Slashdot Mirror
British Goverment to Reshape BBC Governance
AtariAmarok writes "The British government recently announced plans to reshape how the BBC is governed.. The changes are said to scrap the system that has been in place for 77 years. Some are worried that the independence of the "Beeb" could be compromised, and Conservative lawmakers are worried that it does not allow for enough oversight (leaves it too independent?)."
Not enough oversight?? What about freedom of expression and speech?
Similar reform acts to the british media have been coming for a long time now. The first major whole hearted attempt came in the mid-80s. It is interesting because each time they get closer to actually getting it done but fall through in the end.
I say cheers to the thought of an independent British Broadcasting company. I know the goverments regulation over them as been decreasing in recent years but the changes that are in the pipes have been a long time coming.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Is it because the Beeb has been so "reserved" when Blair engaged his Kingdom's soldiers into Iraq for some yet-to-be-defined reasons ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Welcome aboard our UK brothers and sisters! Join us for a round of control the media! Seriously though, how can the BBC go from opening up archives to the public to becoming restrictive? Sounds like yet another assault by out friendly media conglomerates. No I'm not trying to troll, it seems that this was inevitable.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Sorry, lawmakers? Just because a politician is elected to the House of Commons does not make them a 'lawmaker'. Given the elected-dictatorship that is the British system when large majorities are held by the Government of the day, that description couldn't be further from the truth. Just look at the railroading of the current detention orders bill that's going on by this 'Labour' government.
The only lawmakers are the ministers that put legislation forward, back benchers lucky enough to win the silly lottery for back bench time, or judges that amend legislation in a court of law.
Oh, and Rupert Murdoch.
Admitidly the BBC has had a few problems, but nothing that ammounts to more than poking the goverment (hey most people in england happen to think the goverment deserved a good poking for taking us to war on a lie).
:)
It's an asset which few other countries have, to turn it into a goverment properganda machine *shudder*, Gues we'd just have to start watching fox news for an unbiased opinion
Looks like they are keeping the licensing fee for another 10 years at least :|
:/
£104 ($180 ish?) a year just to watch TV
Well it can't be both too independent and not independent enough at the same time so it'll probably settle somewhere in the middle and everything will be OK.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
The submitter didn't have an idea of what he was talking about, it's all so vague and misleading.
"The changes are said to scrap the system that has been in place for 77 years. "
The only difference being the removal of the Board of Directors.
"Some are worried that the independence of the "Beeb" could be compromised"
No, the whole idea of this reforming of the BBC was to INCREASE the independance of the BBC.
What the hell is the submitter on about?
Certainly the BBC needs an independant external body to stop the embarassingly biast (against the Iraq war, for example) "news coverage", the little comments the reporters put in every report of Iraq is nothing short of disgusting.
These new changes will help, but I think maybe it doesn't go far enough, but it's for the better, regardless.
The Governors at present are appointed directly by the government -- and the last Labour and Tory administrations have made partly-political appointments; in the future, their replacements will be appointed by a more independent executive.
I'd also just like to say this : as a License Fee payer, I believe firmly that the BBC works, and having travelled a fair amount, I've never seen a media organisation produce comparable amounts of quality output.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Get your facts right, all the BBC's UK content is paid for by the licence fee which includes all the digital channels they produce, the radio stations, local content and the online content.
I think just over 100 pounds a year is good value compared to the high monthly fees of Sky (100's of channels of which only a couple are any good).
The BBC is in a unique position, we've got a public broadcaster which means we're not bombarded with ads and they have an excellent (also ad free) website.
With Sky you pay per month and are still bombarded with ads.
e.g. when BBC2 used to have the Simpsons it was 20 minutes because they don't have the ads, with Sky it's 30 minutes.
It's also a small price to pay for having an organisation that has no commercial bias and as we've seen they're willing to criticise the government. I'd certainly rather trust the BBC rather than a commercial entity like Sky who is owned by News corp just like Fox.
>Not enough oversight?? What about freedom of expression and speech?
The BBC is funded by the British public and, as a result, they must follow rules to ensure they are spending money on worthy subjects. Of late, the BBC has not expressed any ideas of value. Their schedule has been bogged down with cheap shows that appeal to the lowest denominator and repeats.
No broadcaster can claim to provide freedom of expression and speech in the true sense. Factual programmes always provide a certain angle on a story, removing comments that are irrelevant or require time to explain.
Perhaps they could do some kind of Changing Rooms-style makeover show where they are given a week and £1000 to revamp the BBC.
I think you'll find that the license fee covers much more than just BBC1 and BBC2. here is how your license is spent:
Viewers pay £10 per month, which is spent in the following way:
£5 - terrestrial TV
£1 - digital
£1.20 - radio
£1.50 - local TV and radio
£0.30 - Online
£1 - transmission and collection of licence fee
When you look at these figures does it really seem like that much to pay when you consider the quality of things like the BBC website and BBC radio? (hell even BBC1 and 2 have been putting out some decent documentary programmes as of late)
Hee - you've obviously not seen much British TV. The last time I saw an American watching some late night C4 television (back in the days of TV Offal), they were absolutely astounded by what British TV got away with. It's also worth noting that Ozzie is more the rule than the exception - Brit's tend to swear a lot. The intent is important - c**t, b*****d, etc. can be rude, but are often expressions of affection, too. Context is the key.
How much do you pay for sky and still have adverts and biased news? 20 a month? 30 a month? It's still 2-300 per year. ITV is full of adverts. CH4 shows some great programming and can buy the US imports, but the BBC has value not only as an independant but I dont see Sky 1 showing Open University level stuff, or exposes on corruption.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
--
Each household's colour TV licence cost £9.67 every month in 2003/2004. On average each month, this was how the BBC spent your money:
Average monthly licence fee spend
This chart shows that £9.67 was the average monthly cost of each household's licence fee in 2003/2004. It breaks it down visually into components.
* BBC One £3.37
* BBC Two £1.45
* Digital television channels £0.98
* Transmission and collection costs £0.98
* BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live £0.99
* Digital radio stations £0.08
* Nations & English Regions television £0.90
* Local radio £0.61
* bbc.co.uk £0.31
--
Also there is the BBC Imp project which will allow people in the UK (restricted by IP numbers and authorisation) to download a high percentage of BBC TV and radio in >1mmbit DRM'ed wmv for playing on your PC or laptop up to 8 days after broadcast (as allowed by copyright laws)
I had a mate on the trial and it was awesome to be able to watch Top Gear on a laptop over lunch
Plus the fact that if you didnt have a license fee, then the taxes would go up to fund it anyway. HOWEVER... I do object to paying for BBC Services that I don't use. So, I always thought there should be a subscription system. When digital technology is king, this shouldnt be a problem to implement.
