BBC licence fee

[Metal Biker]

@Mëtal Bikër @Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese

They did cover this and apparently there was a bit of nuance to the story of him removing the title but yeah he wasn't a fan of Napoleon at the end but the early days when he was in charge of the African colonies, he was something of an idol for Beethoven therefore I'm not sure how much longer his music can be compatible with BLM UK

Another (maybe, possibly, not actually) true story about ol Beets is who he crushed on a girl, hard, so he wrote her a musical piece (fur elise, or possibly Moonlight Sonata) but when she dumped him he decided to re-write it so it was so complicated she could never be able to play it.

But yeah, I also accept in his early days he was a huge fan of Boney, to the extent he ignored his many atrocities.

 

[bluethrunthru]

You see the problem with the BBC is a lack of balance that doesn't occur elsewhere

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Everytime he says gammon i just smile as i can picture his red face each and every time he posts his anger and bile on here.

I can see the foam and spittle flecked twitch of the lips from here ;)

 

[Fame Monster]

Rivals plan Fox News-style opinionated TV station in UK

Groups pitching to perceived desire for alternative output as trust in BBC falls

www.theguardian.com

Looks like BBC News is going to have another competitor as a result of its failings. I don't think BBC broadcast news does too bad a job tbh apart from its obsession with America and Trump. That said, as long as GB News sticks to the facts ,doesnt become fox news usaand allows for genuine debate, I think this will be a positive thing.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Rivals plan Fox News-style opinionated TV station in UK

Groups pitching to perceived desire for alternative output as trust in BBC falls

www.theguardian.com

Looks like BBC News is going to have another competitor as a result of its failings. I don't think BBC broadcast news does too bad a job tbh apart from its obsession with America and Trump. That said, as long as GB News sticks to the facts ,doesnt become fox news usaand allows for genuine debate, I think this will be a positive thing.

what "news" will it report? You have a train crash and BBC, ITN 4 News and SKY News report it. If its in your region the local TV news does too. Chadwick Boseman sadly passes away - its reported on all 4 major news stations. They are all reporting the same news but its all the BBC's fault?

I presume they will just have to make things up and present it as news - like Fox do.

 

[Fame Monster]

what "news" will it report? You have a train crash and BBC, ITN 4 News and SKY News report it. If its in your region the local TV news does too. Chadwick Boseman sadly passes away - its reported on all 4 major news stations. They are all reporting the same news but its all the BBC's fault?

I presume they will just have to make things up and present it as news - like Fox do.

I suspect 90% of the news will be the same as the other channels but I think there will be some stories not covered by the BBC or the existing stories will be covered with more balance or give the side of the argument that the BBC don't want to give you.

For example, David Olusoga was talking about racism and alleged underrepresentation of black people on screen on the BBC the other day. The BBC didn't rebut his argument by saying well no, lots of studies have shown that black people are overrepresented on TV therefore your argument is nonsense: they instead corroborated his argument by saying well yeah, only 2.2% of directors are black so the media must be institutionally racist.

The role of any broadcaster must be to challenge views and give both sides of the argument. It's no wonder BBC insiders have started calling the BBC the 'broadcasting arm of BLM'. They are a dead man walking as far as the licence fee is concerned and this new broadcaster will hopefully hasten that demise.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I suspect 90% of the news will be the same as the other channels but I think there will be some stories not covered by the BBC or the existing stories will be covered with more balance or give the side of the argument that the BBC don't want to give you.

For example, David Olusoga was talking about racism and alleged underrepresentation of black people on screen on the BBC the other day. The BBC didn't rebut his argument by saying well no, lots of studies have shown that black people are overrepresented on TV therefore your argument is nonsense: they instead corroborated his argument by saying well yeah, only 2.2% of directors are black so the media must be institutionally racist.

The role of any broadcaster must be to challenge views and give both sides of the argument. It's no wonder BBC insiders have started calling the BBC the 'broadcasting arm of BLM'. They are a dead man walking as far as the licence fee is concerned and this new broadcaster will hopefully hasten that demise.

and when they do show both sides of the argument and highlight R/W violence, transphobia, refugee's being helped ashore after being rescued at sea or even interview Jurgen Klopp the pile on is massive.

Just because something is on your screen that you don't like, agree with or want to see isn't evidence of the broadcasters bias more about the viewers highlighting their own bias - if you don't want to watch yet another documentary about Liverpool then you don't have to watch, turn over or turn it off.

 

[Gray]

Make them finance themselves with advertising like all the other broadcasters. They are an anomally in this day and age. With modern TV you can record everything and fast forward through the adverts if you don't want to watch them.

 

[Silva_Spell]

I suspect 90% of the news will be the same as the other channels but I think there will be some stories not covered by the BBC or the existing stories will be covered with more balance or give the side of the argument that the BBC don't want to give you.

For example, David Olusoga was talking about racism and alleged underrepresentation of black people on screen on the BBC the other day. The BBC didn't rebut his argument by saying well no, lots of studies have shown that black people are overrepresented on TV therefore your argument is nonsense: they instead corroborated his argument by saying well yeah, only 2.2% of directors are black so the media must be institutionally racist.

The role of any broadcaster must be to challenge views and give both sides of the argument. It's no wonder BBC insiders have started calling the BBC the 'broadcasting arm of BLM'. They are a dead man walking as far as the licence fee is concerned and this new broadcaster will hopefully hasten that demise.

The so-called historian who, iirc, claimed that most British people think that the empire was just about going around the world helping people. He was never even questioned on that. It may have been Sky, who are just as bad if not worse than the BBC

 

[Silva_Spell]

You see the problem with the BBC is a lack of balance that doesn't occur elsewhere

Nooruddean clearly never been a fan of Sesame Street

and when they do show both sides of the argument and highlight R/W violence, transphobia, refugee's being helped ashore after being rescued at sea or even interview Jurgen Klopp the pile on is massive.

Just because something is on your screen that you don't like, agree with or want to see isn't evidence of the broadcasters bias more about the viewers highlighting their own bias - if you don't want to watch yet another documentary about Liverpool then you don't have to watch, turn over or turn it off.

Can we choose not to pay for it as well?