BBC is losing credibility

First published in Letters

DAVID Davies’s article on November 12 gives real pause for thought. David is one of only a handful of Tory MPs I have any time for. Lord Patten is another, but I have to ask why he thought he must double the compensation paid to George Entwistle to get him to resign since Entwistle would have had to go anyway! The situation, as Maria Williams says, is a debacle, but surely Maria must be aware the BBC hasn’t for decades been regarded as having much credence in Europe.

I have found the BBC’s programmes to be highly censored compared to the continental news programmes I used to watch in the 1970s and 80s with my in-laws in Belgium. The thing that really worries me is that the people most likely to lose out are the people who were abused as children. Will they ever be listened to?

Walt Jackson, Usk

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:54pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

The BBC is about much more than a few misguided incompetents who did it a disservice recently. The danger here is in throwing the baby out with the bath-water. It might not be perfect but it's still a highly valued institution and still by far the most watched and listened to in the UK. Were it to be lost it would be a free-for-all for the advert soaked paid for channels of Sky selling to you 24/7. A sobering thought.
The BBC is about much more than a few misguided incompetents who did it a disservice recently. The danger here is in throwing the baby out with the bath-water. It might not be perfect but it's still a highly valued institution and still by far the most watched and listened to in the UK. Were it to be lost it would be a free-for-all for the advert soaked paid for channels of Sky selling to you 24/7. A sobering thought. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Mervyn James says...

It is no longer valued.. Since Twitter came out all they do is cut and paste from there and look what happens.... As for most watched, being as we are forced to pay for it, I expect we are just trying to get our money's worth, despite requests for a 50% reduction in radio stations and the culling of 5 channels. They have no competition that's the point,and even if they did they can always dig into our wallets if push comes to shove... It's wholesale theft and coercion in my view, it should be pay per view, THEN we would see if people would tune in to it.... The BBC is also advertising around the clock mostly their own output, but all the sports they cover you can see the ads quite clearly,and which are supplied BY SKY ! When they abandoned quality I tuned out, and annoyed they can still take money off me.
It is no longer valued.. Since Twitter came out all they do is cut and paste from there and look what happens.... As for most watched, being as we are forced to pay for it, I expect we are just trying to get our money's worth, despite requests for a 50% reduction in radio stations and the culling of 5 channels. They have no competition that's the point,and even if they did they can always dig into our wallets if push comes to shove... It's wholesale theft and coercion in my view, it should be pay per view, THEN we would see if people would tune in to it.... The BBC is also advertising around the clock mostly their own output, but all the sports they cover you can see the ads quite clearly,and which are supplied BY SKY ! When they abandoned quality I tuned out, and annoyed they can still take money off me. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

9:53pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

I've no doubt you don't resent the contribution, also compulsory, to S4C that no-one watches? Does it not strike you as odd that people will pay 50 quid a month for Sky to still get adverts of 16 minutes per hour? And on Sky, much of the archive programming on channels such as Gold was created where? The BBC. You are inconsistent Merv. You have no objection to huge Welsh language subsidies for a minority but object to the BBC which provides, several commercial free TV stations, The World Service, countless radio services, a huge online service and, for the most part, is one of the few World broadcasters for which content is universally loved. Not bad for less than three quid a week.
I've no doubt you don't resent the contribution, also compulsory, to S4C that no-one watches? Does it not strike you as odd that people will pay 50 quid a month for Sky to still get adverts of 16 minutes per hour? And on Sky, much of the archive programming on channels such as Gold was created where? The BBC. You are inconsistent Merv. You have no objection to huge Welsh language subsidies for a minority but object to the BBC which provides, several commercial free TV stations, The World Service, countless radio services, a huge online service and, for the most part, is one of the few World broadcasters for which content is universally loved. Not bad for less than three quid a week. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

6:19am Sat 17 Nov 12

Jamesfwells says...

