The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

Oh I agree - the BBC news site is awful (as I say this always triggers me into old man shouting at clouds).

Just lots of soft and celebrity news all over - and I'm sure that's because it is most read. But the BBC doesn't rely on advertising so it doesn't matter if they specialise in hard news (advertisers basically don't want to advertise next to news - they want lifestyle/soft stories etc) and they're state funded so they shouldn't really care about how many people read their content and don't need to be relevant, they can focus on being good.

(Aware there is a wider and difficult conversation on the BBC's funding model which needs to happen at some point...)

[HVC]

Isn't it a catch 22 though? If they don't cover fluff to get the views the usual suspects well just use the "no one is watching/reading, why are we funding them?"?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - although that debate is coming anyway. Young people don't watch linear TV which is the basis of the BBC's funding model. TV license as a funding model doesn't work when an increasingly large number of people don't watch live TV.

And working in the media it is really difficult competing in a media market where there is a massive, freely available news company without any advertising It's very much not just the usual suspects who find the market challenge of the BBC quite difficult now it's all online.

The debate over what the BBC is for (inform, educate, entertain as Lord Reith put it) has been there from the very start.

[Zanza]

Was at a wedding the other day and one of the other guests was a German lawyer (living in Frankfurt). We discussed politics for a bit - she's a Liberal party stalwart (self described as socially liberal) and said that the SPD is thoroughly corrupt - more so than the other parties (on the CD she said that their corruption is more open - you know that they'll favour a specific corporate client network).

How does that sound to our German posters? Accurate?

Does not match my perception, but I cannot quantify that. My impression is that the Bavarian Conservatives are the most corrupt party in Germany, having ruled Bavaria for sixty years.

That said, Olaf Scholz is heavily implicated in this, but claims he cannot remember anything. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CumEx-Files

Edit: read a fitting comment - Olaf Scholz is the Joe Biden of the Social Democrats

[Tamas]

Yeah - although that debate is coming anyway. Young people don't watch linear TV which is the basis of the BBC's funding model. TV license as a funding model doesn't work when an increasingly large number of people don't watch live TV.

You are also supposed to pay if you are (only) watching iPlayer.

[Josquius]

Oh I agree - the BBC news site is awful (as I say this always triggers me into old man shouting at clouds).

Just lots of soft and celebrity news all over - and I'm sure that's because it is most read. But the BBC doesn't rely on advertising so it doesn't matter if they specialise in hard news (advertisers basically don't want to advertise next to news - they want lifestyle/soft stories etc) and they're state funded so they shouldn't really care about how many people read their content and don't need to be relevant, they can focus on being good.

(Aware there is a wider and difficult conversation on the BBC's funding model which needs to happen at some point...)

It sucks.
But since guardian went hard pay wall it's now the best news app weirdly.

[Sheilbh]

You are also supposed to pay if you are (only) watching iPlayer.

There's some carve outs, but yeah - and fewer young people are paying for it. The funding model and how that works for the BBC is different if it is, basically, one streamer among many v basically everyone with a TV pays.

It sucks.
But since guardian went hard pay wall it's now the best news app weirdly.

I don't think it's particularly hard. From what I understand you get 50 free articles a month and then have to pay for the app but all of the content is still available for free on their website It doesn't bother me as I mainly use their website I've never really downloaded any news apps

Compared with genuine paywalls like the NYT or the Times or the FT it's very, very, very soft/permeable. I mean The Economist are even paywalling their podcasts.

And ultimately journalism costs money to make (as does a nice website or app) - it needs to be paid for somehow.

[Norgy]

Yeah - although that debate is coming anyway. Young people don't watch linear TV which is the basis of the BBC's funding model. TV license as a funding model doesn't work when an increasingly large number of people don't watch live TV.

We did away with the TV license some, 3-4 years ago, I think. NRK is still state-funded and from tax money. NRK is also the biggest competitor we as local newspapers have. They have no advertisers. We have to have some. But have too few. So there are lay-offs everywhere. Ironically, mostly of those that actually tried to sell advertising.

Am I completely mistaken in the impression that the Beeb has gotten a bit of a gag order for being "too left-leaning" by whatever remains of the Conservatives? I can see that some people would react to Frankie Boyle tearing monarchy to pieces etc.
I would not say Norway is free from political intervention in the media. We've fallen into the trap of influencers and PR firms like most places, and certain news are simply taboo. It's not so much party politics as it is trying to drum up a Murdoch like "The Sun" in Norway. Unfortunately, the result is the "flag ship" of the media corporation I work for. I loathe it with passion.

[garbon]

I don't think it's particularly hard. From what I understand you get 50 free articles a month and then have to pay for the app but all of the content is still available for free on their website It doesn't bother me as I mainly use their website I've never really downloaded any news apps

My husband does download those and I'm like what is the point.

[Josquius]

I don't think it's particularly hard. From what I understand you get 50 free articles a month and then have to pay for the app but all of the content is still available for free on their website It doesn't bother me as I mainly use their website I've never really downloaded any news apps

My husband does download those and I'm like what is the point.

It's when I have 5 mins to spare with just my phone that I read the news.
I suppose I should just add a Web bookmark to my home screen....
But.... I dunno. Lazy?

