Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
inspired by http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4433080
others to follow...
it's shrunk into this utterly turgid, idiot-pandering totem to thoughtless banality
it knowingly employs cunts
it has very little of any worth to show for itself now, and its purpose is increasingly obscure
I wouldn't mourn its passing - at least get the pretence of an impartial organ out of the way and we might stand a chance of launching a counterthrust against the craven ills of contemporary journalism
I'm listening...how exactly?
after that, I dunno - start a 'hip, young' newspaper/news blog that mixes the literary with the hard-hitting, the esoteric with the everyday, comes out of leftfield and doesn't recycle the same tired celebrity narratives you see everywhere else?
^^^shit brainstorming but it's a start
I'll keep the BBC
It's streets ahead of the BBC at the moment in terms of offering depth and analysis.
(as, in, truly balanced, rather than pandering to, say climate change deniers or something), than the likes of the BBC and CNN, and certainly more so than Sky, ITV or Fox, or any of the media outlets in countries like Italy or Australia.
That a large portion of the Arabic speaking world thinks it's too soft.
Plus 10 indie points!
Must be the endless interviews/shows fronted by George Galloway, Mehdi Hassan and Ken Livingstone that keep it so neutral.
100 indie points to me.
to err is human
and by 'our' I mean 'as a personal choice, streamed online', not installed as official national channel ffs
You didn't exactly make that clear.
The phrasing there made me think you were proposing a like-for-like replacement though :D
as in, something that is justifiably the envy of the rest of the world.
As such, it's obviously something that all governments of the past 30 years have sought to break up and dismantle.
Admittedly, I can't watch or listen to any of its news programmes or reporting now as it's so superficial and trashy (although it is still better than ITV and Sky), but there are programmes and initiatives in there that, simply put, could only be undertaken by the BBC, and only done so because of its compulsory licence.
I think a good sign that the BBC generally does a good job is that it pisses people off across the spectrum.
not because of any editorial line.
For all it's faults we'd be a hell of a lot worse off without it
But feel duty bound to point out that "The NHS" isn't a thing - England, Wales, NI, and Scotland have independent NHS's. The BBC has divisions, but they're not truly independent of each other. Which leads into a rant I'll save you from by just linking to www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk which isn't the funniest thing on earth, but it gets the point across adequately.
is not the envy of the world.
So do one.
there's nothing special about it, most of Western Europe for example has much better healthcare systems.
rather than accusing me of trolling. Might make you look a bit less silly.
re: your second point: I believe the World Service is listened to by a large number of people outside the UK
can't be bothered with that
they are a touch bloated though, they can lose things like the Voice, trahy soaps and paying too much for certain presenters. On the whole it is needed for things like local radio, coverage of big national and sporting events, news and the like. No commercial channel could have done the red button coverage of Glastonbury the BBC did. Ditto for the tennis. We all tune into the BBC if there is a royal wedding or jubilee or whatever.
Like them or not, those shows are needed in order for it to keep it's funding
neatly summarises my problem with the BBC
I think they had a chance to really stand out from the dumbed down news coverage of ITV and Sky but instead followed them. Their sports coverage has gotten generic and predictable. Their lack of reporting on some key issues of late are concerning. There have been huge wastes of money on digital projects and redundancies. And a person I know who works there regularly tells me stories of things I find unfathomable (stories of people taking the generous redundancy packages available (you get a months full pay for every year you've been there) when already having consultancy work at inflated rates lined up (this happens a lot at Unis / civil service places too), working days of 10 to 3 with a day off in some departments, the incredible sense of entitlement & general laziness he talks about within his team).
I'd have marched on parliament to save the Beeb a few years ago, but right now they're a shambles.
Like nature documentaries, Doctor Who, much of their drama, the foreign drama / music / quizzes on BBC4, some BBC3 comedy, 6music, F1 coverage online...
I watch the BBC more than every other station put together I'd wager even in this day and age, but increasingly it's changing into something far more akin to their competitors.
Fuck the BBSmee.
[To Lynn] Take this cheese.
