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]
… burn this statist anachronism down and salt the earth upon which it stood.
At least the Stupid Party currently governing the UK seems willing to clip the BBC’s wings, but that really is not even nearly enough. In this age of the internet, the whole notion of a state owned media enterprise is redundant. Moreover it is absurd for the nominally conservative Tory party to sustain a tax funded media organisation that is run overwhelmingly by partisan Labour and Green party supporters.
42 comments to The best way to reform the BBC should be obvious…
I defunded the BBC around 5 years ago. I have no TV, the odd hotel stay reminds me of what a bizarrely inflexible medium television is, and how dull it is. Every time the BBC annoys me, I remind myself that I do not contribute to it.
The question should be:
“Do we nationalise the BBC (and its staff private) pension fund(s) to pay compensation to those harassed to pay a licence fee?“.
I would think that a fair outcome, after LGB strikes on evacuated premises.
I disagree as destroying the Beeb and salting the earth does not cover the debt of BBC hubris.
The TV License, its draconian threat-o-grams and prod-nosed goons should be abolished forthwith.
The BBC itself, should be split into a small public service component with a mixed funding regime as PBS is in the USA and the rest (including the BBCiPlayer) should be then consigned to an encrypted subscription only service so that the luvvies can have their beloved Auntie and those of us who can’t stand the lefty propaganda engine can watch it wither on the vine.
What is it about publicly funded broadcasters?
The CBC in Canada and the ABC in Australia, like your BBC, once examples of excellence, are now demonstrating the worst excesses of partisanship.
(Disclosure: I worked for approximately 10 years for the CBC.)
“Easy does it. No need to upset all those Tory voters who love the Antiques Roadshow and Wimbledon.”
They can pay for it. I have equal disdain for teat-suckers of the blue or red varieties (or yellow or green too). There’s a few things that might be reasonably described as “public service broadcasting”, like educational programmes for children, but a couple of multimillionaire’s hitting balls over a net doesn’t.
Tennis sucks now. The big raquets have made it a graceless sport of big serves and grunting Amazons. I don’t want to watch women playing tennis with bigger biceps than I have.
I can understand the mistaken idea that the state must provide for the education, health care, old age (and …..) of the poor.
Few remember that 80% (and rising) of industrial workers were members of fraternities (Friendly Societies) before the state got involved in taking over the basic functions of life – so most people thing that the alternative to the state is to leave people to starve in the gutter.
However, I can not understand why anyone supports the BBC.
I am baffled by the support of so many elite “Conservatives” for the vile BBC and its vile system of forced funding.
Would the poor die of illness or starvation without the BBC?
And, Ed please not, the government is thinking of alternative taxes to fund the BBC.
Not funding the bleeping thing, just does not seem to occur to them.
Major tennis championships, and Game of Thrones, are actually the only things on TV that i am willing to pay money for. Not much money, mind you, but more than nothing.
If the Stigler finds that women tennis players have bigger biceps than he has, perhaps he should do chinups more often. I myself watch ladies’ tennis occasionally, but for no politically correct reason.
Today i had a good time watching the Wimbledon final, and for the 1st time in my life i bet on a sporting event, and won. Did not win much, mind you: just enough to cover the expense of the beer i drank while watching the event. You could say that it paid for itself.
The last thing anybody should be hoping for is that State Television should remain, however drastically reduced, as a source of Educational Programming for the kiddies.
BANG! Welcome, An Inconvenient Truth. BANG! Welcome, whatever shows the Powers That Be decide to prohibit, allow, or require to be run in the way of State Education for children.
I say, far far better to keep the stuff designed to convince centenarians that Bert and Ernie were NOT merely best buds, and lose the “educational” stuff targetting children. –Actually, I daresay some of it today is acceptable, but it’s much too dangerous having governments meddling in education. We are nearly all agreed on that, ja?
But best of all, get rid of the Beeb and (in the U.S.) NPR and PBS, and their foul offspring all around the globe.
(I might make an exception if the programming were limited to productions of the Joffrey Ballet; the Olympic figure-skating championships properly photographed and announced by Scott Hamilton and Tracy Wilson; the entirety of the top UK and US dog shows, properly photographed, and M.C.’d by Ron Reagan–he WAS good at that, for the Eukanuba Championships; and Witness for the Prosecution.)
