Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: The BBC (Split Thread)

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Leifr View Post



    The BBC is to be generally considered an institution of the United Kingdom, not too dissimilar from that of the Royal Family, and is therefore protected by a royal charter to the British public. The charter is reviewed periodically and amended if necessary, and it is also worth pointing out that is is also externally regulated by OFCOM. Some suggest that, in recent years under a Conservative government, the newer charters better serve for a right-wing bias. I am not particularly sold on that notion; many critics say it panders to the left-wing liberals, others to the right-wing Tory (scum). I would daresay that this suggests a firm balance on the political spectrum, although it must be said that there has always been a solid left-wing leaning with regards to cultural output on the BBC. The great problem that the BBC has right now, and it is similar for many bastions of journalism, is funding. Tory governments have purposely cut the budget made available to the BBC over a period of several years. In short though, absolutely no politican would dare interfere with the BBC in any major way - it's too much of a cultural cornerstone for Great Britain.
    So what you're saying is the U.K Gov. won't touch the BBC because it's a "cultural conerstone" of the country? Fair enough, but that tradition will be eroded over time, which could cause trouble. The BBC is having financial problems because the Governemnt isn't paying them enough? Do they get that low viewership that they can't stay in bussiness without the Gov. subsidizing them?

    Why are Tories scum? Other than the fact that they sided with the British in 1776. ( )




    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    The people is in charge of the government however.

    It was much the same in Denmark as what Leifr wrote - he just put it better than I.

    - Trusty
    That's right, the people vote for their leaders, but as I understand it, the people don't vote on what the BBC says or not. Sounds like it's rather unaccountable. And as Lefir wrote saying the Gov. won't mess with the BBC because it's a cultural cornerstone, that's even less acountable. Sounds like a lot of Gov. programs in the U.S. \: That's the problem with a lot of Gov. programs. They turn into eternal bureaucracies that no one wants to deal with.

    Again, I profess my ignorance of the U.K system. I'm just going off of what you guys are saying.

  2. #12
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramirez Nicholas J. View Post
    So what you're saying is the U.K Gov. won't touch the BBC because it's a "cultural conerstone" of the country? Fair enough, but that tradition will be eroded over time, which could cause trouble. The BBC is having financial problems because the Governemnt isn't paying them enough? Do they get that low viewership that they can't stay in bussiness without the Gov. subsidizing them?

    Why are Tories scum? Other than the fact that they sided with the British in 1776. ( )






    That's right, the people vote for their leaders, but as I understand it, the people don't vote on what the BBC says or not. Sounds like it's rather unaccountable. And as Lefir wrote saying the Gov. won't mess with the BBC because it's a cultural cornerstone, that's even less acountable. Sounds like a lot of Gov. programs in the U.S. \: That's the problem with a lot of Gov. programs. They turn into eternal bureaucracies that no one wants to deal with.

    Again, I profess my ignorance of the U.K system. I'm just going off of what you guys are saying.
    The BBC is funded by the government which is only there because the people voted for it to be so. If the majority of the people shared Saris's views on the quality of the station they'd vote for politicians in favor of cutting the funding. Thus, in effect, the people decide whether or not BBC should be around.

    Public service is not about viewership (at least not entirely) - it is widely accepted that some programs will appeal to a very narrow portion of the population but that is okay. The station is there to offer something for all people and does not have a specific target audience in mind. Without government funding you'd not get as broad a coverage of programs as commercial stations will carter to a specific target audience to a much greater degree in the hunt for viewership and/or to follow the direction by whatever company funds them.

    An added bonus of government funded public service channels is also the lack of commercials.

    - Trusty

  3. #13
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Saris View Post
    On the contrary, everything I've seen from the BBC is degenerate, anti british, anti white, and anti christian.

