Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is that the BBC is anticipating the Tories winning the next General Election. So they hope that by cutting a bit, it will placate the Conservatives and prevent them from cutting even more from them when/if they get into power.
and the BBC is riddled with Labour apologist automatons, so that would be a resounding 'No' then.
It's a highly politicised situation. To a large extent the problem seems to lie in the fact that the most influential media organisations within the UK, outside the BBC, are controlled by interests (of whom Murdoch is the most prominent) who would like nothing better than to see the BBC cut down several pegs.
Offering free access to non-subscribed net content, and driving people away from Murdoch's idea of pay per view services!? How DARE they? You only have to look at his son's verging on hysterical diatribe against the BBC a few months ago to gather that there's an agenda there, and one which will work well enough on people who receive their major information drip feed from papers and TV controlled by his empire.
I worry that by cutting down online content they're doing to do themselves more harm than good - at this point it's about looking forward, not gazing back wistfully at some unattainable heyday.
the BBC should be stripped back to: BBC1, BBC2, Radio 1-5, World Service and a news/iplayer only variant of BBC.co.uk
well then it doesn't exactly remain a public service broadcaster, does it?
handle Snog Marry Avoid being online-only, but losing the Adam and Joe show for good would kill me.
6music does not have a smaller audience than other BBC services because it's not listed in the radio times, it has a smaller audience because it's aimed at more of a niche crowd in the first place. I doubt the majority of 6musics core audience/potential audience buy the radio times (Feel free to produce some figures to prove me wrong though).
The BBC is one of the genuinely respectable British institutions. Not like Coronation Street or Eric Morcambe. It's something that sets our country ahead of every other.
They're not even owned by Newscorp are they?
And the Mail is written for people who prefer the right-wing ideals.
Also it's owned by a massive media group who see the BBC as taking away a market share they could own in any area.
Firstly, because it's supported by what is effectively a tax. Right wingers generally not for a lot of taxes. And secondly because they think it is full of liberals and socialists and has a left wing agenda.
The Daily Mail can fall heavily on the side of liberalism in terms of lack of Government 'meddling' in people's lives. Equally it'll be wild about being too liberal with checking on people working in schools.
The fact is the left and right wing politics have strong areas where they're liberal and areas where they're authoritarian, so using liberal is too vague for my liking.
redistributing wealth etc...
in the modern, American sense of the word, yeah kind
All political parties advocate redistributing wealth, although they disagree to the extent of how much.
In a broad sense, Classical Liberalism is about hands-off governing.
Left-wing liberalism tends to be about: believing state control of things will give the individual 'freedom' (ultimately) from unfair fees etc. Public transport being cheap giving everyone the chance to travel, courtesy of the well-off subsidising the poor. Personal liberties to do what you want, letting immigrants keep their own culture alive, not to judge them for it.
Right-wing liberalism: tends to be based on the idea that freedom of the markets with little or no govt. intervention will result in the consumer having most choice and the best value being automatically the route of least resistance. The govt. shouldn't involve in people's lives at all, etc.
The most obvious example of right-wing liberalism vs. left-wing authoritarianism is the Tory party's objection to Labour's ID card nonsense.
I thought it was written for people who just dislike the concept of having ideals
I'm not sure either why there is a perception of the BBC being particularly left leaning
surely it's purely economic
that it's more left leaning than right, but I thought everyone also realised that it was the nearest we're ever going to get to impartial news.
I agree with Vikram that they shouldn't expand so aggressively into entertainment, mind.
One of the issues we have is that almost every other news outlet is strongly right-leaning, meaning there's no vacuum in which to consider this.
You could imagine that the corporation might have a larger number of left-thinking types if we assume that being a right-thinking type goes hand in hand with a desire to be paid more than the desire to do something 'worthy'. I'm not sure how true a line that could be, however.
Show your working!
Clearly the Guardian isn't.
Well shall we take it as read on the newspaper front? The number of right-wing papers far outweighs the Guardian, the Independent and *chuckle* the Mirror.
Sky is definitely a very right-leaning news source. Check out some of their recent interviews of Gordon Brown. I haven't watched ITN seriously for many years but that said ITN probably hasn't been watched seriously by anyone in years given ITV's demographic these days.
C4 news seems balanced to me too.
Numbers of places that tend to play Sky news rather than the BBC, though, means there's automatically a trashier, rightier angle to the news.
more left than the majority of news outlets out there, which could mean it's right, balanced or left, or genuinely left-leaning.
There are so many other factors at play. If the BBC is trying to foster new arts talent it will naturally get a 'youthier' feel, which would probably make it seem far more left-wing to the oldest parts of society, so you couldn't have a flat notion here.
