Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"BBC has moved beyond bias, into pure propaganda"

Than us? Sure. But I think talking about the BBC in terms of right or left wing bias just muddies the issue & gives them wiggle room to claim they're 'balanced'.
 
This kind of thing - the idea that it's Kuenssberg who's at fault, rather than it being the culture at the BBC - is rife among the wet left. It's embarrassing.

13177653_10209022565899245_821949341215587255_n.jpg
 
This kind of thing - the idea that it's Kuenssberg who's at fault, rather than it being the culture at the BBC - is rife among the wet left. It's embarrassing.

13177653_10209022565899245_821949341215587255_n.jpg
I would agree that it's definitely the culture at the BBC that is the issue here but what do you do about that? It's all establishment figures in the upper echelons, all on a merry-go-round of appointments to various large institutions. No solution looks viable really apart from tear it all down and start again (and I am not just talking about the BBC here). Ain't going to happen though.
 
But blaming Keunssberg - rather than the BBC as an institution - lets them off the hook. It allows the fantasy that it's a few bad tory apples ruining it for everyone to persevere among people on the left.

If there is a solution, it's got to start with an understanding of what the BBC actually is doesn't it? If the fantasy is rejected, it doesn't have the same power anymore...
 
I am not really in the business of just blaming her, hopefully you can see this from my above posts. She is just a product of the culture there, I suppose the petitions are a popular reaction to her position and, after all she is the one in front of the camera so she is likely to be the recipient of most people's ire. I don't reckon she will get sacked anyway tbh, after all Fiona Fairhead still has her position there even after the HSBC scandal which could at best be described as incompetence on her part.
 
I am not really in the business of just blaming her, hopefully you can see this from my above posts. She is just a product of the culture there, I suppose the petitions are a popular reaction to her position and, after all she is the one in front of the camera so she is likely to be the recipient of most people's ire. I don't reckon she will get sacked anyway tbh, after all Fiona Fairhead still has her position there even after the HSBC scandal which could at best be described as incompetence on her part.
Not a product of the culture there - her and her privilege produce the culture.
 
Not a product of the culture there - her and her privilege produce the culture.
Do you mean the former, the latter or both? I would agree that Fiona Fairhead and her privilege produce the culture what with her being much higher up the food chain, not so sure about Keunssberg though.
 
Yeah, that's a fair point - and her feet do need holding in the fire. But not in a way that ignores the structures she's a part of, which these current campaigns do.
The way i see it is there is the institution and its unstated aims, the people like LK build the culture that aims to meet these ends. ("Working Towards the Führer" as Ian kershaw calls it). No need for formal directions.
 
Do you mean the former, the latter or both? I would agree that Fiona Fairhead and her privilege produce the culture what with her being much higher up the food chain, not so sure about Keunssberg though.
I mean that she/they aren't the result of BBC culture, they are BBC culture, they produce the culture. To put them as the end result of it is to make them in some sense a victim of it rather than beneficiaries and motor.
 
I mean that she/they aren't the result of BBC culture, they are BBC culture, they produce the culture. To put them as the end result of it is to make them in some sense a victim of it rather than beneficiaries and motor.
Fair enough, I more or less said the same anyway, particularly about Fairhead.
 
Yes, production is contained within reproduction. They also extend it and try to make it the dominant model - if it's not us it's not news, if it's not people like us it hasn't happened.
What I meant is it doesn't matter if it's LK or nick robinson or whoever, they're replaceable, they just play the tune for a while, restating the same underlying themes, at the basis of which is 'you are too stupid to understand this without us to explain it to you'
 
Yes, production is contained within reproduction. They also extend it and try to make it the dominant model - if it's not us it's not news, if it's not people like us it hasn't happened.
How many people swallow this guff anymore do you reckon? I know I'm a bit of an exception as I don't have a telly but I get the feeling that what with the net people are much better informed than they used to be and not so willing to buy the 'take our word for it we are after all the BBC'.
 
What I meant is it doesn't matter if it's LK or nick robinson or whoever, they're replaceable, they just play the tune for a while, restating the same underlying themes, at the basis of which is 'you are too stupid to understand this without us to explain it to you'
I don't think that's true of the BBC patrician culture. I thunk it requires people to actively involve themselves in producing and reproducing it. It relies on their initiative rather than being a machine that runs on its own internal rules with standard replaceable cogs.
 
How many people swallow this guff anymore do you reckon? I know I'm a bit of an exception as I don't have a telly but I get the feeling that what with the net people are much better informed than they used to be and not so willing to buy the 'take our word for it we are after all the BBC'.
Who do you get this feeling from?
 
How many people swallow this guff anymore do you reckon? I know I'm a bit of an exception as I don't have a telly but I get the feeling that what with the net people are much better informed than they used to be and not so willing to buy the 'take our word for it we are after all the BBC'.
I really don't know. It seems to me that as long as i've been aware people have been pointing this out, workmates, family, non 'politicos'. I thnk lots of people treat it the same way they treat the papers, just background noise.
 
People I talk to, stuff I read on the net and not just here.
If this is the case then why do so many people want more information about the EU supplied to them? The simple fact is most people have at best a basic understanding of how to search the Internet, with disappointingly few people looking beyond the first page of search results even when they can formulate a reasonable search
 
If this is the case then why do so many people want more information about the EU supplied to them?
I was previously unaware of this
The simple fact is most people have at best a basic understanding of how to search the Internet, with disappointingly few people looking beyond the first page of search results even when they can formulate a reasonable search
Actually this is unfortunately true I should have been more precise and said more of the tech-savvy people that I know. We've just had a new information system introduced in our job called 'People' and I've already been asked a couple of times to show fellow employees not how it works but really basic stuff to do with web browsers and passwords. :(
 
This kind of thing - the idea that it's Kuenssberg who's at fault, rather than it being the culture at the BBC - is rife among the wet left. It's embarrassing.

13177653_10209022565899245_821949341215587255_n.jpg

I dont think expressing frustration / contempt at the blood boiling antics of someone like Kuenssberg in anyway suggests it's soley her "who's at fault, rather than it being the culture at the BBC" , or that anyone thinks that - far from it, she's being held out as a glaring example of that culture at the Beeb, eg : the OP on this thread, which you seemed to dismiss out of hand as 'clickbait' ?

weird.
 
but that's what that graphic explicitly claims - it isn't talking about a culture at the BBC, it's making out she's somehow at odds with them.
 
I agree, the daft implication is that the BBC is actually ok and doing a grand job. Apart from her. And she's great really. Just being forced to do bad things.
 
she's being singled out on that graphic, but the OP is about wider BBC bias, as is most of the noise surrounding the issue on Soc media etc, with LK as a focal point - that critique can obviously also be dismissed , ie : as having reformist illusions in some kind of idealised, impartial state broadcaster, but then we're at the age old conundrum of is it worth ever making any demands /having expectations re : fairness/justice/impartiality faced with an inherently unfair/injust/partial system.
 
Last edited:
How many people swallow this guff anymore do you reckon? I know I'm a bit of an exception as I don't have a telly but I get the feeling that what with the net people are much better informed than they used to be and not so willing to buy the 'take our word for it we are after all the BBC'.

Our judgement and decision making is underpinned by the role of affect. Advertising/propaganda works not because there are plenty of mugs about but because we're human.
 
Back
Top Bottom