[Sheilbh]

We did away with the TV license some, 3-4 years ago, I think. NRK is still state-funded and from tax money. NRK is also the biggest competitor we as local newspapers have. They have no advertisers. We have to have some. But have too few. So there are lay-offs everywhere. Ironically, mostly of those that actually tried to sell advertising.

Yeah it's a huge issue here especially with the local press and on the one hand it is good that the BBC is there doing that, but at the same time it makes it really difficult for the local press to compete and I think it's a problem if basically all of our news has to come from the BBC.

It's one of the many "what is the BBC for" debates because it wants to be pushing into areas and doing everything for various reasons, but that does mean it's very difficult for anyone (without state funding) to do

There's been talk of just tax funding - I think that's how the ABC works in Australia. Fear is that makes it more susceptible to political change. Basically now the BBC has a charter which includes the right for it to collect this tax (and prosecute people who don't pay) - as long as the charter gets renewed every five years then their funding is fixed. Budget by budget - and having to push for funding v, say, the NHS will be a far less sustainable organisation.

Am I completely mistaken in the impression that the Beeb has gotten a bit of a gag order for being "too left-leaning" by whatever remains of the Conservatives? I can see that some people would react to Frankie Boyle tearing monarchy to pieces etc.

I don't think so really. I think Frankie Boyle is still doing shows for the BBC and appearing on their panel shows - though he did one for the monarchy on Channel 4 (which might get taken over by the BBC).

There's always controversies around the BBC and political coverage of the government (I will never not find it weird to hear Alastair Campbell complain about this on his podcast given his history) - I think they are pretty good at being impartial. I think there's been stuff with Robbie Gibb etc - I don't think it's any different than when Campbell was spin doctor at Number 10 and Labour were appointing party donors to the BBC board. And on the podcast thing a few BBC stars have gone in that direction and seeing them unshackled shows what a good job their impartiality rules do - and that the Tories may have a point

I think the bigger problem is shallowness to be honest. They've got rid of Newsnight, barely doing Panorama, cut a lot of other news shows and seem to prefer a "panel" approach to news with different talking heads v reported pieces. Basically I think it's far more cost-cutting than political pressure that's altered their coverage. This is slightly more niche but I am always struck at how much the BBC have cut back on arts spending which is insane because it's so cheap to make and helps tick the "public service" box but they just don't seem interested.

I think it's always been there - and the level of Tory psychodrama has been attractive for this - but they've got very into the very shallow, frothy Westminster reporting at the expense of the actual issue they're reporting on.

Having said all that, and it's not party political, but I was really struck of the BBC slipping into its role as "the national broadcaster" both during covid and after the Queen's death.

And I think there's a bit of a generational/identity/confidence crisis going on at the minute - but I think that happens every few years with the BBC. And news is really extreme, for example, with the Queen's death where I imagine most of the footage of BBC coverage of that has been rendered unusable because of Huw Edwards...Similarly I think the BBC election coverage was by some distance the worst of the big broadcasters and I felt in part that's because they were dealing with not having a Dimbleby or Edwards and hadn't really worked out what to do.

I would not say Norway is free from political intervention in the media. We've fallen into the trap of influencers and PR firms like most places, and certain news are simply taboo. It's not so much party politics as it is trying to drum up a Murdoch like "The Sun" in Norway. Unfortunately, the result is the "flag ship" of the media corporation I work for. I loathe it with passion.

The most extreme here is Reach which owns all of the local press and the Express which is the most unhingedly right wing paper and the Mirror (the stalwart Labour tabloid). The editor of the Express is actually a long-standing Labour activist which I can't quite understand. I almost admire that level of ability to compartmentalise

Although I think this is another BBC bias bit (and true of all broadcasters). I think they still fundamentally think the big papers set the agenda and frame issues - and their "league table" of those papers is still really informed by print circulation. I think that skews things and looks more and more absurd as more news is consumed digitally - the Guardian homepage and MailOnline's sidebar of shame are, I think, probably more important now than a Sun frontpage.

[garbon]

I don't think it's particularly hard. From what I understand you get 50 free articles a month and then have to pay for the app but all of the content is still available for free on their website It doesn't bother me as I mainly use their website I've never really downloaded any news apps

My husband does download those and I'm like what is the point.

It's when I have 5 mins to spare with just my phone that I read the news.
I suppose I should just add a Web bookmark to my home screen....
But.... I dunno. Lazy?

I type the letter g in search box chrome and it is my 2nd suggestion after gmail given my frequency of access. Same as how I get to Languish by typing the letter l.

[Sheilbh]

My husband does download those and I'm like what is the point.

Yeah I don't get the point at all

I use Safari.

[Threviel]

I tried to find data on the views on immigration in Sweden. Gothenburg University has an institute that gathers opinion poll data on all kinds of things and they have asked their respondents since the middle of the 90's for their view on immigration. It's slowly been going down but for almost all of that time a slim majority has been against the liberal immigration laws and about a quarter for it. When I checked a few years ago it was something like 45-50% against and 25-30% for.

It is really no wonder that parties negative to immigration grows when immigration becomes an important political issue. It's a quite huge problem for the legitimacy of the other parties and the state that they've totally and completely ignored the will of the majority for at least 25 years, but probably far longer than that, there's just no data going back further.

Sure, there's a good reason and all, but we are living in democracies, not many issues are this clear cut and still ends up with the opposite of the will of the people.

[garbon]

Yes, many European balls of light are more racist than one would naively expect.