Yes, it works so well that the BBC will be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and show only reality shows, game shows and TV shopping network like other channels financed by ads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Printable View
Yes, it works so well that the BBC will be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and show only reality shows, game shows and TV shopping network like other channels financed by ads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Well we've just had 13 years of them giving Labour an easy time, no matter what blunders they made the Beeb gave them an easy ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
No they hand pick it to make sure the left wing bods get an easy ride and are made to look better.
4000 maybe in London and Birmingham but not for small towns, no way 10% of a town apply to go on QT. My town is about 60k so not a chance 4k applied.
I sent in 6 in total, all 3 left wing applications were accepted all 3 right wing ones ignored - blatant fix. Feel free to work out the odds based on your figures.
Out at the mo but I will explain it to you tomorrow but you clearly dnt understand how selection process works, nothing to do with odds.
I know how it works already, if they have an audience of 150 they bin all the right wing ones and pick 150 pro left wing applications.
Very unlikely that they would ignore all 3 right wing applications and pick all 3 left wing ones if it was random.
It's NOT random that's exactly the point. You're embarrassing yourself. Explain in full tomorrow I promise.
No I am not, stop being so up yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
They hand pick it to ensure a massive left wing majority. You clearly haven't watched the show, if you had you see that the selection process is working as the questions do not match the general feeling of those that text in messages. The texters are more representative of UK as a whole, the audience isn't.
Now they are sending the Japanese NHK World and some South Korean channel for free instead. Great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Why is a national broadcaster necessary in the first place? High standards of quality will find niches in the private channels. We have 200 plus channels on my TV right now and some of the stuff created to fill this 200 channel universe is very much what you would like. I don't NEED the government to create TV....once upon a time the concept of a national broadcaster made some sort of sense, but not now....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
ITV and Channel 4 manage quality programmes yet they aren't funded that way so that whole argument falls at the first hurdle.
I like the BBC on the whole but it isn't above cuts / reality / shake up.
The alternative is private broadcasters pushing their agendas. Taken to its logical extreme you end up with a media landscape that looks like the newspaper situation in some Australian cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
The only true "fair and balanced" media outcome is lots of different players from different political colours. Too much control in either direction is a bad thing IMWPO.
Rollo, if the people don't like the political jib of a paper, they wont buy it and you cant make people WATCH TV if they think they are being fed propaganda. Papers and media outlets of all stripes find their market. The thing is, there is this myth some great media god controls all this. There isn't..we the people decide. If Aussie Papers are so dreadfully right wing, then some rich guy with left wing credentials oughta start one. I am sure no one who reads the Guardian needs to be told what its stripe is and they buy it for that reason. Ditto with TV. MSNBC in the US has its viewers as does Fox. The reality is, Fox has 10 times the ratings of MSNBC because they have done a better job of putting out things people want to watch, and that includes people who don't like the political stripe of Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
This Myth we need a government owned broadcast outlet to provide balance doesn't fly. I like the BBC, I like the CBC...but I think both are inefficient and bloated government owned entities that do far less with far more than they require and they really are dinosaurs in the 200 channel universe.
Fortunately the BBC is not a government broadcaster. It is funded by public money but remains independent and that is a source of great frustration in some quarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I do think that there is a need for the BBC, now more than ever, particularly with the increasing influence of the likes of BSkyB both in terms of international reach and politics. It's like the notion of checks and balances. By all means let the likes of Sky thrive, but checks against their influence must exist and balance must be provided in terms of alternatives.
In the UK the likes of ITV & C4 are struggling and if the BBC are undermined as well then there is the potential for Sky's influence to increase unchecked. That is why, IMHO, it is important that the BBC continues to be a publicly funded broadcaster.
Right, I'll explain this one time and then I'm off for Christmas. I suspect I'm wasting my time, as you'll carry on believing what you want to believe, but I'll try anyway.
I can puncture that with two words: Hutton Report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
You may recall that the BBC went public and accused the Labour Government of "sexing up" the dossier about Saddam Hussain's WMD capability. It was a brave thing to do, but they were ultimately proven right.
That's just one example for you. You might also argue that going public with the leak from The Telegraph this week was another instance of them putting truth before self-interest, as it meant the one person likely to block the Murdoch BSkyB deal was replaced with a tame Hulture Secretary who will now almost certainly wave the deal through.
Anyway, Question Time. You stated:
You are aware that people can travel, right? Not everybody in the audience comes from inside the city walls, they do extend the catchment area to include people from neighbouring communities. I gave you a link to a direct quote from a BBC producer stating that 4000 applicants was a typical figure. If you know better I invite you to provide your source.Quote:
4000 maybe in London and Birmingham but not for small towns, no way 10% of a town apply to go on QT. My town is about 60k so not a chance 4k applied.