While we’re at it, we need to get rid of State funding grants to allegedly “private” broadcasters under color of the NEA and other agencies. [Thinking, for instance, of Pacifica Radio, run by the Pacifica Foundation; most but not all of whose funding is from private donors and foundations, but some of which, natch, is courtesy of U.S. govt. largesse. By the way, I think you Brits should quit complaining about the BBC and the few miserable pence you have to shell out for the privilege of being able to turn on your TV should a fit of insanity overwhelm you. After all, having the Toob means you can tune in and watch Democracy Now!, one of Pacifica’s productions made available to the lucky citizens who can view the offerings of the BBC. Somewhere the Great Foot tells us that it’s very popular with you-all. Just be sure you have something stronger than stout to hand before you settle down to watch. And keep the kidney basin close by.]
In the interest of scholarship, WikiFootia per the link above states that the program Democracy Now! receives no governmental funding. However, the quote also says that the program is a production of Pacifica Foundation.
1990 Pacifica declines two NEA grants because of content restrictions attached to the funds.
So apparently however free of Federal money the program itself may be, it seems that its producer wasn’t averse to accepting such funds; the sticking point was the strings attached. (“Free speech” for me, Pacifica, but not for thee, anti-Progressives?)
Continuing, two long but interesting paragraphs on the issue of the First Amendment and government funding. I will note here: First, that the entire history as given is interesting; second, that while of course it sounds factual, “trust but verify,” and that means holding final conclusions until context is established; third, that the last item mentioned is dated 1997.
1992 Senate Republicans put a hold on funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, claiming “liberal bias” on a host of issues, including environmental coverage. A bill is passed imposing “objectivity and balance” conditions on CPB funding. Almost alone among broadcasters, Pacifica protests any content-conditional funding, pressing CPB to shield all news programming and editorial integrity of individual producers–which CPB agrees to in its implementation protocols. Pacifica observes that no other broadcasters, commercial or religious, are any longer subject to access and balance requirements of the now-repealed Fairness Doctrine–making public broadcasters alone subject to editorial restrictions. Immediately after passage of the content restrictions, CPB Board member Victor Gold targets KPFK for strident African American programming and controversial speech aired during Black History month, by filing an FCC complaint.
1993 CPB Board member Victor Gold calls for de-funding Pacifica, echoing lobyying campaign orchestrated by right-wing media critics. In a unanimous vote, CPB reaffirms Pacifica’s funding irrespective of program content. Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) threatens public broadcasting with Congressional revenge, his aide explaining: “The First Amendment, freedom of speech, doesn’t apply, because we are able to put conditions on the grants of federal money. The same as we do for farmers.” Pacifica launches a campaign for unconditional funding and self-defense, led by a tremendous outpouring of “fightback donations” from listeners nationwide. CPB funding narrowly escapes cuts in the House of Representatives, with program content the driving issue. A lobbying effort keeps Pacifica funding off the Senate agenda. This is the second year in which Pacifica has received no discretionary funding from CPB (only the matching funding based upon listener contributions).
This leaves just one loose end: What, exactly, is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
I’m glad you asked that. The first paragraph of Wikipedia’s page (but Read the Whole Thing, of course):
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a non-profit corporation created by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the United States federal government to promote public broadcasting. Between 15 and 20 percent of the aggregate revenues of all public broadcasting stations have been funded from federal sources, principally through the CPB.[1]
Further on, this breakdown:
The CPB’s annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds.[3] For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million, including $.5M in interest earned). The distribution of these funds was as follows:[4]
$222.78M for direct grants to local public television stations;
$74.63M for television programming grants;
$69.31M for direct grants to local public radio stations;
$26.67M for PBS support;
$22.84M for grants for radio programming and national program production and acquisition;
$22.25M for CPB administrative costs;
$7.00M for the Radio Program Fund.
Public broadcasting stations are funded by a combination of private donations from listeners and viewers, foundations and corporations (59.4% of 2010 total revenues of all stations), state and local taxes (21.8% of 2010 total revenues), local and national underwriting, and federal funds, principally through the CPB (15.5% of 2010 total revenues).[5]
Why not privatise the Beeb, and let it get funding from video rentals? you could make those more interesting than the broadcasts by adding bits to the videos, like Doctor Who has an extra show called Doctor Who Confidential, which might be added only to the videos. This will disappoint you in some ways (the Doctor is just an actor, and Daleks don’t really exist!), but other facts will fascinate you, such as the history of some of the settings.
