What put a frown on your face today?

Talk about anything and everything.

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Severelius » 20 August 2021, 21:36

The TV license debate is weird because usually these days whenever I hear any concerted unified calls for it to be abolished it's almost exclusively from the kind of degenerates who watch GB News and think the BBC is being too "woke" and thus the TV license requirement that funds it should be abolished lest they be allowed to continue acknowledging women and minorities exist and are equal human beings to old red-faced white guys.

Like abolishing the TV license is a good thing but it so often only gets brought up by the worst pricks for the worst reasons.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 4889
+1s received: 1268
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 20 August 2021, 21:45

Well, I kind of agree that the BBC is too woke. Haven't watched much of GB news though. I think the hysteria about that channel was just that, hysteria. It hasn't exactly changed the landscape in either direction :lol:

I do want to see the TV license abolished, but more from a belief that it's an outdated system that really should he replaced with a modern alternative. Like a subscription.

Honestly, who wants to watch things on somebody else's schedule these days anyway?

I also really despise the way tvlicensing conducts itself and that people can get a criminal record for not having one. That's pretty disgusting to my mind.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Severelius » 20 August 2021, 21:52

I just find it bullshit as a concept.

"Hey I spent money on this TV, and I pay for these subscription services to watch the stuff that I like... oh but I have to pay the government a chunk of cash on top of what I payed for all that just so they won't financially ruin me for watching the stuff I've already paid to be able to access."

I'd even accept it if it was just for watching actual BBC programs because that's a big part of how the BBC is funded. Requiring you to pay the BBC to be allowed to watch content that is not in any way produced by or connected to the BBC, however, is where it crosses over into objectively horseshit nonsense.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 4889
+1s received: 1268
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 20 August 2021, 22:03

Severelius wrote:I'd even accept it if it was just for watching actual BBC programs because that's a big part of how the BBC is funded. Requiring you to pay the BBC to be allowed to watch content that is not in any way produced by or connected to the BBC, however, is where it crosses over into objectively horseshit nonsense.

I know, right? I don't watch the BBC as it doesn't put out anything that really interests me. There might be some things on ITV, or C4 that I occasionally hear about, that I think might be worth looking into, but not enough that I want to shell out the fee, which won't even go to producers of the shows I'm wanting to watch, but to people on the Beeb. :crazy:
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Severelius » 20 August 2021, 22:13

PopTart wrote:
Severelius wrote:I'd even accept it if it was just for watching actual BBC programs because that's a big part of how the BBC is funded. Requiring you to pay the BBC to be allowed to watch content that is not in any way produced by or connected to the BBC, however, is where it crosses over into objectively horseshit nonsense.

I know, right? I don't watch the BBC as it doesn't put out anything that really interests me. There might be some things on ITV, or C4 that I occasionally hear about, that I think might be worth looking into, but not enough that I want to shell out the fee, which won't even go to producers of the shows I'm wanting to watch, but to people on the Beeb. :crazy:

My only real time watching stuff on the BBC itself is proceedings in Parliament, election results night coverage, and Doctor Who.

But I do stream stuff live on occasion, even more so now given my weird interest in sports lately and desire to watch more of it.

So I'm basically going to have to pay Sky to watch Sky Sports... while also paying the BBC to watch Sky Sports. Oh and paying the BBC so I can use my own Amazon Prime Video service that I pay Amazon for to be able to watch tennis.

Make it make sense.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 4889
+1s received: 1268
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 20 August 2021, 22:30

Nah. Especially that last bit. I mean, your paying Amazon ffs.

There is no making sense of that.

Which is why, I don't feel I have a horse in the license race...I'm full on steamer, but I would be kinda happy to see it abolished. It's an embuggerance.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 20 August 2021, 22:34

On an unrelated note.

Britney spears.

What are peoples thoughts about her conservatorship thing. I was, in principle, against the conservatorship, which seemed very unsavoury.

And yet, I have to admit, I saw some of her activities lately and there is a definate... manic bent to some of her social media activity and her over all demeanour.

Then there has been an allegation of battery from a member of support staff and I find myself wondering if, perhaps, the conservatorship wasn't entirely unfounded.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Severelius » 20 August 2021, 22:40

PopTart wrote:Nah. Especially that last bit. I mean, your paying Amazon ffs.

There is no making sense of that.

Which is why, I don't feel I have a horse in the license race...I'm full on steamer, but I would be kinda happy to see it abolished. It's an embuggerance.