TheHustler
http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
As of 12:05 GMT+1, it isn't on their front page.
I've always found that the BBC presented fairly impartial reporting on most issues and didn't tend to get too centralised on particular countries or trends. I have BBC World at home and while it can be a bore at times listening to economics and politics in places I don't care about, at least I hear about it.
I had BBC World when I lived in the USA and its coverage during the September 11th attack and after was markedly different from the US channels, particularly two days out. I live in Madrid now and it's coverage of the train bombings on the 11th of March provided some clarity of view when all of the media channels here were reporting a more local feel.
I feel that anything that compromises their current model would compromise that impartiality - more control or looking for subscriptions would see the flavour of the news influenced: for the worst.
The BBC still reminds me of a time when most people who read newspapers were trying to better themselves and stay informed, and felt that said publications were a level to aspire to. As opposed to the vast proliferation of trash publications and sensationalist reporting which now murk those waters. I hope the BBC stays the way it is.
...they'll introduce arguments like this and try to take the licence fee away from them. The reason this is happening is because the BBC had the temerity to question the Hutton report into the WMD in Iraq issue.
(the extra channels, are, I believe, not funded from the license fee)
This is correct, however see my post above and note why the licence fee allows the BBC to be free of financial pressure from the likes of advertisers who may put pressure on them financially through withdrawal of funds.
For a real life example of a news channel acting unethically because of commercial concerns, see here. Synopsis: two reporters for a Fox News sub reported on a Monsanto product with serious health issues and were subsequently fired. The ensuing legal cases brought to light the fact that there is no law on the statute books (in the US at least) which censures news channels for lying outright (or technically, concealing the truth). It's a complex issue with many sides but I think it fits the point that commercially funded media has an inherent bias which can be harmful. Government funded stations have no such requirement.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
The BBC as a public institution is bound by law and common custom to be representative of the people and to support/represent equality of religion/race/lifestyle/sexuality.
The British Tory or Conservative party is roughly analogous to Republicans in the US in that it holds "traditional values", many of which conflict with the modern egalitarian ethic of the BBC.
The British Right-wing, led primarily by tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Mail (politically somewhere to the right of Genghis Kahn..), has been leading an anti-BBC campaign for some time now as they don't want to see a state-run broadcaster "supporting" rights that they wish to abolish or diminish, such as equality of gay and straight relationships before the law, or equal attention in schools for minority faiths.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
£120 a year is *phenomenal* value for money. 10 digital channels, 2 terestrial channels - all packed full of high-quality, advert-free intelligent programing. 4 FM national radio stations, a load of local radio - all advert-free. Numerous digital radio stations. World-class reporting and news that's unbiased. One of the best all-round websites there is. The BBC is an *amazing* resource for UK citizens and one that's very cheap indeed considering what you get. Contrast with £300 a year for Sky and Murdoch's poison.
The BBC is funded by the license fee. It is a legal requirement to pay this fee if you own a television set or similar device that is able to recieve television broadcast. The governemnt has a duty to ensure that this law is (in its belief) fair and that the BBC is spending the license fee correctly and is fulfilling its remit. This is the end of the governments involvement.
... it just has to ensure that it provides the public service broadcasting that our money is paying for.
This does not make the BBC' under the governments thumb. This is not state controlled television, the BBC has complete journalistic and programming freedom
You can't have organisations just spending public money without oversight, but oversight does not mean editorial censorship, control, or restriction.
abolishment of it's board of directors, Michael Grade selling them to labour: this is all "under the thumb" of not parliament, but the labour party. This would not be mooted if they'd done a Fox news and whooped and hollered the invasion of the Middle East.
A lot of people complain about the licence fee and how they never watch BBC and BBC2 so shouldn't have to pay it. However, for me, the BBC's greatest achievement and role in UK media is it's ability to bring through new technology. The internet, internet services and linking television content to web content; the BBC has pioneered this in the UK and without them there wouldn't be anywhere near as many users of the internet. And they have helped with broadband too - media streams all over their websites from small clips of certain news broadcasts to whole programs. Digital TV: there is no doubt that without the BBC helping to bring through Freeview and push its Digital services on its channels, that Digital TV would still be flounding with no reason to have it for the average joe. The goverments plan to switch off the Analogue signal? Saved only by Freeview. And these are just more recent examples of what the BBC have done for us and are doing for us now. So yes, you may not watch BBC ever, or never listen to their radio stations, or visit their website. And commercial companies complain about how it's unfair competition. But for both people and those companies; the BBC's unique funding has willingness to inovate has created and expanded new markets that has helped and benefited everyone.
So this all comes about from the 'sexing up' of the War in Iraq coverage? What a shit reason. Wow, it failed once in 77 years of governance. That's a bloody good track record in my books.
Just because the government are pissed off that it made them look worse, it was better than 99% of the other news sources, *cough*BSkyB*cough.
It's just bitterness
Anyone remember that massive page-sized advertisement the BBC took out in the newspapers with the peoples names which basically gave a finger to the government and pledge support to the high figures. Good on them.
I think everyone's a bit confused here. The BBC is free: the government has no input into what the BBC can or should broadcast. The only control it has is every 10 years when the royal charter comes up for renewal. Now, obviously it's not ideal having the government responsible for anything but once every 10 years isn't bad. It's better than it being owned by some media group that panders to the political inclinations of its bosses and chases ratings in order to sell time to advertisers. It's difficult to think of a better method than the current one.
however, when you think about it, its not really bad value to fund a corporation that is internationally valued and respected as a provider of news. personally, i think the beeb is something we should be proud of, no matter how hard they try to strip us of this pride with their never ending stream of crap DIY shows and people moving house...
The BBC is pretty free from the government, if there was any political censorship going on then other channels would be all over it. Watching things like question time, journalists are not known for being polite and letting politicians get away with bullshitting - if a question is asked, a proper answer is expected no matter what part of the political spectrum. There have been plenty of occasions when the BBC has done things that pissed off the government and even other governments (Israel, Vanunu) they are absolutely not afraid to broadcast things that need to be seen, from lists of dead soldiers (censored in the US by some stations) to prisoner abuse (censored in the US for at least 2 weeks before it came out) to just taking the piss out of the establishment - if this was china every employee would have been publicly hanged - which is why i love the BBC.
As for decency standards, I really don't understand why the FCC is so tight assed, the BBC recently came under fire from Christian groups over Jerry Springer the Opera (with about 8000 fuck, shit, cunts etc and a gay Jesus), but the BBC did not cave in because they understood that they had to appeal to everyone but _not_ at the same time, so they showed it, the FCC would have had a heart attack.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The BBC is not entirely funded by the licence fee. They are also massive exporters of content, for which fees are levied, so they do manage to extract a tithe from other media companies.