Didn’t Mencken once say that to every problem there is an answer that is both obvious, and WRONG? Blowing up the Beeb would be a waste of good office space! And nuclear bombing might cause long-term health problems! (Yes, some people might develop good mutant powers, but I don’t think we should risk it!)
Seems rather OT, but: The President of Italy is a fairly nominal post, only kept busy by coalitions falling apart. In the 1980s, most Swiss could not name the Federal President, iirc it is some kind of Federal Council with one being primus inter pares. I recall once reading of a Swiss President called Herr Egli, in pre-Wikipedia days, but the main issue with term limits in Switzerland probably used to be the President forgetting that he had the job and forgetting to stand again.
The Russian constitution is a slight improvement on the Stalin Constitution.
Only question with closing the BBC down therefore is who would actually pocket the money for the rights to Sherlock, Dr Who, Eastenders, Masterchef (look, I still maintain this is excellent entertainment, no matter what the rest of the intranet thinks…) etc. Never really worked this out – the BBC is a chartered institution, and not a branch of government, so if it closes down without being bankrupt first (so the charter is revoked) what happens to the assets? I presume the government will nationalise them, but should that happen legally?
Oh no! Don’t ban the BBC! It’s fun to listen to their whines and sneers (if you doubt this, close your eyes and listen to the tone of the BBC television flagship news; you can almost hear their lips curling when it comes to anything but ‘social compassion’) and their ‘correct’ view of the world which now revolves around lefty opinions and not reporting events. I even like how they send people who look as if they are related to some issue to cover it. And every so often on a world issue they lead with what Resident Obumble thinks about it, as if that matters to the UK.
No, for me Al-Beeb is the perfect barometer of leftoid thinking. Without it we would flounder round, looking for what the unthinking are chattering about. Unless it is EastBenders whose paper-thin characters are forever screaming at each other, in a way that seems to be reflected in classroom behaviour up and down the nation.
Watchman, nationalise the assets, pay compensation to those harassed to pay the licence fee, repeal any convictions, and the authors of the dramas can have their authorship rights. Why not provide the BBC IP royalty-free? If not, the royalties could be used to pay off the Savile victims, and replace the signal on BBC TV channels with a testcard, amended to include the face of Jimmy Savile in place of the child.
Tennis sucks now. The big raquets have made it a graceless sport of big serves and grunting Amazons.
A fair point about the racquets. I’ve often thought that it would be interesting to see some of the current top professionals play a match using the old wooden racquets from the 50s. I’ll bet there be a lot more broken strings!
But despite the big serves, today’s top players are remarkably agile and cover an amazing amount of court space. And I defy you to show me any champion, old or new, more graceful than Roger Federer. Yes, the game has changed, but it’s not all for the bad (says someone who was a big fan of Rod Laver in the 60s, and who has watched the evolution of tennis since then).
I don’t want to watch women playing tennis with bigger biceps than I have.
That really only applies to one specific player (who currently is ranked #1, but still). Most of the top women professionals (the men, too) have fairly normal body types; they are just terrific athletes. I suspect that anyone in the current top 10 could consistently beat some of the champions from prior eras, whether using modern or old racquets. In general, professional athletes in all sports today are far superior to their counterparts in the halcyon days of yore.
I wasn’t aware that the BBC is your only source of Wimbledon broadcasts, although it doesn’t surprise me. Here in the US it was broadcast on private cable channels (ESPN and The Tennis Channel), for which those of us who are interested pay subscription fees (I do). As far as I know they don’t even use the BBC feed; certainly they have their own announcers and pundits. The system works fine. If the BBC were privatized I very much doubt that you would lose the ability to watch the matches.
Perform Group send their own camera people to various tennis matches in order to make them available online. I’m sure they would be happy to tackle Wimbledon.
Well, the poor child might be someone’s granny now, no wish to upset the blameless former child model. I always though the clown was a bit creepy, so upstage the clown with that good Knight.