If I was smart I'd stick to just being into one sport that's easily watchable on replays, like tennis. But nobody's ever accused me of being smart so I have to constantly make things more difficult for myself.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 4889
+1s received: 1268
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 20 August 2021, 22:40

I think, on balance, I’m pro-license as the continuing means of funding the BBC.

I believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure the public has access to the news and current affairs. It is the license fee that ensures that. If you can afford a TV, you pay the tax to run the public service broadcasted on it. If you can’t afford a TV, the 10 national, 4-5 regional and dozens of local radio stations also funded by the license fee - despite you not being able to afford to pay towards them - are available to you because you can get a radio for less than £5.

The fourth estate is a public trust, and time and time again has been shown as open to corruption and bias when left to commercial organisations to run it for profit. It is a service that should be guaranteed by government, we’re lucky enough in this country that it’s outright provided by the government through a structure which ensures that it’s is available to everyone, regardless of income.

On top of news, the BBC offers some of the best current affairs programming anywhere, ensures that every household with a TV has access to sporting coverage, comedy programming, genuinely world class drama at the moment. That things of national interest are available to everyone, regardless of income or internet access, age and tech savvy. All without the editorial restriction that comes of needing to attract advertising. That you can listen to music without paying apple or Spotify £10 or stopping every three songs to listen to adverts for a local Indian restaurant. That there is a means by which you can be exposed to something you didn’t specifically search for without being all-but-misold financial services or fast food. A network by which you can choose not to have your internet history monetised, or be force fed adverts and influenced towards things you don’t want or need, that you can just tune in, enjoy content without feeling like a cog in a machine designed to make you buy shit and then consume more content and then buy more shit. You don’t have to worry about subscribing to every subscription service under the sun if you don’t want to. You pay the license fee, you’re guaranteed something. Guaranteed. By government. Because of the tax you pay for it.

Sure. If you wanna call it something else, change the name from TV license to broadcast tax and collect it another way, go for it, but I think everyone should pay towards it and I don’t think the cost is unreasonable.

The BBC is known, respected and accessible throughout the world for free. That’s a thing to be proud of. Sure, commercial advertising has its place, subscription services you can opt in and out of have their place, but there is great value in a broadcaster that doesn’t need to worry about where the money comes from and can focus on just producing top quality content that as many people as possible have access to.

The BBC guarantees that everyone has access to something. That guarantee only exists as long as it’s income is guaranteed and that can only be through legal requirement, be it license or tax, if you can pay it then you should.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8321
+1s received: 3067
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 20 August 2021, 22:48

Whil alot of that might be true, it's true only in the uK. Outside of the UK, the BBC functions much like any other content provider and is subject to those same market influences. BBC America, isnt publicly funded and its not funded from the UK license fee.

There are questions as to how much influence travels back into the UK based BBC, which people trust is independant of such corruption.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Severelius » 20 August 2021, 22:57

At the end of the day as it stands right now if the license goes away, the BBC goes away. And if the BBC goes away, Doctor Who goes away. And I will not be in any way responsible for that. So I'm cool with paying for it, even if the idea of it does chafe at me a bit.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 4889
+1s received: 1268
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 20 August 2021, 23:00

PopTart wrote:Whil alot of that might be true, it's true only in the uK. Outside of the UK, the BBC functions much like any other content provider and is subject to those same market influences. BBC America, isnt publicly funded and its not funded from the UK license fee.

There are questions as to how much influence travels back into the UK based BBC, which people trust is independant of such corruption.

BBC America is a jointly owned venture that serves as a means of monetising the world class content produced by the BBC, and does not do so particularly effectively.

To suggest that a division of the company which essentially sells BBC series’ to AMC viewers for a profit in the tens of millions a year, of which the BBC takes about half - which is in turn subject to tax in America before getting to the U.K. - versus a BBC annual budget of about £4 billion is a source of any significant editorial influence over the organisation at large seems a bit ludicrous. I’m not even sure it’s the biggest revenue stream in the channels division of BBC Worldwide.

BBC America pays for Gary Lineker.
Last edited by Marmaduke on 20 August 2021, 23:08, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8321
+1s received: 3067
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 20 August 2021, 23:03

I think we will have to disagree on the TV license.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 20 August 2021, 23:18

Hey, offer an alternative that ensures that everyone has access to something and somehow isn’t also an embuggerance that costs you just as much if not more, I’ll back you in binning the system as it is.