Luckily, this means they're one step away from being pressured by conglomerates to supress news - it just means the buyer supresses it instead.
more info here
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
This is the foundation of almost all publicly owned broadcasters in Europe - they're there to make sure stuff that isn't commercially viable on the short term still gets a chance at a place in the media, and to aid public information and the development of culture.
Setting guidelines to ensure this is the only way in which parliament "keep the BBC under its thumb". And only indirectly through changes to the charter and by indirectly influencing the BBC's governing structure.
Think of BBC as a corporation owned by the public being given guidelines for how to operate from it's shareholders - represented by Parliament. This is no different than any other media organisation. The only difference is that in the BBC's case power isn't centralised on the hands of small groups of wealthy business people.
You over complicate matters. Newspapers such as the The Sun don't like the BBC because they're owned by one News International, who in turn are owned by News Corp. which is run by one Mr. Robert Maxwell. It's no doubt just one huge coincedence that News Corp. just happens to own 36% of BSkyB, a commercial competitor to the BBC.
The Daily Maul don't like the BBC because they don't like anything or any body, especially if they're a damn foreigner or under 55 years of age. The BBC don't show Come Dancing and The Antiques Roadshow as much as they used to you see.
Also, i don't trust anyone for news, no one gives it completely non-bias. They might criticise the Government, but they do it in a half assed way.
Last year's license fee was worthwhile if only for this one documentary series. This is exactly the sort of intelligent programming which the current reforms are purported to encourage.
Basically it was an account of how we arrived at the current climate of fear with our leaders exaggerating the dangers from almost entirely fictitious enemies. Interesting comparisons between the American neo-conservative ideologies and the beliefs held by Bin Laden et al.
If you didn't get to see this because you are American or British but missed it then you should, the torrents are out there, seek and ye shall find.
I'd doubt it will ever get shown in the US.
Heh, isn't the phrase "Blair engaged his Kingdom's soldiers" a little ironic and worrying? The implication 'Blair -> King' rings alarm bells in my head - although some of the Government's recent actions make it almost seem like he can get away with anything...
But getting back to the main point:
I don't mind the TV license - I mean, it funds some of the best quality channels out there. High quality public service broadcasting, as they say. Put adverts on BBC1 & 2, and I'd stop watching TV completely. I would continue listening to Radio1, 2 & 6Music - if they still exist after the BBC's restructuring.
Why resent paying for it? OK, Sky has (how many??) channels, but you have 15 minutes of adverts to every 45 of program. That's 25% of the airtime! A Sky package costs so much more than the license fee, and how many of all those available channels really show anything you'd ever watch? Don't most of us, (the average British population) stick with the first 6 channels available? (The 6th one, admittedly, being Sky One in my case.)
So you agree that there needs to be public oversight of the BBC. If the BBC was truly independent there would be no way to make sure that it kept to the standards you mention above.
I think you mean Rupert Murdoch - Mr. Maxwell threw a seven and drowned after falling [allegedly...] off his yacht in the Med.
... sent to me from the UK at my request, on Mordecai Vanunu, Israel's Nuclear Whisleblower
I quote from this documentary, from an american anti-war protester, who professed to know nothing about Vanunu or his plight:
"Why is our media that's supposed to be free and open not telling us and why is our government not letting us know this information if we're in the home of the free?"
The BBC made and screened this documentary. It's an important issue that has been largely ignored by virtually every other major media organisation worldwide. The fact that this documentary ever aired says a lot about how independent the BBC has already been.
I stand 100% behind the BBC, and I'm very worried about any restraint they may be put under due to this change. I'll be keeping an eye on it, of course.
a small prize to the first person who does an Uncle Leo on this comment, by the way
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
It is excellent. And I support what you say about having a broadcaster (relatively) free from commercial pressures. However, I think that having such a broadcaster gives benefit to the whole population, even those who don't watch TV. Therefore there's a case for paying the fee from taxpayer money rather than from TV viewer money. Currently the TV license is payable by everyone under 75, regardless of income. None of our other taxes work that way.
I don't understand the rational for any goverement regulation outside of deceny standards. I suppose its because I am a yannkie but the whole idea to me of the goverement having that much control over the media is appaling. How does parliment justify keeping the BBC under its thumb?
Maybe if you knew something about the BBC you wouldn't spout off such nonsense. The BBC is not 'under the thumb' of parliament, quite the contrary, and I suspect they're now being punished for that fact by the present government. If you want an example of mass-media that's under the thumb of government, check your own side of the pond. I find it amusing that you're so appalled by government interference in the media when you have such a tepid, unadventurous news media under the US system - you don't by any chance watch Fox News do you? Things are getting a bit out of hand when a comedy show (The Daily Show) is one of the most serious political commentaries.
The rationale for government regulation is to ensure that the licence fee is spent appropriately, not on another 'Temptation Island' knock-off because that sells, but on programming that attempts to educate and entertain. The word government means something very different outside the USA, which I suspect is where your confusion comes from. PS Your spelling is appalling, frightening even, please use a spelling checker.
How many free to air stations are there in London these days? From what I hear there are not that many? Don't you all have to pay a license fee for the TV as well, or did they do away with that silly idea...
only 30p for online? and for that I get to listen to ISIHAC at work and get funny looks for bursting out laughing? bargain. I'm tempted to send a cheque
</british expat>
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
A long time ago, the BBC was run by programme makers, and it was respected throughout the world for it's high quality programme making.
Then, around the end of the eighties, the accountants took over, and the quality ethics was jettisoned in favour of cost cutting.
Since then the BBC has slowly drifted towards the lower end of the market with programmes like Eastenders being shown 30 times a week, with an omnibus edition lasting all Sunday.
The government charter should be changed in favour of bringing the programme makers back.
Find funky gifts
It's also the only tax which doesn't take into account people's finacial status. Rich or poor, everybody has to pay the same rate. OK, people over 75 may not have to pay, but some of them are in better financial positions than many people who are under 75.
I see a lot of people who state that the 100 odd pound for the BBC is better value than the 300 for Sky - which is true if you can afford the license fee, but there are many people who would be better off if they didn't.
The TV License fee seems to be the only tax that increases social exclusion.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
The BBC is free
As in speech, yes. As in beer, no.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
So-called independent, commercial media is not free of censorship
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
If the BBC is producing high-quality stuff that appeals to fewer people then Murdoch's press says that it's not giving value for money because no one is watching it.
If the BBC were allowed to work freely then we'd have torrents of their programmes available by now. But that would be "unfair" on poor billionaires who want to charge us every time we watch a program or listen to our music in a different location.
Bottom line is: Murdoch, like all his class, hates competition and wants the BBC closed down as soon as possible. And he has the money to buy the politicians; the hard part is convincing the public, even those that read the crap he spreads over their daily rags.
