Is there a case -

[observer]

- for controls over the Press? Whilst on the plus side, we've seen the revelations of the Telegraph, re: MPs having their way with our money; but do we extend the idea of "press freedom" to the alleged tapping of Prince William and Harry's phones? Shouldn't we draw a clear distinction between "news", the release of which IS in the public interest; and "gossip, trivia and opinion" that sells papers based on (sad) public interest?

[asperity]

Sadly even serious news is reduced to gossip, trivia and opinion by most of the media today, including the much vaunted "impartial" BBC

[Lt Kije]

Nothing wrong with the BBC, I find it odd that asperity shares Murdocks view, luckily most of the UK do not

 

As to Obs view I think there should be a distinction between news and gossip. I would go further the news should be told as it is without putting an opinion on it, how you would do it I do not know, but people should be allowed to make their own opinion on it without being influenced

[observer]

A right to privacy Law, with huge fines on the tabloids should do the trick?!

[Lt Kije]

Isn't that what we have now

[observer]

Errm, don't think so: we have laws of libel - IF you can afford the legal costs to get justice!

[asperity]

Nothing wrong with the BBC, I find it odd that asperity shares Murdocks view, luckily most of the UK do not

 

I may share his view but for different reasons. Murdock is trying to gain the high ground in the war for viewers in order to gain financially.

 

On the other hand I find that the BBC news is little better than a video tabloid, with the viewer treated as a moron unable to understand anything remotely complicated. And if the majority of the UK like being treated like this then I'm sorry the majority of the UK viewers are morons, simple as that.

 

I would like the news presented by a single presenter, with gravitas, in such a way that there is no spin or bias and so that the viewer is invited to form his or her own opinion using the evidence presented.

 

It would also be nice if they got away from the "here is the news we are going to tell you about, here is the news we told you we were going to tell you about, here is the news we just told you about" formula. They could probably cut the news programmes down to 10 minutes a day and cut the news budget by 90%.

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in resenting having to pay an annual fee so that people with an agenda are given a free platform to preach that agenda.

 

Here endeth the first lesson. Please feel free to agree or disagree with my opinion, but please don't throw spurious false statistics ("luckily most of the UK do not" )

 

[Lt Kije]

Try Channel 4 news thats good as well

 

spurious false statistics

 

I don't think so, have a read, although you will dismiss it as you do anything that contradicts your view

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/04/bbc-icm-poll-james-murdoch

 

[Eagle]

770 people think the Beeb is great, Wow.

[Lt Kije]

It was an independent poll eagle what do you want

[asperity]

Well the true picture would be a start! The BBC is NOT trusted by people who think, only by people who have been brainwashed into believing that if the BBC says it's true then it must be true (e.g. Grauniad readers otherwise known as libdems, BBC employees etc)

[Lt Kije]

So asperity who would have to do the poll for you to believe it

[Lt Kije]

The BBC is NOT trusted by people who think, only by people who have been brainwashed

 

I would like to no how you came by your opinion, and some proof would be nice

[Geoffrey Settle]

It's hard to understand Asp sometimes especially given the poll

ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1001 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 2-3 September. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules

Maybe he's all at sea over this issue?

 

Mind you I wonder what results you would get if your sample was across Warrington and then again what would be the skew on this site.

[Eagle]

"It is also possible to introduce bias into a survey by means of question wording. For the most part, differences in question wording will not have a significant effect on the answers obtained, and it is unlikely that a poll conducted by a reputable organisation would contain any serious bias in its questionnaire, but it is certainly possible to influence the results by the choice of one form of question wording rather than another."

 

British Polling Council

[Peter T]

I thought that they worded questionnaires so that they achieved the reuslt that they wanted?

[Lt Kije]

So are you saying it was not done by a reputable company

[Eagle]

Yes Peter, that is what it says

 

"It is also possible to introduce bias into a survey by means of question wording.

 

[Peter T]

Yes Peter, that is what it says

 

"It is also possible to introduce bias into a survey by means of question wording.

 

Mine was for those with learning difficulties.

[Eagle]

They would be the ones that voted in favour of the BBC.

[Lt Kije]

eagle which news channel do you watch

 

Sky, ITN, Channel 4

[asperity]

It doesn't really matter which news channel you watch. They all treat the viewer as idiots who need evrything explained in words of one syllable. The point is that the BBC has an undeserved reputation as being unbiased. And we are FORCED BY LAW to pay to listen to the biased opinions of the producers of the news programmes on the BBC. If we don't like the news programmes on SKY we don't subscribe. We aren't forced to pay a subscription to watch ITV or Channels 4 and 5, just put up with adverts. Keep up LtKije, this is VERY old news.

[Lt Kije]

asperity I completely disagree that the BBC are biassed. When I produce a poll from a polling company to say my view is the majority view it is just dismissed as biassed. I happen to think in the UK I am in the majority, on this site which does seem to have an over abundance of centre right views I clearly am not. But it does not change the fact that in the UK as a whole my opinion is the majority one

[asperity]

If the BBC are truly impartial, why don't they report honestly on, for example, the climate change debate? Today they are reporting on some German ships using the North East passage as if this was the first time this has happened and was only possible because of human caused "Global Warming". The real truth is that these are the first ships from a western country to use the "Northern Sea Route" which was opened up in the 1930s by the USSR and has been maintained by the USSR and then Russia and is open every year from June to October. It was actually first transitted in 1878-1879 by a Swede called Nils A.E. Nordenskjold. These facts are easily found, but the impartial BBC chooses not to report them because they don't fit in with their AGW agenda. The aren't alone in this. most of the mainstream media act in a similar fashion. Its got nothing to do with left wing/right wing politics but I suppose thats the way you like to try and pigeonhole everything LtKije

[Lt Kije]

They report what they see and what scientists tell them, you do not agree with it so you dismiss it, The majority scientific opinion asperity is against you on climate change rightly or wrongly. They are just reporting. Have you ever considered you might be wrong and the media have it right and it is not a conspiracy.