If not, I’m chalking this one up in the win column and adding “Defender of the Faith” to my formal style because the BBC is more a fundamental tenet of our national ideology than any religion, and I have defended the bejesus out of it.

Yours,

His Grace, Marm. A. Duke, esq. Duke of the Forecastle and Anchor Room. Defender of the Faith. :uk:
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8321
+1s received: 3067
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 21 August 2021, 06:45

Marmaduke wrote:Hey, offer an alternative that ensures that everyone has access to something and somehow isn’t also an embuggerance that costs you just as much if not more, I’ll back you in binning the system as it is.

If not, I’m chalking this one up in the win column and adding “Defender of the Faith” to my formal style because the BBC is more a fundamental tenet of our national ideology than any religion, and I have defended the bejesus out of it.

Yours,

His Grace, Marm. A. Duke, esq. Duke of the Forecastle and Anchor Room. Defender of the Faith. :uk:

:rofl: sorry your Grace, but I wanted to go to bed and wasn't particularly invested in the topic that I was going to come back round to it this morning :P Agreeing to disagree seemed the most expedient path to a good night's sleep.

But since you asked. I don't agree with alot of your assertions, well reasoned as they are.

I'll leave to one side, whose responsibility it is, to ensure people are kept informed (I tend to lean into personal responsibility on that front and being reliant in the BBC to achieve that goal, will leave just about anyone in the dark on a myriad of issues.)

There are plenty of radio stations that don't rely on BBC funding to provide services. Many of which are perfectly enjoyable and can achieve similar ends and infact, do just that at no expense to the general public.

I agree regarding the fourth Estate being corruptible, but are you implying that the BBC, is not? Do you honestly believe that any institution is free of the risks of corruption, in all it's forms. We need look no further than the underhanded and despicable behaviour of Bashier and he was hardly the first, nor do I believe he was acting as a rogue "agent" at the time. The protection of Jimmy Savil? Come on. Wanted honest news and reporting about China and affairs in China? You didn't hear anything about China, especially in the negative, until China banned the BBC from broadcasting into China. Then we suddenly get a slew of anti China reporting. Funny that. None if this, is evidence of an incorruptible institution, but one that clearly has been corrupted just as much as any other, yet is more dangerous for everyone believing, wrongly, that it is so very impartial and incorruptible.

Some lunatic standing on a Street corner tells me doctors are lying to me, for political reasons, I'm likely to dismiss them. If my well respected and community recognised "uncle beeb" tells me the same thing, I'm more likely to believe them, after all, it's uncle beeb! Best not get vaccinated.

You refer to income being a factor, but no one is paying for ITV, or for Channel 4. They pay for themselves and have put out some exceptional content over the years.

Are they upto the quality of Blue Planet? Planet Earth? I think that is quite subjective, but probably not. But those documentaries are exceptions these days and not the norm. Comedy? On the beeb? Don't make me laugh.

No seriously, I think that must be the mantra over at the beeb these days.

With all due love and respect to Severilius, I don't regard Dr Who as something worth shouting about. Except the theme song, that shit is banging.

I do agree that BBC Parliament is brilliant but the TV license isn't needed to have the same effect.

And their news? Is horrendously biased on different topics and outright neglects to report on so much it's not even funny.

The idea that without the BBC, people will suddenly be without access to news, media, TV programming or sports coverage, is a complete fallacy. The assertion that the quality of what the BBC produces, is somehow higher or of higher integrity, is also an unfounded assertion. That might have been the case in the past, say, 40 years ago perhaps. But today?

Don't even get me started on the racketeering nature of the TV license itself and the manner in which that company conducts itself, with the full support and encouragement from the BBC.

Almost any other model could achieve similar goals.

Now if people want to talk about reforming the BBC, so that it has greater accountability for the character and quality of it's content, I'm open to that kind of possibility.