    "English flag is racist" - Coming from people who decided to moved to a country that is 90% british, then claiming the country's flag they moved to is racist
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/englandflag.shtmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HExOdnZ3eJs

    "Blacks were the first in britian" another blatant twist of history trying to included blacks in the history of Britian. I'm not saying that they couldnt have been there but they least weren't there before the Romans came in. But the way the film goes, it seems like blacks were least half the population at anytime.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01zfw4w

    BBC is anti Christianity
    https://godtv.com/bbc-anti-christian-bias/

    rewriting history with people who werent even there. This is honestly an insult and racist to the Greeks for portraying Achilles as a black man, even if Achilles was not real, its THEIR history, THEIR culture and it should be written as THEY have it.
    https://uk.blastingnews.com/showbiz-...002364019.html

    anti white
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/...om-television/

    Nothing is safe from the BBC, this is what happens when a nationally supported broadcasting center has free reign on what it can show and not show. Everything I've seen from the BBC is anti anything that is good with Europe and supports anything that isnt or is bad about Europe, homosexuality, mass immigration, islamification, degeneracy all. This is where your money is going to fellow Brits.

    Last note, what the hell is this BBC? https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/wha...entit/p06ltbj1
    Jesus, I don't even know where to start, much less if I even should.

    You've cherry-picked an open-for-comment article from 2004 from the BBC 1Xtra website (a black, urban radio station). Can you direct me to the exact quote where it is stated that the "English flag is racist" in support of your claim that the BBC is anti-British? I can see one public comment from a 'savy dee' about the flag potentially making someone uncomfortable, but that it is still acceptable to fly the flag during sporting events (of which this article was a part of). There is an association of the St George's Cross with a handful of racist and right-wing political groups in the United Kingdom, although they have always been absolute fringe causes and are generally cause for mockery in the traditional sense of British humour. We've just had the best footballing summer in England for the past forty years, it's fair to say that if you lived here and experienced that, you'd find a shared acceptance of the St George's Cross across the spectrum. I don't believe to have ever seen such an outpouring of love and admiration for the national flag in recent years, the BBC included.

    I applaud your use of a children's short-animation for use in the classroom as the definitive suggestion that, again, the BBC is inherently anti-British and anti-white. Does the video suggest that black people were the first in Britain, or that they dominated the history of the British Isles? I counted two black children, children of a black Roman legionary and a white woman. There's a hint at the end of the video as to where these folk may have originally came from - hint, it's not the British Isles. Roman Legions were myriad in ethnic backgrounds and wandered to every corner of the empire, assimilating cultures like it was going out of fashion. There have been several skeletons exhumed in London bearing Black African ancestry. The children's film doesn't show black people as "being there before the Romans" or any thing of the sort. Did you even watch it in it's entirety?

    Regarding the BBC being anti-Christian, I am not going to dispute that in the true sense but it is worth clarifying. The British Isles is strictly non-religious in all but ceremonious roles now, other than a short million or so of the population who actively practice a Christian faith (Catholic, Protestant, CoE). Religion is, for all intents and purposes, dead. It cannot be a surprise to you that our tax-payer funded broadcasting channel chooses to spend most of the budget allocated on secular and non-faith bases programming. The population aren't interested in it because they simply aren't religious in any real tangible sense any more, therefore the BBC does not cater to it. The article that you have used to suggest that there is an anti-Christian agenda questions whether there truly is one at all, it's right there in the first paragraph (emphasis mine) - "I realise there are problems with this phrase, not least because it implies a deliberate and organised discriminatory policy which I’m not sure is actually the situation. ".

    I'm not going to take the time to respond to your other links, sorry. In truth I think they're utterly ridiculous and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of several issues, not least the general culture of the British population. If you desire to know more I would suggest spending some time listening to and viewing BBC broadcasts, rather than trying to shoehorn the BBC in to your agenda.

    Respectfully,
    Leifr (Jim J.Digby)

  4. #14

    USA General of the Army

    John Cooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    381
    I blame the BBC for my addiction to The Black Adder.
    My Great Great Grandfather, Isaac MacDonal Cooley, served as a Pathfinder Cavalry Scout
    in the 1st Arkansas Cavalry Regiment (Dobbin's) Company K
    My Avatar flies his Unit Guidon to Honor his Service.
    My Credo is a simple one ... Unit before Self with Honor above ALL else.

  5. #15
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by John Cooley View Post
    I blame the BBC for my addiction to The Black Adder.
    Wibble!

