So The BBC Has Collapsed In The UK
|by Anonymous||reply 94||01/17/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/15/2011|
Op, take your meds now.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/15/2011|
Are you talking about the large budget cuts the Cameron Government is imposing on it?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/15/2011|
I didn't have the heart to read the details, r3.
Our government gutted the CBC in Canada.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/15/2011|
Well the BBC isn't going to abolished, even if it is facing challenges.
So what is the main issue? Is it funding problems? The conservative budge cuts?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/15/2011|
I thought they were going to make some budget cuts?
Why don't they cancel bad shows like "Merlin"? Why is that stupid show still going?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/15/2011|
The BBC is far too top-heavy. Full of ineffective civil servant types who love to say no and adore to wear cardigans at work. See: Tory government.
I wish a journalist in the UK had the balls to expose this lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/15/2011|
r6, that's fucking ridiculous.
I'm very tolerant of religious expression, up to and including the niqab, but expecting someone outside the faith to do that is asinine.
Are they going to be "god blessing" and "praising Jesus" next?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/15/2011|
[quote]Why don't they cancel bad shows like "Merlin"? Why is that stupid show still going?
Maybe because it's a genuine hit and is licensed to air in like 50 other countries, as well?
Whatever problems the Beeb may have, Merlin is not among them.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/15/2011|
Have a God day!
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/15/2011|
R10, "Merlin" is nowhere near as successful as "Doctor Who", and it isn't very well reviewed. Its writing and acting are not taken seriously. And most BBC programs are exported all over the world - that isn't significant.
I don't think it's earned any BAFTA nominations - by contrast, "Doctor Who" has received many nominations, including one for lead actor Matt Smith this past Spring.
I thought they were supposed to cut "Merlin"'s budget from 13 episodes to 10 this season?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/15/2011|
What's liberal about pandering to religion, r13?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/15/2011|
I worked at a US channel where a man from the BBC served as head for a few years. 300-lb black Brit. Flew around the world in business or first class making "deals" that never actually happened. Promoted and pampered young women who sucked up to him. Funded pet projects that made no money. Ran communal meetings on programming where everyone had their say including really junior staff. Extremely PC about black people in media although he hired few. Drank and smoked heavily; hung over/asleep in meetings often.
This person could barely handle 150 reports but I see he is now "Chief Creative Officer" at the BBC with 3,000 employees and a huge portfolio. Apparently working in US TV for awhile gets you welcomed back to the BBC with big fanfare.
If people like him are running the BBC it must be in big, big trouble.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/15/2011|
[quote]Why is [R6] allowed to post here? I thought this was a liberal site?
It's a gay site, but I've never seen any declaration of its political slant.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/15/2011|
Somebody explain to R13 what liberal is.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/16/2011|
Someone dial 999!
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/16/2011|
R13 is so naive. And a bit of a fascist if he thinks r6's comments merit a ban.
He keeps posting this same line, which makes him a troll in my book.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/16/2011|
R21 and OP are the same person.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/16/2011|
Phil Mitchell will be forced to expose his hairy anus on the Christmas episode. That's what the BBC has come down to.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/16/2011|
I'm tired of seeing the words fag and faggot thrown around in the middle of disputes about politics and/or race. Clean up your act.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/16/2011|
I don't think the BBC has many Gays. I would say WELL less than 10% (population standard) and none at the senior level. Don't confuse a few gay story lines with actual Gays employed at the BBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/17/2011|
World News on BBC is better than any American news outlet or Network except perhaps PBS's Newshour. Im my opinion American journalism aside from the New York Times and PBS, is dead. I have read that the networks employ about a thrid of their former journalistic staffs world wide. Their coverages of the Iraqi and Afgan wars compared to Vietnam for example, is a joke.
You want to know what is going on in the world, watch the BBC or Newshour.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||01/05/2012|
"The BBC has a history of offending LGBT viewers. Last year, the corporation apologised after the BBC News website hosted a debate entitled ‘Should homosexuals face execution?’"
|by Anonymous||reply 35||01/05/2012|
What the fuck is this shit? BBC is like Fox? Do you know ANYTHING? And Peter Tachell is a cunt who needs to fuck off back to Australia and take Amanda Platell with him.
