Would never defend Murdoch, and I don't currently have a whole lot of love for Sky, but I do think it's crazy how much people see the company as under his direct control. The man has very little influence on the day to day running of it. Sky News isn't worth spending any time on, sure, but the decision-making at Sky comes from a completely different set of massive c***s. By having Murdoch as the overarching villain, the rest go unseen.
Its always amazes me, a paper or politician or other "expert" or bloke in pub will spout off that the BBC costs to much, has too much power or is a left wing mouth piece and then like sheep people start nodding in agreement. My opinion, it costs what costs and is what is. Leave it alone, its the envy of most media outlets. Politicians should try to do their jobs to the best of their ability for the few years they are elected instead of dreaming up damaging ideas for the best broadcaster in the world.
Best broadcaster in the world?
Final round of the Open on Monday and they didn't bother to show it until halfway through the day because Bargain Hunt had to take priority.
Not what I'd call the best broadcaster in the world. Then we had Aliss' blatantly sexist remark on the final green.
No surprise that Sky have won the rights to show the tournament in the future.
SKY repeats more and shows less.
Nobody has to watch repeats any more. Everything is on demand. You can manage your TV viewing without ever watching adverts or repeats, if you really want to. Plus they're showing more homegrown shows and US imports than ever before. Again, not defending Murdoch and co., but at least point the criticism in the right direction.
I don't think anyone believes Murdoch is sitting at the control desk, neither do they believe he is the only person in charge of all media other than the BBC Jimmy. He is a figurehead, and so is held up as an example. He would appoint the c**ts who appoint the c**ts who are in charge day to day though...
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
Would never defend Murdoch, and I don't currently have a whole lot of love for Sky, but I do think it's crazy how much people see the company as under his direct control. The man has very little influence on the day to day running of it. Sky News isn't worth spending any time on, sure, but the decision-making at Sky comes from a completely different set of massive c***s. By having Murdoch as the overarching villain, the rest go unseen.
Arn't his two sons involved at a high level, Lachlan and the other one? He still owns about 39% of the voting rights and still remains Chairman and CEO of the company that may possible give him a little influence on the companies direction.
Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
You've obviously travelled the world and throughly investigated the finance of broadcast media. So do let us in on the secret. Which is the country which has sorted it all out, and has better broadcasting choices (and quality news reporting) for its citizens for less money? And why isn't this other broadcaster being watched or listened to from Australia to Zambia like the BBC is?
I've travelled a fair bit but rarely spend my holidays or free time when away on business watching the local/national television or reading up on its funding.
Why would I? It has no bearing or relevance to how the BBC is, and should, be run.
The BBC is watched worldwide due to us raping and pillaging the world back in the old days. You know, all those times that certain factions of society will have you apologising for until the second coming of the Messiah
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
I think that there was an implication that the criminal activity of the Murdoch press could be justified when compared with the BBCs use of peodophiles in the past. Or am I wrong people? Oh and its not a skill its an interpretation of the comments in your post and your subsequent postings.
Good that you have introduced this topic @Halix. I think it's a big issue which will run and run. Maybe you might consider re-naming it, e.g. The future of the BBC.
I am quite ready to buy the argument that a big organisation such as the BBC must be regularly scrutinised to ensure it isn't bloated and inefficient. However the really troubling thing is that the "expert" committee the government has appointed to undertake this is 'heaving with vested interests". And they are not my words, but those of Lord Fowler, an old style one nation Tory with long experience in the area. It's not a genuine impartial inquiry and that is why we need to make sure our voices are heard, because as you've pointed out, the other side are already vocal and have the media resource.
I'd also like to point out that this Government has played exactly the same trick regarding the Freedom of Information Act. Again they've announced an "independent"enquiry into its workings, on a Friday in July, whose members are all people who don't like the Act. Not one person whose experience will highlight what is good about the act.