This will give the Tories the excuse they needed to implement structural changes and privatize it in the next parliament.
This will give the Tories the excuse they needed to implement structural changes and privatize it in the next parliament. Jamesfwells
  • Score: 0

11:31am Sat 17 Nov 12

Mervyn James says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
I've no doubt you don't resent the contribution, also compulsory, to S4C that no-one watches? Does it not strike you as odd that people will pay 50 quid a month for Sky to still get adverts of 16 minutes per hour? And on Sky, much of the archive programming on channels such as Gold was created where? The BBC. You are inconsistent Merv. You have no objection to huge Welsh language subsidies for a minority but object to the BBC which provides, several commercial free TV stations, The World Service, countless radio services, a huge online service and, for the most part, is one of the few World broadcasters for which content is universally loved. Not bad for less than three quid a week.
I don't find language/cultural preservation is the same thing. The issue here is an state penalising us for having a TV set (Which is what he licence is about). So regardless if I never watch the BBC I am forced to pay for it. The world service has many objectors, not least because the BBC was an arm of British propaganda in the past, and still is. Independent TV has to fund itself I see nothing wrong with that, it still has to produce watchable TV or we tune out, but we aren't forced to pay for it.. we would consider it absolutely unacceptable if SKY had a hand in our wallets too as well as the many independent channels. The online service heavily relies on the internet, so why not cut out the middle-man ? Their reporting media do not even check if stories are factual !! That has cost us the licence fee payers, £185,000 quid via one program. The BBC only is advert free because we pay to keep it out. personally I don't live in a time warp and watch TV made 60 years ago....
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: I've no doubt you don't resent the contribution, also compulsory, to S4C that no-one watches? Does it not strike you as odd that people will pay 50 quid a month for Sky to still get adverts of 16 minutes per hour? And on Sky, much of the archive programming on channels such as Gold was created where? The BBC. You are inconsistent Merv. You have no objection to huge Welsh language subsidies for a minority but object to the BBC which provides, several commercial free TV stations, The World Service, countless radio services, a huge online service and, for the most part, is one of the few World broadcasters for which content is universally loved. Not bad for less than three quid a week.[/p][/quote]I don't find language/cultural preservation is the same thing. The issue here is an state penalising us for having a TV set (Which is what he licence is about). So regardless if I never watch the BBC I am forced to pay for it. The world service has many objectors, not least because the BBC was an arm of British propaganda in the past, and still is. Independent TV has to fund itself I see nothing wrong with that, it still has to produce watchable TV or we tune out, but we aren't forced to pay for it.. we would consider it absolutely unacceptable if SKY had a hand in our wallets too as well as the many independent channels. The online service heavily relies on the internet, so why not cut out the middle-man ? Their reporting media do not even check if stories are factual !! That has cost us the licence fee payers, £185,000 quid via one program. The BBC only is advert free because we pay to keep it out. personally I don't live in a time warp and watch TV made 60 years ago.... Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel, two very good and pertinent posts. I think that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon and calling for Newsnight to be closed down which is the best investigative news outlet on TV by a mile are doing the work of Rupert Murdoch who has long campaigned for the BBC to be privatised and to have it's licence fee abolished/ reduced or shared with other broadcasters. Murdoch is supported by his own newspapers Sun and Times and also the Telegraph and Daily Mail have an interest in the demise of the BBC so the siren voices get louder by the day........over what? two story's that Newsnight made a total mess off, but when you look at the story's that they have exposed over the years they are still expected to fall on their sword.
Funny how different standards are applied to the Newspaper Editors, compare the treatment of Newsnight who did NOT name McAlpine to the treatment of the eight Newspaper Editors who wrongly named Christopher Jefferies as the murderer of Jo Yates. The nature of press reporting on aspects of the case led to the instigation of legal proceedings against a number of UK newspapers. Libel action was brought by Jefferies against eight publications over their coverage of his arrest, resulting in the payment to him of substantial damages. The Daily Mirror and The Sun were found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that could prejudice a trial.