Who is bumping these old irrelevant threads. Fuck off.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||01/05/2012|
Thread title sounds like Murdoch's latest Tweet. His hacks miss no chance to attack the BBC and demand the end of the licence fee. It's a globally respected British institution Murdoch can't touch, so of course it needs smearing.
Happily, the Corporation has used its resources to give full and detailed attention to Murdoch's collapsing reputation. More to come this year.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||01/05/2012|
Some of you have a Frightening Tendency to make much of minor instances of discrimination without seeing the big picture, that public responsivenes and slack resources have made for a higher quality of television in the UK than we see in the United States.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||01/05/2012|
Television in the UK is of a considerable higher quality than TV in the USA, but that does not negate the fact, the BBC is infested with old school homophobia.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||01/05/2012|
We love you, get up!
|by Anonymous||reply 40||01/05/2012|
There's no doubt that the BBC is crippled with incompetent and ego overblown executives. Yet its programming and intention to expose its viewers to all sorts of opinions, cultures, religions, angles and nature phenomenas is without doubt the best in the world.
I can see some people being threated by the concept of allowing other point of views to be valid enough to be even mentioned and not being silenced or swept under the carpet.
The BBC is no (un)fair and (un)balanced Fox News for liberal hippies.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||01/05/2012|
Hate is not a valid point of view that needs to be represented to keep the balance R41.
BBC crossed the line giving airtime to a guy who promotes murdering Gays. BBC should pay the price, by losing tax dollars.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||01/05/2012|
r42, what good is peace when it's not placed in contrast with hate?
Without bad there's no good.
What use is there for heaven without a hell?
Imagine how much better pretty people look when placed right next to butt ugly people.
You must have trust in common sense that people chose the better of two opinions and pad themselves on the shoulder to be on the good side.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||01/05/2012|
What happens to all licensing fees paid by brits for having a TV? Surely this must add up to something. What part of the 3.6 billion pounds collected goes to the BBC? Who else suckles off these funds? I hope these funds aren't dumped into the national treasury like we do with social security in the us.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||01/05/2012|
ITV does with 1 presenter and 2 crew, what it takes the BBC 12 people to do.
R43, so you will be pitching a Pro-Nazi talk show on BBC 1, for next season right? How about a Science Show for Creationists? "Bang Goes the Bible Theory"
|by Anonymous||reply 45||01/05/2012|
oh BBC we love you get up
|by Anonymous||reply 46||01/05/2012|
r45, yes, I would, because I understand that there's a difference between promoting something and presenting a point of view (no matter how alien this point of view is to myself and others).
A lot of homophobes attack gays in the media for "promoting" homosexuality by openly discussing it or even mentioning it. With your "Pro-Nazi" suggestion you are no better than them.
Nobody should dictate what's worth to be mentioned and discussed and what is not, because that's clearly censorship.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||01/05/2012|
[quote]Why is [R6] allowed to post here? I thought this was a liberal site?
It's a liberal site, which is precisely why anyone can come here and be a jackass. And I like that about this place.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||01/05/2012|
[quote]No they won't, [R9], because to acknowledge that there is such a thing as English people and that Britain is historically a Christian nation is unacceptable for the BBC.
Oh you poor, white christian! How you suffer!
|by Anonymous||reply 49||01/05/2012|
Charging people with yelling fire in a crowded theatre, that is not on fire is also censorship. As is charging fake 9/11 callers with prank calls or imprisonment for verbally threatening to kill the Queen or Prime Minister.
The freedom of speech argument is always used by bigots first.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||01/05/2012|
The BBC is moving away from London to Salford, in the north of England. It is both bizarre and ridiculous.
Actually, I could fill a page with the hatred I feel towards the BBC. R18's post just added to my feelings and makes so much sense.
They have no excuse for churning out the slime they churn out.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||01/05/2012|
Is there wide selection of cable available in the UK?
Could there be vote referendum (by the voting brits) on the TV licensing fee?
If parliament can have a no confidence vote, why can't the UK citizenry have a no confidence vote on parliament?