Fuck the fucking load of fucking fuckers.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is now demonstrably the case as they had let us all think they meant 45 minutes to attack us with NBC weapons, when it meant 45 minutes if we went into their country and attacked them!. Blair, as a lawyer, should look up the meaning of the phrase "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but".
I could spit in that man's face.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
The fact that it is ad-free is almost worth the money on its own - with that as competition it's hard for the commercial companies to follow the american model of showing 25% advertising.
I believe that the BBC off good value for money. They produce some excellent shows (although I think they have been slipping some what in recent years) and because of they way they are funded they can offer programs that would otherwise probably not get made.
My personal axe that I grind at every possible oportunity is to do with the way the license fee is collected. I haven't had a TV for many years but they won't leave me alone. Nothing I say or do will make them believe that I don't own a TV. I am truely in the guilty till proven innocent club. I have detailed my story here for those that are interested to see what the BBC do to people who don't pay.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Thanks for the suggestion Doc!
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
For more on Robert^H^H^H^H^H^HRupert Murdoch, check out Outfoxed
btw
The Daily Maul don't like the BBC because they don't like anything or any body
I assume you mean the Mail don't like anything or anybody? Damn English language!
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Erm did you forget about council tax?
A lot of posts here, and so far nobody seems to have mentioned what I thought was the most encouraging part of the announcement, namely that the BBC has been told it is not to chase ratings but focus on quality programming.
Hopefully, this means that the BBC will keep turning out more of the kind of programmes that have made its name into a badge of quality and stop it getting caught up in the race-to-the-bottom-of-the-barrel that Sky and the other commercial channels seem to be in.
Haven't read the article, but the BBC is one of the few things that makes me proud to be British.
I don't have much hope that they won't fuck it up.
The British general public widely like, respect and are proud of the BBC.
The Rupert Murdock owned media has been astroturffing against the BBC for years, when grass roots public opinion is that he is the only real problem with the British media.
Independence might be better attained by putting the BBC in a position where its day-to-day workings aren't so pressured by the government or regulators. If editors are under the constant fear that giving time to a controversial viewpoint, or breaking an important news story without having 100% of the facts could lead to further loss of the BBC's funding, they're much more likely to remain conservative and follow the Government's line.
Obviously there needs to be some guidance on its role, and bearing in mind it is publically funded some of the suggestions in the review that it should concentrate more on high quality content and not following commercial broadcasters ('dumbing down') in order to increase ratings are laudable. However, if the BBC does take this route, my guess is that a future Government will say ratings have dropped, therefore it's less value for money.
I am nothing and should be everything
What they really should do is to force BBC into releasing everything they have produced themselves that has been aired into a Creative Commons License! The People Payd for It, so the people should be allowed to use and share it! BBC should, by law, be required to let people share their shows on BitTorrent and other p2p networks!
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Why let the facts get in way of some great rhetoric.
e w. shtml
This is the regular Charter renewal for the BBC. Happens every 10years or so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter_revi
Well, if they actually do that, them I for one will no longer resent paying my TV license fee.
Stick Men
Don't confuse "independent" with "impartial".
The BBC's domestic services are funded by a mandatory fee collected from anyone who purchases a TV or radio in the UK, whether or not the ever watch or listen to BBC. People who pay that fee certainly have a right to have Parliament determine how the BBC operates.
So, the BBC should be independent in the sense that it doesn't become the PR arm of the government of the day.
But, the BBC also needs to be impartial and unbiased in its reporting. Biased and partisan reporting destroy the single thing that has sustained the BBC's reputation all these years: trust.
But, as recents events indicate. lack of bias and impartiality are less a product of legislation and much more a product of the mindset and lack of standards of BBC employees.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
With that said, as a "true Brit", the BBC has always been a broadcasting service that I have always been very proud of. It has come in for a lot of criticism recently, perhaps rightfully so, as it's played the "ratings chasing" game of copying other channels and broadcasting far too much reality TV dross in favour of good drama and comedy shows - however, bringing the BBC under some governmental control means that the BBC will hopefully be forced to provide varied programming again, rather than "dumbed down TV" for the masses.
In Britain, we can take great pride in the fact that world recognised shows like Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Red Dwarf, Dr Who, Monty Python's Flying Circus, etc exist because of the BBC - likewise the radio programming, specifically Radio 4 which originally did the HHGTTG radio shows and the adaptations of The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings, as well as numerous dramas and plays.
I'm happy to continue paying my TV license for good quality programming and lack of advertising. All we need now are some more good comedy shows and I'll be happy...
The final issue to mention is the BBC's web site which is of tremendously high quality. They put a lot of work into supporting media formats across multiple OSes (there's even some Linux support there!) and as someone who's trying to learn Spanish at the moment, there's a wealth of educational and language resource there also.
In Britain, we probably don't have too many things to be proud of but the BBC is our best trademark to the world and something we should cherish.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
All the comments that suggest that the removal of governors is an attempt to bring the BBC to heel miss the rather obvious point that the governors were all government appointees.
Remember the BBC Micro? That was an initiative by the BBC to bring computing to schools and the masses. The impact of that initiative was huge and we are still reaping the benefits today, ask any IT professional which machine they cut their teeth on and many will tell you of fond memories of the Model B. Dare I say it but it but I believe it had greater impact than the Sinclair Spectrum, which I always regarded as a programmable games console.
Seriously, if it wasn't for the BBC Micro I probably wouldn't be posting here today.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
Maybe its about time Orwell's 1984 was made compulsory reading for schoolchildren and government ministers.
Now most people have a TV. The people who need TV most may be the poorest amongst us - Open University Students, parents, and carers, and so on. You can make a TV by putting a card in your computer. The TV detector vans do not work any longer (if they ever did, which I doubt). The licence costs more to collect then it is worth. The whole TV licence scheme is getting beyond its useful life. Basically, the only thing it has going for it is its long history.
If you can come up with a reliable alternative that can give the BBC a secure income that does not depend on central government or market forces, then we would love to hear about it. But coming up with a general way of making being nice finiancially rewarding would be a bit of a social breakthrough.
Are they still planing to release their archives online ? And in this new DIRAC codec that they're working on ? I've got a nasty feeling that about 12 months from now the archives will appear in some awfull closed format.
For my money I'd like to see their archives released in xvid and the radio archives in mp3. For that matter, why the hell are they doing online radio in Real Audio and not mp3 streams ?
The cheapest sky package is £13:50 - see Sky Packages. Although you may be on a half-price introductory offer for the £19 package, it is a little disengenous to claim that it is £9 a month - a bit like saying the supermarket is giving away free pizzas when actually it is a BOGOF (Buy one get one free) offer.
