The BBC

[Jairzinho]

First they came for Gardener's World... 

[Rico1304]

They’ve apologised and corrected the story about the coach of Jewish kids who were racially abused.  

[Pureblood]

5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

They’ve apologised and corrected the story about the coach of Jewish kids who were racially abused.  

You could learn a lesson there. 

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, TK-421 said:

You could learn a lesson there. 

You know, a week ago you asked me to put you on ignore as I was bullying you.  Now you can’t seem to leave me alone.  

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

You know, a week ago you asked me to put you on ignore as I was bullying you.  Now you can’t seem to leave me alone.  

And?

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, TK-421 said:

And?

Hey if you don’t think it’s weird and a bit needy who am I to argue?  

[Pureblood]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

Hey if you don’t think it’s weird and a bit needy who am I to argue?  

I'm doing it for Piston.  Free the Bielefeld 1. 

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, TK-421 said:

I'm doing it for Piston.  Free the Bielefeld 1. 

Ha. You actually made me laugh then.  

[lifetime fan]

Panorama would be gone straight away. 

[dockers_strike]

17 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

Panorama would be gone straight away. 

Why? Doesnt stop Channel 4 having the excellent Despatches.

 

https://www.channel4.com/collection/dispatches

[lifetime fan]

3 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Why? Doesnt stop Channel 4 having the excellent Despatches.

 

https://www.channel4.com/collection/dispatches

They're very different programmes with very different editorial practices. 
 

Dispatches could never cover some of the undercover work Panorama do. They don’t have the operation, staff, expertise, budget or contacts and knowledge. 
 

Panorama has been fighting to remain independent from BBC News for well over a decade. It would be gone as we know it now immediately. 

[dockers_strike]

2 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

They're very different programmes with very different editorial practices. 
 

Dispatches could never cover some of the undercover work Panorama do. They don’t have the operation, staff, expertise, budget or contacts and knowledge. 
 

Panorama has been fighting to remain independent from BBC News for well over a decade. It would be gone as we know it now immediately. 

You're not serious? Despatches does more undercover stories than Panorama.

[Pureblood]

Despatches did an episode showing that the shutters at the McCann's apartment weren't forced open.  Good programme. 

[lifetime fan]

6 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

You're not serious? Despatches does more undercover stories than Panorama.

Completely. 
 

I didn’t say Despatches couldn’t do more undercover work did I? 
 

I said they could never cover some of the topics Panorama do as they don’t have the skill or expertise. 

[dockers_strike]

15 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

Completely. 
 

I didn’t say Despatches couldn’t do more undercover work did I? 
 

I said they could never cover some of the topics Panorama do as they don’t have the skill or expertise. 

The point I was making is that if the BBC was funded by advertising or subscription and not the licence fee, Panorama wouldnt be taken off air or not be able to continue investigative journalism since ITV, Sky and Channel 4 etc have equivalent programmes.

 

I dont really see how the Panorama team can really argue for effective independence from BBC New \ BBC when it is so integrated. If it wants full editorial indepence then it needs to be separately funded without BBC money, else it is beholden to BBC News \ BBC for its very lifeblood. It has to be one or the other.

[Bruce Spanner]

6 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

You're not serious? Despatches does more undercover stories than Panorama.

 

And it would be gone as well as C4 is partially funded by the license fee, which the Tories are doing their damndest to remove as most don't realise that C4 has certain public information commitments in line with it's funding.

 

Once that funding and commitment goes you're left with a fully commercial enterprise and all that brings.

[dockers_strike]

5 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

And it would be gone as well as C4 is partially funded by the license fee, which the Tories are doing their damndest to remove as most don't realise that C4 has certain public information commitments in line with it's funding.

 

Once that funding and commitment goes you're left with a fully commercial enterprise and all that brings.

No, it really wouldnt because C4 gets far more funding outside the licence and still makes such programming. I honestly dont get why people do not grasp this.

 

As it is with the licence fee, the BBC is beholden to whatever colour of Government is in power for it's annual rise so, it can hardly be said to be fully independent.

 

People should have the choice of paying the licence fee to support the BBC if they wish or not. I dont hold with people saying they wont pay the fee while still watching BBC channels.

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

18 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

No, it really wouldnt because C4 gets far more funding outside the licence and still makes such programming. I honestly dont get why people do not grasp this.

 

As it is with the licence fee, the BBC is beholden to whatever colour of Government is in power for it's annual rise so, it can hardly be said to be fully independent.

 

People should have the choice of paying the licence fee to support the BBC if they wish or not. I dont hold with people saying they dont want to pay the fee while still watching BBC channels.

 

 

 

Before spouting off, maybe be in full ownership of the facts...

 

https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/what-we-do/channel-4s-remit

 

https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/what-we-do/our-remit

 

It has a legal duty to provide certain types of content and that legal framework is why you have the programming you have.

 

Private enterprise ain't going to green light shows with viewing figures at a maximum of 750/900k on a free to air terrestrial channel and certainly not ones of a critical or contentious nature, look at all of the others and you'll find all the examples. It'll be chasing the revenue streams and exposés of 'niche' concerns ain't the way that lies.

 

It'll be Hollyoaks Late, GBBO extra, re runs of shit films and wall to wall Sarah Millican vehicles and anything else that brings sponship as the content on private channels is entirely seen through these lenses.

 

I honestly dont get why people do not grasp this...

 

 

[dockers_strike]

8 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Before spouting off, maybe be in full ownership of the facts...

 

https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/what-we-do/channel-4s-remit

 

https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/what-we-do/our-remit

 

It has a legal duty to provide certain types of content and that legal framework is why you have the programming you have.

