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!
It takes more than an arrogant muppet like you to get me angry ..I put the statement in bold as for whatever reason it was 'printed' in the blue section of the post .. the relevance to kiddy fiddlers ? your comment about Phone Tapping .... how does that fit with your stated intention of discussing 'freedoms, overstaffing and bias' ?
Really salient point KfB. The VPN thing is a massive hole in the international rights market. Anyone can access the Netflix library in the US without having much of an idea what they're doing, which drives my lot mad. Netflix quietly encourage it too in my opinion. But I hadn't thought about it from a BBC perspective; we're financing the world's entertainment!
Given the amount of money that Top Gear and Great British Bake Off make, where does that cash go? I must admit, I don't have any clue how the Beeb's finances work.
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...
Well, no he doesn't. He's not even that close to it. Certainly anyone under Jeremy Darroch, wouldn't have come across RM. I wouldn't even be surprised to find Darroch has little to do with RM. The guy hasn't even (at least officially) been on site in the last 13 years!
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...
Well, no he doesn't. He's not even that close to it. Certainly anyone under Jeremy Darroch, wouldn't have come across RM. I wouldn't even be surprised to find Darroch has little to do with RM. The guy hasn't even (at least officially) been on site in the last 13 years!
Then ignore that bit and read the first bit Jim...
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!
It takes more than an arrogant muppet like you to get me angry ..I put the statement in bold as for whatever reason it was 'printed' in the blue section of the post .. the relevance to kiddy fiddlers ? your comment about Phone Tapping .... how does that fit with your stated intention of discussing 'freedoms, overstaffing and bias' ?
I never mentioned kiddy fiddlers you did...., the phone tapping was mentioned in a previous post as an example of News Corps methods in comparison to the BBC ethics, and I didnt raise the freedoms overstaffing and bias claims, others did and I responded to these comments. Also if you are so calm and rational why the need to start your comments by insulting me?.
Regards from Miss Piggy (probably the most arrogant muppet I can think of)
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!
It takes more than an arrogant muppet like you to get me angry ..I put the statement in bold as for whatever reason it was 'printed' in the blue section of the post .. the relevance to kiddy fiddlers ? your comment about Phone Tapping .... how does that fit with your stated intention of discussing 'freedoms, overstaffing and bias' ?
I never mentioned kiddy fiddlers you did...., the phone tapping was mentioned in a previous post as an example of News Corps methods in comparison to the BBC ethics, and I didnt raise the freedoms overstaffing and bias claims, others did and I responded to these comments. Also if you are so calm and rational why the need to start your comments by insulting me?.
Regards from Miss Piggy (probably the most arrogant muppet I can think of)
Insulting words ? .. It's called tit for tat .. Mr angry 'Bold Printing Person' calling Miss Piggy an arrogant Muppet .. have a nice day
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!
It takes more than an arrogant muppet like you to get me angry ..I put the statement in bold as for whatever reason it was 'printed' in the blue section of the post .. the relevance to kiddy fiddlers ? your comment about Phone Tapping .... how does that fit with your stated intention of discussing 'freedoms, overstaffing and bias' ?
I never mentioned kiddy fiddlers you did...., the phone tapping was mentioned in a previous post as an example of News Corps methods in comparison to the BBC ethics, and I didnt raise the freedoms overstaffing and bias claims, others did and I responded to these comments. Also if you are so calm and rational why the need to start your comments by insulting me?.
Regards from Miss Piggy (probably the most arrogant muppet I can think of)
Insulting words ? .. It's called tit for tat .. Mr angry 'Bold Printing Person' calling Miss Piggy an arrogant Muppet .. have a nice day</blockquote
And yourself, want to come out on the lash with me and my new best mate BIg Bad World?
R.S.V.P .. Big Bad sounds tooo bad for me .. and I no longer get larupped through overindulgence in alcohol .. It makes me sooooo angry, plus the fact I live some 200 miles from Charlton/Sarf London .. thanks for the invitation though
And yourself, want to come out on the lash with me and my new best mate BIg Bad World?
R.S.V.P .. Big Bad sounds tooo bad for me .. and I no longer get larupped through overindulgence in alcohol .. It makes me sooooo angry, plus the fact I live some 200 miles from Charlton/Sarf London .. thanks for the invitation though
That sounds like a lot, but their coverage is brilliant. Thanks to it, I've got DVD recordings of Florence, The Boss, the Verve, Elbow, Chic, and heaven knows who else, right down to Charlton fan Jack Penate, at Glastonbury from the last 7 years. More great value from the licence fee I'm not allowed to purchase.
"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.
I do remember that now, but I also definitely read and understood that it was his pressure that prompted the (Blair) government to clip the World Service wings in Asia.
It looks as if the anti BBC propaganda is working, and those who believe in advertisement driven media are coming on strong. I am sick of advertising (sorry Prague) which is so all pervading, but I know this, I would much rather pay my licence fee than be subjected to the adverts for Macdonalds, KFC, legal firms that encourage legislation, and the almost criminal morally shocking pay day loan companies, and all the rest of the advertisers too. Thank goodness for the BBC, and it is no wonder that the Tory party want to force us to endure advertising so their mates in big business can exploit the population even more.
