BBC - Again!

[Kimbers]

I am with what seems a popular opinion, that the Beeb is not fit for purpose now in a world of Media and so many channel choices, Free and pay per view.

What I do watch which I love:

Bargain Hunt and Antiques Roadshow got me into loving Antiques and now dealing 
Graham Norton, though his obvious Bias against certain things like Brexit Peed me off. But the format is brilliant and he's great.
Saturday Kitchen, its my go to show on a Saturday Morning!
Match of the Day, Big Footie Fan and the show format and pundits are excellent

Yeah, that's it. 

[Bibs]

5 minutes ago, Kimbers said:

Saturday Kitchen, its my go to show on a Saturday Morning!

You need to switch to James Martin, much better

How does freezing the licence fee by the way mean that the beeb have a £2bn shortfall over the next couple of years? They need to remember where their money comes from and offer more value, then people wouldn't object to it so much! 

[pete]

Could start with the salaries they pay their'stars' and managament

[PaulCP]

Could also start with cutting irresponsible spending.

almost £90m (and £30m over budget) on a new set  for Eastenders, a programme that was past its sell by date 20 years ago 😠

[Mark Blanchard]

And cutting back on the 26 radio stations.  Back to 5 is fine with me.

[Mysterae]

 

[basalte]

I ve watched this all the way through and basically agree . The desperate dog ( their description not mine ) is lashing out as a distraction from his partying ; and Murdoch & Rothermere are only too glad to help him . Problems with the BBC really need to be addressed outside this dodgy setting ; the Leveson 2 Inquiry would have been a good start but the unhealthy links between the political classes and the mass media won out against public accountability. 

[PaulCP]

Sorry Dan, I have to disagree with you. TBe BBC have needed sorting for years and that article is no more than defensive tactics from them.

Poor budgetary control and lack of cost focus due to knowing that the funding is just going to be there. The new Eastenders is a prime example.

Total bias towards the left as highlighted in their brexit reporting and how they constantly aim comments at the Govt. Kuenssburg’s Twitter thread today is another prime example.

We Will just have to agree to disagree

[basalte]

I’m not sure how you derive that opinion from the footage above or even my comment below .  From my other comments you’ll know that I no longer watch BBC News .

I do know that Nigel Farage holds the record for being the second most frequent panel member on Question Time  

and I know they put a Russian hat on Corbyn on Newsnight and showed him as Voldemort for no reason

- and intercut old footage of Johnson at the Cenotaph with live footage to avoid showing Johnson as the hungover sack of s**t  that he was . These few examples ( I could cite many more including the actions of Tory groupie Kuenssberg ) mean that I must disagree that the BBC is biased to the left .

I suspect that your idea of “ the left “ originates very much from the Right , and is a euphemism for cultural liberalism . Personally I find their news and current affairs reporting constantly biased to the Right where anyone to the Left of Blair is “ cancelled “ . It must also be factored in that Press barons Murdoch and Rothermere loathe the BBC and never pass up an opportunity to put the boot in . 

PS I agree with you about Eastenders 🙂

[C8RKH]

@basalte I would not say that the idea that the BBC is of the "left" originates from someone's support for the right, but I do agree with you that what is really being attacked is the "cultural liberalism" within the BBC.  The BBC and her senior "news people" and management (can we still use that masculine ageist term or should we now just use the term "ment" and drop the man and age bits?    ) are very much biased to a "liberal" agenda at best, but with a strong left leaning to it. This has been "known" for decades to be honest and is not a news worthy point any more. You only have to tune into the BBC Breakfast show on a weekday morning on BBC One to see how they "presenters" react to and treat differently Conservative MP's to Labour MP's. There really is a marked difference and no real attempt to hide what can only be described as contempt for one side, over the other. Even my wife, who is the least interested in politics person I know gets fed up with it as they constantly heckle, interrupt and snap at the Conservative politicians.

