Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Section_31]

The guardian is not meant to be an impartial broadcaster financed by the licence fee, not sure i can understand your point.

 

I think he's making the observation that the BBC output is still very middle england, jolly hockey sticks. There veiw of the working class class is Eastenders where Danny Dyer puts on a kareoke night in the vic and Phil Mitchell punching someone in the face over a dodgy motor. If you are unfortunate to veiw the BBC press reports on their rolling news channel you'll see how middle England the guests are. The coverage of Thatchers death showed you all you need to know about the BBC, they're full of shit.

The problem with the BBC is the way it works. They dole out short term contracts, some times as little as five days, usually three months, and people are expected to live like that for years. Anyone with a family will just fuck it off. If your parents are rich or you're young it's not an issue.

 

They also don't recruit in a normal way, most people get in via someone they know,then most of the decent jobs are advertised internally.

 

They make up for it by having special schemes for 'under represented groups', so when you go down to Salford Quays it's 99% overachieving posh twat and 1% Chinese cyborg.

 

Whether intentional or not, this narrow pool of life experiences skewers its output. If you can afford to work on five day contracts while living in Didsbury and have already been promised a producer Job at Radio Solent next year by your boss's wife who you met at the Christmas do, it's fair to say you're not really up to speed on poverty and the pressures of the modern world.

[Gnasher]

Whilst on the subject of the supposed left leaning BBC, anyone seen that 'saints & scroungers' pile of shit they put out on daytime tv? This from the station that gives two hours of prime time New Year's Eve coverage to Gary Barlow who coincidentally happened to have a new cd coming out that month. The wonderful world of entertainment.

[stringvest]

The problem with the BBC is the way it works. They dole out short term contracts, some times as little as five days, usually three months, and people are expected to live like that for years. Anyone with a family will just fuck it off. If your parents are rich or you're young it's not an issue.

 

They also don't recruit in a normal way, most people get in via someone they know,then most of the decent jobs are advertised internally.

 

They make up for it by having special schemes for 'under represented groups', so when you go down to Salford Quays it's 99% overachieving posh twat and 1% Chinese cyborg.

 

Whether intentional or not, this narrow pool of life experiences skewers its output. If you can afford to work on five day contracts while living in Didsbury and have already been promised a producer Job at Radio Solent next year by your boss's wife who you met at the Christmas do, it's fair to say you're not really up to speed on poverty and the pressures of the modern world.

 

What do you mean by posh, Sec?  Do you mean intelligent?  Well-educated?  Moneyed?  I know people who work for the BBC, some on long term contracts, others just doing piecemeal work here and there, getting £200 to appear on a talk programme etc.  Some of the latter are not well paid by the BBC in any shape or form.  Rather, they are journalists or writers or talking heads who make a living by doing lots of different things for lots of different masters.  

 

Often, their income can be nothing for a month, and then a few jobs will come in that will sustain them over a few weeks.  These people may be fantastically bright, articulate, and have good connections, but they are often living a 'hand-to-mouth' existence, or at least a feast-or-famine one.  They'll get asked to attend 'posh' events, or get a free dinner here or there, or theatre tickets, and go to lectures and stuff, but just as often they're running up debts in order to keep going.  

 

As far as I can see, the only life experience they don't have is living on a sink estate (though some of them come from very disadvantaged backgrounds, believe it or not) - they certainly have the same money worries, they have to tout themselves all over the place looking for gigs, no matter how small.  There are some people who area fairly well known to the public who live this sort of life.  

 

This generalisation of people as 'posh' is a bit lazy imo.  

[Gnasher]

What do you mean by posh, Sec?  Do you mean intelligent?  Well-educated?  Moneyed?  I know people who work for the BBC, some on long term contracts, others just doing piecemeal work here and there, getting £200 to appear on a talk programme etc.  Some of the latter are not well paid by the BBC in any shape or form.  Rather, they are journalists or writers or talking heads who make a living by doing lots of different things for lots of different masters.  

 

Often, their income can be nothing for a month, and then a few jobs will come in that will sustain them over a few weeks.  These people may be fantastically bright, articulate, and have good connections, but they are often living a 'hand-to-mouth' existence, or at least a feast-or-famine one.  They'll get asked to attend 'posh' events, or get a free dinner here or there, or theatre tickets, and go to lectures and stuff, but just as often they're running up debts in order to keep going.  

 

As far as I can see, the only life experience they don't have is living on a sink estate (though some of them come from very disadvantaged backgrounds, believe it or not) - they certainly have the same money worries, they have to tout themselves all over the place looking for gigs, no matter how small.  There are some people who area fairly well known to the public who live this sort of life.  