All I was saying is this idea that the BBC is left-leaning can't really be proved at all and given it comes from sources who are by their own admission on the 'right' side of the political map (Telegraph, News International, Daily Mail group) it's hard to really know what to say.
People will claim the BBC is biased because it doesn't come out in opposition to multi-culturalism or similar ideas.
I don't know what you meant by this exactly, but I take it as not meaning "strongly right-wing" but more generally right wing, as "leaning" would suggest.
Well I would say a news outlet that was strongly right-wing would be telling its viewers what to think, while right-leaning would portray the news in a way that favoured a right-wing view.
i.e. Disproportionate numbers of stories focusing on people with vast benefit payouts while reminding the reader that they are presumably not like that and are paying for it. Stories about ethnic minorities that play up to stereotypes that represent a very small portion of them (e.g. Honour killings).
I'm not saying news shouldn't be reported but there's a difference between reporting genuine news, reporting it with a sensationalist/paranoiac angle and even picking stories that aren't necessarily particularly impressive because they fit an agenda.
Evidence for this?
If you google that you find the hilarious hypocrisy of Murdoch (!!!!) claiming the BBC is unfair competition, the implication that Radio 1 should be in a commercial operator's hands as if this is a good thing and wouldn't just mean Murdoch.
Commerical TV consistently produced less good TV than subscription based stuff and recently in the US such TV only really got its act together after it realised how popular HBO was and made an effort to emulate it.
As to your 'citizen journalism service or something' you don't have an example and the millions of blogs by random Yaahoos spouting their own take on news and politics don't really fill me with any great hope. People don't use the BBC because they're brainwashed. If you google news stories they barely ever make the first few options, but people trust them because they've earned that trust.
It's a pretty bizarre notion that the BBC controls the web in some way. I'd love to know what these mysterious services are that are being throttled by the BBC's domination?
the BBC having some sort of web presence is a good thing?
Impartial, public funded, therefore no (real) agenda?
They have a lot LESS capital than most of their competitors and that's what we're discussing here.
Again you imply that there are commercial enterprises being stopped by the BBC already taking their ground and again I want to know where you seriously think the BBC oversteps its ground in the field of its online services?
90% of the content is programme generated. Recipes are on there because they feature in TV programmes. Videos are on there because they're part of the BBC. They aren't trying to set up YouTube, they have their own channel on there.
The BBC is really nothing like Google. It hasn't edged out other competitors. The ITV, C4, C5 and SKY websites all have similar content and are used for the same reasons.
Where else is there a national music radio station that champions the number of different genre that Radio 1 does. Granted, certain shows and DJs are no different to what you'd hear on Capital, Absolute or one of many other smaller local radio stations (particularly the daytime stuff), but I doubt any national commercial station would be brave enough to do stuff like BBC Introducing along with The Evening Session, Annie Mac, Pete Tong, The Rock Show, The Punk Show and some of the documentary stuff they do at times?
For all that much of Radio 1's gone downhill - and I do think it has - to suggest it's no different does it a disservice.
It would be retarded to follow a pattern of:
BBC pioneers new ground
Commercial imitators set-up to cash in
BBC has to retract because it's inhibiting its competitors
who don't have any kind of public charter and no responsibility to the public whatsoever? What a good idea!
Stick to peering through school railings eh?
Don't get me wrong - I want it to stay. My band have been played on it, other people I know's bands have been played on it and it's a great thing for new underground bands to have. But I'm not sure if I can give an objective reason why the BBC should continue to fund the station (assuming instead they were going to up the amount of specialist programming on Radio 1 or 2)
Ultimately new bands don't have a right to be played on the radio, alternative and fringe bands don't have a right to be played on the radio and independent music doesn't have a right to be played on the radio. You could argue that this deprives people who want to listen to those bands but you can listen on LastFM, Myspace, Youtube etc.
Clearly Radio 1 and Radio 2 need to sort out their playlisting and programming so that if enough people want to hear something on the radio they can hear it on the radio but if there isn't enough demand, why should it get played on the radio? I mean I quite like the fact obscure bands do get played and I benefit for this. But I'm not sure I can argue I or anyone else in an indie band has a right for that to happen.
Paul, there's playing Devil's Advocate and just going entirely too far down the path, you know? ;-)
improves the entire landscape of the discipline for ALL
Aren't they supposed to be playing fringe music? Doesn't Radio 1 have a policy to play new and up-and-coming acts anyway in theory? I admit it may not work in practice but isn't this something Radio 1 and Radio 2 are meant to be doing as part of their own remits?
what I can say is that in my house we very often stream 6music and everyone loves it... I don't really listen to 1 or 2
I think it comes down to two things
1) Is the audience large enough for it to successfully drive a commercial station?
