We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The way to end BBC bias is… …Abolish it. That is what the latest Libertarian Alliance press release demands and I find it hard not to agree.
In this era of channel fragmentation, cable, satellite and the rise of the internet as a method of distribution, what on earth is the point of the BBC? If I want to see what the other side is thinking I can watch Al Jezeera or read the Independent.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
There was an op-ed in the DT that said exactly the same thing yesterday. You can imagine what the comments in response were like from the BBC-drones.
Over here in today’s Telegraph letters, we have one John Kelly writing:
Best regards
I gave up on my TV 4 years ago due to BBC dumbing down and the constant propaganda supporting this government. I got a 2 page letter repudiating my claims and yet 3 month later an external report came out accusing the BBC of this very thing with plenty of examples. I also got 18 month of harassment and threats on my lack of a license.
Now I have a serious problem with Radio 4 and its 3 main daily news programmes – they have obviously either not read the latest BBC bias report or intend to ignore it.
The BBC owes its existence to a taxation on the public, so it follows they aren’t going to rock the boat. Fawning over Brussels and Tehran as well pandering to the Guv’mint and the Envir’mint also neatly saves them from having to go and question anything.
Would be interesting however if the Beeb a) reported how the nation really felt and not just what the lefties round the water cooler are bitching about and b) had to raise money without a spurious “licence fee” to fall back on to ease their errors of judgement.
But as our political masters would hate the truth to emerge and like the idea of taxing us in different ways it isn’t going to happen.
Several years ago, I wrote about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that rather than be totally abolished it should perhaps be merely reduced to a TV version of The Gazette. All it then does – and totally without commentary etc – is show what goes on in the legislatures with programs like Question Time in Parliament etc, and post summaries of bills and laws etc. No news, no commentary, no editorialising, no spin, no editing – absolutely positively NOTHING ELSE than direct showing of the mechanics of government to the degree relevant to ordinary people. Public offerings of interpretation etc should be left to private TV channels that pay their own way.
Either that or, yes, just abolish the sucker.
JJM
Can someone verify whether one is supposed to have a TV licence if one only has braodband? I’ve just read the wiki and came out even more befuddled.
Agree mostly with the Daily Telegraph article which essentially said keep the BBC Wildlife film unit (Walking with Dinosaurs, Blue Planet etc etc) and Radio 3 but throw the rest into the commercial world. Disagreed with their view that they would have kept Radio 4 as a public service – Radio 4 in my opinion is the tumour from which the BBC cancer emanates.
To “Freeman”
While I support your comment above, may I kindly ask you to note that I have been posting here for some time under the name of “Freeman”.
Your duplication of the name may clearly cause confusion at some time. How about using a different name, or even “Freeman II”. Thanks.
I’ve commented before that the coming switch to digital only broadcasting offers the perfect chance to abolish the licence fee.
Make BBC1 and BBC2 subscription channels at, say, £70 each and let the rest of the dross survive, (or not), on adverts for loans and cheap insurance.
If the Beeb thinks the current licence fee is good value for money then they should be happy to put that to the market test, and if they start losing money then ads on their myriad radio stations and their website could bolster their income.
Take the World service channels out of their hands entirely. If, as a taxpayer, I’m forced to support propaganda broadcasts to the rest of the world, at least I want it to be our propaganda.
The nature programs are probably the Beebs biggest earners at the moment so I don’t think people should worry on that score, and if the News is biased, as ITN and Sky are, then don’t buy the product.
…what on earth is the point of the BBC?
Like all bureaucracies, its purpose is to perpetuate itself and to maintain its employees and other stakeholders in the style to which they are accustomed. Best of luck in putting it out of business. If you leave any part of it functioning the whole thing will regenerate, like a weed.
To the original Freeman… my unreserved apologies for taking your name. (Much groveling now follows)
Let us not forget how leftist the privately owned broadcasters are in the United Kingdom.