Moving on, I think the issue that the BBC has is that increasingly, it is irrelevant to large swathes of the population, yet the population is expected to pay for it.  The liberal elite of the BBC hate any kind of scrutiny or questioning about their role, productions and programmes, etc. They can be quite indignant when challenged - but yes, this is in my opinion and others may have a different one which is fine by me.

The BBC has veered, again, in my opinion, so far away from its role as a Public Broadcasting entity that it is often hard through looking at the programming to differentiate between it, and a private TV "channel" like ITV, Channel 4, etc.  The BBC seems to be in a constant "ratings" battle, whether it is through soaps, dramas, or whatever and has apart from some excellent programming that relies largely on very old presenters (Attenborough for instance whose wildlife/world programmes are outstanding) and ever increasingly 3rd party production companies. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how much programming was produced by the BBC these days, as opposed to being subbed out to 3rd party Production companies - what a gravy train that must be for the mates of current and ex BBC people and indeed for ex (and quite possibly current) BBC people too!

Very few young adults watch the BBC these days. It's public service broadcasting offering is quite small now, in my opinion.  Increasingly as these young adults age and mature they are not likely to "come back" to the BBC so as this generation progresses the BBC will find itself increasingly marginalised in terms of its impact and relevance to society and its "market share" of viewing hours.  Forcing (or attempting to force) every household in the Uk to pay for the BBC through the licence fee will become increasingly less just.  So we are heading to a crunch event, whether the BBC likes it or not, and it will be interesting to see how they respond.

They produce some good stuff, but by god they also produce some dross and quite how they can justify paying a wooden one trick pony like Danny Dyer £1m pa is beyond me.  A staggering waste of money in my humble opinion and uses up the £159 licence fee from c. 6300 households just to pay for him every year!

The demise of the BBC and our national Broadcaster is not, in my opinion, good for us as a nation. Young people don't watch the news. They are "influenced" by social media channels and we all know how reliable they are as sources of "news" base on fact, investigation, and analysis!  It's partly why we have the issues with COVID and jabs - the youngsters have been fed lies and BS from social media "influencers" who quite honestly would struggle with a basic conversation with a real person.  A very real and big challenge we face is going forwards how do we provide access to "news" that IS fact based (and the facts have been checked), is politically impartial, is timely and probably most importantly, is trusted?  In a short period of time social media has blown apart the provision of real news backed up by real journalism and I actually worry about what this will do to the collective intelligence of the people of the UK in 5, 10, 20, 30 years if left unchecked. I guess i started out by bashing the BBC (and I feel quite justified about doing it) but I am ending by starting to build a case for why we need an independent (of politics) public broadcaster to act as a true social conscious and to have the courage and journalistic skill to investigate the real things that need to be investigated - the injustices, the abuse of power, the abuse of public office, etc, which is ironic as I think the BBC, through its conscious cultural liberalism bias is guilty of many of those things and as such is no more trustworthy than an influencer on social media.  Hope that rambling makes some sense to someone lol.

[basalte]

I well remember a BBC commentator quipping - did Labour want to “ nationalise sausages ?” I didn’t detect any pro Labour bias there . Likewise Nick Robinson ( a former Young Conservative by the way ) treat Corbyn’s shadow ministers like freaks . I’ve given some specific examples in my last post 🎺of what I define as bias . But the key to this argument is the realisation of myself and others here (of whatever political persuasion )that the BBC supports the Establishment of the day ;I would define these as  the public school Oxbridge elite . From Boris to Blair they believe they have a natural right to rule . I would like to see that natural presumption ended . I would remind readers that the BBC were quite content to have Johnson present “ Have I got News For You “ quite content to have him on TopGear , quite content not to challenge his incontinent mendacity .