The announcement of these two committees at the same time, and their make-up, so soon into the new Government, says very bad things about the Britain it now wants to create, IMO. Can anyone who voted Conservative remember seeing either of these two issues as key elements in the manifesto pre-election?
The funny thing is, going back to your original point that on Andrew Marr on Sunday there was a Times columnist doing the paper review. He actually commented that he didn't know why the Tories were wasting their energy on such a thing as the BBC when there are so many more important things that need to be fixed, because they are broken, unlike the BBC. It proves that the Times output is being written to Murdoch's orders, and suggests that the guy will probably soon be an ex-Times columnist.
There's an ideological theme running here. The same rhetoric is extended to the anti-terrorism stuff, whereby 'non-violent extremism' is to be 'eliminated' - that is, the government doesn't believe that anyone should be allowed to hold or express extreme views. Since when, in a free democratic country, do the government determine what I'm allowed to believe? This Telegraph (yes, Telegraph) commentator does a good job of making the point.
That said, I think the BBC could do a better job re its impartiality. It's almost an obsession now to have a balancing view on every single news item or magazine piece, rather than take a view from a wider lens of balanced output. Conversely, they allow their programming - in particular comedy panel shows - to reflect a single political agenda, often not strictly satirical (ref the spat last year between Dara O'Briain and Andrew Lawrence when the latter challenged the relentless denigration of UKIP in favour of Liberal ideology). It needs to be independent and provide a balance of output - not centrist.
The taxpayer should pay for the BBC in my view, and I have no issue with paying the licence fee every year. It's a lot better value for all the BBC provides than the million channels carried by Sky and Virgin.
Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
If you want wall to wall shite like the output of channel 4 and 5, it's available in almost every country in the world, with nothing else to compete with it. The BBC is unique and precious, and as Prague said should be allowed to make money to produce even better programmes and then even compete with the likes of Sky for the big sporting events.
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
I think that there was an implication that the criminal activity of the Murdoch press could be justified when compared with the BBCs use of peodophiles in the past. Or am I wrong people?
You're very wrong. Trust me.
I simply highlighted that all has not been rosy in the BBC garden.
What News Corp and Murdoch did was unforgivable, nasty and down right subhuman.......just to make certain that you know where I'm coming from on the matter.
Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
If you want wall to wall shite like the output of channel 4 and 5, it's available in almost every country in the world, with nothing else to compete with it. The BBC is unique and precious, and as Prague said should be allowed to make money to produce even better programmes and then even compete with the likes of Sky for the big sporting events.
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
I think that there was an implication that the criminal activity of the Murdoch press could be justified when compared with the BBCs use of peodophiles in the past. Or am I wrong people?
You're very wrong. Trust me.
I simply highlighted that all has not been rosy in the BBC garden.
What News Corp and Murdoch did was unforgivable, nasty and down right subhuman.......just to make certain that you know where I'm coming from on the matter.
To be fair, it was not just the BBC that were ignoring the perverts in the 60's 70's and 80's. I don't think anyone really spoke out against these people.
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
I think that there was an implication that the criminal activity of the Murdoch press could be justified when compared with the BBCs use of peodophiles in the past. Or am I wrong people?
You're very wrong. Trust me.
I simply highlighted that all has not been rosy in the BBC garden.
What News Corp and Murdoch did was unforgivable, nasty and down right subhuman.......just to make certain that you know where I'm coming from on the matter.
To be fair, it was not just the BBC that were ignoring the perverts in the 60's 70's and 80's. I don't think anyone really spoke out against these people.
Completely agree. Careful though, you'll find yourself unknowingly justifying genital amputation before long
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
I think that there was an implication that the criminal activity of the Murdoch press could be justified when compared with the BBCs use of peodophiles in the past. Or am I wrong people?
You're very wrong. Trust me.
I simply highlighted that all has not been rosy in the BBC garden.
What News Corp and Murdoch did was unforgivable, nasty and down right subhuman.......just to make certain that you know where I'm coming from on the matter.