The government has no right to tell the BBC how to act. The TAX PAYERS should do that, that's us not them.
Last time the government got involved with the BBC the director general was fired for saying "The war was illegal, there are no WMDs" and it seems we've all forgotten that doctor who killed himself over the war... funny isn't it. No one remembers this sort of thing..
I like muppets.
Yes it's a damn shame they had to announce that Ground Force will be axed
Life is like an analogy
actually it's only a legal requirement to pay if you actually use the tv to watch tv, if you have it detuned and just use it for watching dvd's and videos then you can get away with not paying. Although like friends of mine you may well have to allow the licensing authorities to examine the box to prove it's not used for watching TV.
Working for the (other) man
> it's "government", not goverment.
He's American. It's "gummint".
No sig? Sigh...
No entry found for goverment. Did you mean government?
> The point is that the BBC is there to provide an alternative to the commercial broadcasters
That isn't actually true. What you say is probably closer to Channel 4's remit. The BBC existed long before (even American) commerical broadcasters. They exist to provide a broad, accessible range of media outlets. The old "inform, entertain & educate" mantra of Lord Reith, the first D-G. There's nothing in the charter that talks about providing "alternatives" in the sense that you mean, certainly outside of areas like news. This is why it's actually important for the BBC to provide populist (& popular) programmes - if they didn't, less people would watch, which would paint them as increasingly irrelevant, which would lead people to qustion why they pay the licence fee.
Recent channels such as BBC3 & 4 WERE created with a view to providing an alternative to commerical provisions, and they had to seek government approval before they could start. That still doesn't mean that they should stay away from anything that a commercial broadcaster might provide. That's a problem I have with the "less copycat shows" argument - more often than not, it was the BBC who INVENTED these kinds of shows, in an attempt to appeal to a larger section of the public (something which IS enforced by the charter) - they become successful, and commercial broadcasters copy them cos that's the best they can do. A few years down the line, and people start accusing the BBC of copycat behaviour. It makes no sense. Lifestyle shows like Changing Rooms, or "docu-soaps" like Driving School and Airport are two recent strands of programming that I can think of where this happened.
WTF why is this a troll? the gilligan report and the hutton inquiry are the reason why all this shit is happening at the BBC. Is it a troll to point out the obvious?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Britian is a strong country, they are good to their people and they have been for the last 60 years a pretty model citizen in the world community.
Err, what did Britain do in 1945 that made it a bad citizen in the world community? Was it defeating the nazis or did you have something else in mind?
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
This should actually read "but by absolute measures the UK is still below fourth in terms of GDP by country." Sorry about that. If I could edit the post directly I would.
As in speech, yes. As in beer, no.
There are no TV channels that are free as in beer. Programming all costs something to make. Where the money comes from is what makes TV free as in speech.
The BBC can't be swayed by advertisers since they show no adverts.
Top Grear, the BBC's motoring program, once gave a Ford car such a lambasting that Ford UK were ordered by their US management to pull all advertising from the BBC in retaliation. Jeremy Clarkson loves to laugh at that every chance he gets.
I'd rather pay the license fee every year than see the BBC need to support its self via advertising.
-- I like the cut of your thinking, young man. - me.
Okay /pedant :-P ... my point still stands though :-)
Damn, that's where I've been getting my news about what's going on here in the US. Seriously. The BBC has had a much more objective take on the news than what is generally available here in the states. I will miss it if it goes the way of Fox News. And don't even get me started on Conservatives screwing with things like Red Dwarf...
I believe there were some ideas about keeping it to license payers only, but in practice I can't see how this could be enforced without DRM.
A plank of the proposed distribution mechanisms was P2P technologies. Another plank is the Dirac codec, a wavelet-based video compression codec the BBC has open-sourced.
Somehow, you can't imagine purely commercial concerns even contemplating such things.
I have my concerns over this re-organisation. While the stated aims are laudable (I'm sick of programming gems like "Pets Win Prizes by Changing Which Rooms they Swap Wives In"), I think it likely that this is a calculated move to decrease the popularity of the BBC to the point where a more direct assualt could succeed.
People joke about things that would make them leave the country, like the election of a particular idiot, or the passing of a particular law. I think the demise or emasculation of the BBC would be one reason I'd consider exile from Britain. Long Live Auntie Beeb!
I'd be happy to pay the TV licence to keep the BBC the way it is, and I'm an American!
some northerners (UK) say ta for thanks (including myself). i had a bit of trouble explaining that to the hotel worker on holiday.
Rubbish!
The BBC produces very high quality television and radio. Have you ever seen the crap that comes out of the States (no offence to our American cousins)?
Sure, BBC1 might have lost its way a bit in recent years, but the quality of the programs on BBC2 and BBC4 (as well as Radio 2, Radio 4, 6Music and BBC7) is very high indeed.
If you feel the need to bash the BBC, watch Sky1 for a few nights and you'll soon be taking your comments back.
J
I believe the BBC to be an excellent organisation with a history of flagship programmes; in particular it's current affairs and news divisions.
Having said that standing still is not the best way to maintain excellence. The BBC does have undergo regular reviews (be they internal or externally imposed) in order to keep at the forefront of the media. Chances in the way oversight is performed definitely falls into this category.
Personally, I believe a form of licence fee is the only way to avoid wholesale chasing of ratings. I have no objection to paying for it. You could argue that I could continue to pay for high-quality programming from the private sector if the BBC were disbanded completely. However, I think the failure DRM and content encryption schemes over the years have shown us that excluding non-payers is very tricky indeed. I suggest that the free rider issue would rapidly sink any commercial paid-for service. I could very well be wrong, I haven't researched this particularly. It's just my opinion.
Maybe the grandparent poster was refering to the tail end of the British Imperial era, when the UK still controlled India? British control was the issue that led Gandhi to invent "passive resistance," which indirectly inspired the protest movements against other political issues in the 60's.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Another good thing about the BBC is they can (and do) regularly use the word "fuck" without the need for really clever asterisk censorship.
I love this liberal usage of the word "traditional" by conservatives. Here in Canada it's currently being applied to the same-sex marriage debate. Personally I'm all for the traditional definition of marriage, but I would appreciate some help on the following two matters:
1) My father-in-law still hasn't paid me the dowry. He seems to be dragging his feet.
2) My wife is upity and needs some convincing to stay in the kitchen (except when I make other demands)!
</removes-tongue-from-cheek>
Honestly: what are traditional values? Some 1950's definition? An 1850's definition? Some definition that lasted for hundreds of years until most people decided they were unfair or didn't work? This talk of traditional values is all about people maintaining their position of power and control over others.
Erm did you forget about council tax?