 

Private enterprise ain't going to green light shows with viewing figures at a maximum of 750/900k on a free to air terestrial channel and certainly not ones of a critical or contentious nature, look at all of the others and you'll find all the examples. It'll be chasing the revenue streams and exposés of 'niche' concerns ain't the way that lies.

 

It'll be Hollyoaks Late, GBBO extra, re runs of shit films and wall to wall Sarah Millican vehicles and anything else that brings sponship as the content on private channels is entirely seen through these lenses.

 

I honestly dont get why people do not grasp this...

 

 

Before spouting off? Ch4 has a charter what to produce, pretty much like ITV and Ch5.

 

You still dont address the fact that the BBC is dependent on whatever Government is in power for its increase in funding so isnt this all independent organisation.

 

Polls show the age group more likely NOT to watch BBC's plethora of game shows, repeats of old programmes which were admitted good in their day but dated now etc is the 18 to 35 because they stream most content.

 

You're also hooked into this every must pay the fee, no exceptions because the BBC will supposedly disappear up its own arse as soon as the fee is scrapped. It wont.

[Bruce Spanner]

35 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Before spouting off? Ch4 has a charter what to produce, pretty much like ITV and Ch5.

 

You still dont address the fact that the BBC is dependent on whatever Government is in power for its increase in funding so isnt this all independent organisation.

 

Polls show the age group more likely NOT to watch BBC's plethora of game shows, repeats of old programmes which were admitted good in their day but dated now etc is the 18 to 35 because they stream most content.

 

You're also hooked into this every must pay the fee, no exceptions because the BBC will supposedly disappear up its own arse as soon as the fee is scrapped. It wont.

 

They can and do make and program whatever they want, and chase the commercial rewards, or failings, of those as long as they follow the guidlines set by Ofcom around impartiality, exploitation and prejudice.

 

C4 can not do that as it by law has to make certain types of programing and anything it makes profit wise it has to reinvest into programs of an eductional and informative nature free from the confines of commercial arm twisting as it has it's charter and protected revenue streams to allow this.

 

I don't care about demographics, the BBC is many things to many people, some more than others and should be a buffer zone between fact and fiction and political meddling, though obvioulsy everyone will have their two'penneth over that. Will those people migrate towards the BBC as they get older, who knows? Are the BBC going to win some of those eyes back with editorial choice and commissions, perhaps.

 

The argument has little merit as it's based on a snap shot, not a long term picture and is framed in purely financial confines and not about the wider impacts, duties and responsibilities the BBC has.

 

The BBC, as it should be, free from interference and bias, with a remit to entertain, educate and inform would disapear in any world it has to chase revenue, how that is an even an argument I have no idea.

 

Where in the world do we not see commercial gain placed higher than duty and objectivity in any walk of life anymore, especially a packed and ultra competitive mediascape?

 

The funding model is an entirely different thing and an argument that needs to be had as it is archaic.

 

 

[Rico1304]

That research said they didn’t watch BBC content live, not that they didn’t watch it.  

[dockers_strike]

34 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

They can and do make and program whatever they want, and chase the commercial rewards, or failings, of those as long as they follow the guidlines set by Ofcom around impartiality, exploitation and prejudice.

 

C4 can not do that as it by law has to make certain types of programing and anything it makes profit wise it has to reinvest into programs of an eductional and informative nature free from the confines of commercial arm twisting as it has it's charter and protected revenue streams to allow this.

 

I don't care about demographics, the BBC is many things to many people, some more than others and should be a buffer zone between fact and fiction and political meddling, though obvioulsy everyone will have their two'penneth over that. Will those people migrate towards the BBC as they get older, who knows? Are the BBC going to win some of those eyes back with editorial choice and commissions, perhaps.

 

The argument has little merit as it's based on a snap shot, not a long term picture and is framed in purely financial confines and not about the wider impacts, duties and responsibilities the BBC has.

 

The BBC, as it should be, free from interference and bias, with a remit to entertain, educate and inform would disapear in any world it has to chase revenue, how that is an even an argument I have no idea.

 

Where in the world do we not see commercial gain placed higher than duty and objectivity in any walk of life anymore, especially a packed and ultra competitive mediascape?

 

The funding model is an entirely different thing and an argument that needs to be had as it is archaic.

 

 

The argument is whether paying a licence fee should be compulsory. People should have a choice of paying to fund the BBC or, not paying and not watching.

 

And if even 18 to 35 years olds arent watching any programming live, they dont need a licence.

 

So long as the BBC is dependent on any Government for an increase in its licence fee and renewal of its charter, it can never be said to be truely independent which, means it fails your test of being 'free from interference and bias.'

[Gnasher]

BBC journalists 'mistake' puts good man in trouble. Possible chance he could get sacked for this.

 

Journalist in question describes herself as "ambitious, bubbly, giggly" in her profile.. whats she doing, trying to bag a redcoat job at Butlins? She'd have been more accurate putting down "idiot" or "Tory sympathiser".

 

Oh well that the end of that story..and probably others. Isn't Doxing (putting someone's private info on Internet without their consent) a criminal offence?

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10455869/BBC-exposes-Foreign-Office-whistleblower-Afghan-dogs-storm.html

 

[Rico1304]

Saw this and thought of some of you.  
 

 

[Section_31]

Tell you something, the BBC's foreign policy experts are peerless. When they get their correspondents in from places like Russia and Ukraine they've lived there for years and been totally immersed in their societies. No other news organisation has that level of embedded expertise from what I've seen, save maybe for Robert Moore at ITN.