Yes I know a few freeloading execs were probably taking the piss at Glastonbury, but as Prague has stated the coverage was excellent, even though I do not appreciate all the 'pop combos', it has become a creative event, and the likes of Alan Yentob, who went there and was slagged off for it in the national press is supposed to be the creative head at the BBC. Frankly I am glad it is a BBC event, and not an independent production company....... head by an ex BBC executive. I am sure the proms cost a lot in production, staff, and resources, and although I have only attended 1 proms in the park I am delighted that the BBC celebrate classical music, Opera, and Ballet, neither which I attend, because it is valued by others, and is part of the culture of this country, and what I feel we do rather well. I think these events would go ahead anyway, but mainly for the rich and corporate types!. I do like some classical music, but do not feel inclined to spend £150 to watch live events, but then I would not do that to watch 99 per cent of rock acts. In fairness to sky they do have some excellent arts programmes, still a few sports channels, and arts' programme or two, and repeats of American drama's seems an expense I am having to consider?. Let's be honest Murdoch only is interested because it affects his profit's, and market share.
It looks as if the anti BBC propaganda is working, and those who believe in advertisement driven media are coming on strong. I am sick of advertising (sorry Prague) which is so all pervading, but I know this, I would much rather pay my licence fee than be subjected to the adverts for Macdonalds, KFC, legal firms that encourage legislation, and the almost criminal morally shocking pay day loan companies, and all the rest of the advertisers too. Thank goodness for the BBC, and it is no wonder that the Tory party want to force us to endure advertising so their mates in big business can exploit the population even more.
That's not what drives them Seth. It's this. They think that asking well-crafted, well researched questions, shows (in this case) left -wing bias. Funny enough it was the same story from New Labour in reverse….but the same problem. The BBC's best people and researchers can run rings around politicians.
And before anyone says "he would say that" note that Nick Robinson is well known to be personally of a right wing persuasion.
Prague of course it is (also) about power. There has hardly ever been a politician born of all persuasions that does not reach a stage where they will brook no criticism, and the fourth estate is always seen as a threat, unless of course the politician is a fourth estate puppet. In the current climate the Bullenden club bastards hold sway, and even if the plebgate case is full of holes, in my view the ruling class despise the rest of us, and get well pissed off if we don't 'know our place' and don't show due deference. The BBC has been an oasis in British society, but the Tories want all the water for themselves, and want to cast the rest of us into the desert.
I also hate it when the BBC doesn't toe the line with my own personal viewpoint but I wouldn't change anything about it except to throw a bit more money at it and tell it to expand its activities into every type of media it can. If it raises the bar for the everybody else to compete with it then it's doing a fantastic job. I'd be more concerned if Murdoch and the others and MPs were not bitching about it.
remember that the BBC was lampooned/satirised/demonised by Orwell in the novel 1984 .. too much power given/taken to any organisation is to be avoided .. hence the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or whatever new handle a similar watchdog has nowadays
I read the Times. I have noticed that everyday for the past few weeks it has been running some seriously anti-BBC stories. They are fairly obviously working to an agenda for a sustained attack on the BBC at a time when the government is deciding the BBC's future budget and role. Whilst there are lots of things to criticize the BBC for, I am much happier that not all the media is controlled by such charming people as Murdoch, Richard Desmond, the Barclay bros and the Rothermeres. Its a worrying thing that a company as questionable as News International can blatently try and influence peoples opinions in this manner. I suppose all that I can do as an individual is not buy the Times.
Agreed. Now if only I as an individual could not buy the BBC...
"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.
I do remember that now, but I also definitely read and understood that it was his pressure that prompted the (Blair) government to clip the World Service wings in Asia.
You could well be right about the BBC in Asia, but in terms of Rupert in China, he fucked up big time in that speech and lost his Chinese opportunity.
I start by saying I'm happy to pay the licence fee and believe it's money well spent. BUT the Beeb can and should do more. Many of its news programmes have been dumbed down. Investigative journalism takes a back seat. It is also a little disingenuous about the licence fee being frozen. The thing is our increasing population gives rise to more households; more households means more money. 400,000 more households to pay a fee in the last 3 yrs alone . Then, Northern Ireland has about the same population as Essex but has vastly more BBC resources - why? Even in Essex, the local Beeb radio station lives in a large house, converted into offices and studios. It's close to the city centre in Chelmsford and must be worth around £1.5mn. A radio station could be run equally as well from a cheapo property in a business park. There is much more they could be doing to cut costs. According to the BBC's own web site, they have 108 executives paid more than £150k a year. That's 108 people taking home more than the Prime Minister.
Excellent post. The Beeb can and do more. It's quite obvious though that the government wants the Beeb to do less, and has preselected a bunch of commercial media fat cats to produce a set of findings to order. Just as they have selected a group of anti freedom characters to produces a set of findings to order to neutralise the Freedom of Information Act.