And what happened to those Editors......Nothing
, not one resigned or was disciplined for destroying that mans life and being in contempt of court or for what they cost their employers in court/ compensation costs where at the BBC heads have rolled from George Entwhistle and most of the editorial team paying the price.
People should be careful of what they wish for.
Llanmartinangel, two very good and pertinent posts. I think that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon and calling for Newsnight to be closed down which is the best investigative news outlet on TV by a mile are doing the work of Rupert Murdoch who has long campaigned for the BBC to be privatised and to have it's licence fee abolished/ reduced or shared with other broadcasters. Murdoch is supported by his own newspapers Sun and Times and also the Telegraph and Daily Mail have an interest in the demise of the BBC so the siren voices get louder by the day........over what? two story's that Newsnight made a total mess off, but when you look at the story's that they have exposed over the years they are still expected to fall on their sword. Funny how different standards are applied to the Newspaper Editors, compare the treatment of Newsnight who did NOT name McAlpine to the treatment of the eight Newspaper Editors who wrongly named Christopher Jefferies as the murderer of Jo Yates. The nature of press reporting on aspects of the case led to the instigation of legal proceedings against a number of UK newspapers. Libel action was brought by Jefferies against eight publications over their coverage of his arrest, resulting in the payment to him of substantial damages. The Daily Mirror and The Sun were found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that could prejudice a trial. And what happened to those Editors......Nothing , not one resigned or was disciplined for destroying that mans life and being in contempt of court or for what they cost their employers in court/ compensation costs where at the BBC heads have rolled from George Entwhistle and most of the editorial team paying the price. People should be careful of what they wish for. Howie'
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel, two very good and pertinent posts. I think that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon and calling for Newsnight to be closed down which is the best investigative news outlet on TV by a mile are doing the work of Rupert Murdoch who has long campaigned for the BBC to be privatised and to have it's licence fee abolished/ reduced or shared with other broadcasters. Murdoch is supported by his own newspapers Sun and Times and also the Telegraph and Daily Mail have an interest in the demise of the BBC so the siren voices get louder by the day........over what? two story's that Newsnight made a total mess off, but when you look at the story's that they have exposed over the years they are still expected to fall on their sword.
Funny how different standards are applied to the Newspaper Editors, compare the treatment of Newsnight who did NOT name McAlpine to the treatment of the eight Newspaper Editors who wrongly named Christopher Jefferies as the murderer of Jo Yates. The nature of press reporting on aspects of the case led to the instigation of legal proceedings against a number of UK newspapers. Libel action was brought by Jefferies against eight publications over their coverage of his arrest, resulting in the payment to him of substantial damages. The Daily Mirror and The Sun were found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that could prejudice a trial.

And what happened to those Editors......Nothing

, not one resigned or was disciplined for destroying that mans life and being in contempt of court or for what they cost their employers in court/ compensation costs where at the BBC heads have rolled from George Entwhistle and most of the editorial team paying the price.
People should be careful of what they wish for.
So very true Howie. And it was a Guardian columnist who fingered McAlpine in a twitter post. Funny how Mervyn doesn't complain about the compulsory subsidy of Welsh language and S4C by the taxpayer, both minority, when the BBC audience each day reaches tens of millions. He's all in favour of culture being paid for by others as long as its the one he wants. There's a word for that, starts in 'hypo' and ends in 'crite'.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: Llanmartinangel, two very good and pertinent posts. I think that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon and calling for Newsnight to be closed down which is the best investigative news outlet on TV by a mile are doing the work of Rupert Murdoch who has long campaigned for the BBC to be privatised and to have it's licence fee abolished/ reduced or shared with other broadcasters. Murdoch is supported by his own newspapers Sun and Times and also the Telegraph and Daily Mail have an interest in the demise of the BBC so the siren voices get louder by the day........over what? two story's that Newsnight made a total mess off, but when you look at the story's that they have exposed over the years they are still expected to fall on their sword. Funny how different standards are applied to the Newspaper Editors, compare the treatment of Newsnight who did NOT name McAlpine to the treatment of the eight Newspaper Editors who wrongly named Christopher Jefferies as the murderer of Jo Yates. The nature of press reporting on aspects of the case led to the instigation of legal proceedings against a number of UK newspapers. Libel action was brought by Jefferies against eight publications over their coverage of his arrest, resulting in the payment to him of substantial damages. The Daily Mirror and The Sun were found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that could prejudice a trial. And what happened to those Editors......Nothing , not one resigned or was disciplined for destroying that mans life and being in contempt of court or for what they cost their employers in court/ compensation costs where at the BBC heads have rolled from George Entwhistle and most of the editorial team paying the price. People should be careful of what they wish for.[/p][/quote]So very true Howie. And it was a Guardian columnist who fingered McAlpine in a twitter post. Funny how Mervyn doesn't complain about the compulsory subsidy of Welsh language and S4C by the taxpayer, both minority, when the BBC audience each day reaches tens of millions. He's all in favour of culture being paid for by others as long as its the one he wants. There's a word for that, starts in 'hypo' and ends in 'crite'. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