You seemingly used your comments to justify the practises at NewsCorp, I am glad that this wasnt your attention but that was the interpretation that I took, so I'm glad thats been cleared up.
BBC's education sites are worth the money spent on them, enormous collection of resources and film clips, project sites and special features. Would it be better if they were pay sites? I don't believe so - free access to millions around the world and particularly school kids giving a broad perspective on the past with minimal fear or favour. Should the BBC compete on a level playing field with commercial interests? No because once the BBC is dismantled by free market ideologues then diversity will end and a true monopoly will be created by the company with the biggest lobbying budget and the greatest pull on public figures/ threat of revealing their mistakes and preferences - i.e. News Corp/ 21st Century Fox I would imagine that many of those who swallow the lie that the licence somehow infringes their personal liberties are also prepared to suffer annual increases in their subscriptions way in excess of the licence fee. Personally I would preserve the BBC as a bulwark against FOX for the sake of us all.
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
Doubt very much if BBC 1 & 2, Radio 1/2/4 will have commentators (where would they show it), the news will cover it and there will be reporters for the sports reports, but they usually use feeds from the TMS team such as Jonathan Agnew. It seems that you may have taken the Murdoch bait and starting to believe his propaganda. We need a independant BBC and dont pay £40 odd quid a month to watch it, unlike what Murdoch charges for SKY (how much could he increase prices if there were no BBC).
If you think the BBC is biased imagine a news media controlled completely by the Murdoch empire. I think they may be slightly more partisan and have their agenda controlled. Imagine the deal that Murdoch could cut with a politician if they were the only real source of news and political reporting. If they can carry out a sustained attack against the BBC who else could they set the dogs on.
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
*****ATTENTION, ATTENTION! PLEASE IGNORE THESE COMMENTS THIS PERSON IS CLEARLY DERANGED****** love from Rupert.<
.. what leads you to the conclusion the I have 'taken the Murdock bait' ? .. no real answer from you as to bias and overstaffing in the BBC (yes, we expect newspapers to be biased) .. the BBC seems pretty much immune to any ebbs and flows in the labour market and is airtight and waterproof to economic ill winds and floods .. On the contrary, you seem to have swallowed the BBC bait and think all in the Blue Peter garden is lovely .. the BBC may not (so far as we know) have tapped any phones .. BUT .. many a BBC blind eye was turned to the behaviour of now nefarious BBC'ites who were interfering with young boys and gals in Broadcasting House during the 70s and 80sand probably the 90s .. AND I am sure there are a lot more skeletons in the BBC cupboards which may well never now be brought into the daylight .. AND I repeat, no-one is forced to buy any newspaper or TV subscription, whereas 99% of us are forced to buy a TV licence, where failure to do so is still a criminal offence, and yes, I know there are attempts afoot to decriminalise the aforesaid 'offence' BUT not at the behest of the BBC who want their collective hands on all the money they can get from the public, just like any other 'commercial' organisation
Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
You've obviously travelled the world and throughly investigated the finance of broadcast media. So do let us in on the secret. Which is the country which has sorted it all out, and has better broadcasting choices (and quality news reporting) for its citizens for less money? And why isn't this other broadcaster being watched or listened to from Australia to Zambia like the BBC is?
I've travelled a fair bit but rarely spend my holidays or free time when away on business watching the local/national television or reading up on its funding.
Why would I? It has no bearing or relevance to how the BBC is, and should, be run.
The BBC is watched worldwide due to us raping and pillaging the world back in the old days. You know, all those times that certain factions of society will have you apologising for until the second coming of the Messiah
Of course. The idea that British people could learn anything from foreigners, even regarding a common problem, is beyond ridiculous. jeez most of them can't even speak English.
Speaking of which, the Czechs' licensed version of Strictly is just as popular as the UK one, while they pile into cinemas for Monty Python all nighters. Guess who trained and developed the Czechs' nearest thing to Jeremy Paxman? Thing is I'm trying to remember when Britain "raped and pillaged" this country. I mean Millwall haven't even had a game out here, have they?