As I told you, and as is explained in my link, it's nothing to do with "odds". (That said, even if it were, 3 rejections out of ~4000 applications falls well within the margins of pure chance, so your conspiracy theories don't add up).Quote:
I sent in 6 in total, all 3 left wing applications were accepted all 3 right wing ones ignored - blatant fix. Feel free to work out the odds based on your figures.
The audience is selected to provide a balance of genders, backgrounds, professions and - most importantly - political viewpoints. If your "right wing" applications were rejected then chances are they had enough of those already for that episode, or that you failed on other citeria.
QT is one of the BBC's flagship political programmes. If there was, as you suggest, systematic and regular "fixing" of the audience, do you not think that it would have been raised at a high level by now? You're just being paranoid, flinging accusations around with no evidence.
If you dispute this, let's hear your evidence. I shan't hold my breath. Usually when you try to provide links they undermine your own cause.
For example you said there's a left-wing bias, and when asked for proof provided an interview which said that there was.... in 1979!
Prior to that you claimed that "you have to be black or disabled to work for the BBC" and yet, when challenged you provided a list of four such people on a channel featuring hundreds of people every day.
In fact, the pattern seems to be that you spout some theory with no evidence, then I or someone else to all the legwork to prove you wrong. That's not now intelligent debate should work: you make the allegation, you back it up.
Anyway, I'm out of here for Christmas. I may pop in now and again, but don't expect full answers to anything. Enjoy the festive season. I'm sure we're both looking forward to a white Christmas, but maybe in completely different ways... :dozey: :s anta:
Ahh yes if in doubt play the race card, thus things can remain unbalanced and full of reversed prejudice as now.
The audience is biased, you only have to compare what they say and clap vs what the texters send in to show it is biased.
Pushing coincidence to have 3 minority winners and 3 majority ignored. That in itself is proof enough.
Hutton Whitewash: The Beeb named Dr Kelly next thing he dies in suspicious circumstances yet you claim there's no love in between Labour and the BBC. But anyroad, why didn't the BBC really clobber Labour over its mishandling of the economy?
Labour loved the BBC? Don't make me laugh. Tensions between them and the government has never been greater than under Blair.
Well the fact is that a broadcaster, whether publically funded or not should and has the duty to question and be critical of whomever is in power. Private broadcasters do that. I am not going to pretend to know the total media situation in the UK, I don't live there. I quite LIKE the BBC, but they are a drain on the public purse, through the license fee's all TV owners in the UK pay, or from the treasury.
IN Canada The CBC is operated much the same way, and they take public money and compete with the private broadcasters for the rights to pro sports, driving up the cost of the TV property. I am sure the leagues involved love it, and the IOC is saying thank you to the CBC for making a bid for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver so the private sector could over pay to get the deal.
It is not for the government to fund or designate any media to promote fair and balanced broadcasting or media coverage. The alleged fairness is often tempered by pc thoughts and agendas, and the potential for government tampering is there in the coverage.
In a 200 channel universe, with many competing media outlets of all political shadings, a publically funded monster broadcaster really isn't that required.
TBH Mark in O, with all due respect you're talking crap. Since when do cretins like Fox question a government when it's a republican one? Having the BBC around helps to "keep the b@stards honest" (I stole that quote btw) and means that no media outlet with a vested interest can have a hold over opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Corporate TV does what corporate TV wants and corporate media will support whoever is going to give corporate media the easiest time.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12066537
see how they cover these much needed cuts, heaps of emotive language used, highlighting only frontline services cuts etc
Tough titties - welcome to the real world where the private sector has been for the last two years
parasites
What may I ask would you also like to Privatise, Bolton Midnight? Police, Fire service perhaps?
Nope, as they are essential services, I'd like non essential stuff scrapped altogether not privatised.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronRooster92
Although am sure jails could be made to pay for themselves.
See the problem is that what is essential for you is not essential to me and vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
No not reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I don't use meals on wheels for example but can see how it is an essential service, unless Big Society volunteers are willing to do it for exes only.
But these departments for example
British Monarchy
British National Space Centre
Environment Agency
Equal Opportunities Commission
Equality and Human Rights Commission
European Consumer Centre for Services
European Ombudsman
Racial Equality, Commission for
Resilience, UK (Civil Contingencies Secretariat)
Women's National Commission
Child Support Agency
Civil Contingencies Secretariat
Culture, Media and Sport, Department for
Stabilisation Unit
all these could go or at be massively reduced and it wouldn't be drastic, folk wouldn't die, the country wouldn't be any the worse off for not having all the bureaucrats shuffling bits of paper amongst themselves at our expense.