9:02am Mon 19 Nov 12

Mervyn James says...

S4C is completely accessible to welsh and English viewers, it always has been, and recently introduced spoken English as well. It's always had captioned access in English. If we are talking NO to minority access we are on dodgy ground, since e.g. deaf people totally rely on subtitling or they couldn't watch a TV. As it is they too are forced to pay for an radio licence they cannot ever access. But no reduction for them either. Polish who are an ever-increasing population in Wales were also given access on S4C. Perhaps you will tell us how many people you have to have before they can be given access ? They are going to be charged for it anyway. Welsh speakers pay licence fees too. Are they to have no rights ?
S4C is completely accessible to welsh and English viewers, it always has been, and recently introduced spoken English as well. It's always had captioned access in English. If we are talking NO to minority access we are on dodgy ground, since e.g. deaf people totally rely on subtitling or they couldn't watch a TV. As it is they too are forced to pay for an radio licence they cannot ever access. But no reduction for them either. Polish who are an ever-increasing population in Wales were also given access on S4C. Perhaps you will tell us how many people you have to have before they can be given access ? They are going to be charged for it anyway. Welsh speakers pay licence fees too. Are they to have no rights ? Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
S4C is completely accessible to welsh and English viewers, it always has been, and recently introduced spoken English as well. It's always had captioned access in English. If we are talking NO to minority access we are on dodgy ground, since e.g. deaf people totally rely on subtitling or they couldn't watch a TV. As it is they too are forced to pay for an radio licence they cannot ever access. But no reduction for them either. Polish who are an ever-increasing population in Wales were also given access on S4C. Perhaps you will tell us how many people you have to have before they can be given access ? They are going to be charged for it anyway. Welsh speakers pay licence fees too. Are they to have no rights ?
Mervyn, do you ever stick to the point? Who said anything about access. I was making the point that you are anti BBC because you are forced to contribute but deny others the right to object to supporting through tax, the culture YOU want. I'd be fascinated to know how many English only speakers watch S4C.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: S4C is completely accessible to welsh and English viewers, it always has been, and recently introduced spoken English as well. It's always had captioned access in English. If we are talking NO to minority access we are on dodgy ground, since e.g. deaf people totally rely on subtitling or they couldn't watch a TV. As it is they too are forced to pay for an radio licence they cannot ever access. But no reduction for them either. Polish who are an ever-increasing population in Wales were also given access on S4C. Perhaps you will tell us how many people you have to have before they can be given access ? They are going to be charged for it anyway. Welsh speakers pay licence fees too. Are they to have no rights ?[/p][/quote]Mervyn, do you ever stick to the point? Who said anything about access. I was making the point that you are anti BBC because you are forced to contribute but deny others the right to object to supporting through tax, the culture YOU want. I'd be fascinated to know how many English only speakers watch S4C. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree