950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 17, 2022 8:49:38 GMT
I think there's probably a discussion to be had about how we fund the BBC going forward given the changes in the broadcast industry. Certainly from what I've seen online there's a lot of ignorance around how we watch TV still and the comparison to what we pay for Netflix is unhelpful given how fundamentally different they are as an organisation.
However this government just doesn't work like that. If Johnson had truly been interested in sensible reform then he wouldn't have made a politician as moronic and incapable of understanding her brief as Nadine Dorries culture secretary. And the announcement of getting rid of the license fee, without any indication that they had come up with any plans as to how to replace it, just when Johnson needed the distraction shows how little regard they have for any of our great public institutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 17, 2022 9:19:01 GMT
If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the importance of television. Of access to news. To those who live alone, the BBC might be their only connection with the outside world. It's 4p a day. For everything. If that's not worth fighting to save I don't know what is. So people who live alone don't have access to ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky News, NetFlix or commercial radio or the internet ? Why not ? Also, how come you are only paying 4p a day ? The rest of us are either paying 43p a day or are facing a criminal prosecution. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 17, 2022 9:38:30 GMT
moronic and incapable of understanding her brief as Nadine Dorries culture secretary. She's risen to the post of cabinet minister from a poor working class Liverpool background, in a party that has a reputation for despising all of that. I dislike her views but I don't think she's moronic. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 17, 2022 9:57:56 GMT
moronic and incapable of understanding her brief as Nadine Dorries culture secretary. She's risen to the post of cabinet minister from a poor working class Liverpool background, in a party that has a reputation for despising all of that. I dislike her views but I don't think she's moronic. Agree. It's the type of personal abuse Angela Rayner suffers from the opposite side. Neither is acceptable and reflects badly on those (usually men it seems to me) who comment in that way. |
|
721 posts
|
Post by hulmeman on Jan 17, 2022 11:27:04 GMT
I suspect the remarks made by Dorries are intended as a warning shot across the bows of the BBC because of Johnson's current problems. It is also a useful distraction. They also play well to the tory faithful who read the smail on Sunday where I believe she made her comments.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 17, 2022 11:36:54 GMT
Yes, I think the timing is very clear. I do wonder what the BBC is playing at at the moment though. It is showing a surprising lack of curiosity about where the stories are coming from - for example they had the Telegraph journalist who broke the story on, but didn't ask him the source. Is it Cummings' revenge? I'm sure a Paxman would have asked him that. And why now? Personally I think it serves the anti-control-measures faction very well indeed, and those who want Johnson gone so they can refresh the leadership in time for a general election. The BBC don't seem to care about this and are just going with it because, I think, they're still sore about Brexit and see it as revenge and can't see beyond that. There are other news stories going by the wayside as they focus on these so-called 'industrial scale' parties ('an atrocity!' one pundit claimed. Really? Come on!). Anyway, the BBC are dancing to the leakers' tune, the Tories will either get a shiny new leader and/or respond with a punishment beating for the BBC and safety controls will be lifted so more vulnerable people, like all the unvisited mums in care homes we keep hearing about, may die.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 17, 2022 11:40:26 GMT
And of course, all of this hinges on the Tories still being in power in 2027...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 12:31:09 GMT
I think, they're still sore about Brexit … or you know, the Tories are just a bunch of career politicians hoping they can lie and manipulate their way through life. Whilst I accept the BBC isn’t as impartial as it’s designed to be (though I do think they try), the Tories make is so ridiculously easy for people to get annoyed with them. But Brexit cannot be blamed for everything. Too much time has passed and grudges take up far too much energy to uphold. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 12:31:56 GMT
And of course, all of this hinges on the Tories still being in power in 2027... They will be - we don’t have a viable alternative and that’s the saddest part about British politics right now. |
|
914 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jan 17, 2022 12:54:36 GMT
Maybe now the BBC knows what the government has in store for them the newsroom might finally grow a pair and start telling us what's really happening and stop giving government ministers such an easy time. There's nothing to be gained by merely repeating their propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 13:19:18 GMT
That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football. I'd say it's the Government's problem when they tell pensioners that they have to get broadband, start paying a new subscription and buy new set-top boxes to watch Call The Midwife or Bargain Hunt. If the BBC goes subscription, that closes down the whole Freeview network (which they maintain), so that stops free viewing of ITV, Channels 4 and 5 through an aerial. og suggested that "BBC1, BBC2 and 3 radio stations" will remain on the airwaves - well, that's what most people watch and listen to, so the subscription revenue from BBC Alba, S4C, Radio Cymru and the Asian Network will be tiny. So both the minority interests which only the BBC serves will vanish, and they won't have the revenue to support their existing output from that subscription revenue. Suggesting that News "may well stay free to access" is a pipe-dream when the BBC's income is going to collapse - BBC News is not going to exist in a way that can sustain a 24-hour news channel or regional broadcasts. Anyway, it's clear that the culture battle lines are already drawn and I know which side I'm on, all I'm saying is that there are a whole host of technical issues that make this far from straightforward. I have a Smart TV and all the streaming services, but sometimes on message boards like this, people underestimate the friction that might be caused to some of the more vulnerable members of our society, whom Nadine Dorries claims to be protecting (having removed their free access to BBC services) I didn't know the Freeview system was run by the BBC. If the licence fee going would effect a lot of other none BBC channels then I would like to know how. I have broadband but only the freeview channels and don't pay for any subscription services. Over the years going back to Mr Wilson, Maggie Thatcher, Neil Kinnock and in the last few years with Corbyn and Boris the amount of time I've heard the BBC is pro Labour or pro Tory I forget. Some of their news presenters we may well know what their politics are but they do seem impartial to me. A big rump of people in the country only really care about what is on BBC1 and BBC2. They put BBC3 online and I'm not sure if it is coming back to FV, BBC4 has some quality stuff which older people may enjoy. The kids channels are good for their age group but there are others outthere and kids have so many platforms these days to use. Radio 1 a shadow of itself from it's heyday, R2 resting home for former R1 DJs but still popular. R3 - elitist, R4 - the politicians like that, R5 effectively R2 from the 1980's. Other worldwide or minority interests your hard up family worrying about heating their homes don't care about. Your pensioners who like Daytime shows don't. The police have had budget cuts, the armed forces, gov depts have so why not look at the licence fee this way. If one party puts this in a manifesto we can give you £159 pound a year saving then other parties will have to look at it closely and come up with some other savings they can give people as her heat, tax etc is going up. Gary Lineker is an easy target as he is one of Beeb's highest paid people and this may be the issue. I doubt Jimmy Hill was ever on more than a Ronnie Barker back in the day. Paying mediocre talent too much money. Too many programmes the same. On a lighter note has anyone else noticed how BBC Political Correspondent Nick Eardley is a ringer for a young Stanley Baxter. The accent, face, slightly flaired nostrils even how the hair is parted. Stanley is still going at 95 years old but we have yet to see Nick impersonate the Queen! |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 17, 2022 13:56:57 GMT
|
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 17, 2022 14:07:58 GMT
Yes, I think the timing is very clear. I do wonder what the BBC is playing at at the moment though. It is showing a surprising lack of curiosity about where the stories are coming from - for example they had the Telegraph journalist who broke the story on, but didn't ask him the source. Is it Cummings' revenge? I'm sure a Paxman would have asked him that. And why now? Personally I think it serves the anti-control-measures faction very well indeed, and those who want Johnson gone so they can refresh the leadership in time for a general election. The BBC don't seem to care about this and are just going with it because, I think, they're still sore about Brexit and see it as revenge and can't see beyond that. There are other news stories going by the wayside as they focus on these so-called 'industrial scale' parties ('an atrocity!' one pundit claimed. Really? Come on!). Anyway, the BBC are dancing to the leakers' tune, the Tories will either get a shiny new leader and/or respond with a punishment beating for the BBC and safety controls will be lifted so more vulnerable people, like all the unvisited mums in care homes we keep hearing about, may die. I'm not sure I would normally expect one journalist to ask the other their source. It's not like any journalist worth their salt will reveal it. Given the BBC hasn't broken any of these stories and have generally been playing catch up with other parts of the media who have made as much of it, if not more, claiming that the BBC is doing it as revenge for Brexit is a bit of a stretch. It's not the BBC's job to provide cover for the government and follow whatever line they are pushing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 14:33:13 GMT
And of course, all of this hinges on the Tories still being in power in 2027... They will be - we don’t have a viable alternative and that’s the saddest part about British politics right now. Of course we have viable alternatives, but part of the problem is that many of the people who vote Conservative won't consider an alternative. They tend to believe that anyone on the left would bring disaster and ruin despite the fact that this hasn't happened in the past, and they won't even look at the actual party policies. There's a very strong attitude of "No matter how bad my side is, my side must be the one that's right so anything else must be worse". |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 17, 2022 14:46:23 GMT
It's not the BBC's job to provide cover for the government and follow whatever line they are pushing. My point is that right now they are following a line that some other Tories are pushing, via the Tory press. Who is drip-feeding this story out, and what's their motive, when it's someone within the Tory bunker leaking it? In the Labour years, we generally found out who (Whelan, Campbell etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 15:29:11 GMT
They will be - we don’t have a viable alternative and that’s the saddest part about British politics right now. Of course we have viable alternatives, but part of the problem is that many of the people who vote Conservative won't consider an alternative. They tend to believe that anyone on the left would bring disaster and ruin despite the fact that this hasn't happened in the past, and they won't even look at the actual party policies. There's a very strong attitude of "No matter how bad my side is, my side must be the one that's right so anything else must be worse". I don’t think it’s like that at all. The Conservatives and Labour are the only parties that will win an election outright, but Labour is losing support and votes - the SNP are taking them in Scotland and Labour isn’t filling anyone else with much confidence leading people to vote for the tories. Does anyone know what Labour stands for under Starmer? He’s been a terrible leader of the opposition thus far. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 17, 2022 17:42:27 GMT
I mean.... I'm an adult and don't watch CBeebies, but I love that I am able to help pay for Cbeebies to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 17, 2022 17:59:06 GMT
Growing up, as I did in the 70s, kids tv was a couple of short pieces around lunchtime (in the old Listen with Mother slot I guess) and then from 3.45/4pm to 5.35pm
You then got Saturday morning tv for a few hours whether you were a Swap Shop or Tiswas fan
There might be a Sunday afternoon family drama adaptation or a Bank Holiday Disney Special. But that was about it outside of school holidays where you got the added bonus of things like Why Don't You...
I never felt that my development was hindered by not having more screen time opportunities.
I do understand that CBBC and CBeebies have their uses. But that level of programming provision is not essential to childhood development.
Gone are the days of the BBC producing educational shows for schools to show as part of lessons.
Gone indeed are the days of Open University being shown overnight on BBC2.
Things change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse.
I am not sure that 2 channels of dedicated BBC programming for children is essential. Some might argue that too much screen time is not good for children.
It is good to have the debates and the discussions.
But the BBC has always been changing. And it will continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jan 17, 2022 18:15:02 GMT
That's a fair point about CBBC/CBeebies. Is it essential for two kids channels running all day? When I was a kid, you had your morning "before-school" kids shows, then your "after-school" kids shows from 3:30pm till 5pm and then Saturday morning. And it was enough. There were privately-owned channels on the market such as Disney/Nickelodeon etc if you reeeeally wanted all-day kids TV. I don't think it's necessary as a public service. And do we need more channels than BBC1, BBC2 and BBC News? The whole operation could be more effectively streamlined. The BBC should be a public service, not an all-out media empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 18:33:30 GMT
I thought when kids TV went onto it's own channel it needed additional content to replace it and almost marginalised those programmes. I agree that one channel for a mixture of ages should be enough. Didn't the old afternoon thread from Play School to Blue Peter used to run as a thread going up the age ranges. Some of my absolute TV heroes were from kids programmes.
I agreewith Sph it is a broadscaster not a multi media empire. If it wants to be that let it take commercial deals like ITV, C4 and C5 do.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 17, 2022 18:47:26 GMT
I thought when kids TV went onto it's own channel it needed additional content to replace it and almost marginalised those programmes. I agree that one channel for a mixture of ages should be enough. Didn't the old afternoon thread from Play School to Blue Peter used to run as a thread going up the age ranges. Some of my absolute TV heroes were from kids programmes. I agreewith Sph it is a broadscaster not a multi media empire. If it wants to be that let it take commercial deals like ITV, C4 and C5 do. The only problem with commercials is that programming would be dictated by the advertisers. What can sell the most. Would a commercial broadcaster make low key fare like Detectorists? Unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 19:41:57 GMT
The only problem with commercials is that programming would be dictated by the advertisers. What can sell the most. Would a commercial broadcaster make low key fare like Detectorists? Unlikely. There's also the problem that even if a show gets made, if it doesn't find an audience quickly it gets cancelled. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 17, 2022 19:44:29 GMT
The backtracking begins, gone to where the other dead cats are buried, at least it got us talking about something other than parties, now Dom has provided some more ‘evidence’ to mull over the fun begins again.
Look out for Article 16 to be resurrected imminently as a bit of EU bashing is a firm favourite even though that dead cat must be bit putrid by now along with the immigration one that did not fly as well as anticipated today.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 17, 2022 20:11:37 GMT
Gone are the days of the BBC producing educational shows for schools to show as part of lessons. Gone indeed are the days of Open University being shown overnight on BBC2. Things change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. I am not sure that 2 channels of dedicated BBC programming for children is essential. . Are you kidding?! Speak to any parent of school aged kids who had to homeschool last year - they’ll absolutely rave about how they relied on the BBC! They had curriculum-based content produced for kids before most of the schools had managed to provide anything other than a worksheet: www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/bbc-launches-biggest-education-offer-everKids doing their GCSEs even had content tailored for them by exam board! This is the sort of thing you won’t know about if you didn’t have kids or know anyone with kids, because most BBC content is ‘narrowcast’ instead of ‘broadcast’ - it’s tailored and targeted at the specific audience. The Open University partnership continues to this day, with course content linked to programming, but you’d only know it if you looked: connect.open.ac.uk/about/I can’t believe how many people on this thread the BBC’s educational work last year completely passed by. I have parent-friends who swear their sanity was saved by it! |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 17, 2022 21:04:38 GMT
I don't have kids but I have young nephew and nieces and being able to switch on children's tv at pretty much any hour can be vital. It's the difference sometimes between having some kind of calm that other people can work/house work in and not. It's the different between screaming kids and not. And please don't tell me they just need to be better brought up, tv is a life saver for parents.
I don't think comparisons from when we were kids decades ago works either, the way people live, the numbers of families where both parents work, how we interact is just too different to compare.
And A channel doesn't work, children want choices just like adults, why should be satisfied with having only one option, or there only being something age appropriate at one time of day that may or may not work for their set up.
Yes if you can afford prime, disney etc that gives you a whole load of other options but if your family can't, what then?
I didn't realise freeview basically ran off the license fee too and access to other channels. My mum can just about what out how to turn the tv on and switch channels. There's no way she'd cope if she had to login, download an app. I know there are plenty of older people who are very tech savy but she isn't one of them. She doesn't have much disposal income but watching the racing, or cricket or something is one of the few things she can do and enjoy. She's a through and through Tory voter and will I expect me thinking yes they should do away with a fee (not that she pays it herself) but that's because she won't have a clue what the implications would mean.
|
|