Underpinning most of our arguments is the fact that there is so much information out there to absorb that it is easier than ever to “ pick and choose “ events to construct your own narrative and confirm your own prejudices as to what and why stuff is happening. My narrative is firmly based on the theory that very rich and powerful people who own printing presses ( and some TV stations ) get to tell us daily how they think we ought to view events . Noam Chomsky and Antonio Gramsci wrote about this phenomenon at length . The ownership of “ Common Sense and Conventional Wisdom “ The BBC to my mind goes  along with that “ rich mans “ narrative- certainly not in a simple “ Pravda - Obey The Party “ way but chiefly in the news it chooses to select . This narrative ( to me ) is more important than seeing some entitled mainstream politicians debating with entitled smug media personalities like the aforesaid wrestlers on World of Sport “ .
Soo… It is certainly easier and maybe wiser here to agree with Paul CP and declare that we Agree to Differ ! 

[march]

 

[basalte]

March , Thankyou for proving my point to the nth degree ; The above sneerfest film exemplifies the media technique I referred to ;

1. Proceed from the existence of a terrible “ problem “or “ threat “to “ sensible citizens “  over the use of language - one magnified by  the sensationalist billionaires gutter press ; 

2. Such perceived “ problem “ is indeed magnified by middle class liberalism ( much of the BBC ) prescribing token solutions of linguistic correctness instead of investigating genuine economic and social injustice;

3. The Gutter press media seizes on a few liberal celebrities and assorted isolated idiots guilty of some kind of hypocrisy - however small - in their protests - and makes them typical of an entire approach adopted by every person who might sympathise with them ; these threads have plenty of examples ! 

4. The public - suffering with their own more serious problems are encouraged to confront this contrived “ silliness “ with sagely nodding heads , tut- tutting at the rashness of whoever it is ( blacks , gays , trans - all absurdly lumped in together for that purpose . To demonstrate some kind of empathy is labelled weak , snowflake behaviour. Any context or historical root to their protest is either ignored or emotionalised - emotions are their chief method .

As Noam Chomsky comments over media propaganda techniques;  “ use emotion much more than logic and reflection . Provoke a “ short circuit “ over rational analysis. The emotional register accesses the unconscious door to implant fears and compulsions “.
 

5. And hey presto ! You are indoctrinated into thinking that the “ woke “ ( whoever they are ) are a “ blob “ devoid of humanity. 

6. Lastly after my lefty lecture so very devoid of humour , I do find the above trite little populist film offensive. To depict book nazi book burning as “ woke” is literally as far  from the truth as you can get . The nazis murdered those very people you poke fun at and who they considered racially inferior ( ie people like ME , March ), gays and trans people . In the world of comedy it’s called “ punching down “.

so yeah , To sum up I don’t like your “ funny “ 🙄little sneer at people worse off than you and people who (maybe misguidedly but sincerely) try to help them .

[march]

17 minutes ago, basalte said:

o yeah , To sum up I don’t like your “ funny “ 🙄little sneer at people worse off than you and people who (maybe misguidedly but sincerely) try to help them .

Oh FFS - you are allowed not to like this but please don't assume I'm sneering, indoctrinated or indoctrinating. I must admit I thought the book burning was from the film Fahrenheit 451 but didn't bother to look too closely but hey ho - who really cares. It's an attempt at humour to make a point I suppose - How did you survive the 70's.

Bored with this now.

[basalte]

Sorry mate if you knew my life history you’d know I like a laugh more than most - but you really can’t expect everyone to “ see the funny side “ when it’s real people affected by others posting what amounts to unfair assumptions about them . 

[C8RKH]

Actually @basalte I would say from reading your post above that the person doing the "sneering" down was you. It reads like a political essay for a media thesis.

@march - I found it funny and laughed. At the same time I also found it tragic as obviously whilst it was OTT it did highlight the silliness that we are seeing today. I guess that makes me a terrible person. But then I have always been a huge fan of Monty Python and the Goons.  Very little of which, sadly, can be aired today as it causes too much outrage and offense I guess.