No, I didn't forget about council tax- if anything it is the closest tax to the license fee. Differences between the coucil tax and license fee:
1)It is meant to take in to account a household's finacial status - ie it is banded by house prices, the idea being that poorer people will be in less expensive housing and thus be in a lower band. No, it's not the the fairest way of doing tax (I agree with the LibDems on this one) but it's better than the TV license equivalent of a single band.
2) Single person's discount - if there're only a single person above the age of 18 they get a 25% discount - personaly I think it should be closer to 50, but still there is at least some attempt to recoginze that a single person living in thier is probably going to use fewer council services than a family of five. With the TV license, one person with one TV pays the same as a five person household with six TVs.
3)The less well off don't have to pay. Where's the TV License equivalent of the council tax benefit?
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Having been there I can honestly say that the board of governors are the most inept money wasting bunch of people I have ever had to deal with. The BBC employs brains to make intelligent decisions about what to do and how to do it. THEN the Board of governors go ew ew my mate don't own that company and I fancy the pretty blue colour on there box so we will go with that. Seriously folks the board of governors were a historical leftover from the cold war, even though the BBC was originated as the UK's propaganda machine during war times (think radio/World service) but generally it's moved on from there. Just glad the final decision making aspect is also coming into line with today's World. I've worked in Governments in many many area's and public field in many aspects and I can honestly say that the board of governors were the biggest bunch of bureaucratic money and time wasting use of power I have pretty much experienced (Tory government privatisation fad included). I hope you all realise this still wont save Dr Who from its cultural mutilation, its goona be like watching the first batman movie and expecting Kapow/wamoo, Zap to be there :D
They changed in purpose evidence that was sketchy and doubtful to make it appear like it was credible and conclussive. They adjusted the evidence to their aims, and not the other way aorund as it should be.
That there are people out there still defending them is a complete disgrace.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
..blow on fag booze and petrol taxes.
Which why we know have organized crime turning from drugs and prostitution to running cigarettes and alcohol across the channel.
And while I'm doing a tour of my local housing estate for Sky dishes, you take a tour of your nearest women's prison and see how many of the inmates are in there for license fee evasion.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
How much do you pay for sky and still have adverts and biased news?
And what's the fine or jail term for not subscribeing to sky?
Complain all you like about the quality of Sky, but at least nobody forces you to pay for it if all you want to watch is free commercial TV.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
.... the day they throw you in jail without you knowing the charges.
...
Frankly people like you don't deserve the liberty and freedom you are so casualy dismissive about
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
because of they way they are funded they can offer programs that would otherwise probably not get made
This is the sort of thing the BBC's propaganda arm want you to believe about the license fee - that it is some 'unique' form of funding and is the only way that the BBC can make 'quality' programmes.
The BBC is publicly funded and it doesn't matter what taxation mechanism is used collect the funds as the underlying source of funds (ie the British taxpayer) is the same. The thing is, with it's own special tax the BBC doesn't have worry about competing for funding with other worthy public services such as libraries and museums. That what's so 'special' about the licence fee.
It really shouldn't matter to the BBC what mechanism the government uses to provide it's funding except that the license fee makes it easier to justify the amount spent, because it's funding is drawn from a pool specifically collected for it. If it had to get it's funding from the same pool as all other cultural public services then it would be harder for it to justify some of it's spending. Things like the bidding wars for football would be harder to justify when the money could be put into youth sports facilities instead.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
This is an extremely useful question to actually ask a socially conservative person. They have essentially no answer to it. They don't know what they're wanting to return to; they just know that they're scared of where they think we're going. They can list things they like -- respect for authority and so on -- but try getting them to commit to a historical period when they'd have been happier, and they become furtive and suddenly rather relativistic themselves.
For example: people who pine for "the way schools used to be" often have not a single clue about when they think that "used to be" was. Do they want to go back to 1950, before integration had happened? Oh, no, they won't commit to that. Would they like to go back to the era when the SAT was basically only taken by upper-class white males, to keep scores up? They don't really know. What they know is that the liberals are destroying our colleges, etc. etc.
This talk of traditional values is all about people maintaining their position of power and control over others.
Specifically about using the fear of change to keep people from questioning their power's legitimacy.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The BBC itself is very biast. It's very dangerous to have a media monolith in a democracy no mater how that monolith is funded although an effectively tax funded monolith doesn't require much effort to maintain its dominance. The situation is made worse because the BBC is the 'British' Broadcasting Corporation. Because it's 'British' the British public place a naive trust in its journalism, I know this because although perhaps anecdotal, I see it everyday. The BBC can quite happily skew stories in favour of their agenda and play on the lack of informity of the British public> As I said this is very dangerous in a democracy. The lack of informity of the British consumer is a factor but so is the continuation of an almost state funded broadcasting corporation. It would be better if the licence fee were given to truely independent organisations and a limit were placed on the amount of advertising allowed on British television to maintain a level playing field. Alas this will never happen and the BBC will continue to have a foothold on the layman british public opinion, you know those uninformed people who go out to vote in swathes at every election. If you want to read about BBC bias have a look at this site. You'll notice it's a pro-Israli website but this should come as no surprise as people have a habit of protecting their own people from shoddy journalism. I'm not suggesting http://www.honestreporting.com/ isn't bias, just that sites like it on both sides should be given more exposure so the British people are not duped into thinking the Israelis ( if you watch the BBC) or the majority of the palestinians (if you read alot of right wing media) are monsters. I understand Murdoch's ventures have just if not more
I would like to point out one factual error in your reply. The licence fee is not a tax. Tax is something that you have not choice about paying. You can choose not to pay the license fee by not owning a TV. Note that I am not in any way saying that I think that the licence fee is right but it isn't a tax. The problem with having the funding come from adverts is that you end up with a very poor type of "TV democracy". Minority groups, be they SciFi fans (yes not everyone likes SciFi), ethnic minorties or just people that like programs for people with an IQ greater than thier shoe size will be all but ignored. Even though I don't have a TV I would be happy to pay a small separate tax to cover the installation and running of public services such as libraries, tv, radio stations as long as they had a charter that demanded neutrality and we over seen by a NGO.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
So, it's dangerous to have a media organisation that isn't in the skew of a paymaster? Your quoted site is just another news source funded by a political movement, exactly the sort of thing the BBC's present situation prevents
You call it bias, but in fact the BBC's viewpoint is one of anti-bias. Anti your sort of bias, anyway.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Great post, would read again.
Sory, I've been spending too much time on eBay. Anyway, my own opinion is that it's grounded in fear: Present-day "traditionalists" don't understand new concepts like open expressions of sexuality, quality of alternative religions, freedom not to marry in order to have kids, people who don't go to church.
Their "big picture" of the world doesn't have room for people who don't fit their preconceived notion of decency. The BBCs determination to provide programming for and coverage of these "threatening" non-traditional lifestyles is to be opposed as it makes that which was once extraordinary, ordinary.