No, No, NO. Don’t nuke it from orbit. That destroys the value that’s there. Nobody disputes that the BBC’s content and process has TREMENDOUS value – the dispute is about how it’s funded and managed. Saying ‘let’s just DESTROY it!’ because we dislike the organizational method and the politics of its governance is laughable spite, the favoured approach of the 13-year-old schoolgirl. You’re letting your visceral dislike of the license fee and the luvvie politics cloud your better judgement.
Do like any other bankruptcy – organize and sell off the existing assets (including all the content and the spectrum slots) to the highest bidder. Lay off all the employees, and invite them to apply for positions with the replacement organization. Most cameramen and tea-ladies are just working stiffs, you need their skills but they don’t bring and ideological bias to the product. Re-organize the BBC as a joint-stock company, with a strong, non-partisan board and sell shares. I’d buy stock in an offering like that. Make it (essentially) just another TV broadcaster on the UK dial, albeit with a very strong catalogue to build from and a proven track record in production. How could a new company, like that, possibly fail?
The recent ‘Top Gear’ brou-ha-ha shows what tremendous value there is in BBC productions. No reason to destroy all of that, or indeed, any of that. What we don’t like is the compulsory funding mechanism and the accumulated-over-decades political bias. Fine – find ways to get rid of those things. But don’t kill the cow just because it has a few worms.
Tennis sucks now. The big raquets have made it a graceless sport of big serves and grunting Amazons.
and Laird’s comment.
There should be no reason why a commercial broadcaster could not broadcast advert-free content for a sufficient subscription, get rid of the bundles of channels. Wimbledon could be shown advert-free to willing customers.
I went to Wimbledon over a decade ago. Venus Williams was on No.1 court and she served faster than the (journey)men who played after her match, but I suspect their returns were faster.
To improve tennis, get rid of the first service rule, so that accuracy carries a premium and you might get more breaks. Currently, a particular game is like chess with White having a 3 move start.
Most BBC content is commissioned by the Beeb but made by outside contractors these days. Also, large parts of it were sold off in the 2000’s, and their services are now purchased by the beeb. (Far be it from me to suggest that the whole thing is a scam of the same proportions as NHS private finance initiatives whereby the worst kind of cronyism takes place.)
So, Llamas, your cleaners and cameramen and gaffers are safe. The main target for nucular destruction is the vast bureaucracy that sits parasitically at the centre drawing large salaries while making sure that every program from news to kiddies cartoons broadcasts the correct message. That is, you plebs are helpless children who need us patricians to keep you from your own vices and protect you from the devil’s clutches while producing the circuses and whining for ‘the rich’ to feed you their bread.
Was about to reply but this pretty much says what I was going to:
The main target for nucular destruction is the vast bureaucracy that sits parasitically at the centre drawing large salaries while making sure that every program from news to kiddies cartoons broadcasts the correct message. That is, you plebs are helpless children who need us patricians to keep you from your own vices and protect you from the devil’s clutches while producing the circuses and whining for ‘the rich’ to feed you their bread.
I am relieved to learn that the BBC can be blown up to smithereens with no substantial loss; but surely the collateral damage must be substantial? actually i don’t even know where the BBC is located in London.
WRT Presidents, Mr Ed gets it right about Italy afaik.
Also afaik: the Swiss Federal Council is a group of 6 top executives, and the office of President rotates: every year there is a new President, and most Swiss people outside the Council probably have trouble remembering whose turn it is.
WRT Russia the BBC is correct in the sense that Putin can continue to be President for the rest of his life, as long as he skips 1 term every 3. The trick is to retain power during that term out of office.
WRT the tennis channel, apparently it’s not available here. On Eurosport i get all major tournaments except Wimbledon, perversely. Fortunately i found a betting shop where i could watch it, on condition that i accept a free drink or 2 and a few euros to bet, which, invested wisely (Djokovic at 1.9 was a bargain) paid for the other drinks.
Few remember that 80% (and rising) of industrial workers were members of fraternities (Friendly Societies) before the state got involved in taking over the basic functions of life – so most people thing that the alternative to the state is to leave people to starve in the gutter.
This cant be repeated enough. Few working people starved in the streets as people knew there were serious consequences if you failed to make provision for illness or temporary unemployment or even bad mate selection.
The government replaced that with a “right” to be protected from the consequences of shit life choices, and has (especially in the field of family and health) actively begun subsidising aberrant and self destructive behaviour.
