On the BBS a lot of finger pointing at the gutter press (they are gutter) but it doesn't get away from the fact that the BBC has far more of these celebrity scandals than oddly the gutter press or the other TV companies. The phone hacking scandal is of a different level that was management actually sanctioning it rather than individual bad behaviour (and very wrong of course).

The other issue is the "what a person does in private..." so why pick on the BBC it wouldn't happen elsewhere. Again simply not true how many senior managers at large corporations have recently been sacked or forced out due to their bad behaviour, the majority of whom have not been prosecuted so presumably not illegal.

As I said in my earlier post the culture of management deference to the celebrities at the beeb must change. These people have too much power and whilst most are probably not bad people it encourages the minority to exploit it whether it's criminal behaviour or not.

Case in point Victoria Derbyshire.

When the BBC decided to cancel her expensive daytime TV show because the viewing figures were appalling she had a meltdown. Over a period of days she publicly criticised the decision and in the BBC staff canteen in front of dozens of staff she insulted a senior TV executive.

She should have been given a final written warning not for what she said but how she said it. Instead the BBC bent over backwards to apologise to her and she now has the plumb job on Newsnight.

Of course this was just a spat but she was rewarded for her bad behaviour by weak management.

They have to get a grip the idea that anyone at the BBC is that important that they will tolerate bad behaviour is a joke, very few of these people would get plumb jobs elsewhere.

One more point

All excellent insights.

The BBC is holed below the waterline.

Like all businesses it is fundamentally its people and unfortunately its focus went more to ideology than merit to keep it afloat.

I suppose at least it isn't like Disney.....that's like watching Samson cutting his own hair.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jul 2023 7.18pm)

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

I can't stand RTE - just propaganda. Terrible anyway. It is actually worse than BBC, in fairness considerably worse in its output. However, slightly less paedos, probably the same amount of pervs but our press would never tell us, so we just carry on in ignorance. I know one was done recently but don't remember it being particularly scandalous or covered up. We've had our crosses to bear in this regard anyhow. Someone being done currently but might not be RTE - get a feeling its a DJ of another station. The money thing will be the straw that broke the camel's back. Tubridy will have to fund his habits somehow else now - although this being Ireland and RTE, a large golden feck off seems likely. Incredibly likely - ironically will be in private.

Red and Blue Army!

I think you're right on the last point. Dump bbc 1 2 and 3 as nobody watches, it can't compete with the streamers and it costs too much. Just keep the stuff the Private sector wouldn't touch that constitutes public service like radio Orkney or bbc 4.

On news there has to be an international 24 hour stream with a UK centric bias.

Just keep the world service! Along with the OU, one of the great institutions of this country and our spoken presence to the far flung corners ie one of the original purposes.

If there’s criminal wrongdoing, sure, public interest, report it

None? Shouldn’t be being exploited mercilessly for clicks

Ironic that on a thread mainly about how biased the BBC is on basically all topics bbc online has possibly been one of the worst offenders milking the clicking teat. And yes you could suggest that’s to go front foot forward and show impartiality but ultimately they’ve still gone in hard.

Public funded organisations are heavily scrutinised. Just like any business it’s run like a corporate so there are the same cover ups, staff misdemeanours and giod knows what else that goes on at every company that size. Why would the BBC be any different? Twist here is that once things like this are sniffed out, they become headline news rather than dealt with internally. This is barely a whisper compared with what goes on at most large corporates on a weekly basis.

Just because it’s PARTLY (71%) publicly funded doesn’t mean contractors (which is what they are) shouldn’t be paid competitive rates. If they weren’t they’d all be gone and you’d be left with Garth Crooks presenting MOTD. Maybe too premium. Wayne Andrews?

I don’t agree that every penny they get paid should be accounted for. Total nonsense… transparency of what employees get paid, absolutely. Happens and works well to keep things open to scrutiny. Transparency of their bank statements and everyday lives? Nonsense. They’re not MPs. They’re not civil servants. To compare them as such is odd… Even then I don’t think they get scrutinised anywhere near the level you’re demanding. What you’re asking for is like an storyline for an episode of black mirror. I pay 0.0005% of your salary so I get the right to know what you’re doing and what you’re spending you money on every second of every day. Drivel

As for what happens to the BBC in the next decade - I generally agree with the points made around relevance of broadcast services… but they’ve already sorted that with iplayer etc and how their overseas markets work. There’s a model in place… it will survive absolutely fine but I doubt it will have the same reach that it did in its heyday and that it does now.

Balance required in your post, very little found

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

I thought he was just spouting the usual rubbish but now I have a whiff of brimstone.

It all provides a degree of comic relief so I'm glad he's back.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

True and I expect that to be written into contracts.

Balanced against it is the duty of care every employer has to its staff and when someone has mental health issues I suspect the waters get muddy. Much better to handle things quietly and away from public scrutiny but that becomes impossible when it’s 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.

Is interesting reading some of the views on here and I mean that genuinely.

At risk of slings and arrows I like the BBC, have news, sports and weather apps on my phone and use all frequently. I must say much of the ire and contempt I see for it as well as some defence is often quite obviously driven by subjectivity, political in this instance.

Personally, with no assertion I am correct, I do see the BBC as being the victim of numerous of its own employees as opposed to this representing some sort of culture and/or the organisation itself, with ol’ Huw the latest example. Such a massive organisation which even reports its own ‘news’ and therefore scandal, within the field it operates, is almost inevitably going to have some wrongdoing within. It is almost reminiscent of the NHS for me, yes there’ll be plenty wrong and it is important to scrutinise it and hold it to account where necessary however we should all be extremely grateful for the service provided. I disagree however on it becoming redundant or out of date, it’s a terrifying thing to imagine the likes of Twitter becoming the main source of news, it needs to be kept just to combat that proposed eventuality.

As for Huw Edwards, the mere mentioning of ‘no illegality’ is both bizarre and bonkers. On any moral or objective analysis scale it’s awful and his mental health is a separate matter. It may factor into thinking however should not cloud the narrative in condemning his behaviour. Even more shameful to use mental health issues as a tool for excusing or mitigating commentary and judgment on this kind of behaviour. It’s a bit like saying I have no legal recourse to remove Garth Crooks from any football musing or commentary whatsoever, doesn’t mean his continued digs at Palace are acceptable however.

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

You have no idea what the country as a whole thinks, simply your opinion, not a fact

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

At least I posted to links to back up my assertions. Where is the evidence for yours?