But I'm sorry to say Marmaduke, esquire. That your assertions are simply that and don't stand up as fact, but as subjective opinions and conjecture.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 21 August 2021, 07:48

Nothing in which human beings are involved is free of bias or corruption, but the BBC is a source most free of bias and most free to make editorial decisions free of commercial influence. Martin Bashir
is a stain on the reputation of the organisation, yes, but should an invaluable national resource be all-but-abolished because a journalist exploited the naivety and paranoia of Princess Diana for their own personal gain 25 years ago? Jog the fuck on. And who does report on China fairly? Nobody. Even now, nobody is reporting the real issues in China with the urgency or importance that those issue warrant. They’re sideline, page 7 stories glossing over patterns of state backed activity upon which wars have been fought in the past. But we can’t beat China, no way, no how, so we meekly stay quiet. That’s not the fault of the BBC. That’s a societal issue with the west in general. Jimmy Saville? You know what? That was so damming and so far reaching that had it been caught at the time, I would’ve understood if the corporation was abolished. The issue was too widespread and too high in the organisation to fairly believe that it could definitely be addressed effectively. But again, these are issues from decades ago. The BBC is much more closely scrutinised in the modern age, is it perfect? People like Noel Clarke show us no. Are people like Noel Clarke exclusively the burden or publicly funded services? No.

My argument is not that without the BBC people will be without access to content, it is that only via the BBC are people guaranteed access to a broad spectrum of content. It is only through public funding that we can guarantee BBC services will always exist. No, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 are in no danger of collapsing. But they could, especially with Channel 4 now that the government is entering into consultation to sell it. The BBC may grow or shrink with the passing of time, but it will always exist whilst it is publicly funded.

I think a lot of value to the consumer rests in being able to switch off, consume content and not be advertised to. Not be hooked in, with a cliffhanger right before an ad break, and not have to pay a monthly subscription to 5 different services for the privilege. You think Amazon monetising what you’re watching, where you’re pausing, where you’re scrolling back, taking the content you’re watching to build a profile of you to sell you shit? That Channel 4 aren’t doing the same? ITV has even been dipping it’s toe into “win the ads” contests to encourage you to pay more attention to what’s being advertised. It’s not the greatest evil in the world, no, but if you think it’s not going to get worse as it gets more effective then I think you’re naive. The path from where we are to a corporation like Buy’N’Large isn’t as meandering as you’d think.

Yes, there are a few national radio stations that are national and commercially funded. But they’re all specialised stations - oddly, primarily 80s themed - and you will spend more time listening to advertising or a presenter leading you into advertising than you will listening to what you came for. And they’ve all figured out that nobody wants to be spammed with advertising and so people tune out, so they’ve all timed their schedules so that they’re all on adverts at the same time, so that you can’t escape. Next time you’re cycling between absolute or Heart for your 80s power ballads, or even Absolute and Jazz FM, or British Forces Radio, see for yourself, they’re predominantly all on songs at the same time, they’re all in the news at the same time, they’re all with the presenter at the same time and they’re all on ads at the same time. All to keep you tied in to sell you more shit more effectively so that they can charge more money to the seller for the privilege of fobbing you their shit. Where do end up when you’re looking to get back to listening to music or content on the Radio? Who are the ones still playing it when you’re desperately cycling channels looking for something that isn’t an advert? You end up on the BBC. It’s why the top three radio stations are Radio 2, 4 and 1. Not because of the sparkling calibre of the hosts. God no. Chris Evans was on Radio 2 for years. It’s because you get what you came for.

Television-wise, outside of documentaries, the BBC is still leading the way in quality of content. It’s not just David Attenborough TV. From Killing Eve to The Night Manager, Peaky Blinders, Line of Duty, Normal People, they’ve produced some of the most glowingly reviewed drama of recent years. Outside of 8 out of 10 cats does Countdown, they hold all the platforms upon which stand up comedians break into TV and support the highest volume of series made by small producers and up-and-coming actors.

And do you know how you reliably support new talent? Through a freedom from commercial consideration and a focus on quality. Yes, Channel 4 has similar success from a commercial platform, it has cultural jewels like Peep Show and Skins, but the BBC has a far better record catapulting people into the spotlight and Channel 4 hasn’t had anything remarkable in years because it’s been pushed towards being more and more commercial because the government wants to sell it. ITV has next to nothing in comparison, Channel 5 has nothing because it’s too busy showing police chases. Everything else is lost in the soup of digital television and lacks anything like the reach of the main five channels. The jewels in the crown are government owned, and if we compare the BBC to Channel 4, I think you have to agree that one is objectively better in almost every way than the other.

It is a public trust. It is of exceptional value and the envy of the rest of the world. It exists almost nowhere else and is a great contributor to the national discourse, and to the national interest abroad.