And the only way to treat the public broadcaster is the Carthage option.
Every cut made is “well that money is going to orphans puppies, why do you hate orphans puppies Mr Millipede”? and similar sickening covers.
1) Fire management. All of it. Put in your own people.
2) Tell your people to clear out the luvvies. Get creatively nasty.
3) All hires to be Tory or UKIP
The fundamental underlying point is that broadcast as we know it is lumbering towards the radiogram of doom. I do have a TV but it is down the wire. The idea of everyone crowding round the set to hear the news about what that nice Mr Wilson said to that nice Mr Heath. Broadcast was fucked by the internet. Video Killed The Radio Star and now we have broadband.
Having said that I’d like to do to BT Openreach things not suitable to mention on a family blog. Things of Chinese ingenuity and Afghan cruelty. Things. Very Bad Things. They are the real chokepoint. Not that I’d choke the cunts because what I would do would involve kid goats and milk.
I just would like to know who the moron on the Top Gear staff was that thought not having catered fare on call was a good idea? They were in England, not the middle of the Hindu Kush on mopeds. Clarkson is a pompous boob, but they knew that all along, it’s his ‘thing’.
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.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
I defunded the BBC around 5 years ago. I have no TV, the odd hotel stay reminds me of what a bizarrely inflexible medium television is, and how dull it is. Every time the BBC annoys me, I remind myself that I do not contribute to it.
The question should be:
“Do we nationalise the BBC (and its staff private) pension fund(s) to pay compensation to those harassed to pay a licence fee?“.
I would think that a fair outcome, after LGB strikes on evacuated premises.
Their centenary is in sight…
I for one do not want them to get a card from William III (or heaven forbid Charles III)
The UK has more than its fair share of corrupt dysfunctional bureaucracies – it’s high time we came up with a recipe for kill or cure….
I disagree as destroying the Beeb and salting the earth does not cover the debt of BBC hubris.
The TV License, its draconian threat-o-grams and prod-nosed goons should be abolished forthwith.
The BBC itself, should be split into a small public service component with a mixed funding regime as PBS is in the USA and the rest (including the BBCiPlayer) should be then consigned to an encrypted subscription only service so that the luvvies can have their beloved Auntie and those of us who can’t stand the lefty propaganda engine can watch it wither on the vine.
A far more fitting end.
Wot, three posts so far and nobody’s suggested nuking it from orbit…?
Article edited just for you 😉
Easy does it. No need to upset all those Tory voters who love the Antiques Roadshow and Wimbledon.
Death by six or seven cuts will do the job.
What is it about publicly funded broadcasters?
The CBC in Canada and the ABC in Australia, like your BBC, once examples of excellence, are now demonstrating the worst excesses of partisanship.
(Disclosure: I worked for approximately 10 years for the CBC.)
pete,
“Easy does it. No need to upset all those Tory voters who love the Antiques Roadshow and Wimbledon.”
They can pay for it. I have equal disdain for teat-suckers of the blue or red varieties (or yellow or green too). There’s a few things that might be reasonably described as “public service broadcasting”, like educational programmes for children, but a couple of multimillionaire’s hitting balls over a net doesn’t.
Tennis sucks now. The big raquets have made it a graceless sport of big serves and grunting Amazons. I don’t want to watch women playing tennis with bigger biceps than I have.
Speak for yourself 😛
I can understand the mistaken idea that the state must provide for the education, health care, old age (and …..) of the poor.
Few remember that 80% (and rising) of industrial workers were members of fraternities (Friendly Societies) before the state got involved in taking over the basic functions of life – so most people thing that the alternative to the state is to leave people to starve in the gutter.
However, I can not understand why anyone supports the BBC.
I am baffled by the support of so many elite “Conservatives” for the vile BBC and its vile system of forced funding.
Would the poor die of illness or starvation without the BBC?
And, Ed please not, the government is thinking of alternative taxes to fund the BBC.
Not funding the bleeping thing, just does not seem to occur to them.
Major tennis championships, and Game of Thrones, are actually the only things on TV that i am willing to pay money for. Not much money, mind you, but more than nothing.
