PC Licence instead of TV Licence?
- Thread starter DeathWish
- Start date
No Urban I really dont... I sincerly believe you have no idea what your going on about. The BBC see was started by an independant group of wireless radio manufacturers and has sought off Government control ever since, despite winning public funding.
I really don't understand the basis of what I think is your implication - that the govt put them there 'in the first place' or 'recently'.
/Leo
I really don't understand the basis of what I think is your implication - that the govt put them there 'in the first place' or 'recently'.
/Leo
- Feb 17, 2005
- 83
- 0
- 53
Your implying here that the goverment has no controll over the BBC at all, This isnt totally true now leo is it?LeoCrasher said:
Look at the Recent(past 4/6 years) scandals that have happened with ex directors of te BBC or the Big fuss over How they cover polotics/Elections.
The BBC is not run by the goverment or funded by goverment Taxes in that you are correct.
But the pure way that the BBC is publicly funded and has too Justify its funding too the goverment with a certain types of programmes and development for the benifit of the country. Does effect what they do and that they have too be completely impartial when reporting tings.
Do you disagree leo?
/Lithium
It isn't statutory control Lithium - and of course they have to justify funding... they'd just be slackys if they didn't have a remit and standards to keep to. They're not particularly apathetic of any side... never have been. Go into 1996/7 newspapers and you'll see reports saying the BBC are too left wing... now its that they're too right wing. When the Conservatives have been back in awhile the pendulum will swing again.
--
As for scandals... why do you think they call them scandals - not exactly supposed to happen?
--
Almost every Government that has, and has failed to come into power critises the media both public and private for 'biased' coverage of their respective elections. Apparently TheSun won the 1997 election... b/s.
/Leo
--
As for scandals... why do you think they call them scandals - not exactly supposed to happen?
--
Almost every Government that has, and has failed to come into power critises the media both public and private for 'biased' coverage of their respective elections. Apparently TheSun won the 1997 election... b/s.
/Leo
- Feb 17, 2005
- 83
- 0
- 53
Of course its not ''satutaroy controll'' it is all most like some kind of undercover sensorship.LeoCrasher said:
and i wasnt stating that the justification of the funding was a bad thing its just you made it sound as if the BBC are a law untoo them selfs which is entirly untrue. Generall directors that tend too come and go are almost always favourable too the goverment.
The hutton Report was a ''scandal'' that was started entirly media controlled, as in the fact it only seemed too concer the Beeb and new labour, up untill a favourable decision for the goverment and the beeb since has had its wings clipped. Look at how there news coverage has detiroated snce, i am not taking into account the alleged dumbing down of the news at this point too be fair.
The state of what the media is prepared too say since 2004 has almost regressed too the late 80's and you end up looking at Ch4 being the only media source prepared too get down and dirty.
Least thats my opinion
/Lithium
I'm not sure undercover censorship is the best way of putting it, but I can hardly blame them for edging on the side of caution - since a huge fuss lands all over the papers if one of their presenters even shows a hint of bias. The papers have a particular interest in slandering the BBC of course... commerical advantage - its 'free', they're not.
And if these directors are generally always favourable to the Government... then they are always favourable to whichever Govt in power - which could be either of the two parties. (Not that I agree with your point here).
I'm not entirely upto scratch with my knowledge of the Hutton report... I've generally shunted everything about the war (I have a short attention span, and Muslim Asia + America's latest attempts at boosting their economy via their war machine bores me). But from what I remember the BBC holds by their claim that they interpreted Dr Kelly's intel correctly. Im not sure how that relates to Govt intervention in the BBC tho?
I agree with your point about dumbing down though... not that I can blame them when ever increasing numbers of the population have problems understanding basics points of information.
Yep, Ch4 does damn good news coverage - but the comparison of news sources is beyond the scope of this topic.
/Leo
And if these directors are generally always favourable to the Government... then they are always favourable to whichever Govt in power - which could be either of the two parties. (Not that I agree with your point here).
I'm not entirely upto scratch with my knowledge of the Hutton report... I've generally shunted everything about the war (I have a short attention span, and Muslim Asia + America's latest attempts at boosting their economy via their war machine bores me). But from what I remember the BBC holds by their claim that they interpreted Dr Kelly's intel correctly. Im not sure how that relates to Govt intervention in the BBC tho?
