Yes I agree to a certain extent, perhaps I misread or jumped to a predetermined conclusion of your intention.

My point would be that, let's call it a 'woke culture' is the order of the day and therefore the BBC seeks to pander to this audience and that is the essence of the gripe. Typically, the result of that will be commentary such as 'they should just report the news' which again I do agree with. Therefore, my point was that whilst still pandering to what is deemed to be an appetite, or expectance of 'left-leaning wokery', they will also of course report and provide coverage of an historic and 'headline' worthy event.

I think the nature of the comments on here are disgruntlement on the media alignment with the current sociopolitical landscape, which the BBC can then be seen to be endorsing/promoting, as opposed to it's stance on neutrality, which the BBC clearly is not. Furthermore my initial reply was based solely on the fact I do not acknowledge any correlation between politically motivated reporting and that of an historic event. They'll of course seek to incorporate both into their activities somewhat irrespective of one another.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

I worried that we would see a period of repetitive tributes and self indulgent stories of personal encounters, such as we have seen in the past.

I think though that the coverage has been fresh and captured the mood perfectly. It’s a huge event. We are living through, and part of history and the BBC is our window through which the world views us. I think they have done supremely well.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The BBC don't though either endorse or promote anything. They report it. It is just that some see that reporting as endorsement and support. With regard to the BBC "clearly" not being neutral, this is just untrue. It is simply a biased opinion of both the right and the left, both of whom feel the BBC supports the other.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Sep 2022 1.24pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yes I see the validity in that stance.

Perhaps then it is the far more sensitivity of one side to make note of the other's coverage and deem this to be more than their own? Equally, it could be either side suggesting that the other does not deserve coverage and therefore any amounts to endorsement.

From my perspective, there is a lot on the BBC that I would not deem as 'news' or at the very least 'newsworthy' as it seems to be a ringing endorsement of what I deem to be sociopolitical conditioning. See above however for my openness to the fact that this may be incorrect although I am yet willing to concede it is.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Why would they hold back? You have only to see the way people have responded this week to realise how close to their hearts this is. A lesser Royal than the Queen would not receive anything like the same coverage.

I don't know what % of us are truly republicans, but I suspect it is a tiny minority. Indifference, perhaps. Concerned about costs, probably, but wanting our constitutional monarchy replaced? I don't see it myself. So I am unsurprised they aren't given a platform.

What Charles will do remains to be seen, and that could alter the balance somewhat.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I agree with you WE. I think there's a bit of general cynicism involved as well.
I have two good friends who are old-style Union men who don't understand all the coverage. Or claim not to anyway.
I'm seeing them tomorrow for a drink and imagine we'll stick to music and football for most of the conversation.

watching all the crowds doing the public Mourning on the BBC. It seems to be giving me a very warped & twisted view of reality.

not great on the journalistic integrity there. Does Gary Lineker control all the cameras from a central computer ?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

My amazement is in the main that they didn't try to be negative as they always are with Trump and I suggested why.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Sep 2022 11.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Maybe because it wasn't about Trump!!

It was about the transport of migrants and the role DeSantis played in arranging it.

Trump was only mentioned once, in a quote from DeSantis, and not at all by the BBC.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I don't hate the BBC I just don't like being forced to pay for it. As for their coverage they are the state broadcaster is anyone surprised?

I haven't watched any of it but I will take your word it has been good I would expect no less. I am sure the other broadcasters are well aware that the beeb will hoover up the ratings so have tailored their efforts accordingly.

It's no different to the World Cup if you don't have the rights it's silly to try and compete you might as well go in another direction e.g. put on a Romcom for the football widows.

I have never said that the BBC cannot put on a good show, after all unlike the other channels they have massive financial resources from a captive audience. All of this adds up to a great advert for them and they are clearly taking advantage of it.

Just because they have put on blanket coverage of a global event that still doesn't justify the compulsion of the license fee.

One more point