BBC reluctance to criticise the royals

[nightowl]

Is it because it is the state propaganda service and sworn to protect them (barring the occasional nod to republicanism hidden on the website to give an illusion of impartiality) or because it is too cowardly to criticise them due to the inevitable attacks from politicians, the right-wing press and large swathes of the public?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yes

 

[Ax^]

the bbc don't criticise anyone but Labour under the rules of their charter

months of strike but do you support the strikes to every labour mp who turns up on the stations

 

[steveo87]

I can't remember the specifics, but I vaguely remember someone either in the Royals/Tories/both getting pissy about how they were being portrayed in the media, and as the BBC are fucking terrified of the idea of ending the TV Licence they've toed the line ever since.

Plus I think the current editor of the news channel is a raging Tory anyway.

 

[stavros]

 

[Ax^]

Tim Davie the head of the BBC is also a Tory

stood for a bit trying to be a councillor in Hammersmith

 

[nightowl]

Davie is only a recent thing though. The BBC has always doffed its cap to the royals.

 

[JimW]

It operates under a royal charter so knows what side the bread's buttered.

 

[brogdale]

state broadcasters tend to do as state broadcasters do

 

[Ax^]

Davie is only a recent thing though. The BBC has always doffed its cap to the royals.

the Tory government is not a new thing and they been threating to cut the bbc throat since the first time they criticised it



you forget the bbc is full of leftist woke people who never slag off the government

 

[littlebabyjesus]

state broadcasters tend to do as state broadcasters do

Yep. The BBC does lots of good things, but it is the state broadcaster. It will fulfil that role dutifully. Its nakedly anti-Corbyn stance was less inevitable and far more insidious imo.

WRT the royal family, I think it's more interesting to look at how obsequious non-state media tends to be. The Guardian, for instance.

 

[danny la rouge]

There’s a piece on the BBC News website asking “did the palace, as Harry claims, brief against Meghan?”. What’s interesting is that they know the answer. Because they receive royal briefings. But they aren’t saying so.

Prince Harry: One unanswered claim at the heart of his story Prince Harry: One unanswered claim at the heart of his story

 

[hash tag]

Is it not time for a Royals thread editor so as those that wish to celebrate the Royals can do so and likewise those that wish to ignore the royals can do so more easily.

 

[Pickman's model]

Is it not time for a Royals thread editor so as those that wish to celebrate the Royals can do so and likewise those that wish to ignore the royals can do so more easily.

Don't think one thread's enough for the filthy Windsor clan

 

[hash tag]

Thread...sorry, forum.

 

[steveo87]

With the Queens funeral - or at least the Mournathon preceding it - I could and can understand that people who support the Royals will need the state broadcaster to show a level of decorum and 'austere-ness', and I can easily avoid that stuff by watching something else.
But when the fucking BBC SPORT website ran 24 hour coverage of 'old woman dies because she's old', surely there was some point where someone said that this is a bit much?
When I put a complaint in (cos my midlife crisis is going to be that - writing letters of complaints. Mr Annoyed from Somerset, if you will) they essentially said 'if you don't like, there are plenty of other channels, and we always cater to you lefty types the rest of the time'.

 

[nightowl]

With the Queens funeral - or at least the Mournathon preceding it - I could and can understand that people who support the Royals will need the state broadcaster to show a level of decorum and 'austere-ness', and I can easily avoid that stuff by watching something else.
But when the fucking BBC SPORT website ran 24 hour coverage of 'old woman dies because she's old', surely there was some point where someone said that this is a bit much?
When I put a complaint in (cos my midlife crisis is going to be that - writing letters of complaints. Mr Annoyed from Somerset, if you will) they essentially said 'if you don't like, there are plenty of other channels, and we always cater to you lefty types the rest of the time'.

Indeed, when Radio 1 was running the same solemn non-stop coverage as Radio 4 you started to think 'this is taking the piss'.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

And yet, the Tories think the BBC is run by a bunch of pinko Marxists. Weird, innit?

 

[savoloysam]

It's not supposed to criticize anyone it's supposed to report the news ipso facto without interjections of opinions. Of course they don't follow that truism but that's the rub.

 

[moochedit]

Is it because it is the state propaganda service and sworn to protect them (barring the occasional nod to republicanism hidden on the website to give an illusion of impartiality) or because it is too cowardly to criticise them due to the inevitable attacks from politicians, the right-wing press and large swathes of the public?

Both plus the bosses want knighthoods.

 

[moochedit]

Is it not time for a Royals thread editor so as those that wish to celebrate the Royals can do so and likewise those that wish to ignore the royals can do so more easily.

I don't think many on here "celebrate" the royals. Sas maybe.

 

[moochedit]

Thread...sorry, forum.

Maybe a tory party forum so i can ignore it and pretend they don't exist either.

 

[killer b]

Is it not time for a Royals thread editor so as those that wish to celebrate the Royals can do so and likewise those that wish to ignore the royals can do so more easily.

the royal family are woven into the fabric of British politics - it's not possible to ignore them unless you want to ignore politics.

 

[hash tag]

the royal family are woven into the fabric of British politics - it's not possible to ignore them unless you want to ignore politics.

So so bored with all this harry shit right now. Who gives a toss.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

the royal family are woven into the fabric of British politics - it's not possible to ignore them unless you want to ignore politics.

I think that's only half true. The monarchy is woven into the fabric of British politics and it's important to understand how that works. But the royal family as individuals and their soap opera antics are a side show. You can pretty safely ignore them.

 

[quiet guy]

 

[not a trot]

Yep. The BBC does lots of good things, but it is the state broadcaster. It will fulfil that role dutifully. Its nakedly anti-Corbyn stance was less inevitable and far more insidious imo.

WRT the royal family, I think it's more interesting to look at how obsequious non-state media tends to be. The Guardian, for instance.

Hasn't that always been the case with any high profile Leftie. A more balanced media is not exactly top of the publics wish list.

 

[killer b]

So so bored with all this harry shit right now. Who gives a toss.

don't read it then. there's only one thread, you could put that on ignore.

 

[killer b]

I think that's only half true. The monarchy is woven into the fabric of British politics and it's important to understand how that works. But the royal family as individuals and their soap opera antics are a side show. You can pretty safely ignore them.

I dunno, I think half an eye on it at least tells you lots of important things about british society, it's feral media and it's dysfunctional elite that you'll probably miss if you ignore it altogether.

 

[moochedit]

don't read it then. there's only one thread, you could put that on ignore.

Yep there were 2 earlier but they got merged.

This thread is specifically about bbc royal coverage so i don't see what the problem is.