Maybe it's lame to say, "Well it's better than the competition," but the fact is that it does have a duty to appeal to a lot of people and it has a very very hard position to fight politically. Bearing all this in mind I still think it manages to be great.
I think there was a period where the BBC sought to dictate to the people what they should like a lot more. And yeah, those of us who were liberal, lefty types felt good about it, but that doesn't mean it was what everyone else wanted, nor that it was right.
or rather why should it? I don't understand why they bother funding programmes that would get made anyway (ie the voice)
It's not like Sky, people have to pay the TV Licence if they own a TV, unless they want to get into a messy court battle. It *is* a service for the public, for anyone who owns a TV. That means it has a duty to provide a broad range of programming.
As to something like The Voice, you could say that about 99% of their programmes and say the BBC's only duty should be to make programmes that are commercially or politically unviable but that would turn it into something else entirely. Not necessarily bad but probably catering to a very narrow community and not deserving of the funding it has.
Given that's NOT what it's there to do, it should provide programmes like Strictly Come Dancing and The Voice. Yeah, The Voice turned out to be a complete lemon, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. More importantly, people who watch a show on a channel are more likely to find out about other shows on that channel/network and then watch them or stay watching and see something else, so there is a lot of mileage to such a show in how it provides an audience of other things.
but i increasingly struggle to see enough 'commercially or politically unviable' output to justify the existence of the rest.
and the quality of news reporting isn't anywhere near the level that it ought to be.
they do a damn good line in 'this proud and great old nation of ours', though.
the auditions are in glasgow tomorrow. Tralalallaa.
I don't understand how it is justified, when it would be 100% identical if another channel had bought it.
Maybe it got lost in my long paragraph:
More importantly, people who watch a show on a channel are more likely to find out about other shows on that channel/network and then watch them or stay watching and see something else, so there is a lot of mileage to such a show in how it provides an audience of other things.
but I'm not sure if you're implying that only a programme of the intellectual calibre of Newsnight getting a ratings boost could justify having The Voice?
the reason they show the popular pish is to lure people to stick around for the more niche programming?
seems a bit daft to me
Especially if they don't actually watch broadcast TV on it.
There are multiple institutions that are the equal or better at a number of functions that the BBC fulfills. And for most of the cars where there aren't, you could argue that, the reason for that is the stiflinv existence of the BBC.
All that said, I still consider it to be pretty decent value for £13pm compared to what £13pm gets you from alternative entertainment/information sources.
Comedy - C4, almost
Light entertainment - ITV
Investigative journalism - Vice, and the intertrons in general
TV News - C4
Local radio - commercial and community stations
National radio - Internet stations
Radio News - none
Drama - many overseas stations
I think it's interesting to note that Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster - publicly-owned, but commercially-funded.
I certainly wouldn't watch any sport anywhere else, given the choice, apart from cycling maybe.
You're wrong about Local and National Radio - commercial local radio is AWFUL, especially now that it's dominated by Global. There are local independents (eg Resonance), but they're still more internet based. I'd say that only the likes of HBO and AMC that can beat it for drama, although Channel 4 does come close.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Channel 4 point.
but the point is more that the Beeb defo ain't irreplaceable, and that the alternatives are many and varied, rather than there being 'a better similar institution' to take it's place.
The C4 point is just hinting at the possibility that there's more than one way to skin a cat.
and the investment in technology and things like that it is able to deliver - such as the education and Open University broadcasting, digital switchover funding, developing the iPlayer (including it being used as the basis for Channel 4 and ITV's viewers) and so on.
That bunch of "Oh no, don't worry, it's fine to be a cretinously sexist and racist publication because it's totally ironic, like, man," utter, utter cunts?!
C4 isn't publicly owned any more, is it? I thought their funding thing changed not long ago. Not that I don't like C4. They are pretty good but no better than the BBC comparatively. Their programming is far too geared to Daily Mail style 'real life' programmes for them to get close to the Beeb, though.
