Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no need for national broadcasters to deal with politics...

A fair Beeb would avoid politics because a national broadcaster has no legitimate function there.

My emoji, above, indicates my surprise at your words. The BBC is, among other things, a news medium. A news provider that did not cover politics would be failing in its task, wouldn't it?

Your words seem to imply bias, or the potential for it. And such potentials always exist. But if the Beeb should be kept away because it's our national broadcaster, shouldn't Sky also be kept away, because it reflects the political bias of its owner, Rupert Murdoch? And so forth.

All sources of news are potentially biased. So all we can really do is to be sure we are aware of the influences on the news provider, so that we can allow for them.

[Sy Borg]

There is no need for national broadcasters to deal with politics...

😱

A fair Beeb would avoid politics because a national broadcaster has no legitimate function there.

My emoji, above, indicates my surprise at your words. The BBC is, among other things, a news medium. A news provider that did not cover politics would be failing in its task, wouldn't it?

Your words seem to imply bias, or the potential for it. And such potentials always exist. But if the Beeb should be kept away because it's our national broadcaster, shouldn't Sky also be kept away, because it reflects the political bias of its owner, Rupert Murdoch? And so forth.

All sources of news are potentially biased. So all we can really do is to be sure we are aware of the influences on the news provider, so that we can allow for them.

Seriously, if you are not gong to make an effort to be even slightly rigorous, you might as well leave.

Sky is not paid for by the taxpayer. Its consumers pay for it, and those like you who loathe it, need not pay a cent. Yet those who loathe the BBC still have to pay for it. This is so obvious, it pains me to have to say it on a philosophy forum.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sky is not paid for by the taxpayer. Its consumers pay for it, and those like you who loathe it, need not pay a cent. Yet those who loathe the BBC still have to pay for it. This is so obvious, it pains me to have to say it on a philosophy forum.

Ah, so it's not bias, the main subject this topic offers, that concerns you. It's having to pay for something that you personally do not enjoy or require.



..but what about bias? D'you think it's worth discussing, while we're here?

[Sy Borg]

Sky is not paid for by the taxpayer. Its consumers pay for it, and those like you who loathe it, need not pay a cent. Yet those who loathe the BBC still have to pay for it. This is so obvious, it pains me to have to say it on a philosophy forum.

Ah, so it's not bias, the main subject this topic offers, that concerns you. It's having to pay for something that you personally do not enjoy or require.

🤔🤔🤔

..but what about bias? D'you think it's worth discussing, while we're here? 😉

What the hell are you talking about? ABC/BBC and Sky/Fox are similarly biased, one definitively left-leaning and the other definitively right-leaning, but the former is paid for by the taxpayers and the latter paid for by consumers.

I have concerns about tax-funded entities being biased. Private entities may do as they will.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have concerns about tax-funded entities being biased.

Human-created entities are biased, because their creators are biased, including their (biased) reasons for creating the entity in the first place. Do we want non-human news media, perhaps? I don't think I do...

[Sy Borg]

I have concerns about tax-funded entities being biased.

Human-created entities are biased, because their creators are biased, including their (biased) reasons for creating the entity in the first place. Do we want non-human news media, perhaps? 🤔🤔🤔 I don't think I do... 😐

IMO, discipline and integrity in public institutions matter. It's cynical for state-run media to run a left or right wing agenda, forcing half of your opposition to pay for your promotions.

In terms of the game, sure, well played, but it's inherently unethical.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have concerns about tax-funded entities being biased.

Human-created entities are biased, because their creators are biased, including their (biased) reasons for creating the entity in the first place. Do we want non-human news media, perhaps? I don't think I do...

IMO, discipline and integrity in public institutions matter. It's cynical for state-run media to run a left or right wing agenda, forcing half of your opposition to pay for your promotions.

In terms of the game, sure, well played, but it's inherently unethical.

Left-wingers like me tend to see the BBC as tending toward the right.
Right-wingers (like you?) tend to see the BBC as tending toward the left.

That would tend to indicate that the BBC is doing its job — the part of its job that requires it to be close-to-unbiased.

[Sy Borg]

I have concerns about tax-funded entities being biased.

Human-created entities are biased, because their creators are biased, including their (biased) reasons for creating the entity in the first place. Do we want non-human news media, perhaps? 🤔🤔🤔 I don't think I do... 😐

IMO, discipline and integrity in public institutions matter. It's cynical for state-run media to run a left or right wing agenda, forcing half of your opposition to pay for your promotions.

In terms of the game, sure, well played, but it's inherently unethical.

Left-wingers like me tend to see the BBC as tending toward the right.
Right-wingers (like you?) tend to see the BBC as tending toward the left.

That would tend to indicate that the BBC is doing its job — the part of its job that requires it to be close-to-unbiased.

I only look right next to your faaaar left beliefs. The ABC and BBC have always had to juggle their centre left orientation to please the hard left, who are always critical of them.

I am a centrist - a pragmatist, who sees nationalism and tradition for the success and stability of western nations as important while not being especially nationalistic or traditional myself. It's said that tradition is the answers to questions we have forgotten, and I think that's true.

There is an assumption in modernity that people of the past were brutish idiots, and everything they did and believed must be rejected and updated. No, they were humans and humans have been very smart for a very long time. To some extent, I blame this on ignorance of history - but, then again,, schools have failed to teach history in a sensible way for a long time, always pushing the Evil White Coloniser trope (which the BBC loves) but it's a lie, along with the noble savage trope (also loved by Beeb).

The Arabs were just as much into slavery as Europe, maybe more. Different tribal African groups enslaved each other for many millennia - usually as spoils of war. South America has a huge slavery tradition. Colonisation had always happened in history and pre-history. It did not start with Europe. Also note that some countries thrive after colonisation, using the newcomers' tech and advancements to prosper. Some societies are too steeped in resentment to move on - which does more damage than the colonists themselves. That's why South Africa is on the verge of being a failed state.

Also, another question, the Boers have been in SA for 400 years but the left refuse to see them as real Africans but a fundamentalist west-hating Muslim can arrive in UK or Australia and the left immediately say they are as British or as Australian as anyone else. That's why I left the left - too much hypocrisy and double standards.

All I want to pragmatic reality, and I have disavowed virtue signalling that has no element of personal sacrifice, that is purely performative.