If you want to throw it in the bin because Martin Bashir lied to the people’s Princess 25 years ago, you’re mad. If you want to fund it differently, how are you going to do it without fundamentally changing what it is you’re trying to preserve?
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8321
+1s received: 3067
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 21 August 2021, 09:09

Marmaduke wrote:Nothing in which human beings are involved is free of bias or corruption, but the BBC is a source most free of bias and most free to make editorial decisions free of commercial influence.
But it is not free of ideological bias. :shrug:

Marmaduke wrote:Martin Bashir
is a stain on the reputation of the organisation, yes, but should an invaluable national resource be all-but-abolished because a journalist exploited the naivety and paranoia of Princess Diana for their own personal gain 25 years ago? Jog the fuck on.
No, I'll stand my ground here thank you. I think that Martin Bashir is indicative of a broader culture at the BBC, that because it is above reproach, it doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. That it can get away with some pretty awful shit and just keep going with no real consequence.

Marmaduke wrote:And who does report on China fairly? Nobody. Even now, nobody is reporting the real issues in China with the urgency or importance that those issue warrant. They’re sideline, page 7 stories glossing over patterns of state backed activity upon which wars have been fought in the past. But we can’t beat China, no way, no how, so we meekly stay quiet. That’s not the fault of the BBC. That’s a societal issue with the west in general.
There are plenty of other news outlets who do indeed report on China, in great detail. You just wont find them on the BBC. Or, indeed, on broadcast television.

Marmaduke wrote:Jimmy Saville? You know what? That was so damming and so far reaching that had it been caught at the time, I would’ve understood if the corporation was abolished. The issue was too widespread and too high in the organisation to fairly believe that it could definitely be addressed effectively. But again, these are issues from decades ago.
You honestly believe, issues from years ago, that went unaddressed, that the BBC have never come forward and admitted any cuplability for, have simply, gone away and no longer need be regarded as a factor? That the insular culture and mentality that went into that cover up, hasn't live on in one way or another?

Marmaduke wrote:The BBC is much more closely scrutinised in the modern age, is it perfect? People like Noel Clarke show us no. Are people like Noel Clarke exclusively the burden or publicly funded services? No.
Is it though? The hits just keep coming for the BBC. It could be argued that it is because of that scrutiny, we hear about failures more often and it might give the impression such behaviour there is more prolific and I would concede on that point. But there is still a culture of abuse and I would argue, a tendancy to turn a blind eye, in order to protect the image of the BBC.

Marmaduke wrote:My argument is not that without the BBC people will be without access to content, it is that only via the BBC are people guaranteed access to a broad spectrum of content. It is only through public funding that we can guarantee BBC services will always exist.
No, I call bullshit on the BBC being the only guaranteed source of a broad spectrum of content. That might have been true once, but come on, Marmaduke. This is the modern world. That doesn't hold true anymore.


Marmaduke wrote:I think a lot of value to the consumer rests in being able to switch off, consume content and not be advertised to. Not be hooked in, with a cliffhanger right before an ad break, and not have to pay a monthly subscription to 5 different services for the privilege. You think Amazon monetising what you’re watching, where you’re pausing, where you’re scrolling back, taking the content you’re watching to build a profile of you to sell you shit? That Channel 4 aren’t doing the same? ITV has even been dipping it’s toe into “win the ads” contests to encourage you to pay more attention to what’s being advertised. It’s not the greatest evil in the world, no, but if you think it’s not going to get worse as it gets more effective then I think you’re naive. The path from where we are to a corporation like Buy’N’Large isn’t as meandering as you’d think.
I don't think the value to be found in the BBC is there at all! Now had you mentioned the BBC's soft power projection for the UK, I might have been more amenable to your position, but honestly. The BBC should be preserved because it doesn't have adverts? :lol:

