1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

The Politics Thread

Discussion in 'Tottenham Hotspur' started by Wandering Yid, Feb 9, 2016.

  1. The RDBD

    The RDBD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    27,302
    Likes Received:
    13,078
    Oh the BBC Stasi love student halls of residence.
    Just as they like calling the BBC tax a "TV licence" in order to avoid
    emotive uproar from the plebs,

    But for me the supreme irony will be that once the Internet becomes
    the dominant CDN for the BBC, their tax is dead. A death long overdue.
     
    #4421
  2. The RDBD

    The RDBD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    27,302
    Likes Received:
    13,078
    No problem with that.

    But NO consumer accessing BBC content ANYWHERE via UK IP addresses,
    should currently be shown ANY ads before/during/after that content being
    displayed. That content is already paid for.


    "They also sell the shows our money funds so they're taking the piss."

    Again, no problem with that.
    But the premise of course is as the BBC increases its overseas revenue
    streams, then for the BBC tax in the UK the rate of increase should be
    slowing down (or at best actually decreasing) .
     
    #4422
  3. Spurf

    Spurf Thread Mover
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    23,176
    Likes Received:
    13,470
    OK it seems that most look at the BBC charge as a tax so I accept the loss of that argument @The RDBD

    I have some 50 threatening letters from TV licensing for which I am considering a charge of harassment against them.
     
    #4423
  4. vimhawk

    vimhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    3,874
    We can't afford to lose the BBC. Do we really want "news" provided by organisations like Fox news? Sure the commercial news stations in this country are far more neutral than in the States, but there's an argument to suggest that the BBC keeps them "honest", since any comparison between the news that stations might like to run and the BBC's version would be too obvious. Take away the BBC and the safeguards though... (which presumably is what the Tories want.)

    This ranting about "that person doesn't deserve that salary because I don't like them", and "I don't watch the BBC so there shouldn't be a licence fee" is exactly what I thought would happen, turning the public's attention toward something that is a relatively small cost compared to say the cost of HS2, and surely more money is spent on subsidising Wet Spam's stadium then the BBC spends on salaries! So many other more important (and costly) things to get upset about!
     
    #4424
    PleaseNotPoll likes this.
  5. humanbeingincroydon

    humanbeingincroydon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Messages:
    63,622
    Likes Received:
    28,262
    Here's the problem: the BBC's news coverage wants to be Fox News, for two reasons.

    The first reason is the one most people will point to, namely the head of BBC News' previous employment by the Murdoch Empire, but if anything the second reason is far worse: news broadcasters have become fixated on a ratings war instead of the actual news, and in their bid to have the highest-rated news they copy the formula with the highest ratings - and that's the Fox News model.

    It's hardly a new trend, either, as the BBC have been following this model since the late 90s, it's just for most of the period since then they at least had someone on the newsroom floor trying to keep some semblance of journalism in their broadcast - although they were fatally undermined when the BBC decided to put Natasha Kalinski front and centre of their news coverage (with a hefty pay bump) not because she was a good journalist but because she was on Celebrity Come Dancing.
     
    #4425
  6. PleaseNotPoll

    PleaseNotPoll Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    92,543
    Likes Received:
    52,193
    Trump Jr, Paul Manafort and the Trump organisation received notice yesterday from the US Senate Judiciary Committee.
    They were asked for copies of all documents and communications involving a long list of largely predictable figures and companies.
    Lots of Russians, lots of Americans, various companies on both sides and one or two oddities.

    The name that jumped out on the list to me? Jill Stein, leader of the Green Party and former Presidential candidate.
    Maybe you should have skipped dinner, Jill?
    please log in to view this image
     
    #4426
  7. The RDBD

    The RDBD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    27,302
    Likes Received:
    13,078
    You can afford to have a BBC that is funded via a media tax and a
    subscription model.

    Put the news, radio, World service, kids TV, educational etc in S1,
    Put drama, celebrity come sewing with a great bargain dancing bake-off
    etc in S2.

    Like some, I am quite happy to fund S1 via a media tax.
    But I don't see WTF I should be funding as a taxpayer a lot of the
    sh*te in S2 when I don't consume it.
     
    #4427
  8. PleaseNotPoll

    PleaseNotPoll Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    92,543
    Likes Received:
    52,193
    There's plenty of things that your tax goes towards that you don't use, though.
     
    #4428
    SpursDisciple and vimhawk like this.
  9. The RDBD

    The RDBD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    27,302
    Likes Received:
    13,078
    And a lot of those things are not usless sh*te to me in the grand
    scheme of things, regardless of whether I do/will use them or not.
     
    #4429
  10. littleDinosaurLuke

    littleDinosaurLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    23,981
    Likes Received:
    26,051
    Paying tax for TV and radio is something of an anomaly though.
    Is it necessary or desirable to have a state funded broadcaster any longer?
    Whilst some of the BBC's output is of educational value, the majority of what it produces is entertainment.
    Much of that entertainment is wholly or partly made by independent production companies and bought by the BBC.
    Without wishing to sound too snobby, a lot of what is made is of dubious quality and designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Even the BBC chases audience figures. There is clearly a market for trivial and reality TV shows.
    There is a compelling argument that this type of "entertainment" should not be paid for by compulsory taxation, payable by anyone who watches TV, not just those who choose to watch the BBC.
    Entertainment is a matter of personal choice and in an age where there are countless TV and radio programmes available from many broadcasters, people should be free to choose what they pay for - or choose to watch/listen to free to air programmes.
    Equally, the BBC should be free to raise revenue through on screen advertising, subscription etc and compete with privately owned broadcasters on a level playing field.
    It's the most regressive tax I can think of.
     
    #4430

  11. PleaseNotPoll

    PleaseNotPoll Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    92,543
    Likes Received:
    52,193
    I agree that the license fee should be done away with, but I think that it should come straight out of tax revenue.
    The BBC needs to exist and it needs to be protected from political interference, in my opinion.
    The current media situation has only emphasised how dangerous someone like Murdoch can be, for example.

    Your points about lowest common denominator stuff and it raising it's own revenue seem rather at odds with each other.
    Surely if it's going to try to compete commercially, then it would be doing so with stuff like that, which sells?
    I think it's lost it's way a bit in this regard, to be honest, as it's not what it's known for or what it does well.

    It's main current problem is that those in charge of it want to get rid of it, much like the NHS.
    Those with cash and influence peddle endless hit jobs, while the Tories intentionally undermine the service.
    Making it accountable to advertisers and therefore companies behind those ads would only make things worse.
    Who's supposed to tell us about crap companies, if those companies can influence our media?
     
    #4431
  12. littleDinosaurLuke

    littleDinosaurLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    23,981
    Likes Received:
    26,051
    The BBC has to get viewers or it becomes irrelevant.
    So far as peak time viewing is concerned, this means following popular trends - programmes featuring singing, dancing and baking mainly, from what I've seen..
    If it could raise additional revenues on the back of these programmes, through advertising especially, then I'm all for that.
    I'm not for scrapping the BBC (or a public service broadcaster per se). I'm for scrapping its funding through taxation.
    The present system has other consequences too - such as yesterday's embarrassing spectacle of the BBC being criticised for paying relatively modest salaries to its top stars. ITV are paying Ant and Dec around £10M per year until 2019, but nobody sees fit to comment on that.
    I think the BBC should have the chance to free itself from government and taxation so far as its finances are concerned.
    It can still have a public service remit so far as its programming is concerned.
     
    #4432
  13. PleaseNotPoll

    PleaseNotPoll Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    92,543
    Likes Received:
    52,193
    Then what would be the point in it? It would be a commercial channel with no benefits, but some responsibilities.
    You have to do the following things, but you don't get anything out of it?
    It would be just like everything else and then they'd immediately get rid of it.
     