The folks who generally stick up for "our" wonderful BBC and the TV Licensing industry it has spawned, are normally people who do not struggle for money and to whom £6.20 a week is not a disproportionate amount out of their family budget. They are not usually people who get called by some 20 year old Nazi fucker from the TV Licensing quango, pesterng them because they have not paid for two weeks. That said cretin from the TV Licensing cartel will never understand of course that if you actually had that money to spare you would of fucking paid it and saved yourself the mortal embarrasment of arguing the toss over £12.40 with a spotty know nothing twat just out of some apalling inner city college!!!
I believe George Osbourne or another like-minded Tory said that the BBC should cut down on its website news output as many of the (impartial of course) papers already provide this service.
Maybe it was in a dream, but if I am correct then you really are a trucking shunt George.
There are unproductive people in all sectors of society taking the piss and getting paid bundles. Some of them even play for Charlton. As for Northern Ireland the flow of news is constantly and deliberately played down and has been for years. If half the stuff that goes on there was put on the news in its entirety in the rest of the UK and those responsible had beards instead of rosaries and sashes then we'd be living under a state of emergency. How many licences for the £30 million Twaddell Avenue has cost so far?
With regard to the BBC and Test cricket, it is totally over staffed. They have separate people reporting for TMS and 5Live. For example Alec Stewart and Pat Murphy report and comment on 5Live but are not part of the TMS team, but both are at matches and on a pretty good daily rate I'd imagine. Ridiculous waste of money.
Isn't TMS on throughout the day, whereas 5live dips in and out of it?
Yes but why can't someone from TMS do the 5Live report? It's not as if they are all on air at the same time.
With regard to the BBC and Test cricket, it is totally over staffed. They have separate people reporting for TMS and 5Live. For example Alec Stewart and Pat Murphy report and comment on 5Live but are not part of the TMS team, but both are at matches and on a pretty good daily rate I'd imagine. Ridiculous waste of money.
Isn't TMS on throughout the day, whereas 5live dips in and out of it?
Yes but why can't someone from TMS do the 5Live report? It's not as if they are all on air at the same time.
With regard to the BBC and Test cricket, it is totally over staffed. They have separate people reporting for TMS and 5Live. For example Alec Stewart and Pat Murphy report and comment on 5Live but are not part of the TMS team, but both are at matches and on a pretty good daily rate I'd imagine. Ridiculous waste of money.
Isn't TMS on throughout the day, whereas 5live dips in and out of it?
Yes but why can't someone from TMS do the 5Live report? It's not as if they are all on air at the same time.
I thought they did, ive heard Jonathan Agnew on 5 live, and Ive heard them say on TMS that they were just going to have a word with the Radio 5 audience- is this no longer the case?.
Comments
Given the amount of money that Top Gear and Great British Bake Off make, where does that cash go? I must admit, I don't have any clue how the Beeb's finances work.
I am sick of advertising (sorry Prague) which is so all pervading, but I know this, I would much rather pay my licence fee than be subjected to the adverts for Macdonalds, KFC, legal firms that encourage legislation, and the almost criminal morally shocking pay day loan companies, and all the rest of the advertisers too.
Thank goodness for the BBC, and it is no wonder that the Tory party want to force us to endure advertising so their mates in big business can exploit the population even more.
In fairness to sky they do have some excellent arts programmes, still a few sports channels, and arts' programme or two, and repeats of American drama's seems an expense I am having to consider?.
Let's be honest Murdoch only is interested because it affects his profit's, and market share.
And before anyone says "he would say that" note that Nick Robinson is well known to be personally of a right wing persuasion.
It's all about power. Don't let them grab it.
In the current climate the Bullenden club bastards hold sway, and even if the plebgate case is full of holes, in my view the ruling class despise the rest of us, and get well pissed off if we don't 'know our place' and don't show due deference.
The BBC has been an oasis in British society, but the Tories want all the water for themselves, and want to cast the rest of us into the desert.
BUT the Beeb can and should do more. Many of its news programmes have been dumbed down. Investigative journalism takes a back seat.
It is also a little disingenuous about the licence fee being frozen. The thing is our increasing population gives rise to more households; more households means more money. 400,000 more households to pay a fee in the last 3 yrs alone .
Then, Northern Ireland has about the same population as Essex but has vastly more BBC resources - why? Even in Essex, the local Beeb radio station lives in a large house, converted into offices and studios. It's close to the city centre in Chelmsford and must be worth around £1.5mn. A radio station could be run equally as well from a cheapo property in a business park. There is much more they could be doing to cut costs.
According to the BBC's own web site, they have 108 executives paid more than £150k a year. That's 108 people taking home more than the Prime Minister.
Excellent post. The Beeb can and do more. It's quite obvious though that the government wants the Beeb to do less, and has preselected a bunch of commercial media fat cats to produce a set of findings to order. Just as they have selected a group of anti freedom characters to produces a set of findings to order to neutralise the Freedom of Information Act.
It stinks.
Maybe it was in a dream, but if I am correct then you really are a trucking shunt George.
As for Northern Ireland the flow of news is constantly and deliberately played down and has been for years. If half the stuff that goes on there was put on the news in its entirety in the rest of the UK and those responsible had beards instead of rosaries and sashes then we'd be living under a state of emergency. How many licences for the £30 million Twaddell Avenue has cost so far?