 

This generalisation of people as 'posh' is a bit lazy imo.

 

Claire Balding.

[Gnasher]

The public face of the BBC > Bill Turnball, Sue Barker, Claire Balding, Jeremy Clarkson. Fearne Cotton,. Commie's one and all.

[stringvest]

You mean the journalist, the tennis player, the horse person, the motoring writer and the empty-headed stage school pain in the arse?  I don't think any of these just pitched up at the BBC with no background.  I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.  

[Section_31]

What do you mean by posh, Sec?  Do you mean intelligent?  Well-educated?  Moneyed?  I know people who work for the BBC, some on long term contracts, others just doing piecemeal work here and there, getting £200 to appear on a talk programme etc.  Some of the latter are not well paid by the BBC in any shape or form.  Rather, they are journalists or writers or talking heads who make a living by doing lots of different things for lots of different masters.  

 

Often, their income can be nothing for a month, and then a few jobs will come in that will sustain them over a few weeks.  These people may be fantastically bright, articulate, and have good connections, but they are often living a 'hand-to-mouth' existence, or at least a feast-or-famine one.  They'll get asked to attend 'posh' events, or get a free dinner here or there, or theatre tickets, and go to lectures and stuff, but just as often they're running up debts in order to keep going.  

 

As far as I can see, the only life experience they don't have is living on a sink estate (though some of them come from very disadvantaged backgrounds, believe it or not) - they certainly have the same money worries, they have to tout themselves all over the place looking for gigs, no matter how small.  There are some people who area fairly well known to the public who live this sort of life.  

 

This generalisation of people as 'posh' is a bit lazy imo.  

 

I don't doubt it mate, and to be honest it was a sweeping generalisation, but from the sounds of it the people you describe are nearer the top end of the food chain. The rank and file BBC groupies who make up its slave labour force at places like Salford Quays, pushing buttons, being pushed around, going on coffee runs, all look, sound and smell like interns. The only people who can afford to live like that for any length of time are people who have money in their family. I know people who aren't 'posh' to be fair who've gone down that route with the beeb, they've had to go and work unpaid for six weeks in London and been subsidised by their parents and grandparents, another freelancer I know isn't from money but is married to a GP, so can afford to go without when he has to. As a rule though, these people will come from money. 

 

I don't think someone has to live on a sink estate to appreciate the other side of life either, I just think their experience of things like immigration and poverty would be completely different than the realities of it. People who live the life you describe tend to be mobile, both physically in terms of where they can move to get a job, and mentally, in that they can retrain and take on work ad hoc the way you describe, so their perceptions of say – something like migrant labour – will be wholly different to someone who works in a warehouse and isn't capable of getting any other job.

 

Poverty too, isn't necessarily just about money, it's about poverty of opportunity and resources. A lot of the young journalists I used to work with were universally sound, but had very narrow perceptions of most  things, including general knowledge – surprisingly. They would cone back from a Food Bank story and say things like 'there were people there with newer phones than mine', as that is their perception of wealth.

[stringvest]

Agree with most of what you say Mark, but the people I was describing aren't mobile - they're usually people with kids in state schools and mortgages , often skint, often without work. That's what I'm saying, they understand poverty, but not necessarily with experiences of the environments you are talking about. One thing that I noticed when I first started associated with such people is how disinterested they are in money. Battered cars, shit tellies, secondhand furniture,they don't give a fuck. They're happy to be judged on themselves and not their possessions. They're not interested in playing the game that the rest of us are suckered into. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me. It's an incredibly risky way to live, and as someone who always believed that the only way to find security is through a solid and reliable source of income, I struggled to get my head around it.

 

Poverty of opportunity, I agree with. I think in the world of broadcast and written media, if you have no contacts, you need to get imaginative. Get in the faces of newspaper editors. Find a way of getting your blog into the public eye. Produce a YouTube video and use whatever methods you can to socialise it. Be persistent, and be different. This probably sounds like bollocks, but it has worked for people I know. It is not an equal opportunities industry, and nor should it be.

[dennis tooth]

You mean the journalist, the tennis player, the horse person, the motoring writer and the empty-headed stage school pain in the arse?  I don't think any of these just pitched up at the BBC with no background.  I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.  

 

are you this stupid?

 

[stringvest]

No Dennis, are you? If you really think that everyone in the media is some sort of right wing luvvie, you're naive.

[dennis tooth]

No Dennis, are you? If you really think that everyone in the media is some sort of right wing luvvie, you're naive.