Also, Radio 4 is fucking boss, you complete weirdo. Boss.
when it comes to investigative journalism and reportage, there aren't many media outlets that can touch Vice at the moment.
the fact remains that Auntie is shit at investigative stuff.
Does this all feed back into
the fallout from Hutton? Can we blame it all on Tony?
If its existence could be assumed and protected so that their mistakes were calmly debated rather than rabidly seized upon by a long-line of bellends.
for the next season of Parks & Recs
fuck the beeb
I thought they would be showing them continually given how far behind they are.
yeah they've bought the rights to show season 3, but aren't showing it until 2014 (by then season 6 will have been shown in america, and UK DVDs of 3 and 4 are already out).
really been massively dumbed down
even that fucking newsnight review only happens once a month of BBC fucking 4 now
sandwiched in between the Golden Age of Coach Travel and An Intimate History of the Dish Cloth
Pretty sure most of the production companies aren't BBC either, uni challenge is Granada.
Aside: I watched an early episode of pointless on challenge (back when I still had electricity) and it was the shiteiest thing ever. Final round questions on friends characters and what 'GCSE' stands for.
by downgrading the BBC in any way shape or form, and that includes reducing the license fee any further.
There's too many things across the spectrum that you just wouldn't get elsewhere. Take quiz shows. Would you get Only Connect anywhere else? Take wildlife/nature and look at... just about everything they do, really. Take sport coverage. They have regrettably fallen into the Sky trap (maybe out of feeling the need to compete) of having hours of montage/hype before every event starts, but the coverage itself is still unparalleled. They even, at times, investigate themselves to a corruscating degree. Can you imagine a Murdoch channel doing that?
It's not perfect, but look at TV when you go abroad if you want to know how lucky we are. If we ever tried to build something new from the ground up, it would be... well, take all the bad "innovations" of previous years, and it would probably be a lot of that. Also... I HATE ADVERTS.
And anyone who didn't love it was put on trial for trolling.
I bear the wza no ill will tho
plus a whole night on the beeching cuts. fucking triple A.
absolutely disgusting anti-NHS propaganda on the news right now.
of people in Scotland believe the corporation does well at representing their life in its coverage of news and current affairs - the lowest proportion of any of the countries in the UK. The figure is 58% in England. Hardly a surprising disparity when the handling of Scottish politics by Question Time is the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
Some other stuff, including the £5m cost of bill for investigating the Savile case and its aftermath, here:
I'm not really sure this tells us much.
I don't believe the news coverage at the BBC does well at representing my life but I wouldn't expect it to.
They either throw some ill advised crap like this together for the summer months when no one's watching and before Strictly starts...
...They let John Barrowman back in... to make everybody's dreams come true... <shudders in fear and disgust>
What IS this though? Will Jamelia sing the national anthem as burly guards try to cram as many illegal immigrants into a shipping container without snapping them in half? A section where Al Murray bellows at ethnic types to 'get back where they came from' to which they would wittily reply 'I'm from Sidcup'? Will John Craven tell us how awesome the peak district is?
TVNZ is a joke at the moment. The coverage on the spying bill has been shockingly bad, I think there's been some shenanigans behind closed doors over their coverage on that. I genuinely think TVNZ One News is still one of the best sources of world news coverage though.
because the BBC isn't 'Scottish' enough?
But to answer DD: no. I'm not anti-BBC. Thread title is for effect innit. I enjoy lots of it's output. And it does lots of things better than anyone else. To say it's not 'Scottish enough' wouldn't quite be right, but, as you say yourself, there's a lot of room for improvement in the way it handles (what used to be called) current affairs (is that still a thing?).
Too much E&W stuff gets broadcast as national in a UK sense (although I think I've noticed them at least describing stuff a little more accurately on that front lately, if not actually rebalancing their output). News from NI = strife, too many LME-centric viewpoints, Bio-Dimbleby's ridiculous chairing of QT, etc. But they're kinda in the same boat as the Westminster parliament in that respect. This all sounds like a yes, to DD, actually. Maybe it actually is. Either way, the points still stand.
It's primarily a governance problem and secondarily a culture problem.
I would sack anyone who refused to work for less than £150,000. I would restructure the licence fee so that those on low incomes, students and most old age pensioners are exempt (with students this is mostly because its cheaper to administer as so many students don't pay anyway and mechanisms for means testing income don't work as well for students. It's also a populist way of appealing to a disaffected and self-interested group of voters) . A few changes here and there to programming. Purge the newsrooms of elitist establishmenters unless they change their ways. Instigate a radio renaissance. make better use of the archives. Discontinue the Archers. Banish John Inverdale.
You've gone too far DarwinDude. Too far.
Also: how exactly would one go about instigating a 'radio renaissance'?
The BBC is in the unenviable position of trying to provide everything for everyone. They get roundly criticised when trying to provide dedicated 'intellectual' programming (ie BBC4) because nobody watches it. The also get criticisied for trying to appeal to the masses in a cynical, ITV style (ie the voice).
For all its flaws (and I'm not denying there are many), I still love the BBC. I still use its website more than any other apart from this one and google, listen to R4, 5Live and 6 Music all the time, and watch BBC programming as much as any other tv (which admittedly, isn't very much these days).
The corporation spends almost none of its advertising on BBC4 anyway. Most people don't even know what's there. The BBC should learn to make good decisions taking account of opinion but without being swayed by utterly stupid contentions that its too intellectual and nobody watches it. Would they have Ways of Seeing on now?
Most of their history series are awful. Think there's one fronted by David Starkey (a favourite of 'the beeb')on at the moment. Every time I see Brian Cox's face I feel patronised (he's one of the ones who's being sent to radio).
The radio renaissance would involve a complete overhaul of radio 1 and lots of new presenters. It's relatively cheap to broadcast radio so we'd have far more 'intellectual' (but wholly accessible) programming across all stations. Radio4 content is no longer jealously guarded by the middle classes.
What a shower.
I hadn't seen that.
Basically, they're regurgitating spin that turns a story about possible dodgy email hacking into some sort of exposé of the hacked party. Can't be arsed rewriting the wheel in full. Have a link or two.
»If you’re confused and don’t understand why any of this constitutes a story, we empathise, because we don’t either.«
You think 50,000+ people protesting outside the Tory conference would get more mention than a brief 'people protesting about austerity measures' line on the 10 o'clock news.
Several ministers have filed complaints and asked Patten to explain the situation.
Apart from the Royal Family worshipping.
And the Director General massive pay offs.
Oh, and the whole institutionalised paedophilia thing that went on for decades.
But hey, who's counting?
Then openly lies about it on the 6 o'clock news.
But theres only about 3 BBC programmes I ever actually watch.
but it's still making me angry so:
"Former F1 driver Heidfeld was attempting to take the lead when he clipped the son of Formula 1 legend Alain Prost, Nicolas, and..."
I'm not convinced they understand how video works. It means you can actually SEE what happened. It's confusing me as much as angering me tbh.
prefers the impartiality of Italian and Australian broadcasters.
Was going to go for another deviation from the topic of the n00b question cycling thread, but that thread is SSP and this thing is giving me the full on rage...
BBC Breakfast are doing a series of reports and stuff on cycling and cycling safety and they've just had a five minute interview with... the widow of a guy who was killed cycling on a Sunday morning by a drunk driver.
It's obviously extremely tragic that a husband and father has died. Don't want to take away from that. BUT... what the WTF does a drunk driving death have to do with cycling and cycling safety, other than the victim happened to be on two wheels rather than two feet? And not just that: the questioning was atrocious. We went through the whole rigmarole of 'was he wearing a helmet?' etc. As if it would in any way lessen the culpability of the pissed driver when she ploughed into a cyclist and killed 'em. And then they start asking this poor woman if a lowering of the blood alcohol limit would avoid more deaths... as if she's gonna say anything other than yeah, a lowering would be good. And by that point we're a million miles away from anything to do with the core issues of the subject at hand.
Fuck off, 'Auntie'.
This thread... Reads like a bedwetters charter.