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
I think that there was an implication that the criminal activity of the Murdoch press could be justified when compared with the BBCs use of peodophiles in the past. Or am I wrong people?
You're very wrong. Trust me.
I simply highlighted that all has not been rosy in the BBC garden.
What News Corp and Murdoch did was unforgivable, nasty and down right subhuman.......just to make certain that you know where I'm coming from on the matter.
You seemingly used your comments to justify the practises at NewsCorp, I am glad that this wasnt your attention but that was the interpretation that I took, so I'm glad thats been cleared up.
Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
If you want wall to wall shite like the output of channel 4 and 5, it's available in almost every country in the world, with nothing else to compete with it. The BBC is unique and precious, and as Prague said should be allowed to make money to produce even better programmes and then even compete with the likes of Sky for the big sporting events.
Sadly I went back to the BBC last week, to see the last of my buddies off, not the well paid management, which there still far too many, I never understood Mark Thompson's idea that you had to pay the market medium to attract the best staff, people I met wanted to work for the BBC because they believed in what it stood for, it's values and independence, or at least did.Despite being retrained, from being editors to 'broadcast journalists' the whole internal communications team have now gone, one or two deployed to the outreaches to the academy in Birmingham. Replaced by very keen graduates, 6 month's outside Uni. These were people 30-50, talented and yes graduates. But that is the way of the media industry.
Of course the BBC could be more efficient, and perhaps there is a need for a subscription service, it also has to realise the vast archive it has, and not only make it available, but pay a fair royalty to the artists and writers that created it. as shown above...... Just imagine all that comedy,Play for today, Hancock,Potter, in concerts, OGWT, let alone the radio, Navy lark, goons etc,Down your way, even Workers playtime would be worth a listen to as a bit of social history.Worldwide made more money at the BBC than any other section, but people moaned about the magazines, and dvd's, the websites and in fairness they had some merit, producing a travel magazine with no travel programmes, Why have a national pop station, when there are others......... Not sure it now full fills the remit, that Reith created.. It is imperative that the public have a major input into this debate, but as Reith himself once stated....... "He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then satisfy."
Being independently funded, and not scrounging from the public, wouldn't mean throwing anything out. In fact, a change of bathwater might be just what it needs.
You've obviously travelled the world and throughly investigated the finance of broadcast media. So do let us in on the secret. Which is the country which has sorted it all out, and has better broadcasting choices (and quality news reporting) for its citizens for less money? And why isn't this other broadcaster being watched or listened to from Australia to Zambia like the BBC is?
I've travelled a fair bit but rarely spend my holidays or free time when away on business watching the local/national television or reading up on its funding.
Why would I? It has no bearing or relevance to how the BBC is, and should, be run.
The BBC is watched worldwide due to us raping and pillaging the world back in the old days. You know, all those times that certain factions of society will have you apologising for until the second coming of the Messiah
Of course. The idea that British people could learn anything from foreigners, even regarding a common problem, is beyond ridiculous. jeez most of them can't even speak English.
Speaking of which, the Czechs' licensed version of Strictly is just as popular as the UK one, while they pile into cinemas for Monty Python all nighters. Guess who trained and developed the Czechs' nearest thing to Jeremy Paxman? Thing is I'm trying to remember when Britain "raped and pillaged" this country. I mean Millwall haven't even had a game out here, have they?
Foreigners, in my experience, have a better grasp of the Queens English than a large proportion of this country.
With regards to not learning anything, why would being non public funding lead to the BBC not being able to learn from foreign news agencies?