The right can't bring around a new age where their own morals hold sway if people accept the new ways as normal due to unbiased media coverage.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
UK politics in general are further left than US politics, so that's probably why.
Beware of the Leopard.
You are getting the same service as Greg Dyke so I don't see any reason why you shouldn't pay the same price as him for it.
It's also the case that the majority of the British Public are in favour of the licence fee, except perhaps loudmouthed whingers like yourself.
"So, it's dangerous to have a media organisation that isn't in the skew of a paymaster? Your quoted site is just another news source funded by a political movement, exactly the sort of thing the BBC's present situation prevents"
Proper regulation of the media industry is a real solution to that problem, rather than allowing an organisation which says it's independent to maintain dominance in the market through indirect taxation. Just because the BBC isn't funded by political organisations (although this isn't totally true) doesn't mean it can't be influenced by them. How else do you think the BBC has displayed such blatent bias over the years? Maybe the BBC is a political movement in parts?.... Surely this hasn't escaped you, it certainly has alot of power to sway public opinion.
Anyway I'd hardly call the regular distortion of facts in favour of the cause of certain groups, "independent journalism". Although rather ironically maybe it is "independent journalism" and shows the problem of having an "independent organisation" which maintains its dominance through an indirect tax on the British people.
I do not support the BBCs agenda, I know very well what it is. So why on earth did I pay my TV licence this year? Put simply I shouldn't have to pay it, and if I don't pay it I'm threatened with a prison sentence> FAIR?
It's slightly similar to microsoft maintaining dominance in the PC industry through their windows tax, actually it's worse as in this case if you use linux you go to jail. If you're a noob computer user and own a PC you have little choice but to use windows and are fed vast amounts of FUD in the process. FAIR?
I see something wrong with this business model....
You seem to have missed the concept of public service. The fact that you don't, say, listen to digital radio is offset by the other people who do listen to it, but don't watch very much TV because they travel a lot. Personally, I don't watch any of the makeover shows, but I'm grateful to the people who do, whose license fees pay for Radio 4.
It's also the case that the majority of the British Public are in favour of the licence fee, except perhaps loudmouthed whingers like yourself.
You obviously don't read The Telegraph
The majority of the British Public are against the licence fee, except perhaps loudmouth BBC fanboys like yourself.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
It's as much a tax as Road Tax is. If you don't own a car you don't have to pay Road Tax, if you do own a car you pretty much have to pay Road Tax. It why the 'vehicle license' is commonly reffered to (even by the DVLA) as the 'Tax Disc'
At least with Road Tax, if you own a car but don't use it you can jump through some beuracratic hoops and not have to pay it, with the TV license you have to pay if you own TV, wheter or not you ever turn the thing on.
The government are taking money from the public in order to pay for a public service. That is called taxation. Not everyone has to pay, but then not every one has to pay Road, Income or Council tax either.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
There's no, point talking about the social injustice of the TV licence when nearly all indirect taxation is similarly regressive, and levied at a whopping 17.5+% to boot.
VAT is only regressive when it's levied on items that everybody needs in the same amount. As the amount that most people spend is proportional to thier income, the theory is that the rich will pay more, simply because they spend more.
Personally I think VAT, besides being outrageously high, is also a very ineffecient way of collecting what is effectively an income tax (assuming the theory behind why VAT is a 'fair' tax is correct). Of course I don't think any political party would be for abolishing VAT and raising income tax by an equivalent amount. And it's not like the EU would allow that to happen anyway.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
So first the government forces BBC to apologize - for a news item we later find out was correct:
the sexing up of the w.m.d report.
And if that is not enough, now they are actually going to directly interfere who runs it?
- Fire and replace those that dare challenge the Prime Minister and it's policies?
Looks like George Orwell was only but a few decades wrong in his book title.
From what I heard on the news here in the UK, it sounds very much like they just voted to continue the status quo for another 10 years... (funded by compulsory license, board of governers will be "replaced" by a board of "trustees" which sounds much the same to me - they even keep the same chairman...).
you do know any brainless zitty teenager
can have mod points power
so i wouldnt take it too personal
There's nothing in the charter that talks about providing "alternatives" in the sense that you mean
Which is why the BBC will always be stuck between a rock and a hard place. How do you justify spending money on 'populist' programmes when the commercial broadcasters do this just fine and without any public money and at the same time justify spending public money on shows few people want to watch?
What needs to be decided is what is the role of the BBC in the modern world. You could argue that commercial broadcasters are capable of doing the informing and entertaining and it's really only educational programmes that now fall under a 'public service' remitt. And if it's remitt is to be scaled down, than the corporation itself could probably be scaled down. Potentially you could even eliminate it by giving grants to the main commercial broadcasters to show commercial free educational programming.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Well, the BBC has been about for quite some time - so I'm guessing it must have done something right for all those years it has been in existance! However I'd just like to say one or two things.
:( . Certianly the diet of drivel such as makeover shows, "popstars" style programming and badly-written soaps we could all do without.
:) !
Firstly, the BBC isn't biased towards one "party" or right/left wing. I seem to remember in the past the BBC attacking the goverment in the past - in the 1980s, the 70s and soforth -- be the goverment either labour or conservative. The whole "oh, it's all left wing!" is nonsense. And how many TV companies do you know of that would make programs or have people speaking on programs critisizing their own tv channel? And - correct me if I'm wrong - but how many commerical channels carry a programme carrying children's news? And I mean a serious look at the news only put in less complex language, not the sort of thing you might have seen on 'the simpsons'.
I've actually seen both sides of the picture. I've watched US TV and by and large I found it unwatchable. Politics aside it was unwatchable by the sheer amount of heavy advertising. It is a pleasure and a joy to be able to watch the BBC, and again just putting politics aside it is good not to have to watch all those annoying TV ads (TV Spam?).
Even when (terrestial) commercial TV started in the UK there was some copying not by the BBC but by commercial TV copying some of the BBC's output (in a sense). Indeed one commercial TV company on its opening night in the 50s actually broadcast a tribute to the BBC!
I do agree though that BBC programming has slipped considerably over the years, but then again that seems to be the case for all television - in the UK at least (no thanks to Mr.Murdoch, ITV and even C4/5) there seems to be a "rush to the bottom" with regards to programme quality. It says something when ITV1's most informative programme is "TV's naughtiest moments"
By and large though I'm grateful for the BBC, and the license fee does go much further than you think. Several regional outlets all over the UK, 4 National TV channels, 5 national radio stations, local radio stations, an internet website and a worldwide radio serive (BBC WS). Not bad going
I always invade my home, armed, because I *cant* prove that there are no such weapons under by bed. And boy, do I feel better having done so!