I agree with your point about dumbing down though... not that I can blame them when ever increasing numbers of the population have problems understanding basics points of information.
Yep, Ch4 does damn good news coverage - but the comparison of news sources is beyond the scope of this topic.
/Leo
- Feb 17, 2005
- 83
- 0
- 53
Im shocked we share similar fews on this subject. What has amazed me too a point of discust doing slightly off topic, is the fact that the Jools Holland is slowly selling himself out. What used too be an independant show for exciting music has become a late night Top of the Pops, yet again Ch4 lead the way with PopWorld obscure as it is, its hounest and independant despite being financed by a music channel group
Last edited:
urbanfox said:
Then by all means, dignify your responses by clarifying what you actually mean and at least try to back it up? Or are you going to continue to shun the matter with banter about 'semantics' and other random babel?
/Leo
LeoCrasher said:
The BBC not independent of government control. Does that mean that Tony Blair hands out scheduled programming? No, but it does mean people are friends of friends. People rarely get to the top of things on their own accord without help. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that several of the BBC's top excutives have close ties to government officials.
I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
urbanfox said:
But you see, most of England is not bothered about paying to watch good quality broadcasting. This includes shows without ads every 10 minutes that are 10 minutes long, and programs which actually have structure.
Without the BBC our television would be almost as bad as America's.
If you don't want to watch and pay for TV, don't buy one. Simple concept, my grandma does it. Stop disrespecting our government. Or if you insist on doing so, don't ban us/lock our threads when we disrespect yours.
BBC roxors, we get to watch shows without adverts so we dont need to get up and go to the kitchen to get food and end up missing the program.
Blaminator said:
lol...
The BBC is essentialy independant of the government, but you obviously have to consider the restraints and regulations the government has put into place. You'll get this in any country, especially in US. America; I got sick of how biased some of the news channels were towards certain parties. BBC thankfully strikes somewhere on midground and is in most part unbiased even though it is funded by public tax. The public CAN and should complain about anything the BBC may broadcast i.e. any biased/censored information, and demand for it to be adjusted.
The scenario with the reporter who said she was "moved to tears" at Palestinian President Arafat's death was immediately rebuked because she did not show the indifference demanded by BBC protocal. There's no point discussing any tinfoil-hat theories.
All news channels at some point or another either chose to ignore or censor their content - you just have to look at Al-Jazeera. Think about it, doesn't it broadcast news articles you'll NEVER see on BBC/CNN?
Discuss,
Turin
RightGuard said:
You're absolutely right, damn us!
Oh wait... I forgot, we're leading the entertainment industry...
How many UK show discussions are in the TV subforum? Take a wild guess at what I'm going to ask next...
I never 'disrespected' your country. If you think posting a view of reality (especially when that reality applies to a lot of other countries, including mine...) on a very specific subject somehow criticizes an entire country then I would best advise you never get into a politcal dicussion.
Turin said:
That's heavily debatable.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 83
- 0
- 53
Thats because your a nation 10x the size of the uk!urbanfox said:
The media as in the broadcasting companies are much more effective in the uk than from what i have seen and know of american telivison
especially the teresstrial structure. there may not be the same kind of money flooded in too british telivison production.
there are some great Uk shows around too which you should look for
Shameless
Black Books
Never mind the Buzz****s
The Peep Show
Extras
The Smoking Room
Monkey Dust
- Feb 17, 2005
- 83
- 0
- 53
was talking about modern TV showsBlaminator said:Fawly Towers
Black Adder
so many good shows :F
The Uk practically owned the airwves with its sitcoms prior too the 90's
BottledGoods said:
And how do you think we got that way?
Well, what have you seen and what do you know? Effective how? Our shows are broadcasted all over the world, they are hugely popular and they make loads of profit, how are they innefective?
I've never even heard of any of those shows.
BottledGoods said:
hey hey hey, don't slam the US unless you've actually been there + watched TV... of what I can remember, it is a lot more spontaneous than british TV, but I've grown a custom to UK TV now, and most US sitcoms/adverts etc sound like a carnival.
US = more cosmetic than UK
US = larger homeland
UK = large (r??) overseas media (news/documentry)
Turin
ps -
I suppose it must be, and most news channels are but I'm just pulling on personal opinion (mostly) having experienced/still watch both news channels.
Last edited: