Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
My new job is great. I get to look at things like this ALL DAY.
They've never liked them.
Licence fee reduction and serious culling of BBC personnel/surplus departments come the next administration.
poor quality programming, dreadful reporting. Their website and Newsnight are their saving graces.
bbc website is massively overrated, but i'm the only person in the world who seems to think that.
newsnight is ok but, in general, their current affairs coverage is terrible. i quite like radio 4, though..
The World Service and BBC Radio 1-5 are outstanding (Okay, not so much daytime Radio 1, but they have a different set of musical priorities to DiS types).
BBC 1 and 2 are worth preserving too.
News 24 is pretty pointless though and are BBC 3 and 4 which only serve to reduce the amount of comedy/culture/drama shows on BBC 1 and 2.
If they stripped it back to the core 5 radio stations, 2 television stations and the World Service they could cut the licence fee by half.
stand news 24. The US equivalents are invariably superior. Even Euronews and that one run by the French government are much better.
to what we listen to, but is there much value in just replicating what can be offered by commercial radio? but then you get the whole problem of wasting money if no one listens to it, and people like me bitching if they make it too populist...
more people should watch it. I would accept that it probably doesn't justify its funding though.
news reporting options in this country (i.e sky, ITN), the Beeb is far and away the best
head and shoulders above anyone else.
BBC just make newslite these days.
Alarmist crap, its basically ITN for those people who think ITN is for morons
bbc & sky are comparable but neither is as good as ABC, CNN etc.
they have immense resources and some truly excellent journalists, but they're utterly hamstrung by the Murdoch party line.
sky news is the worst culprit of the horrors associated with 24 hour news
are dire, especially CNN
Certainly their coverage of US elections compares favourably with the BBC's coverage of UK ones.
Obviously that's not the only thing they have to cover but i don't see how anyone could dispute it.
when Alistair Darling announced the Budget earlier this year the BBC rushed to Gateshead where they had three people lined up (a young mum, a pensioner and a student) to ask them about how the budget affected them.
american news channels would never engage in that sort of shit.
It was fucking brilliant
Look out East was my favourite
It's probably on youtube if you search for Ed Winchester fast show.
I'm getting confused with that News piss take show on BBC2 a few years back
American news is all bombastic graphics and endless pointless debating.
Plus the focus of american news has to be different, given the vast scale and size of their country. Its unfair to compare the two
Well, to go back to the BBC's coverage of the budget ... In the US they would have roped in a couple of experts to offer their opinions. The BBC asked jade goody.
Also, the BBC are responsible for This Week - the worst current affairs programme in the history of television.
doesn't mean they don't do other things well. They generally have experts involved as well (although granted, they're not always given as much time as they should be) and tend to cover such things with far less hype than the US does.
the BBC pioneered the 'aggressive over the top wanker' interview style.
i know you're talking about superficial things but i don't think they matter quite as much..
isn't about hype. It's more about making the point that people are refusing to answer questions. Sometimes it's valid, but not all the time it's used.
As for hype. I simply mean that things aren't always built up to be THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION/BUDGET/TREEHOUSE OF DOOM OF ALL TIME!!!!1111 in the way that the American media seems to. Albeit the British media in general is starting to tend that way.
ITN, Channel 4
with out interviewers being able to hector their subjects then no question would ever be answered!
as to the BBC in general, just imagine how rubbish this country would be with out. public service brodcasting, especially the radio output, is the only reason i still live in the UK.
get rid of the today programme and i'm off to norway.
if you want to know why no public figure ever gives a straight answer it's because no interviewer ever asks an unloaded question.
If public figures are so unwilling to be blunt and honest, you've got to dig to get anywhere near the truth. Sad, but true.
When faced with straight questions these days, so often politicians fail to answer them - I could probably count the number of questions actually answered by Gordon Brown in PMQs this month on one hand.
and have loved them in the past. I'm sure there was a time when right-wing people didn't assume that the BBC was a left-wing propagandist organisation.
Of course it looks left-wing in the face of the majority of media because anything centrist will look left-wing compared to a right-wing slant.
The BBC does have a habit of putting out some shit that does it no favours, though. Doctor Who and Bonekicker's sledgehammer-like social commentary and lefty-ness is fairly comical...
public service broadcasting is not as finacially rewarding as commercial broadcasting, ergo all the capitalists work for sky and all the lefties for the Beeb.
Until the Conservatives make an effort to reclaim public service from the people who actually show up to do the jobs then the BBC, not to mention the teachers unions, the medical unions, and almost every other national institution is going to wind up dominated by the left.
principles before profit and all that...
Mark Thompson - 'BBC Director General' - 816,000
Jana Bennett - 'Head of Vision' - 536,000
Jenny Abramsky - 'Head of Audio' - 419,000
Admittedly, they are at the top of the tree, but the notion that the BBC is crammed full of principle before profits is erroneous. The majority would jump ship to the commercial sector at the first opportunity given the chance of a better paid position, especially given the personnel cuts at the Beeb.