( So far, no weapons. I'll let you know what I find tonight ).
emt 377 emt 4
You're not being very fair to Genghis Khan. Although he was very violent in the way that he dealt with his political opponents and enemies, he was actually a very enlightened leader when it came to the people he already ruled.
This extract is taken from Wikipedia.org:
"He outlawed all forms of torture and humiliation throughout the empire, especially declaring that there was to be no stealing of livestock, no adultery, and taking other people's property without their permission. He valued the importance of art and sciences by exempting teachers, doctors and intellects from taxes and integrated other people from China to the Mongol Empire. Genghis Khan never persecuted anyone on religous grounds and believed in the political and military power resulting from freedom of religion throughout his empire."
I disagree, I think NPR is about as balanced as you can get. When they are interviewing someone from one side they interview them alone and sometimes take calls for 15 to 30 minutes. Then the next day they will interview someone with an opposite view. Recently with the talk about social security they had a democrat senator on and the next day they had a republican senator on. Its not like the tv shows where they stick the two together and they scream at each other. On NPR you get to hear them talk.
The problem is people who don't listen to NPR very often don't hear both sides. They did a story on that problem and now at the end of segments they will talk about who they are going to talk to from the other side or that they called the other side and they didn't want to interview. An example was they interviewed a guy from air america about talk radio so they tried to get Rush Limbaugh to interview a counter view and he didn't want to go on npr.
Air America might be Fox News for the left but they don't pretend to be Fair and Balanced.
Just a reform because TV (the source of money) is disappearing, kinda. Ignoring the political stuff.
.nl , russian etc domains before all propoganda deals are signed, no... make that asian websites.
The world service et al. bend minds so well I fall for it all the time. And I can't tell because it's that good. Only if I could speak another language would I be free.
So logon to Babelfish and read up on Iraq on
A blog I run for the wealth
The British Tory or Conservative party is roughly analogous to Republicans in the US in that it holds "traditional values", many of which conflict with the modern egalitarian ethic of the BBC.
The British Right-wing, led primarily by tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Mail (politically somewhere to the right of Genghis Kahn..), has been leading an anti-BBC campaign for some time now as they don't want to see a state-run broadcaster "supporting" rights that they wish to abolish or diminish, such as equality of gay and straight relationships before the law, or equal attention in schools for minority faiths.
Blah blah blah.
All of that is completely irrelevant - and would be even if it were true - because the Tories have nothing to do with this. They're not in power. Labour - the Liberal party - is currently in government in Britain.
The BBC needs oversight in order to maintain high standards in the pursuit of freedom of speech and expression.
As the organisation stands at present it would be possible for the management to impose substantial biases if he or she wished (not that I believe they ever have actually).
Reform is needed because, well for one thing I'm sick of every single Government I've known in my lifetime suggesting the BBC were against them. The funny thing is the Opposition always the say the same thing as well. (ie. the BBC therefore dp tell the truth but I'm bored with all the whining).
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
"Present-day "traditionalists" don't understand new concepts like open expressions of sexuality, quality of alternative religions, freedom not to marry in order to have kids, people who don't go to church."
Open expressions of sexuality? Oh, you mean like the freedom to molest kids, demean marriage, and sodomize each other on the street corner?
Alternative religions? I dont think Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate qualify as representative of religion. Could you provide a more explicit definition?
blah blah blah....
It's not grounded in fear, it's grounded in the real world. For all the egalitarian principles espoused by lefties, they're remarkably naive when it comes to the actual implementation of thier ideas and the destructive repercussions those ideas have on society as a whole. By all means, they should be free to spread thier ideas far and wide.
The problem conservatives have is when a supposed "News" organization like the BBC deliberately and regulary works to annihilate any and all criticism of thier ideas. Not by free and open debate, but rather by banning opposing voices by fiat. The BBC is not the bastion of free speech the lefties would like to believe. I dont doubt for a moment that the BBC managment wouldn't hesistate to wax eloquent on the wonders of "re-education centers" should the oppourtunity present itself.
I consider myself a Classical Liberal, not a Socialist/Communist sycophant. I'm not interested in imposing "decency" laws. I am, however, interested in stopping the active encouragement of behaviors that are proven to be, and always will be, destructive to civilization.
The new liberals want the freedom to do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want, regardless of who get's hurt in the process.(Any liberal who says different is lying both to themselves and to you.)
The classical liberal understands the freedom can only be maintained by law.
This is why the BBC despises Classical Liberalism. This is why people are getting fed up with them.
Huh? Labour aren't the Liberal Party. The Liberal Democrats are, or rather they are descended in part from the old Liberal Party, which fractured during the First World War and kept on doing so into the 1930s, becoming more and more irrelevent in the process. The last time there were Liberals of any sort in power was as part of Churchill's coalition government during the Second World War.
Labour traces its origins back to the Labour Representation Committee, founded in 1900 (and before that, to the Independent Labour Party founded in 1893). Although they cooperated with the Liberals (being more progressive than the Tories) in the early years, they were not in any way Liberals themselves.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Although it is probably more accurate to call it Leninism (since Lenin started it and Stalin just ran with it), is this really wrong to say? The overwhelming majority of communists are indeed Stalinists, and almost every communist nation so far has been Stalinist. This includes mainland China, with Maoism (a slight variation on Leninism in which focuses on slaughtering peasants more than Lenin's version did) Even those Communists who deny being Stalinists still go out of their way to defend Stalinist dictatorships. The non-Stalinist element of communism has been tiny and ineffective, and rarely heard from.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This is entirely incorrect. "Liberal" is used to describe a political viewpoint which favors more government involvment in affairs in order to help people. This puts it in contrast with "Conservative", that thinks less government is more helpful. It is nothing to do with boards of directors.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
We say "ta" here in Australia, too.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Well, perhaps, but why pick India? The British still had substantial colonies for decades after it let go of India (still have some minor ones, of course), and in some places their actions hardly enhanced their record as model world citizens ...
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
it's not like they're taking it public...
Get your torrents...
i think they argued that because people sung some of it in unison the number of people would multiply the word count, at the end of the day these people were idiots and it really doesn't matter if you swear 8000 or 200 times its just as bad or ok depending what side your on, in fact channel 4 broke the record a few weeks later with the help of kelly osbourne. I really would be happy if all the christian nut-jobs went to the US and swapped places with some sane people.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Speaking as a mostly-Republican and fiscal conservative, with a social agenda of "Stay the fuck out of my life" (as contrasted to the liberal viewpoint of "We know what's best for you"), *I* am baffled by the phrase "family values". I haven't the vaguest idea what it refers to, and I've yet to meet anyone who does.
:/
But buzzwords tend to be like that. And just wait til some politician uses a phrase like "leverage our traditions". Figure THAT one out.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?