Also @basalte, the irony is that whilst colonial countries like Britain (and Spain, Portugal, France) are targeted to differing degrees, I do not see those same people doing the targeting actually looking at the history of slavery in Africa say, and the complicit actions of warlords, chieftains, tribes and the like who often were responsible for rounding up the "free people" who were then sold as slaves to the colonial countries and companies who then traded them on. It would be good to see some of that complicitness recognised and addressed as without it the trade would have been much more difficult. I doubt it ever will as it would be too uncomfortable for these "liberal elitists to stomach". The painful truth is that in Africa, slavery is still common place in parts, but who is doing anything about that? To help the people who need the help now?  Instead, let's worry about what someone might have done 400 years ago?  Slavery is an abomination, but it was not unique to black Africans. I would wager that ever since man set forth on this earth, power has been bought and sold on the backs of slaves all over the globe.  How far back do we go? Do we as Britain's start to attack Italian history, and demand apologies and reparations for the raping of our earth, the slaughter of our people, and their condemning to working till they died on the land and on the sea as galley slaves? Where do we stop going backwards?  History is there to remind us of not just the great achievements, but also of the darkest moments of our times. Lessons have been learnt and for 300 years slavery has been abolished within Britain. We all hope it never returns. But this "woke" outrage at what happened 400 years ago, in stark contrast as per the article below with what is happening NOW, just beggars belief. It's also two faced hypocrisy of the highest order.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/15/cambridge-college-seeks-to-remove-memorial-to-patron-with-links-to-slave-trade

[march]

5 minutes ago, basalte said:

Sorry mate if you knew my life history

And what do you know about me and my life history?

[basalte]

Sorry if you are offended by that . No reason why you should know my history and no reason why I should know yours . 

[basalte]

Hi C8, looks like another “ set this liberal lefty straight !”( I’m not a liberal but anyway …)  mission  has been embarked upon. Not a problem. Yes sadly a criticism of what passes for “ popular “ humour involves the use of academic precepts - the old conflict between heart and head . And indeed my points implied that we need to use the head a bit more .
When it comes to slavery the main academic text for many decades has been “ How Europe Underdeveloped Africa “ by Prof Walter Rodney . That main text of course sets out the role of local ruling castes in slave trading ; it would however be incorrect to set them as equal to those with the guns ships and horses . I do agree that there can be a distorted emphasis on the importance of certain historical processes . The trouble is that aspects of the major slave trade are still with us - statues are the least of it . Haiti is still crippled by debts incurred as penalties for the slave rebellion of Toussaint LOuverture during the Napoleonic wars . The poisoned legacy of the American Civil War persists, and sadly guides many prejudices today . Whilst there are obviously many kinds of slavery , the sheer dehumanisation of Africans and those of African descent made it a uniquely bitter and enduring injustice- unsurprising that it gets exploited by some hotheads from either camp . I am broadly familiar with similar processes stemming from the Holocaust . Bitter and enduring feelings get exploited. 

[C8RKH]

Not my intention at all @basalte as I don't know you well enough to know your political views. So not trying to "set anyone straight" just responding to what you have written. I think that used to be called "debating". You know, where one person puts forward their point of view. Then another responds with theirs. At the end of it usually what happens is that both people slightly change their view based on what they have seen/heard, if of course, they have open minds.

I'm not going to get drawn into the Holocaust (which was horrific) as I tend to ask some hard questions about how the treatment today, of Palestinian families who are ripped from the their homes and have to watch as they are bulldozed to the ground, can be justified as it usually gets people goats up. 

The one thing which I hope we can both very much agree on, is that mans inhumanity to man knows no bounds.  My point I suppose is that we cannot change history, and we must not, whether we believe it is for the right reasons or not, try to air brush history. But what we can do, is to learn from history. Accept were we got things wrong, and do EVERYTHING in our power to stop bad history repeating itself ANYWHERE in the world, today. Ethnic cleansing in eastern Europe? still happening. In parts of Asia and China? - Still happening. Prejudice and misogyny worldwide? - still happening. Modern day slavery - Still happening. People trafficking etc. - still happening. Child slavery and prostitution. Yep, still happening . 

