Forum:Rob does not know how the BBC works

< Index | General discussion

_

_

State-run media, the BBC, is accused of partisanship from the both the left and right? That speaks volumes how brainwashed society has become and how far we've fallen. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Smith, do you remembered how I schooled you after you tried to argue the the U. of Chicago was a public university? Do you need to be made someon'es intellectual bitch again? Go away, the grown-ups are talking. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 12:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The BBC is not state-run. It is only state funded, the BBC opperates completely autonomously. The fact that something is criticised from both sides is either a sign of it being completely shit or very good, as it reports facts both sides like and dislike. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not really "state funded" as it is financed by a licence fee, rather than just getting a dole-out from the government. It enjoys a privileged position in broadcasting in much the same way that the Church of England has a privileged position in religion. Генгис^unbelieving 12:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Those fees are put through by criminal law. I don't know about your's, but that counts in my book as "state-funded". 85.182.145.82 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The BBC is "state run media"? Wouldn't that make the government happy! I've lost count of the times that the temporary government of the day has been at loggerheads with that permanent British institution.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't state funded make it state run? Are they subject to free market competition, meaning if they aren't commercially viable, adios. Seems they're more like PBS: nobody watches but it remains a giant toilet for tax dollars. Meanwhile thinking consumers vote with their discretionary income to reward commercially viable enterprises like FOX News. Only authoritarian wp:statists mandate compliance and force feed their government propaganda nobody in their right mind would pay cash for. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody watches the BBC - just 60-70% of the UK. 85.182.145.82 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Rob, you're just making yourself look bad. Go play Tetris or something. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

State run? Oh wait, you're serious? ^postate 12:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you're showing your utter ignorance of the BBC. Before having an opinion on it you ought to at least know something about it. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I know wp:Crony capitalism when I see it. Every dollar taken out of the private sector to support the BBC is one dollar less for a free market competitor, who then gets the honor of competing against a state-run beast created with the private sector's own money. And the jobs at the BBC become a patronage system doled to socialist suck-ups who can't make it in the real world of competition. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have some of that right, Rob. Yes, that is a genuine criticism of the BBC - that it takes pounds away from private broadcasters in the form of lost advertising revenue. And it's a genuine concern especially to those who insist that a private competitive environment is the only and best way to do this. (And yes, it is a popular justifiable concern that many BBC employees are left-wing, even though many well-known ones are not.)

However, others believe that a mix of PSBs (like the BBC and Channel 4) and private broadcasters is best - that a well-resourced large public broadcaster governed by carefully constructed rules to avoid government interference can help the broadcast environment maintain a certain quality.

Of course none of this reasoning, even if you had researched it properly, will ever persuade someone who is so utterly wedded to free-market ideology. Even though you will quite cheerfully disregard it when dealing with, say, defence. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So the British government has an arms-length relationship with its state funded media conglomerate for deniability. Nothing unusual about that. But defence is a legitimate function of government, whereas manipulating a so-called "free press" to manage public opinion with public monies to the government's POV is not. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob whats it like living in a world where you dont have to actually source anything you say? --il'Dictator Mikal 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism would be correct if every time the government changed so did the BBC's political position. It doesn't.

Really, Rob, find out more about it. While, as I've said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about the BBC, making them from a position of ignorance about the whole subject just makes you look ridiculous. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So it's allegedly a well-regulated wp:GSE; is just like the NHS, or the Post Office, or Fannie Mae, I suppose. Is there any such thing as a successful well-regulated GSE anywhere? Gimme an example. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

FFS Rob, while the NHS has its problems, by and large it is an outstanding success in providing health care to its citizens. It's not meant to make a fucking profit. Генгис^unbelieving 13:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In which Rob reveals his ignorance of NGOs, and equates the IMF to the Catholic Church

Well, if it is a GSE (I don't know, I'm not familiar with the term and the government has little to do with the BBC - it's a public broadcaster), then I suppose the BBC would be an excellent example. If you measure success by competitive viewing figures, awards, international programme sales, etc., then it's very successful. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

GSE = Government Sponsored Entity or Enterprise (WP has it wrong; it calls GSE's financial institutions, whereas the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Post Office, or Obamacare's insurance exchanges also fit this definition. They're similar to UN NGOs, like WTO or WHO.) And sure, when you got the public treasury backing you up, you're free to win all sorts of public awards in a non-competitive environment against lesser beings. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, the BBC does operate in a competitive environment including against Fox owner Mr Murdoch's very own Sky, which incidentally has a larger budget than the BBC.

I repeat, there are many legitimate complaints against the BBC, even its very existence. Yet your objections are based on nothing more than an ideological position mired in ignorance and you're making a fool of yourself. It's embarrassing. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're the master of the unintentional Gish gallop, Rob. The WTO (which isn't part of the UN) and WHO are international organizations, not NGOs. These are different than GSEs, and they have states (I'd better explain to you that "states" means countries in this context.) as members. How are they different? I'll give you a hint, the N in NGO stands for "non." NGOs are things like Amnesty International or the Catholic Church. Idiot. Godspeed (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I said as much. Are you making the position the WTO is a governmental organization? is the IMF and World Bank as well? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't Rob. You're hopelessly confused. Those three entities you mentioned in your post are international organizations with states as members. That's pretty basic knowledge. When you're this uninformed about something, it's OK not to express an opinion, you know. Godspeed (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are they governing boards or not? Simple question. Are the extra-governmental, quasi-governmental, or non-governmental? This isn't rocket science. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, just stop. It's getting pathetic and sad. You are such a stupid man. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off, Foster. He can answer for himself. Does the WTO or IMF have any governing authority, and to what extent do they? How do they differ from, say, the International Red Cross, which likewise is made up member state organizations. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What do any of those bodies have to do with the subject at hand--the BBC? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 17:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you're really asking me questions you could answer for yourself by reading the Wikipedia articles about/home pages of the respective entities? Seriously? You're on the internet. Go read those pages and then try to explain your point again. Godspeed (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is all known. While organizations such as the IMF, WTO, or G20 are international organizations with member states, they have little or no authority to act on their own without pre-set agreements among the member states. They have little or no governing authority in themselves. In this sense, they are non-governmental. Not entirely different from the Red Cross, Catholic Church, World Bank, or WHO. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, you're so stupid. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"This is all known" is code for "I made this up", apparently. Omar (gibber) 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fish have backbones, not entirely different from mammals. What's your point again? Godspeed (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are not willing to read other sources for yourself, so I'll have to ram the facts down your throat. NGOs (non-govermental organization) are not state-funded, that's because they are non-governmental. Greenpeace, Amnesty International are such organisations. They do this to stay objective, because if they take funding from one country they might end up not being able to say things about that country that'll piss that government off, because then that funding would be gone. No UN agency can be "non-governmental" as, well, the whole damn thing is funded by states. The BBC while it is quasi-state funded is protected from governmental influence by law. It is therefor autonomous from the government. This isn't rocket science — if you ever were to practice rocket science, I'd advise everybody around you to run for their lifes. 85.182.145.82 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You fucking idiots! The Catholic Church an NGO? The Catholic Church isn't an NGO, the Pope is recognized as sovereign in international law (as the Holy See), and has his own country (Vatican City) to boot. Fucking idiots, you come down on Rob like a ton of bricks for muddling up his facts, and you can't get yours right either! 46.38.57.196 (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

British patriots still reject the Euro

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Don't worry, Rob. There are no dollars being taken out of the private sector for the BBC. They use pounds over there. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well thank fuck for that! You had me worried there. ^postate 13:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Pound still in competition with the dollar? Amazing. How bourgeois. I thought they were using scrip. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh Rob, you try so hard not to be an utter idiot and you fail so miserably every time. It actually makes me a little sad. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you've really no idea. Try reading this for starters. Генгис^unbelieving 13:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating document. Look at Oversight: Key findings There were a number of key findings from the consultation and the commissioned research which have helped to shape Our Promise to You...Overall, people expressed a low level of personal participation and interaction, both with the BBC and with other organisations....

And this after how many decades of government run media? can you say elitist? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As it happens I have seen state-run national TV. State Spanish TV used to be like that. When the government changed so did the opinions of the broadcasters. It was like magic - they used to do a 100% about turn the day after the election. Having seen both systems I can tell one from the other.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 14:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, same with Italian state TV. But (and this is for Rob's benefit) they are classic examples of state-controlled broadcasters. Which the BBC isn't. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. So while state run and state funded are virtually the same, state controlled differs to a degree. But how long would it survive if you cut off the public tit? In that sense, it is state controlled. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes! and how long would the army, the police and the education service survive! We must eliminate them all!--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

While the army & police may not be the government's role, pounding Marxist crap into children's heads is a vital function. Got it! nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Randomly-selected front page article from the BBC revealing their Marxist orientation. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 17:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got some work to do on the "irony" thing Rob. :-) --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so explain the difference between state run and state controlled to me. No wait, don't. Godspeed (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(from up there) No, Rob, the BBC is not government controlled. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be, it still isn't. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Paxman vs. Howard

Anybody who saw the Paxman vs Howard interview will remember just how much the BBC pandered to the government of the time. Poor old Paxo was so hamstrung that he was only allowed to ask Howard the same question seventeen times, each time making it more obvious that Howard simply wasn't going to tell the truth. Although it wasn't the only thing that killed that administration it certainly didn't help. Bob Soles (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube link. Bob Soles (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Or even Thatcher's roasting over the Belgrano. Генгис^unbelieving 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Channel 4