Marmaduke wrote:Yes, there are a few national radio stations that are national and commercially funded. But they’re all specialised stations - oddly, primarily 80s themed - and you will spend more time listening to advertising or a presenter leading you into advertising than you will listening to what you came for. And they’ve all figured out that nobody wants to be spammed with advertising and so people tune out, so they’ve all timed their schedules so that they’re all on adverts at the same time, so that you can’t escape. Next time you’re cycling between absolute or Heart for your 80s power ballads, or even Absolute and Jazz FM, or British Forces Radio, see for yourself, they’re predominantly all on songs at the same time, they’re all in the news at the same time, they’re all with the presenter at the same time and they’re all on ads at the same time. All to keep you tied in to sell you more shit more effectively so that they can charge more money to the seller for the privilege of fobbing you their shit. Where do end up when you’re looking to get back to listening to music or content on the Radio? Who are the ones still playing it when you’re desperately cycling channels looking for something that isn’t an advert? You end up on the BBC. It’s why the top three radio stations are Radio 2, 4 and 1. Not because of the sparkling calibre of the hosts. God no. Chris Evans was on Radio 2 for years. It’s because you get what you came for.
So you concede that the quality of content is questionable and up for debate, but that reliability of service is what matters? I'm pretty sure that linking the license to radio, is one of the underhanded ways inwhich the BBC tries to convince the public of it's overwhelming utility and good and I aint buying it. Radio will carry on perfectly well without the BBC.

Marmaduke wrote:Television-wise, outside of documentaries, the BBC is still leading the way in quality of content. It’s not just David Attenborough TV. From Killing Eve to The Night Manager, Peaky Blinders, Line of Duty, Normal People, they’ve produced some of the most glowingly reviewed drama of recent years. Outside of 8 out of 10 cats does Countdown, they hold all the platforms upon which stand up comedians break into TV and support the highest volume of series made by small producers and up-and-coming actors.
See now this is where you lose me again, because most of what the BBC puts out, doesn't interest me at all. Every one of the programs you mention. No interest at all. I haven't seen a single comedian from the BBC lineups that I found remotely funny. Why should I subsidise YOUR entertainment? Why should I pay to watch content on other, unrelated channels, that have nothing to do with the BBC? Why should I pay for a service, whose quality is not dictated by those that are paying for it? I can vote on the content with my wallet. I can't say, I don't like the narrative the BBC is promoting in it's news coverage so I'm not paying for it anymore, because I might want to watch ITV once in a while.

That is the problem.

Marmaduke wrote:And do you know how you reliably support new talent? Through a freedom from commercial consideration and a focus on quality. Yes, Channel 4 has similar success from a commercial platform, it has cultural jewels like Peep Show and Skins, but the BBC has a far better record catapulting people into the spotlight and Channel 4 hasn’t had anything remarkable in years because it’s been pushed towards being more and more commercial because the government wants to sell it. ITV has next to nothing in comparison, Channel 5 has nothing because it’s too busy showing police chases. Everything else is lost in the soup of digital television and lacks anything like the reach of the main five channels. The jewels in the crown are government owned, and if we compare the BBC to Channel 4, I think you have to agree that one is objectively better in almost every way than the other.
By your own admission, talent is supported in various ways and I would argue, that new talent is more reliably found and supported, directly, through modern mediums like the internet, that are tailored more fully to a persons desire, than the BBC. you might pay more, but you most definately get what you want and when you no longer do, You have the choice to cease support unlike the BBC.

Marmaduke wrote:It is a public trust. It is of exceptional value and the envy of the rest of the world. It exists almost nowhere else and is a great contributor to the national discourse, and to the national interest abroad.
This i'll admit. I think it is the strongest argument for keeping the BBC, but it needs to change, it needs to change it's funding model to include only it's own content.

Marmaduke wrote:If you want to throw it in the bin because Martin Bashir lied to the people’s Princess 25 years ago, you’re mad. If you want to fund it differently, how are you going to do it without fundamentally changing what it is you’re trying to preserve?
Bashir was simply an example, not the crux of my position. I want to see it funded, for it's own content exclusively and not under an umbrella for content, over which it has no right to stake a claim to remuneration for. How it survives after that. Is upto the BBC. If it truly gives people what they want, then they will pay for it. If they don't then perhaps it would have to consider, if what it provides, is what people really believe is value for money.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 21 August 2021, 09:24

Your position is “I don’t want to pay for it because I don’t use it, give me streaming” and that’s not really the point. I view the BBC less as an entertainer and more as a public service.

There is a great proportion of society that doesn’t understand digital television, that doesn’t understand or have access to the internet. Older people, vulnerable people, people living in social care, people for whom broadcast media is - for better or worse - only really understood in terms of the big five channels.

You can argue that they need to adapt or survive, but that’s an idealist position that doesn’t resolve the issue and will only exclude people that can’t keep up.

In 20-40 years, it’s not an issue anymore. Right now and for the foreseeable it is.