As for teachers, doctors and nurses et al, whilst no doubt hardworking in the main I think they are paid pretty fairly, factor in the guaranteed final salary pension and relatively generous leave entitlement and it's all looking pretty good in comparison to many in the private sector who are earning the same or significantly less.
who is still coming to terms with just how generous my conditions are in comparison to my previous private sector employment.
"The majority would jump ship to the commercial sector at the first opportunity given the chance of a better paid position"
The five or six people I know who work there, bitch and moan as they might about various things, are very loyal and consider working for the BBC something of a career highlight.
But if asita's pay assumptions are wrong (and I can't really work out if you're refuting them across the board or just saying the head honchos don't get paid a pittance) how would you account for a left-wing bias.
It's a truism that people who choose a job based on what it is not what it pays tend to be leftist in outlook, no? And so jobs that tend to pay below the market rate will get those sorts of people working for them?
up to that point it is only an ideal.
It's like when you meet teenage straightedge kids in the States, it's easy to hold true to your principles when you're in no position to break them.
I believe that there is a liberal bias at the Beeb, but that has as much to do with the fact that they are a primarily London-centric organisation with a disproportionate number of young metropolitan hipster types in their employ.
As an institution they aren't representative of the populace as a whole and never have been.
So, what I would put to you would be, do they attract people of a certain bent or do people merely conform to what they believe is expected of them in order to get a job there in the first place?
Are there just hiring 'People like us'? If so, it's less a case of people following a calling and more an example of a closed shop and 'jobs for the boys'.
By the nature of certain people going for certain jobs, you will always have a 'job for the boys' thing happening.
Chicken and egg really.
I have no idea about their loyalty to the BBC, just pointing out that your assumptions over their willingness to move quickly to a better paid commercial sector job aren't borne out by what's been said by those I know.
that public service broadcasting is essentialy a socialist concept? it's fundamentally anti-free market and is essentially a protected monopoly. surely it's fundamentally repugnant to traditional Conservative ideals.?
why would Conservatives choose to work their?
are incapable of compartmentalising their lives.
I have particular ideas about politics, but I'd never let them interfere with my day-to-day working life.
Most people are pragmatists, if they want to be a journalist or to work in broadcasting in some capacity they're unlikely to cut their nose off to spite their faces.
Do you reckon there are anti-smokers working at Philip Morris? Of course they are, I imagine that vast majority have no trouble sleeping at night.
Maybe there are anti-smokers too, that would be a little further up the hypocrisy chart though!
who'd never read them, and left-wingers working for the Torygraph.
Still, I'm sure in general people will gravitate toward jobs that reflect their personal moral outlook on life, etc. Assuming they even get that choice.
"Of course it looks left-wing in the face of the majority of media because anything centrist will look left-wing compared to a right-wing slant."
Al Jazeera English slays BBC World. Obviously I am going to say that, but I do think its TV output is far better.
because lots of people like soaps, gameshows, My Family etc.
They also produce loads of wonderful programmes for a more limited audience.
The Thick of It - about as edgy a piece of political programming as you're likely to see. the complaints made about the swearing in that make great reading.
as to the beeb's general output, if they just enforced it's mandate everything would be fantastic. culturally relevant, improving documentary and drama. god i'd love to see that.
as to the wire and curb your enthusiasm, both were made by HBO, who the BBC are in the process of establishing a strong working relationship. obviously they've only produced Rome so far, which wasn;'t that great, but it bodes well.
The BBC's staff is universally comprised of Tory-haters, apart from current Political Editor.
They trivialise everything to do with the Tory party in their news, unless its some sort of failure or scandal.
Dimbleby is a perfect example. Loves the Lib Dems, tolerates the Labours and consistently interrupts the Tories.
a hitherto silent majority (I'm sorry, there was no other way to describe it) of the population resent having to pay for partisan political coverage from what can often seem like a cabal of unbearably smug champagne socialists.
The BBC is a great institution, but it risks undermining the very tenet upon which it was built if we allow it (or significant numbers of those within it) to act like the media operations wing of the labour party.
they, and you, think about what the UK would be like with out the BBC. we need public service broadcasting to remind us that consumerism is not an innate element of britishness. the BBC may not be Conservative with a 'capital C' but i think that it is essentially 'small c' conservative in it's influence.
the television broadcasting might be essentially rubbish and the radio biased, but at least we have a media that discusses current social issues. i cant think of another country that does.
It's nigh on impossible to be impartial.
You can't get a prominent position in public life without arsekissing and that will obviously have a trickle down effect. My problem with the BBC is that a newsreader said "We all worry about our kids" and was not even quoting a prole. I want the BBC to be stuffier than a sauna with Prescott sat there.
if people think the beeb is too centrist and not right-wing enough, which seems to be the main complaint, they just need to listen to Radio Five when Simon Mayo's not on