Anybody who has anything useful to say about the BBC would compare and contrast with Channel 4, thereby showing that they have some clue about the topic. That's because Channel 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, just like the BBC, but funded in a completely different way. The result is that Channel 4 is less subject to establishment pressure but more subject to popular whim. The most quintessential example of this happens every Christmas when the BBC shows a pre-recorded message from the Queen while Channel 4 shows an "alternative message" read by someone famous (from Marge Simpson to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) giving their take on the year instead of Her Majesty's. The Channel 4 show was happenstance, it tied up with something they were doing one Christmas and just sort of snowballed. If it ever becomes unpopular it will just go away again. Whereas the Queen's message is an institution, the BBC would have to run it even if hardly anyone watched. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That really has nothing to do with public/private financingin. In the US, national broadcast stations are required *by law* to broadcast several political events including the State of the Union Address, the DNC/RNC conventions (or some parts of them), of course any National Address by the Pres (and in some cases by Congress). Why? cause a long time ago when the "air waves" were first "discovered" as it were, the US said they were free use for anyone to broadcast on. Ie., not directly controlled by the govt. Any revenue made would only be taxed as revenue and not related to the use of public airwaves. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In the UK it works through the licensing system. Each licence awarded to a broadcaster will have a different set of obligations. While the BBC's licence will include things like the Queen's Christmas address, others will have fewer or different obligations written into them. Channel 4, even though publicly owned, has a very different set of objectives and these are reflected in the conditions of its licence. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've kinda missed this party, but I felt compelled to add: rather than consider the merits of the BBC on ideological grounds vis-a-vis its funding model, judge it on its output! The list of classic BBC shows is a roll call for some of the best television ever made. Prior to Michael Grade introducing "market forces" internally within the BBC, Britain experienced was is often dubbed "the golden age of television" by media buffs. Classics of comedy, of sci-fi, of drama, of arts shows, politics shows, childrens television. And regarding the old trope of unfair competition with the private sector: as usual this ignores the broader picture and reduces everything to accouting exercise month to month. It was a marvellous training group for actors, directors, producers, make-up, costume, design, technical engineering in picture and sound etc etc etc... much of which could be developed and pioneered and indulged there because of the shielding from commercial pressures and the economies of scale. Over decades, it produced a huge cultural and technical legacy that would have been impossible under private market forces. And if you scoff and say it was, you've clearly never watched some of the wierder BBC shows from the 1960s and 70s.

GPWM. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the point. The BBC, unlkike American CPB, has it own production studios. CPB & PBS buy programming content, mostly news & documentaries, from independent film producers with a few getting government funding from the National Endowment from the Humanities. In that regard it must conceded BBC produces outstanding programming content compared to free market Hollywood crap. World War II: Behind Closed Doors was one of the best docu-drama type films in the past twenty years, and no American film studio would have had the balls to challenge public perceptions about WWII history as the BBC did. My girlfriend can watch for hours anything related to the monarchy from Anne Boleyn, Victoria I, down to the present day.

I got one technical question related to BBC programming. It seems Closed Captioning is not mandated by law in Britain yet, as it has been in the US since the 1970s. Sometimes we in America wonder why you Brits can't speak English and we need subtitles. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Silly Americans, needing captioning to understand what people are saying. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No you dumbfuck. It's a law designed to help persons with disabilities, kinda like requiring wheelchair ramps. But fuckheads like yourself don't seem the care if the less fortunate are afford an equal opportunity or level playing field. And British socialists haven't seemed to care either for the better part of the past half century, unlike those greedy, uncaring Americans, huh? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/stock--il'Dictator Mikal 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob, while it might not be legally mandatory, I'm pretty sure all the main channels and most of the others have full-time closed captioning. It's fed through the teletext signal. I know they've had some technical problems with it on some of the HD channels but I think that's only a glitch. The tendency in the UK is to not legislate for or against things unless necessary - although this changed somewhat under the last Labour government as expected. As the broadcasters are obliged to include CC in their broadcast licences, legislation would be redundant. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I notice it on DVDs. I don't think I've seen any BBC or Brit production yet released on DVD with CC. Occasionally, some of he programming released on DVD (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, for example) have "CC provided by WGBH Boston", a major US distributor of BBC films, at the end. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? CC on DVDs is provided by the sub-titles. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Requiring CC implies a problem actually

Thinking about it, WHY does america NEED for channels to provide it? Shouldn't the benevolent americans provide it without needing to be told to? il'Dictator Mikal 17:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Boring trolling is boring, Mikalos. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually i was replying to a point rob made that the british are greedy and mean while americans arent\'t since we have a law saying we need CC on channels. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Only in response to your goading, my dear chap. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Still a fair point though, trumpeting a law saying "do x cause x is good" isn't actually a point in favor for progressiveness.--il'Dictator Mikal 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the BBC do have a policy of subtitling everything that they release on DVD, and all their broadcasts are subtitled. Fer chrissakes, even LIVE radio and television is subtitled by some stenographer frantically typing and trying to keep up! You'll see this if you watch BBC News, 'Question Time' or listen to BBC Radio 4 news programs on a television. A few of the older DVDs of British TV I own, released in the late 90s, do not have subtitles, but those days are long gone.--Feline1 (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What is more, for we Brits who actually pay for this, many of the flagship programs are rebroadcast in the middle of the night with signing. Any UK resident prepared to stay up to the small hours or, more likely, with a time slip device such as Sky+, can watch these as well as subtitles provided on Teletext 888. Bad Faith (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)