Everyone should have access to something. There is no other means of guaranteeing it right now. That the model doesn’t really on advertising is a great benefit and something to be fought for and preserved. In the context of broadcasting that you just need to own a TV to access, the BBC stands head and shoulders above its competition.

It returns value, provides a public service and supports the national discourse.

Propose another way of funding it without changing it, or accept the current model.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8321
+1s received: 3067
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby PopTart » 21 August 2021, 09:48

Marmaduke wrote:Your position is “I don’t want to pay for it because I don’t use it, give me streaming” and that’s not really the point. I view the BBC less as an entertainer and more as a public service.
No, I can't really argue with that. I do see less value in it, even as a public service, when I don't prevail myself of it's more traditional features. I guess, it's value as a public service, in the form of international visibility, is also questionable for me, when it feels it doesn't represent the nation very well.

Marmaduke wrote:There is a great proportion of society that doesn’t understand digital television, that doesn’t understand or have access to the internet. Older people, vulnerable people, people living in social care, people for whom broadcast media is - for better or worse - only really understood in terms of the big five channels.
I do feel you might be selling older people short, particularly for those living in the south, more urban areas of the country.

Marmaduke wrote:You can argue that they need to adapt or survive, but that’s an idealist position that doesn’t resolve the issue and will only exclude people that can’t keep up.
But they do. The BBC is already falling into irrelevance. What it does to avoid that, while holding the moniker of "public service" and all the prestige and implied trust that comes with that, does give me pause. I'd like to think that the BBC would swallow it's pride and find it's own, innovative solutions, adhering to it's principles in the process. But I somehow doubt that it will, either way. The writing is on the wall. People just don't want to admit it.

Marmaduke wrote:In 20-40 years, it’s not an issue anymore. Right now and for the foreseeable it is.
I get that in a couple of decades, all the technological luddites amongst us will be "in a better place" But the issue is here and now. Do you simply propose a stay of execution?

Marmaduke wrote:Everyone should have access to something. There is no other means of guaranteeing it right now. That the model doesn’t really on advertising is a great benefit and something to be fought for and preserved. In the context of broadcasting that you just need to own a TV to access, the BBC stands head and shoulders above its competition.

It returns value, provides a public service and supports the national discourse.

Propose another way of funding it without changing it, or accept the current model.
:monocle: hmmm. I still don't lend much credence to the advertisement position you advance. IF the news model was less Americanised and more faithful to it's old format and tone, that would sway me further.

I do feel you are hamstringing me, with the demand to find alternative payment, without evoking change to the service. Any change in funding method (and thus funding level) will affect change. This is going to happen, no matter what, going forwards as fewer and fewer households are taking out a license. That is why the BBC itself is proposing adding the "tax" onto electricity bills (an idea I find extremely objectionable) or including it as part of broadband service fees (even more heinous.) I rather abolish the need for the tax altogether, rather than allow the BBC to introduce these alternatives.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3382
+1s received: 2679
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What put a frown on your face today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 21 August 2021, 10:05

My paternal grandmother Nan lives in the London. She leaves her mobile phone turned off “in case the battery dies” and can barely turn the TV. My maternal grandparents live in London. They watch nothing but the core five channels, but are admittedly better than my paternal grandmother. None of the three has internet access because they don’t see that they’d use it. They don’t own computers. Only one of them owns a smartphone and she can barely turn it on.

The issue isn’t geographic. It’s generational. My parents still need most streaming services explained to him and would not have any of them if I wasn’t paying for them. If I hadn’t set them up. If I hadn’t paid for the TV that has Netflix and Amazon Prime buttons on the remote. It’s the cash generation, the people that don’t trust technology for whatever reason, they aren’t engaged with it. If they can’t pay for it at a local brick and mortar shop with physical currency, they aren’t comfortable with accessing it.

Don’t get me wrong, I can certainly empathise with wanting to put them in a crate and push them into the sea. But it’s probably easier and cheaper to just socialise what is an excellent and universally accessible service.

Not to sound to British or anything, fuck the rest of the world. We have a good thing here and I don’t care that they don’t. The good thing is only perpetually guaranteed as long as it’s funding is. And that is only possible through taxation.

I’m not hamstringing you, I’m just saying, if you don’t like the model as it is, how would you have it be without surrendering everything about it that makes it valuable?
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8321
+1s received: 3067
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], poolerboy0077, Severelius, Yandex [Bot] and 112 guests