By all means we can go and run off and topple over some 400 year old statues of an old Ebenezeer. Or smash or move a 400 year old plaque. But in the grand scheme of things. With everything that is bad that is happening around us. Have we somewhat missed the point and missed the opportunity to make a real difference to someone, to some people, today? So yes, I do target the people who do those things as "liberal lefties" when I am being nice. As something else when I am not. You see, I really do think, and this may be my problem, that they are focusing their attention on the wrong things. On things that in the grand scheme of things will not make a jot of difference to the people who are really suffering today. My bad.

 

[basalte]

I apologise for gaining that impression C8 .
There are plenty of your “political “ posts which I feel like responding to but do not . I became embroiled today because I wanted to give the reasons ( remember reasons ?) why the idea of stereotyping particular groups to get a cheap laugh , is not a universally - liked move . 
It is your idea that “ airbrushing history “ is the problem , that I have difficulty with . Curiously , you regard this as some malevolent coordinated project from the Left when I see it chiefly as a quest for academic equilibrium. Secondly because they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery let alone history .
History has always been airbrushed and indeed those attempts to airbrush it are part of history itself .

This does not excuse deliberate falsifying of history of course , but uncovering new perspectives which challenge official versions cause controversy and backlashes from those peddling other versions .
I reiterate for reasons above that “ slavery “ is a particularly bad example for anyone to use in support of their contention that academic freedom is imperilled .

And I think it is here that you are setting up Straw Men to shoot at . Only idiots would blame “ all of us “ for slavery ; likewise very few who oppose slavery would declare : “ yes it was terrible then , I’m so angry - but I don’t care a “ t*ss “ about it happening now “ . I swear that I have never encountered that attitude from anyone who takes an interest in such matters . 
Many of the above students have precisely learnt from the past , if only because we are constantly and rightly always being exhorted to . 
I’m sorry that you feel that everything is getting much worse in your world due to attempts to “ change history “ - I certainly agree that things are getting worse - but mainly from the point of view of trying to pay the heating bills ! 

 

[C8RKH]

Lol. Never any need to apologise to me, I enjoy a good debate, and actually, have changed my mind on a few things as a result!  If someone puts a strong pov forward that stands scrutiny then I take note.

Just to be clear, things in "my world" are not getting worse for air brushing. What I am taking issue with is what is being done, and how it is being done. Rather than it being "leftie" it is mostly middle class, white liberalists who seem to take up the mantle on behalf of others. The "apologists" as I call them.  Whilst statues and the like of people who profited from slavery, which remember was legal at the time, could legitimely be seen to be in bad taste given todays just as immoral standards, I do believe that this in no way justifies the wanton vandalism that we have seen, justified. Nor does it justify the attacks on the legacy of people who can not defend themselves or their actions, especially when due to the passage of time we not have all the facts surrounding those decisions.

I also feel that if, in this instance, Jesus college and her leaders feel so unhappy with say the past decisions of one man, then as they remove 400 years of historical evidence of him they should also "cleanse" their bank accounts of any legacy funds and make reparations to the descendents of those wronged through the actions that led from those decisions.  But of course, at the heart of my posts/debate is the incredible levels of hypocrisy that these places of historical education and their leadership display when they decry the man but continue to profit from his legacy. Remind me the story of Judas!!!

Historically, history has been written and rewritten by the victors, usually after battles or wars. I guess he who wins, well, wins! 

By all means let's continue the debate. We can have different views and positions but still be civil.

[thebartman]

Have any Sudents handed back their Degrees in protest at have gained them from a college funded by/linked to (E.g.) slavery?

[Bravo73]

 

[pete]

Why do the BBC think they have to pay Vernon Kaye nearly twice as much as the far superior Ken Bruce, £600,000 a year