It would seem that the lovely people of the Czech Republic watch just as much awful TV as we do, although their sense of humour looks spot on
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
Doubt very much if BBC 1 & 2, Radio 1/2/4 will have commentators (where would they show it), the news will cover it and there will be reporters for the sports reports, but they usually use feeds from the TMS team such as Jonathan Agnew. It seems that you may have taken the Murdoch bait and starting to believe his propaganda. We need a independant BBC and dont pay £40 odd quid a month to watch it, unlike what Murdoch charges for SKY (how much could he increase prices if there were no BBC).
If you think the BBC is biased imagine a news media controlled completely by the Murdoch empire. I think they may be slightly more partisan and have their agenda controlled. Imagine the deal that Murdoch could cut with a politician if they were the only real source of news and political reporting. If they can carry out a sustained attack against the BBC who else could they set the dogs on.
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
*****ATTENTION, ATTENTION! PLEASE IGNORE THESE COMMENTS THIS PERSON IS CLEARLY DERANGED****** love from Rupert.<
.. what leads you to the conclusion the I have 'taken the Murdock bait' ? .. no real answer from you as to bias and overstaffing in the BBC (yes, we expect newspapers to be biased) .. the BBC seems pretty much immune to any ebbs and flows in the labour market and is airtight and waterproof to economic ill winds and floods .. On the contrary, you seem to have swallowed the BBC bait and think all in the Blue Peter garden is lovely .. the BBC may not (so far as we know) have tapped any phones .. BUT .. many a BBC blind eye was turned to the behaviour of now nefarious BBC'ites who were interfering with young boys and gals in Broadcasting House during the 70s and 80sand probably the 90s .. AND I am sure there are a lot more skeletons in the BBC cupboards which may well never now be brought into the daylight .. AND I repeat, no-one is forced to buy any newspaper or TV subscription, whereas 99% of us are forced to buy a TV licence, where failure to do so is still a criminal offence, and yes, I know there are attempts afoot to decriminalise the aforesaid 'offence' BUT not at the behest of the BBC who want their collective hands on all the money they can get from the public, just like any other 'commercial' organisation
My my aren't we angry, Mr Bold printing person. I addressed the bias side by saying that Sky/Newscorp is uncomparibly biased. The BBC is certainly on the woolly left wing liberal side which does sometimes annoy.
I also thought I addressed the issue of overstaffing by mentioning the multimedia nature of the organisation, perhaps you missed that because it wasnt BOLD enough. As for the paedophiles I thought we were discussing broadcast freedoms, overstaffing and bias and didnt see the relevance.
By the way the Blue Peter gardens gone now, they all moved up to Manchester to save money!
I love the BBC .. BUT .. too many 'reporters' give far too politically biased opinions .. like the (so called) royal family, the BBC should be above politics and attempt just to give the raw and, so far as possible, unbiased news .. also, overstaffing .. for example, the next test match will see a team of reporters and commentators for Radios 1, 2, 4 and 5 plus TV stations BBC 1, BBC 2 and BBC News and probably more stations both local and national .. why can't one or two reporting teams do the job for all the various outlets ? .. and lastly, as regards Murdoch, no-one is forced to buy his papers or pay for the News International online news sites .. however, we all have to pay for the BBC, which is well worth the money, BUT with a lot of caveats
As far as I know the BBC has never tapped phones, bribed witnesses or carried out the dirty tricks that HIS empire has allegedly done. Like I say I choose to read the Times but you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
You're right. They haven't been found guilty of any of that.
Then again, the covering up of mass paedophilia by its employees until recently isn't that serious a crime I suppose.
The BBC should not be publicly funded.
If it wants to pay celebrities millions a year then it should do it with funds that aren't coming out of the pockets of the great British public.
All that said, anyone that pays for a TV license in this day and age needs their loaf tested.