    #4433
  14. paultheplug

    paultheplug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,416
    Likes Received:
    3,165
    ITV are not paying Ant and Dec £10M a year until 2019. You and I and everyone else who buy things pay them
     
    #4434
  15. littleDinosaurLuke

    littleDinosaurLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    23,981
    Likes Received:
    26,051
    It would be a "commercial" channel within a regulated framework.
    How it raises its income and what that income would be is speculative, but it's a robust, well established broadcaster which has made some of the most popular and marketable TV and radio programmes ever. I'm sure it could increase its income without being a direct burden on individual tax payers.
    I object to everyone who watches TV having to pay a levy for the BBC whether they watch it or not.
    I object to those who don't pay being criminalised
    I think the BBC should have the ability to raise income in a different way.
    I think the BBC should have to make programmes within a regulated framework re their content etc, but not have to be held account in the way they are now for how "licence payers' money is being spent." With greater autonomy over how they raise they revenues, I'm confident that they would be able to increase their income. As a result, they should also have greater spending power and be able to compete better with the likes of Sky when, for example, bidding for top sporting events, recruiting top presenters, journalists etc.
     
    #4435
  16. humanbeingincroydon

    humanbeingincroydon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Messages:
    63,622
    Likes Received:
    28,262
    There's one supreme piece of irony in the Dire Leader hitching herself to the BBC pay bandwagon which has quite conveniently ushered the Tories hiking the pension age out of the headlines: the Tories themselves are guilty of pay inequality, with female civil servants earning on average £2 less an hour than their male counterparts in numerous government departments.
     
    #4436
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2017
  17. Spurf

    Spurf Thread Mover
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    23,176
    Likes Received:
    13,470
    Whilst I am all for a publicly funded broadcaster to think that the BBC is not biased is a little deluded. While it's general programming is indeed reflecting all views the news clearly does not.
    The news broadcasts BBC radio and TV clearly reflect the establishment view, for example the IRA were always referred to as terrorists throughout the conflict, the Blairites were referred to as moderates during the rebellion against Corbyn, and the SNP always as nationalists. These are political terms, they are not neutral and clearly support the status quo. Since the time of Thatcher, like so many things in the UK, the BBC news has been dominated by Conservatives, just check out the past of people like Nick Robinson. C4 news for example, is far more objective than the BBC. In Scotland the BBC news output was and still is entirely dominated by Labour people and their coverage of the Scottish referendum was so biased that mass protests took place in Glasgow, largely unreported by the BBC.
    The BBC can be reformed so I would strongly advocate keeping it, much of it's serious output particularly on Radio 4 is very valuable and top quality but suggesting that what we have in terms of BBC news is unbiased, is far from the truth.
     
    #4437
  18. littleDinosaurLuke

    littleDinosaurLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    23,981
    Likes Received:
    26,051
    The left accuse the BBC of being right wing, the right do the opposite.
    On the whole, I don't think the BBC show too much bias, but often they try so hard to be uncontroversial that their reporting is very anodyne and lacking in any comment or analysis. There is tendency to use terms which conform with mainstream views when describing "extremists" or "terrorists", for example, but frequently they are simply reinforcing views perpetrated by the popular media in the first place. As you say, the effect is to support the status quo.
    Of course it severely restricts the BBC's ability to report events in an open and unfettered way when anything perceived to be anti-government results in them being admonished. As the leading broadcaster, they shouldn't be afraid of holding the government to account - or anyone else for that matter.
     
    #4438
    paultheplug likes this.
  19. PleaseNotPoll

    PleaseNotPoll Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    92,543
    Likes Received:
    52,193
    While I'd largely agree with you, I do have a couple of issues.
    First off, the IRA simply were terrorists. They fit the dictionary definition perfectly.
    On a similar note, then SNP are nationalists. It's in their name! <laugh>

    You're definitely right about them being largely pro-establishment, but their recent swing towards the Tories is quite stark, for me.
    I don't think that they were that partial, up until the last lot got in with the Lib Dems.
    James Harding isn't the right person for the job. He was implicated by the Leveson Inquiry, which is now being killed off.
     
    #4439
  20. Trump has lost his professional scapegoat!!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40687521

    Apparently unhappy at the new Comms Director brought in by his Dumpfness. Wonder whether he is angry enough to start spilling the beans on life in the White House......<laugh>
     
    #4440

Share This Page