Are referendums even allowed in the UK? I know you are a limited democracy, but how limited? Maintaining that silly royalty stuff doesn't help the individual brit very much. Taxing even the poor (vat) to support these dregs speaks poorly for so many.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||01/05/2012|
[quote] I know you are a limited democracy, but how limited?
Very. How can we measure it for you? I always feel we have freedom of speech, as long as no one says anything. Nearly all TV interviews, which are generally trite and very short, are pre-recorded...so no one ever actually says anything that might upset the apple cart.
It's best to move in the shadows.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||01/05/2012|
For us here in Amerika, we wish we had a limited democracy, but for some strange reason, we remain a republic for the wealthy.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||01/05/2012|
Funny, when I turned the Beeb on this morn in dear old Blighty there was Markets expert Robert Peston and his one hand, handing out dire financial warnings for 2012! - as per usual. (He's the same every year.)
Collapse? Fucking hell, we WISH!
|by Anonymous||reply 55||01/05/2012|
The US doesn't even have limited Democracy. Even President Clinton talked about there being 2 governments, one for show.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||01/05/2012|
The UK can have referendums. We had one last year on whether to switch to a proportional representation system for electing parliament (the public voted no).
There won't be a referendum on the licence fee or the BBC because all governments know the public are broadly in favour and all governments are against the BBC. It isn't a big issue that would be considered serious enough to merit a referendum except for with some crazy people (as shown on this thread). They just carry on doing what the current government are doing, gutting the BBC from the inside out to slowly weaken and get rid of it.
That's not to say that the public in the UK all agree with the BBC (the news in particular has gone strangely right wing lately). But they don't really want it changed to an all commercial system.
If you look at the media in the UK, the BBC would not be top of my list to complain about re: reporting of gay issues.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||01/05/2012|
Merlin is on BBC America, and I hate it!!! IT does not deserve to be on Syfy.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||01/05/2012|
[quote] public responsivenes and slack resources have made for a higher quality of television in the UK than we see in the United States.
You're fucking kidding me.
The Sopranos, Sex in the City (early seasons), Six Feet Under, The Wire, Treme, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Big Love (early seasons), Deadwood, Walking Dead, The Shield, Arrested Development, Malcolm in the Middle, 30 Rock, The Simpsons, South Park, The Daily Show, the Colbert Report, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Dexter, Eastbound and Down, The West Wing are some of the finest television of the last decade.
I watch British shows, but I dont find nearly as many of them have the quality of those named above.
And one of the best genres the British do -- the detective mystery -- is being ruined by --I don't know, by cokeheads? The latest series of Marple mysteries is made ridiculously more complicated than anything Agatha Christie ever wrote. And Inspector Lewis? Please. That show is a crime in itself.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||01/05/2012|
r57, is that the real position of government in general, (dislike of the Beebe), or is it just the Tories?
Whenever I read about it from here, (Canada) the perception is it's a sinecure factory for whomever is in power. As much as our Conservatives complain about it, they still seem to love parking their cronies there whenever possible. The apathy is just pandering to populism.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||01/05/2012|
[quote]I watch British shows, but I don't find nearly as many of them have the quality of those named above.
That's because of the class issue. Can't have intelligent urbane anything here now. It's against the rules. Watching AB FAB last week I was taken aback to see images of a street in a nice looking district of London in a contemporary TV show (& no gritty Northern accents, unbelievable!) I guess it's because it was a revival that they got away with it.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||01/05/2012|
BBC = British Broadcasting for Conservatives
|by Anonymous||reply 62||01/07/2012|
[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]
|by Anonymous||reply 63||01/07/2012|
Liberalism is dying out!
|by Anonymous||reply 64||01/07/2012|
No, R64, it's being crushed under the jackbooted heel of an ultra-wealthy ruling elite.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||01/07/2012|
The BBC will have to drop shows in favour of reality TV, as the government money dies out.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||01/10/2012|
Yes the BBC is a liberal, conservative, p.c., offensive, working class, middle class, christian and satanist organistion. Either that or this thread is proof that people read a few tabloids and then state their opinion like it's fact.
R61 try watching BBC4. Last two programmes I watched were Sherlock and Great Expectations, correct me if I'm wrong but they're both set in London and not exactly low brow? Tomorrow night there's Dickens, Midsomer Murders, Baking and football. I'm not saying british tv isn't crap, its just not what you're claiming.
Take a look at a TV guide, a lot of the accents you hear are actually american, the rest is largely decades old repeats or reality stuff.
Ignore 61, seems to be one of those people who has a view that isn't exactly supported by reality so they misrepresent reality to compensate.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||01/10/2012|
BBC = Big Black Cock
|by Anonymous||reply 68||01/10/2012|
R61 comes over as a tin-headed [italic]Torygraph[/italic] reader. Or possibly worse, the [italic]Fail[/italic].
If anything the BBC is more a tool of the government than its ever been. The chief political correspondent, Nick Robinson is a raving Tory and could hardly contain his glee when they won the last election. It was disgusting.
When they're not towing the party line, they're attempting to shut down anything vaguely alternative or intelligent within their own organisation (e.g. 6music) in order to curry favour with the chancellor and protect their license fee. The Director General makes John Birt look like a woolly-headed hippie drop out in terms of his philistinism.
So the idea that the place is full of liberal bias and a hot bed of Marxism is frankly, ludicrous. Maybe in 1968, not so much now!
BBC1 is nothing but wall to wall dancing, soaps and crappy crime dramas. BBC2 has been dumbed down and asset stripped to fuckery. BBC3 (the crapulent channel) goes from strength to strength, churning out a never-ending stream of low quality, low-intellect garbage and BBC4 is threatened with the chop because it's the only channel that puts on anything vaguely smart with the exception of those rare couple of months a year that "Have I Got News For You" slips on to BBC1, no doubt much to the chagrin of Mark "Plebface" Thompson.
Much like all money-saving exercises introduced by bean-counting morons in a misguided attempt to 'reposition themselves in the market' or some such bollocks, the BBC is busy shooting itself in the foot and signing its own death warrant, whilst the slobbering hounds of Murdoch look on, waiting for their opportunity to go in for the kill.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||01/10/2012|
It is such a shame really, because the BBC produced some of the best original programing up until recently, many of these shows copied by the Americans.
Today even the science shows are old episodes, regurgitated. I guess all the Gays have left BBC and taken their creativity with them.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||01/10/2012|
Ayb, FYI, the phrase is "toeing the party line," as in walking on a tightrope or balance beam, i.e., not wandering from the approved talking points.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||01/10/2012|
[quote]Tomorrow night there's Dickens, Midsomer Murders, Baking and football.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Midsomer Murders an ITV production? Does ITV receive public / government funding as well?
|by Anonymous||reply 72||01/10/2012|
[quote]ry watching BBC4. Last two programmes I watched were Sherlock and Great Expectations, correct me if I'm wrong but they're both set in London and not exactly low brow?
Yes, set in the distant long distant past. That's allowed.
[quote] R61, comes over as a tin-headed Torygraph reader. Or possibly worse, the Fail.
AYB shops at ASDA & likes the sound of his own voice too much. No one's reading his long droning posts. His dream is to write for Time Out. Being 'well known' on DL is the highlight of his life.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||01/10/2012|
It has become evident that some of you do not understand what is expected of you on this forum. Please view the message at the link and adjust your behavior accordingly.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||01/10/2012|
"BBC is busy shooting itself in the foot and signing its own death warrant"
When organizations get into financial trouble the panic causes them to try and regurgitate past success, only to become predictable, when what is really needed, is an explosion of new original ideas and products to reinvent themselves. Not do overs. This is the BBCs mistake today.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||01/11/2012|
r73, Sherlock is set in the present day.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||01/11/2012|
I'm an American who lives in Northern England(close to Manchester). While I agree that most BBC programming is horrible crap, there are still things that surprise me. Such as the fact, that they would even air Michael Moore documentaries. That would NEVER happen on American TV. And in general, while you may think the news is a mouthpiece of the conservatives, it is nothing like it is in the US. Whenever I come back, I can't believe my eyes. Here, all the news channels blather 24 hours a day and are quite happy to give attention to any fascist who is entertaining and has his/her talking points all neatly packaged. It doesn't matter if the talking points are sane and/or make any sense. So the most evil and absurd ideas are presented as "valid" opinion and discussed as if they were equal to any other idea.