2) Is the listenership a substantial enough number of people who would be otherwise unable to access the content?
if the answer to 1) is no and 2) is yes then this is precisely what public service radio should be for
and this goes for the Asian network they're talking of axing as well
If it's yes I'd agree it should stay.
It's a station you can only access through DAB or online, and while I'm making assumptions about the "average" 6Music listener, I imagine they are EXACTLY the kind of people whom are capable and do seek out and engage with music through a multitude of websites, etc, beyond what 6Music offers.
6Music is a radio station aimed at people who don't listen to radio.
And there are plenty of other BBC stations playing specialist music. But, if you weren't a huge fan of independent music, you could point out Radio 1 and Radio 2 both play some independent music. So is a separate radio station playing all independent music and playing some more obscure stuff just repeating what Radio 1 and Radio 2 do to a smaller listenership?
To be honest I think one of the problems of 6 Music is that it provides a corner for independent and specialist music to be shunted off to so the BBC can claim it's meeting its rota whilst keeping Radio 1 & 2 as mainstream and populist listener-chasers.
I'd prefer to see more independent/fringe content on the two mainstream stations (and at more accessible times), even if it meant they had a few less listeners.
Surely the moment that Radio 1 and 2 start broadcasting stuff that the majority of people don't want to listen to the argument will switch again? Instead of it being about the BBC being wrong for chasing listeners, it'll be about the BBC being wrong for broadcasting stuff that no-one wants to listen to on flag-ship stations.
Pretty commercial during the day, diverse at night.
to reduce your argument
why should the BBC continue to be funded at all?
why do we even need radio now that we have last.fm?
jesus wept.....oh the radio....turn it up indeed van...turn it up.
not when you're talking about bands not having a 'right' to be played, listing alternatively availible commercial media and finding it hard to justify funding claims
but yeah, I'm stretching a bit
and it's a broad church is six...it's hardly just a stomping ground for the latest guitar bands
seriously, laverne, riley and coe are fucking invaluable for my ears because i don't have an internet supply (i'm in the library right now) so i rely on them a lot for new music...and a lot of all music...6 music can still be a musical education
the radio is such an underrated medium for the consumption of music....i'd actually say it's the purest form of musical consumption
than simply playing devil's advocate. the extremes are easy - it's the middle ground that's complicated.
Anyway this isn't an extreme argument I'm making. It's the case the people who want to get shot of 6Music are going to make. If someone can't make a good response to those questions then any attempt to save it is not going to get very far.
because of a load of hypocritical, amoral, scare mongering, celeb fetishising dick-splints....i think i might cry.
i thought this had all blown over anyway...is it in trouble again?
That's 39p a day. THIRTY NINE OF YOUR NEW PENCE.
TV = £8.00pm (BBC One = £4.77pm, BBC 2 = £1.95pm, Others = £1.28)
Radio = £2.00pm.
Online = £0.61pm.
'Digital switchover' & running costs, etc. = £1.01
^This represents decent value compared to rival services in my book. How anyone could claim otherwise is kinda beyond me.
I can see how you might be ideologically opposed to the concept of a mandatory licence fee to cover the ownership of 'equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV signals'.
But to claim that the more niche stuff is somehow poor value for money seems odd.
I don't know but the value of the Royal Family isn't as simple as what it costs the British taxpayer.There is a lot of international interest that other Royal Familys don't produce and i'm pretty sure "The Royal Family" is pretty high up the agenda of a lot of tourists coming to London.
I thought he meant the TV prog. And I made a post to that effect that might pop up in a moment.
The (real) Royal Family isn't really analogous to the BBC. But for different reasons to what c_s_h just mentioned. I'd argue that:
a) tourists don't come for the actual Royal family, /some/ definitely come for the heritage and the real estate, though.
b) the existence of the Royal Family is something I'm fundamentally opposed to on principle. But for 0.69p per year (<£50m pa) I can't be bothered to get my knickers in too much of a twist about it. They'll fade away with time.
Which is why I'm not opposed to the Royal Family on primarily financial grounds.
I'm all for things that foster the collective good.
And I believe that the BBC does a good job in that role. We've been through this before, but the BBC is head and shoulders above a good amount of commercial broadcast media from home and abroad. The UK loves it's radio in a way other countries don't. Yes the US (or more likely HBO) occasionally comes up with something worth exporting, but UK TV is responsible for a massive proportion of exported TV formats.
I'd wager that if everything was given a level playing field (i.e. BBC as a lump-sum subscription Vs other commercials via subscription) the BBC would wipe the floor with it's rivals.