This is the sort of crap that Labour massively increased for no reason other than to massage the unemployment figures, buy votes and try and make the economy look a bit better despite the fact they were keeping they were burying the fact we were in the worst peace time financial mess ever.
That would be the world of £25bn worth of tax avoidance in the last year alone :p : Such a fine example to all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
You do such a good job of representing this Tory government's attitude towards those it represents. Well done.
Would love to know who you think would be calling the public, giving out advice in advance of likely flood events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Who would be giving out permits for the abstraction of water in stressed areas? If it was totally privatised so much would be overlooked.
As ever, read what is writtenQuote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
that department could be cut down or is that all they do 52 weeks a year?
Even little things like dropping temperature in all offices to 18 would save a fortune, but these parasites would grizzle, strike etc.
Have you any comprehension how much tax and NI revenue his firm brings in to the UK, a down sight more than all these worthless parasites do as they bring in zilch not a single ****ing penny they just take, he's quite entitled to avoid what he does, more in fact. Odd how rentamob didn't barricade Tesco as they avoid far more than Top Shop do, ahh but I was forgetting silly me, they gave loads of back handers to Labour didn't they. Blair was even offered or given a job by Tesco when he stepped down as chief liar and murderer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I find it quite remarkable that, in this and other threads, you continue to argue with us despite the fact that you must realise yourself to be intellectually inferior. Read your poorly-punctuated rants, and then read what people like Arrows post. You might see what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I fundamentally disagree that anyone is "entitled" to avoid paying tax and by advocating such action, or doing nothing about it, a dangerous precedent is being set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Avoidance is perfectly legal, why pay more, if the foolish civil servants leave loopholes then any decent account will spot them.
I don't pay a penny more than I have to, and begrudge paying that as I know the government will only waste it.
But slightly connected, I do think that some means of paying your winter fuel allowance, free eye tests etc back into the system should be set up. I believe in America many deliberately over pay their taxes to help the country (although rather strangely anything you over pay is tax deductible).
So if people weren't warned about flooding and got caught in flooding they somehow magically wouldn't die? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I guess you missed them roasting George W for the bailouts at the end of his tenure. Or the heaps of abuse he took when he first took office and invited Teddy Kennedy in to give input on his education bill? How about the abuse the commentators gave him over Rumsfeld's tenure in how he mismanaged Iraq? Fox is critical, but if you only listened to some people, you wouldn't know that. Fox isn't the BBC, make no mistake, but they are not exactly stupid. close to 40% of their viewers vote Democrat or are independents. It isn't just the network of mouth breeders and whackjobs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Oh yes..and one more thing Daniel. The day MSNBC goes after Obama for being too liberal will be the first day....
The only difference between MSNBC, and FOX? Viewers....only the most hardcore left of center voters seem to show MSNBC any loyalty.
In Canada or the UK, public broadcasters tend to be neutral and left of center. I don't quarrel with their political stance, I watch both but I do object being told I must fund them as if THEY are somehow the only credible news sources on the dial. In the USA, publically funded PBS exists, but they get their own donations, and survive on that basis. FOX, MSNBC, the big 3 Networks and CNN offer various slants on news, and anyone from Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh can find a place to get their news, and while I may not always like the slant, at least figure out what the hell is going on.
In most countries, private media takes this responbility seriously. IN any democratic society, media is often flowing back and forth looking for a unique audience. No one network is going to corner all the viewers, and that leaves opportunity for other voices. If you are a Labour supporter in the UK, I am sure someone will be advocating your political slant with his news broadcast if there was no BBC. Just like someone will be spouting off the Tory line or maybe something in the middle. In America, the only reason Fox gets ripped, is because for many years, the media made a big show of pretending they didn't have a bias, and the reality is a lot of excellent books have pointed out there was a bias in TV media in the US all along, some of it going both ways. FOX just has been a little more obvious, and people reacted. They are the number one network in the US because most of the others have tried to occupy the left to mushy middle of the political spectrum, and outside of the odd voice on CNN, conservative commentators were all driven out. Beck was a CNN guy. Tucker Carlson ( a knob to be sure) was CNN. George Will is never on with another Conservative on ABC, and he and John Stossel were the only conservatives on that network. Stossel is more libertarian anyhow and is on Fox, along with Geraldo, and Alan Colmes, two guys who are NOT in any way conservative. Ditto for Juan Williams...
In short, the Americans have proven you cover the political spectrum in media quite easily in a free society without government controlled broadcasters. In a nation where free speech is supposed to be treasured, in media saturation I would argue the US has media voices all over the spectrum.