England is still in better shape than the US in many key ways.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||01/11/2012|
[quote]AYB shops at ASDA & likes the sound of his own voice too much.
Close. Mostly it's Tesco and I hate to break it to you but this is the internet, which comes in text, not sound format.
I took the time to read your insane right wing delusions, the least you could have done is to read my liberal rant in return.
You may now resume masturbating over pictures of Maggie.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||01/11/2012|
The BBC suffers from massive patronage appointments and lack of any effective oversight authority.
When you need 10 crew on site to interview 1 person, when you need 30 managers to approve canceling a show that is bombing in the ratings for a while (even then, they decide by a 60/40 margin to keep it going for another year) when you see shows staffed by people with the same last names....you know how things work at the BBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/29/2012|
I think the best thing would be for the BBC to be made private for about 10 years, then after it was stripped of all the fluff, the government could repatriate the network, most of the lethargy cleared away.
The real problem is the inability of the BBC to clean up its own act. The need for a public broadcaster is more important now, in the world of Corporate rule. Letting the BBC die, due to its inability to make corrective changes is the worst case scenario and is what the Corporations really want.
Use the Corporations to clean up the BBC and then take it back.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||05/11/2012|
R4, the difference is the CBC in Canada delivers so many crap dramas, which are basically make work projects for CBC actors and producers, who in the real world, would never survive as working actors or producers.
The BBC actually creates programs which have global success. The biggest risk to the BBC is they are dumbing down all programming, thereby becoming a run of the mill TV network, undeserving of the public licensing fee.
Also, the BBS has to learn to invest more in original content creators and less in support staff and management. They are insanely inefficient, which causes public image resentment. The BBC is trying to become a reality TV dump and a regurgitation platform of old ideas, like the big American Corporate networks. Even some BBC science programs now reek of this (not referring to you Prof Brian Cox).
|by Anonymous||reply 81||05/22/2012|
When governments cut public Television funding, they act like children and cut shows instead of cutting expenses. Try doing more shows with less money. Try not having so many production people standing around on the clock.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||06/03/2012|
F82 nailed it.
Cutting all expenses while increasing the number of original shows, is the formula to save the BBC.
The BBC has also been less that token supportive of Gays in the UK and MORE than supportive of the anti-gay forces in the UK, using the old "balanced viewpoint" argument to justify its promotion of anti-gay opinions. Yet they don't give the Nazi party airtime to "balance viewpoints".
|by Anonymous||reply 83||08/27/2012|
The CBC is terrible. They really dumbed-down both CBC radio and TV.
It's criminal that it has been so wasted.
Harper wants to kill what is left so there is no chance there is ever a word said against him or the nonstop corporate globalism agenda.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||08/27/2012|
I don't know why the BBC pays so many presenters so much money. Does the paint on a new car cost more than the car itself?
Also, the big mistake of pubic broadcasters is their tendency to protect each other. This is why the BBC has 10 times as many producers as it needs on the payroll. Call it the inverted triangle management structure.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||08/27/2012|
Everything is easier said than done.
Outsiders see the flaws while the insiders personally [bold] benefit [/bold] from said flaws so they have no intention to change things to their personal disadvantage.
That goes for governments, Wall Street, weapons and military industry, NRA, media industry, public funded organisations, and other things.
But in the case of the BBC. Everything that gives Rupert Murdoch grief is a good thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||08/27/2012|
That is why the BBC needs to get the grossly over-paid insiders out now!. As the British government gets into a worse economic situation, cuts will come faster to all government sponsored organizations, encouraged by people like Murdoch and MPs like John Glen, Tim Farron and Gary Streeter.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||08/27/2012|
Simply automate the Beeb and voice track it. Nobody will notice.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||08/27/2012|
Ben Summerskill is starting to increasingly call out the BBC on its anti-gay favoritism in the French equality fight.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||01/17/2013|
iTV is the only gay friendly station in the UK
BskyB is owned by Fox (Murdock)
|by Anonymous||reply 94||01/17/2013|