For all its faults Fox News at least tries to put quite a lot of non leftist voices on the air (not one or two once in a while which is the norm in broadcasting) – but Sky News in this country is very different.
On television I.T.V., C4 and C5 have nothing like (say) John Stossel’s show on A.B.C.
And there is no talk radio here – at least no non leftist talk radio (it is as if every station was “Air America”).
Even the private music stations are like this.
Classic F.M. has a man on who does film music (I can not remember his name), he put on a show on what would have been the 100th birthday of John Wayne – and he made endless snearing comments about Wayne’s politics. If he did not approve of John Wayne’s political views why he not let the show be presented by someone who did approve of them? No that would be unthinkable.
Nor is it just John Wayne, the same man snears at any film that was pro Israel.I repeat he is just putting on a show about film music – why does he need to express polticical views at all? But of course, to him, he is not expressing political views – he is repeating the obvious truth (as taught to him in school and university) he is not saying anything political or anything that any sane person might not agree with.
As for the news broadcasts they are the same on stations like Classic F.M. as they are on B.B.C. radio.
They have to be. Leftism is what the regulators define as being “unbiased”.
So yes get rid of the B.B.C. – but get rid of the broadcasting regulations and regulators as well. Otherwise all you will have done is abolish the television tax (a worthy move, but a limited one).
Getting rid of the regulations can be done. After all one of the little known victories of Ronald Reagan was removing the regulations on “political balance” in broadcasting – without that there would be no, non leftist, talk radio in the United States.
I completely agree. I would go as far as to say that every piece of equipment and even the buildings from which it has operated should be destroyed. The BBC is like a cancer which, as it grows, corrupts the free exchange of ideas by crowding out opinions it does not share.
Selling the BBC (Privatising) would keep intact the whole rotten edifice, and it seems increasingly obvious to me that many in BIG business, the sort who might be able to afford to buy the BBC, share a similar world view as those of the BBC anyway, so I doubt that much would change.
Rob,
Not if the BBC was split-up and then privatized. I like some BBC shows. Well, I like Dr Who and er… that’s about it. So, I’d like that to continue but the rest is mainly patronising shite.
Zeno,
A very grey area. My understanding is that currently, no, you don’t need a TV license for broadband. The BBC is agitating for a computer license fee. If that ever comes to pass I hope the blood hits the ceiling.
Short answer – the BBC in anything like it’s current form is on borrowed time. In fact the whole broadcast concept is on borrowed time. Amazingly broadcast radio will probably outlive broadcast TV because radio is cheap, simple and useful whereas TV looks increasingly out-moded in the internet age. I mean, people aren’t shelling out for 54″ plasma scfeens to watch 5 channels of crap are they? Whereas they’re happy to buy a radio for a coupla quid and have it on in the background.
Oh, and the freeview digital revolution is crap. With my internet connection I can fly combat missions in a F-86 Sabre. That’s somewhat more interactive than pressing my “red button now” for glorified teletext…
Nick – I dont know whether it is the case with Dr Who or not, but many programs are made by independant production companies which are either commissioned by the broadcaster, or who sell their products to whomever they wish. There is no reason why Dr Who, or any other “BBC” program could not be broadcast by another company as long as the intellectual property rights for the program had been bought. There are some, if very few, good things on the BBC, and undoubtedly there is a body of creative talent. I can’t help feeling that we would see a flowering of that talent if only it could operate outside of the PC straightjacket which the BBC imposes on most of its production.
The point is that the BBC is corrupted beyong repair and not worth saving for 30 minutes of pleasure once a week.
Nick, speaking as a trained pilot(trained by graduates of ETPS), I can assure you that what you do on your computer is mess about with a few video screens and buttons.
It has bugger all to do with flying, and if you wanted to seriously simulate combat in any sort of aircraft, you would need a simulator suite costing, oh, about 5 million quid.
And it still wouldn’t be real, because you can’t die.
Heck, Microsoft couldn’t even put a decent physics engine into their product.