Used to be that if your read Aftenposten (The Evening Post), you would know that you read an outlet for the Conservative Party. Meanwhile, if you read Arbeiderbladet (The Worker's Paper), you know you got an outlet for the Labour Party. And that was a good thing! Because you got what you asked for, and if you wanted more view-points - and many did - they'd simply buy both! But nobody likes getting something they don't want, much less paying for it.
You want other people to be forced to pay for the content you consume.
OAP = Old Age Pensioner?

I never heard of that acronym before.

Correct. It's a common acronym in the UK.
The BBC actually used to be independent and held the government to account. That all changed with David Kelly.

It isnt bought by private individuals but if the rest of the media that is is bleating the same tune it will follow. The end result is the same.

Every time they step out of line the government threatens to cancel the TV license.

Theyre also lacking in sheer journalistic manpower these days. It almost doesnt matter how impartial they are if they mainly crib from twitter, reprint press releases and report on government edicts.

The license has been set to end in 2027 already.
The current agreement ends in 2027 and the current government has said they won't renew it. Whether they are still in power remains to be seen.