TV Licence

[Rosencrantz]

I can't help but feel that the journalistic and documentary integrity of the BBC would be damaged by privatization. Like someone quite correctly pointed out earlier, documentary channels want things about cuddly monkeys and giant squid fighting whales, stuff to draw the average goon away from Neighbours (I love Neighbours, ha) and onto things that are cute or fight.

Although we do have some of these now, I think stuff like Big Cat Diary or Springwatch or some of Attenborough's documentaries would get immediately scrapped. And imagine BBC news reporting Paris Hilton over something like a foreign political assassination just because they needed to ratings to stay afloat? Do we, as a country, honestly want to put our name to a travesty like that?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

Do we, as a country, honestly want to put our name to a travesty like that?

Yes, because I don't think that would happen. I can watch TV from all over Europe, when something big happens on the news like the assassination like you mention, all the news channels cover it. They also show things on the news we dare not for the sake of upsetting us soft British.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Neil

Yes, because I don't think that would happen. I can watch TV from all over Europe, when something big happens on the news like the assassination like you mention, all the news channels cover it. They also show things on the news we dare not for the sake of upsetting us soft British.

I sometimes watch Euronews -- when BBC News 24 and Sky News are reporting loads of sports junk. Sports 'news' is not proper news.

CNN is OK when some major world catastrophe happens. but the yankee accent soon begins to grate on me. Most of their women reporters screech, not speak. The only yank woman tv journalist who is nice to hear is that News 24 woman correspondent in Pakistan

Radio 4 is nice for when there is tripe on TV - if only to have the lovely sound of their softly spoken estuary accents - even the shipping forecast is music to the ears.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by garinda

No licence fee equals no funding for the B.B.C.

Simple.

I notice that no defenders of the current system have commented on the fact that we pay for foreign language broadcasts to the rest of the world on the B.B.C,and which they get to listen to for free.

The other side of the coin is that we can listen to foreign broadcasts. Radio waves do not recognise international boundaries.

We are not the only country in the world that pays a license fee to listen to and view broadcasts.

Whilst serving in the Royal Navy we listened to the BBC World Service for news of home. We have forces committed all over the world and they, no doubt, tune in from time to time as do ex-pats.

[Acrylic-bob]

I sometimes wonder whether the BBC has entirely given up on the concept of the Empire, particularly when it comes to the World Service.

The other thing that annoys me is that when they are bleating for more money they use the public service broadcasting argument, you know the one, "we make programmes that commercial broadcasters can't afford to.", and then, when they have got the money, calmly tell us that there will be even more repeats and less of the "Public Service" programming.

And I am sorry but, giving Jonathan Ross a contract for £18,000,000 over three years shows just how irresponsible the BBC are with our money.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

And I am sorry but, giving Jonathan Ross a contract for £18,000,000 over three years shows just how irresponsible the BBC are with our money.

I agree - I find his speech impediment irritating -- too many announcers, presenters, commentators are employed by their looks and their voice quality (or lack of it) is ignored.

Mr Woss fulfils neither criterion

[cashman]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I agree - I find his speech impediment irritating -- too many announcers, presenters, commentators are employed by their looks and their voice quality (or lack of it) is ignored.

Mr Woss fulfils neither criterion

its not just me that the creep bugs then.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Whilst serving in the Royal Navy we listened to the BBC World Service for news of home. We have forces committed all over the world and they, no doubt, tune in from time to time as do ex-pats.

I bet there aren't many lads and lasses on British ships tuning in to listen to programmes in Farsi.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

I can't help but feel that the journalistic and documentary integrity of the BBC would be damaged by privatization.

Too old for Blue Peter now?

Blue Peter admits phone-in fake - Times Online

[Rosencrantz]

Originally Posted by garinda

Too old for Blue Peter now?

Blue Peter admits phone-in fake - Times Online

I'm not sure Blue Peter really counts as a show where journalistic integrity is vital to the programme

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

I'm not sure Blue Peter really counts as a show where journalistic integrity is vital to the programme

Oh, so part of the BBC's output is exempt from journalistic integrity?

As for the Beeb's news coverage, that has been accused of having a left-wing bias, from just after the second World War, until the present day.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

I sometimes wonder whether the BBC has entirely given up on the concept of the Empire, particularly when it comes to the World Service.

The other thing that annoys me is that when they are bleating for more money they use the public service broadcasting argument, you know the one, "we make programmes that commercial broadcasters can't afford to.", and then, when they have got the money, calmly tell us that there will be even more repeats and less of the "Public Service" programming.

And I am sorry but, giving Jonathan Ross a contract for £18,000,000 over three years shows just how irresponsible the BBC are with our money.

I’m inclined to agree with you about the World Service.

And I also agree with you about Jonathan Woss. He annoys the heck out if me not for his speech impediment but for his “I am the important one in this programme not you” manner and that sly “who me?” look when he says something smutty.

However you can’t blame him for his salary – you have to blame the corporation for being conned by him. The same goes for Wogan and Chris Evans, although to be fair Chris Evans’ show on Radio 2 at 5 o’clock is entertaining.

[Rosencrantz]

Originally Posted by garinda

Oh, so part of the BBC's output is exempt from journalistic integrity?

As for the Beeb's news coverage, that has been accused of having a left-wing bias, from just after the second World War, until the present day.

I'm not saying it's exempt, but I really don't personally care what kind of bias Blue Peter has unless it's going to harm the kids who watch it.

For news coverage, yeah, Cyfr said something about a left-wing bias to me earlier but I personally don't see it, though it could be my horrible liberal-tinted glasses blinding me from it! Generally speaking I think they do a good job with neutrality.

[steeljack]

seems the BBC has decided that there are to many white faces on the screen and has decided that 50% of new hires will be from the ethnic minority communities,
BBC in push to hire ethnic minorities - Telegraph

[garinda]

Originally Posted by steeljack

seems the BBC has decided that there are to many white faces on the screen and has decided that 50% of new hires will be from the ethnic minority communities,
BBC in push to hire ethnic minorities - Telegraph

Arrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Until 50% of the population is none white, at present I think the figure is around 10%, then stupid, patronising initiatives like this, only fuel ill feeling.

I hate with a vengence positive discrimination, and now we have the knowledge that we are helping to fund it at the B.B.C.