    - Trusty

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    The BBC is funded by the government which is only there because the people voted for it to be so. If the majority of the people shared Saris's views on the quality of the station they'd vote for politicians in favor of cutting the funding. Thus, in effect, the people decide whether or not BBC should be around.

    - Trusty

    Ok, I think I'm starting to agree with you on this point. The British people wanted a state sponsored media outlet and they got one. I assume though, they'd change the content of the network instead of disbanding it, being a cultural conerstone and all.




    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post

    Public service is not about viewership (at least not entirely) - it is widely accepted that some programs will appeal to a very narrow portion of the population but that is okay. The station is there to offer something for all people and does not have a specific target audience in mind. Without government funding you'd not get as broad a coverage of programs as commercial stations will carter to a specific target audience to a much greater degree in the hunt for viewership and/or to follow the direction by whatever company funds them.

    An added bonus of government funded public service channels is also the lack of commercials.

    - Trusty
    The only problem I see with low viewrship is, most people aren't watching the BBC yet they are paying for it with their tax dollars. But perhaps they like the content of the programs and want other people to learn, or they're not really paying attention and see free tv as free tv.

    I think you've educated me a bit. I'm starting to think it's not such a problem in the U.K. As a general rule I think the Gov. should be involved in as little private sectors as possible. I think it would be a bad precedent in the U.S, but since the U.K people want it, they can have it. Even if it was showing propaganda, they could always change the channel.

  7. #17
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramirez Nicholas J. View Post
    Ok, I think I'm starting to agree with you on this point. The British people wanted a state sponsored media outlet and they got one. I assume though, they'd change the content of the network instead of disbanding it, being a cultural conerstone and all.






    The only problem I see with low viewrship is, most people aren't watching the BBC yet they are paying for it with their tax dollars. But perhaps they like the content of the programs and want other people to learn, or they're not really paying attention and see free tv as free tv.

    I think you've educated me a bit. I'm starting to think it's not such a problem in the U.K. As a general rule I think the Gov. should be involved in as little private sectors as possible. I think it would be a bad precedent in the U.S, but since the U.K people want it, they can have it. Even if it was showing propaganda, they could always change the channel.

    Hehe that’s where we differ I guess.

    I have no issue with the state/government being involved in a whole large section of things.

    Government funded stations do not air propaganda. How could they?

    Let’s say it or DR (Denmark’s BBC cousin) did. Given that the funding is done by the parliament you’d have a very vocal other half of it trying to shut it down as quickly as possible - not only that but you’d have half the population likely wanting the same.

    Not staying neutral is an excellent way of committing suicide if you are a state funded broadcaster in a democracy.

    Your statement of propaganda issues only applies to dictatorships or other non-functioning democraties.

    - Trusty

  8. #18
    Man I never knew the BBC could be such a debatable topic.

  9. #19
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by McMuffin View Post
    Man I never knew the BBC could be such a debatable topic.
    Aunty Beeb does elicit such emotions in people.

  10. #20

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Not only are our main TV stations funded by tax money, all the major newspapers get subsidized by tax money.

    Unlike "Danish Radio" (the danish BBC) they are free to have political opinions, so they do represent different political position. But to get the money they do need to follow certain journalistic standards.

    So if I read an article from a paper that is at the other end of the political spectrum from me, I can still trust the facts they present. Even if I don't agree with their conclusions.


    An enlightened electorate is critical to a democracy. And we take that very serious.


    Another example is the fact that RPGs clubs, reenactment groups, sports clubs and a lot of other hobbies get funding from their municipality.
    To get it, the organization need to follow some rules. They need to be democratic, none profit and they need to do something to enlighten the population about something.
    (The law only require that they support "clubs where the members are aged 25 or younger but in many municipality they don't care about the age of the members)

    When you are use to show up once a year and elect a (new) board and vote on things like budget, membership fee and similar in you local soccer or RPG club, it is a lot more natural that you also show up and vote for a new parliament or city council every four years.


    All of this and other things like most public schools running mock parliamentary elections result in our elections having a turnout of about 87-89%... much, much higher than what we see in the US.
    (A election system where everyone is registered and where all voted actually matter is obviously also part of the reason)
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •