Under-pressure BBC boss getting tough after controversies

[Nearly Sane]

Which seems unconnected, and that Nandy is trying to make it some sort of pattern, seems a bit bizarre.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20pyjggzzro

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When he's sacked them, he should sack himself.

[Nearly Sane]

When he's sacked them, he should sack himself.

What responsibility does he have here? Are you wanting all those who made the documentary on Gaza sacked? Do you apply this standard to the PM?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What responsibility does he have here? Are you wanting all those who made the documentary on Gaza sacked? Do you apply this standard to the PM?

He has preside over a series of scandals and a culture.
IMV there are serious issues with public engagement or lack thereof and with BBC's political stance and coverage.

Davie's personal circumstances are not likely to be jeopardised by his replacement I would have thought.

[Nearly Sane]

He has preside over a series of scandals and a culture.
IMV there are serious issues with public engagement or lack thereof and with BBC's political stance and coverage.

Davie's personal circumstances are not likely to be jeopardised by his replacement I would have thought.

So it's not that he has direct responsibility, but indirect, and therefore you think Starmer is responsible in the same way for every mistake and scandal of civil servants.

ETA - and logically by that position Nandy is as responsible as Davie sk needs to give herself a damn good talking to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So it's not that he has direct responsibility, but indirect, and therefore you think Starmer is responsible in the same way for every mistake and scandal of civil servants.

ETA - and logically by that position Nandy is as responsible as Davie sk needs to give herself a damn good talking to.

So it's not that he has direct responsibility, but indirect, and therefore you think Starmer is responsible in the same way for every mistake and scandal of civil servants.

ETA - and logically by that position Nandy is as responsible as Davie sk needs to give herself a damn good talking to.

I'm forced to ask then, what is it that he does for his salary. What successes can he show? Has he protected the BBC or made it even more vulnerable? Is he another Reith, or Carleton-Greene or Michael Grade?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm forced to ask then, what is it that he does for his salary. What successes can he show? Has he protected the BBC or made it even more vulnerable? Is he another Reith, or Carleton-Greene or Michael Grade?

then he needs to be judged on that not Nandy pulling together disparate issues which he appears to have little direct control over.

I doubt the BBC can continue to exist in anything like the form ot does for more than about 5 years. Nandy's approach will guarantee that, and guarantee a brutal dismantling. The govt needs to be looking at what comes next, not scapegoating.

[Aruntraveller]

The govt needs to be looking at what comes next, not scapegoating.

And needs to think very carefully about what it wishes for.

The broadcasting landscape is feeding the right wing very successfully with the reach of GBNews which, although small in viewing figures, is driving support for Farage through the internet.  My opinion is that it was a mistake to allow right-leaning channels to broadcast at all.
But that horse has bolted now, so what do you do to counter it?

You don't dismantle the BBC (with all its evident faults) and allow a free-for-all in the world of broadcasting. Which I'm very much afraid this government may do.

Whether that is by design or ineptitude, I'll wait and see.

[Nearly Sane]

That Nandy is effectively linking Gregg Wallace's behaviour with Bob Vylan's chants at Gladtonbury is indicative if the lack of thinking around this. The labour party has the opportunity to deal with what time did with the BBC and for its own interests that should be a coherent policy not this amateur night stuff.