Talk about twisting my words but theres no one on the left on bbc its a right wing elite agenda organisation akin to pravda in the soviet union, they both pander to elites and their are muthpeices of their respective secret services and get paid for by the general public.

Best way to confirm that is go on bbc news now and take any story and if the soviet union role was reversed could you see that in pravda. Say we reverse the idea then and put it as 'is there anything on the bbc that pravda would not have run' if all things were equal in terms of east/west eat wets perspective, its hard to find any real proof of our 'freedom', protests dont get covered, they never happend, it was only 50, 000 people and the queen is wearing a new hat, which is more newsworthy. 

 

The very fact that Kelvin there appears on BBC mainstream programmes while no one of a left wing bias anywhere approaching that level or right wing extremism but presented as cuddly form shows just where the margins are on the skewed BBC balance, I didnt need to express any point of view on everyone being right wing darlings but lets look at the context of their margin in terms of the landscape of acceptable debate that will tell you most views arent represented at all, in fact a sizeable majority are deliberately excluded and misinformed as they are outside of the margin. Radio 4 is elitest right wing as is radio 5 there isnt a left wing comparitive, radio 5 competes with talksport and radio 4 is just straight elitist, much as I listen intently.

[stringvest]

Radio 4 isn't elitist or right wing Dennis.  It has plenty of programmes by and about 'ordinary' people, and plenty of programmes with a social focus.  If you mean it doesn't dumb everything down for easy consumption by people to lazy to think, then you're right.  

 

The BBC has always been used by various governments for their own agenda, and no-one is suggesting for a minute that the BBC is even handed in it's reportage.  You only have to look at the disgraceful way they report Israel to see that.  That's not the same as saying that the BBC is a right-wing organisation.  Most rabid Tories hate it.  They would prefer that it turned into another ITV, or another Sky.  there are people with a social conscience at the BBC, and they will get programmes made on occasion as well.  This wouldn't happen on ITV or Sky.  

[lifetime fan]

The beeb is far from perfect, you only have to look at the number of typos on it's website to see how far it's standards have fallen.

 

But I'd have an imperfect beeb over ITV, sky or Fox for fucks sake.

[xerxes]

 

A good article on the non-coverage of the austerity march.

 

“…the sad truth is “Lefties march in moderate numbers, again, and then go home, again”, isn’t much of a story”

 

http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/no-more-austerity-are-protests-news/

[Dr Nowt]

Radio 4 is far less damaging than something like ITV's general output.

 

It aspires to provide some education and culture to it's audience, rather than patronise, distract, misinform and stultify them.

 

As soon as any media organisation seeks to do that using articulate and knowledgeable people it will be called elitist by some, but what's the alternative?  It's an imperfect world, but somethings are far less imperfect than others.

[lifetime fan]

A good article on the non-coverage of the austerity march.

 

“…the sad truth is “Lefties march in moderate numbers, again, and then go home, again”, isn’t much of a story”

 

http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/no-more-austerity-are-protests-news/

You completely miss the point of who controls the media coverage.

 

Look at the coverage the austerity march got compared to the keep Britain hunting march.

 

I wonder why that is?

[dennis tooth]

Give me fox's blatantism any day of the week, since you and many others are taken in by tokenism.

 

And no Xerxes, I dont think you would class that as 'much of a story' would you? Cos your you arent you? Thats you problem right there.

[dennis tooth]

Radio 4 is far less damaging than something like ITV's general output.

 

It aspires to provide some education and culture to it's audience, rather than patronise, distract, misinform and stultify them.

 

As soon as any media organisation seeks to do that using articulate and knowledgeable people it will be called elitist by some, but what's the alternative?  It's an imperfect world, but somethings are far less imperfect than others.

bollocks, it does far more damage, as you well demonstrate.

[dennis tooth]

Oh how my flock are fooled by this woolen devil in our midst

[lifetime fan]

Give me fox's blatantism any day of the week, since you and many others are taken in by tokenism.

 

And no Xerxes, I dont think you would class that as 'much of a story' would you? Cos your you arent you? Thats you problem right there.

Then I fear you're as mental as the impression you like to give Dennis.

[dennis tooth]

Plus fox has less pedophiles per show. FACT

[Dr Nowt]

bollocks, it does far more damage, as you well demonstrate.

 

If you think that, you're an embarassing imbecile.

[dennis tooth]

The NHS privatisation cover up is demonstrating BBC right wing bias.I dont see how anyone can argue its not.

[setreal]

Plus fox has less pedophiles per show. FACT

 

I don't know, they do have a lot of priests on.

[dennis tooth]

If you think that, you're an embarassing imbecile.

whys that? YOu are out of your depth here if radio 4 is your best argument.