BBC licence fee

Fame Monster said:
@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
Click to expand...
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.
 
www.theguardian.com

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 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.
 
Fame Monster said:
www.theguardian.com

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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bluethrunthru said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fame Monster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Fame Monster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...


Nooruddean clearly never been a fan of Sesame Street


bluethrunthru said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can we choose not to pay for it as well?
 
No. From news, to radio, kids TV, kids education, documentaries and BBC Good Food, it’s well worth the money

It’s a public service and whilst It has its faults it’s well worth the money

Look at the people encouraging us to get rid of it, what’s in it for them......
 
Blue Hefner said:
No. From news, to radio, kids TV, kids education, documentaries and BBC Good Food, it’s well worth the money

It’s a public service and whilst It has its faults it’s well worth the money

Look at the people encouraging us to get rid of it, what’s in it for them......
Click to expand...

Very kind of you. Any other of your viewing habits you'd like others to help pay for?
 
Silva_Spell said:
Very kind of you. Any other of your viewing habits you'd like others to help pay for?
Click to expand...

My point, as you well know, is that it caters for everyone as a national broadcaster should. It’s a public service

What’s next? Rees-Mogg saying taxes should be reduced to because he sends his kids to private/independent schools so why should he pay for normal people’s kids?
 
Blue Hefner said:
My point, as you well know, is that it caters for everyone as a national broadcaster should. It’s a public service

What’s next? Rees-Mogg saying taxes should be reduced to because he sends his kids to private/independent schools so why should he pay for normal people’s kids?
Click to expand...

Why not?

It would have the virtue of honesty.

The right always has to dog whistle and skirt the issue for fear of exposing themselves for what they are.

Not now.

I look forward to right wingers scolding the poor for their bad life choices, the welfare state dismantled with charities told to pick up the slack. I want to hear lectures on the work shy, why prisons should be turned in to vast warehouses for the criminal classes, the importance of breeding and the perils of letting your daughter marry a darky.
 
Blue Hefner said:
My point, as you well know, is that it caters for everyone as a national broadcaster should. It’s a public service

What’s next? Rees-Mogg saying taxes should be reduced to because he sends his kids to private/independent schools so why should he pay for normal people’s kids?
Click to expand...

Your main point seemed to be that you thought it was worth the money

We fund things like schools via the state because not everyone could afford to pay. This isn't true for media

Personally, I don't think the BBC should be straight up privatised or abolished but it needs stripping right down to the important stuff (news and docs) and has to become more neutral, with diversity of thought introduced to its employment ranks, not just superficial diversity.
The danger of getting rid of it is it would fragment society even further. I'd like to see us fund it in other ways tho (lottery?)
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
Why not?

It would have the virtue of honesty.

The right always has to dog whistle and skirt the issue for fear of exposing themselves for what they are.

Not now.

I look forward to right wingers scolding the poor for their bad life choices, the welfare state dismantled with charities told to pick up the slack. I want to hear lectures on the work shy, why prisons should be turned in to vast warehouses for the criminal classes, the importance of breeding and the perils of letting your daughter marry a darky.
Click to expand...

Its when she comes home with a fucking lefty the shit hits the fan ;-)
 
Silva_Spell said:
Your main point seemed to be that you thought it was worth the money

We fund things like schools via the state because not everyone could afford to pay. This isn't true for media

Personally, I don't think the BBC should be straight up privatised or abolished but it needs stripping right down to the important stuff (news and docs) and has to become more neutral, with diversity of thought introduced to its employment ranks, not just superficial diversity.
The danger of getting rid of it is it would fragment society even further. I'd like to see us fund it in other ways tho (lottery?)
Click to expand...

1) We fund schools as glorifed day care so the adults can go out to the factories, offices to make money to pay tax. Seen as though more people are working from home or unfortunaley unemployed as a result of the pandemic and we are looking to save money let's shut some schools and let the parents educate their own kids rather than the state/teachers. Teachers are only lazy union puppets anyway who only work 6 hours a day.....

2)I'm not sure about that. BBC have done groundbreaking documentary/news series that are available to everyone in the county, because we all chip-in. I don't have Netfix, I jump on someone elses Sky-Go so my access to media is very limited. As is plently of people's who don't have good enough broadband to stream or just simply can't afford it. I'd consider free access to recipes, kids TV etc and education essential in this day and age

The result of 'stripping back' would be a reduced and poor service which then could easily to be sold to the public as a waste of money so best to get rid. Didn't they do the same with British Rail??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top