Look at the poor take-up of Ondigital/ITV digital compared to the the BBC-backed Freeview. On/ITV tried to play Sky at it's own game by doing 'the football' thing. And failed miserably. BBC came out with BBC Three & Four, and the kids channels, and Freeview flourished.
As for struggling commercial digital radio stations. If 6music, 1Xtra, and BBC7 are such failures, why aren't there (m)any viable alternatives coming from the commercial sector, attracting the audiences that 6music, 1Xtra, and BBC7 aren't?
Free, but many people thought that it required an ongoing subscription.
BBC (a respected brand) pushed Freeview on the basis of it having BBC Three and Four.
Everyone knew the drill and most jumped on boeard.
E4/More4 (from another semi-public service broadcaster) followed, off of the back of this success.
That is all.
But beyond that, the BBC is highly regarded and produces content that people want in on.
Channel 4 were awarded sufficient spectrum to launch a slew of digital radio stations, but they bottled it.
1X/6/7 are available for a tiny (almost insignificant) fraction of the cost of the licence fee.
If they are supposedly not pulling in the listeners* and a relatively respected big name like C4 is unable/unwilling to make a more competent go of it, why are they under threat for being 'too niche' or 'unjustifiable' when Radio 3 costs more per listener*?
* I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that gave favourable figures for 6/1X/7 per listener compared to R1 & R2, and especially R3.
I think not.
*£0.69 x ~65,000,000 of us.
You're either agreeing or pulling numbers out of the air. What's your point, caller?
I thought you were talking about the TV prog.
everyone in the 'alternative'/whatever music community should pull together to stop 6music getting axed. whatever its flaws, it's the last bastion of alternative music in 'mainstream' society. the fact that it might get axed to basically appease murdoch makes it even more imperative to stop it!
the Mail are still peeved that RATM got to Christmas No.1 instead of Xfuctor.
I still can't get my head around those who criticise 'Worldwide' for making too much money. Can't they stand a little competition. Maybe 6Music could become financially self-sufficient? Branch into gigs / festivals / comedy podcasts / digital downloading for sessions. That sort of thing
Can you talk me to it step by step? I don't really see what RATM has to do with 6 Music or why the Daily Mail would be especially peeved by the X Factor winner not going to number one. Or what it would have to do with this.
fuck 6 music....we've still got 24 hours of banging dance music on radio 1 and yummy mummmmmmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......oh i feel faint.
WHY...for the love of god why
i'm loosing all rational thought with this and just getting emotional....first mike carlson off five next season...now this
i think i'm just gonna start a dirty protest if 6music goes off the air...watch out fleet street...if you're knives do their job, my flat will get covered in excrement. don't say i didn't warn you
i love you 6music...never let go....never let go ja..gideon.
6music is 'twinned' with Radio 2, and 1Xtra is 'twinned' with Radio 1.
I'd have though that R1 and R2 are geared towards mainstream music for their respective age-centric demographics (much as they are now).
1X & 6 home should worry less about R1 & R2 respectively and concentrate on unearthing music that may never be mainstream.
R1 & R2 should 'follow & pander to' it's listeners.
1X & 6 should 'lead & challenge' it's listeners.
I'd listen to more 1Xtra if it came across less like 'Radio 1 doing R&B to tha Max' and did more exciting 'non-indie/alt' stuff.
quite unlike indie fans to whinge impotently
You're shocked because the radio station many people on this board listen to is being threatened with closure.
What did you imagine?
If it does anything that is of a high-quality that people like then it gets blasted for being a monopoly and damaging the competition, if it does anything that is shit or overly niche then it gets blasted for being a waste of money.
We're pretty lucky to have the BBC, it'd be sad to see it get eaten up.
there's not a more loved, for all it's faults, institution in this country than the BBC. It's approval ratings and support for the licence fee are significantly above 60%.
However from reading The Sun, The Times (Owned by News International) The Daily Mail (Owners DMGT who own a 20% stake in ITN and 29.9% stake in GCap Media who own XFM and Classic FM) you'd think it was about as popular as a swine flu infected paedophile traffic warden.
I dread to think what state the BBC could be left in five years time if this is a start.
and that's why I shall be complaining and joining the online pettition to no 10 about radio 6.
Some things I hadn't thought about. Basically, Radio 1 becoming a jack of all trades again, master of none.
Good to know that he was familiar with it last week. Not like it would be within his ministerial brief or anything.
SHUT IT DOWN NOW! ;-)
I do love his comments there and projecting my own Tory prejudices onto him to imply that he happens to fit the white, middle-class, late 30s demographic that the station is aimed at. I can't imagine he'd have spent the weekend with the Asian Network and loving it. I don't really know what my point is, sorry.
and more the fact that he decided to comment on it in that situation.