So because the BBC had a few pervy celebs in the SEVENTIES you justify tapping peoples phones, including Milly Dowlers by the way? As mentioned earlier the tories didnt mention dismantling the BBC in the election I wonder why. If the BBC didnt pay what is required to get the right stars, everyone could argue whats the point of the license fee if nothings on it, this happened in the 70's when ITV poached Morcambe and Wise and Bruce Forsythe etc
They must maintain a balance, between populist programmes ie Soaps and more specialised programmes, a balance which is something Murdoch choses not to. I take it you never watch the BBC or listen to the radio, if you do you are criticising us who are paying for it on your behalf. You say that the BBC shouldn't be publicly funded, it sounds like you personally are not contributing, either pay your share or shut up criticizing those that do.
Wow. Where have I justified anything?
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
I think that there was an implication that the criminal activity of the Murdoch press could be justified when compared with the BBCs use of peodophiles in the past. Or am I wrong people?
You're very wrong. Trust me.
I simply highlighted that all has not been rosy in the BBC garden.
What News Corp and Murdoch did was unforgivable, nasty and down right subhuman.......just to make certain that you know where I'm coming from on the matter.
You seemingly used your comments to justify the practises at NewsCorp, I am glad that this wasnt your attention but that was the interpretation that I took, so I'm glad thats been cleared up.
You're the one saying the BBC Should be a private organization. So show us the example from somewhere where that system works better. or tell us why it would uniquely work better in the UK.
No idea what you mean by learning from foreign news agencies. If you asked journalists around the world which is the news org they most admire, I'll bet you a lot of money the BBC will come top of their list.
"Until you have lived anywhere else you simply have no idea how good the BBC is."
Bloody hell, yes.
People all round the world are receiving the news that the government wants to mess with it, with absolute incredulity.
One issue here which I'll be taking up with Whittingdale and co is that in fact the BBC is a global exporter, yet successive governments have cut it back. They are not allowed to compete in other markets that want their output, nor sell digital licenses to people like Algarve and I. I'd gladly pay the licence fee and more for such a license, instead I have successively paid far more to Sky, bought a huge effing satellite dish, and now pay a VPN, to watch and listen to the BBC illegally.
When it comes to the World Service in Asia, you know who pressured the government to clip the BBC wings? Murdoch again. Not making enough from his poxy Star offering in China and elsewhere because the Chinese viewer had the effrontery to prefer the BBC World Service.
My point in summary. The BBC could earn huge amounts more from global commercial sales, which could be used to cap the licence fee and fund tech development for the UK user, but successive governments have instead told them to stop being so successful. Where is the sense in that?
Murdoch's woes in China were caused by his lack of understanding of the Chinese mindset back in the late 90s.
Giving an interview poor old Rupe opined that satellite TV (at that time the next big thing) would pose "an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere."
The next month his STAR TV operation was told to get the fuck out of China and only had access to the SEZ in Guangdong.
The Chinese were heavily criticised at the time but you can now see they were very concerned about his cancerous influence.
re :china as the article I posted........ Analysts estimate 65 million people regularly access the BBC catch-up TV service using virtual private networks (VPNs) or proxy servers. In China alone that figure is thought to be around 38.5 million. The iPlayer is meant for UK TV viewers only and is funded by the licence fee. A global iPlayer was closed last month.
there you have the dilemma for the BBC, the market, but not the remit?
I had no idea that a brief comment about the Times could escalate so much or get so animated, good job I didnt mention my issues with the Beano, because then it could all really kick off.
Comments
I didn't realise my mouth was open wide enough for you to ram words in to it, purely because I disagree with the BBC being publicly funded.
That's some skill you've shown there.
Why would I? It has no bearing or relevance to how the BBC is, and should, be run.
The BBC is watched worldwide due to us raping and pillaging the world back in the old days. You know, all those times that certain factions of society will have you apologising for until the second coming of the Messiah
I bet you're a regular at the comedy club.
That said, I think the BBC could do a better job re its impartiality. It's almost an obsession now to have a balancing view on every single news item or magazine piece, rather than take a view from a wider lens of balanced output. Conversely, they allow their programming - in particular comedy panel shows - to reflect a single political agenda, often not strictly satirical (ref the spat last year between Dara O'Briain and Andrew Lawrence when the latter challenged the relentless denigration of UKIP in favour of Liberal ideology). It needs to be independent and provide a balance of output - not centrist.
The taxpayer should pay for the BBC in my view, and I have no issue with paying the licence fee every year. It's a lot better value for all the BBC provides than the million channels carried by Sky and Virgin.
Youve been a lovely audience, Im here all week!
I simply highlighted that all has not been rosy in the BBC garden.
What News Corp and Murdoch did was unforgivable, nasty and down right subhuman.......just to make certain that you know where I'm coming from on the matter.
Should the BBC compete on a level playing field with commercial interests? No because once the BBC is dismantled by free market ideologues then diversity will end and a true monopoly will be created by the company with the biggest lobbying budget and the greatest pull on public figures/ threat of revealing their mistakes and preferences - i.e. News Corp/ 21st Century Fox
I would imagine that many of those who swallow the lie that the licence somehow infringes their personal liberties are also prepared to suffer annual increases in their subscriptions way in excess of the licence fee. Personally I would preserve the BBC as a bulwark against FOX for the sake of us all.
Speaking of which, the Czechs' licensed version of Strictly is just as popular as the UK one, while they pile into cinemas for Monty Python all nighters. Guess who trained and developed the Czechs' nearest thing to Jeremy Paxman? Thing is I'm trying to remember when Britain "raped and pillaged" this country. I mean Millwall haven't even had a game out here, have they?
Are we friends now then?
Sadly I went back to the BBC last week, to see the last of my buddies off, not the well paid management, which there still far too many, I never understood Mark Thompson's idea that you had to pay the market medium to attract the best staff, people I met wanted to work for the BBC because they believed in what it stood for, it's values and independence, or at least did.Despite being retrained, from being editors to 'broadcast journalists' the whole internal communications team have now gone, one or two deployed to the outreaches to the academy in Birmingham. Replaced by very keen graduates, 6 month's outside Uni. These were people 30-50, talented and yes graduates. But that is the way of the media industry.
Of course the BBC could be more efficient, and perhaps there is a need for a subscription service, it also has to realise the vast archive it has, and not only make it available, but pay a fair royalty to the artists and writers that created it. as shown above......
Just imagine all that comedy,Play for today, Hancock,Potter, in concerts, OGWT, let alone the radio, Navy lark, goons etc,Down your way, even Workers playtime would be worth a listen to as a bit of social history.Worldwide made more money at the BBC than any other section, but people moaned about the magazines, and dvd's, the websites and in fairness they had some merit, producing a travel magazine with no travel programmes, Why have a national pop station, when there are others.........
Not sure it now full fills the remit, that Reith created..
It is imperative that the public have a major input into this debate, but as Reith himself once stated.......
"He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then satisfy."
With regards to not learning anything, why would being non public funding lead to the BBC not being able to learn from foreign news agencies?
It would seem that the lovely people of the Czech Republic watch just as much awful TV as we do, although their sense of humour looks spot on
No idea what you mean by learning from foreign news agencies. If you asked journalists around the world which is the news org they most admire, I'll bet you a lot of money the BBC will come top of their list.
Murdoch's woes in China were caused by his lack of understanding of the Chinese mindset back in the late 90s.
Giving an interview poor old Rupe opined that satellite TV (at that time the next big thing) would pose "an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere."
The next month his STAR TV operation was told to get the fuck out of China and only had access to the SEZ in Guangdong.
The Chinese were heavily criticised at the time but you can now see they were very concerned about his cancerous influence.
Analysts estimate 65 million people regularly access the BBC catch-up TV service using virtual private networks (VPNs) or proxy servers.
In China alone that figure is thought to be around 38.5 million.
The iPlayer is meant for UK TV viewers only and is funded by the licence fee. A global iPlayer was closed last month.
there you have the dilemma for the BBC, the market, but not the remit?