If the Stigler finds that women tennis players have bigger biceps than he has, perhaps he should do chinups more often. I myself watch ladies’ tennis occasionally, but for no politically correct reason.
Today i had a good time watching the Wimbledon final, and for the 1st time in my life i bet on a sporting event, and won. Did not win much, mind you: just enough to cover the expense of the beer i drank while watching the event. You could say that it paid for itself.
The last thing anybody should be hoping for is that State Television should remain, however drastically reduced, as a source of Educational Programming for the kiddies.
BANG! Welcome, An Inconvenient Truth. BANG! Welcome, whatever shows the Powers That Be decide to prohibit, allow, or require to be run in the way of State Education for children.
I say, far far better to keep the stuff designed to convince centenarians that Bert and Ernie were NOT merely best buds, and lose the “educational” stuff targetting children. –Actually, I daresay some of it today is acceptable, but it’s much too dangerous having governments meddling in education. We are nearly all agreed on that, ja?
But best of all, get rid of the Beeb and (in the U.S.) NPR and PBS, and their foul offspring all around the globe.
(I might make an exception if the programming were limited to productions of the Joffrey Ballet; the Olympic figure-skating championships properly photographed and announced by Scott Hamilton and Tracy Wilson; the entirety of the top UK and US dog shows, properly photographed, and M.C.’d by Ron Reagan–he WAS good at that, for the Eukanuba Championships; and Witness for the Prosecution.)
While we’re at it, we need to get rid of State funding grants to allegedly “private” broadcasters under color of the NEA and other agencies. [Thinking, for instance, of Pacifica Radio, run by the Pacifica Foundation; most but not all of whose funding is from private donors and foundations, but some of which, natch, is courtesy of U.S. govt. largesse. By the way, I think you Brits should quit complaining about the BBC and the few miserable pence you have to shell out for the privilege of being able to turn on your TV should a fit of insanity overwhelm you. After all, having the Toob means you can tune in and watch Democracy Now!, one of Pacifica’s productions made available to the lucky citizens who can view the offerings of the BBC. Somewhere the Great Foot tells us that it’s very popular with you-all. Just be sure you have something stronger than stout to hand before you settle down to watch. And keep the kidney basin close by.]
*NOTE. Per Wikipedia’s page on Pacifica Radio at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifica_Radio:
Democracy Now!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!
In the interest of scholarship, WikiFootia per the link above states that the program Democracy Now! receives no governmental funding. However, the quote also says that the program is a production of Pacifica Foundation.
Looking at the Foundation’s “About” page at
http://www.pacifica.org/about_history.php,
we find this:
So apparently however free of Federal money the program itself may be, it seems that its producer wasn’t averse to accepting such funds; the sticking point was the strings attached. (“Free speech” for me, Pacifica, but not for thee, anti-Progressives?)
Continuing, two long but interesting paragraphs on the issue of the First Amendment and government funding. I will note here: First, that the entire history as given is interesting; second, that while of course it sounds factual, “trust but verify,” and that means holding final conclusions until context is established; third, that the last item mentioned is dated 1997.
This leaves just one loose end: What, exactly, is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
I’m glad you asked that. The first paragraph of Wikipedia’s page (but Read the Whole Thing, of course):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting
Further on, this breakdown:
Women’s tennis is okay, just imagine those big strong thighs wrapped around you?
Death by Snu Snu?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCdrUW–Jic
Why not privatise the Beeb, and let it get funding from video rentals? you could make those more interesting than the broadcasts by adding bits to the videos, like Doctor Who has an extra show called Doctor Who Confidential, which might be added only to the videos. This will disappoint you in some ways (the Doctor is just an actor, and Daleks don’t really exist!), but other facts will fascinate you, such as the history of some of the settings.
Didn’t Mencken once say that to every problem there is an answer that is both obvious, and WRONG? Blowing up the Beeb would be a waste of good office space! And nuclear bombing might cause long-term health problems! (Yes, some people might develop good mutant powers, but I don’t think we should risk it!)
But we have a tax-funded and awful rail network that is not even British, one which, in the age of cars, is not needed.
You might as well say dropping one of these was a waste of a good viaduct.
http://youtu.be/zeUQKl81aN4
Today on the BBC:
Says the Russian constitution:
This is what £3.7bn per year gets you.
Seems rather OT, but: The President of Italy is a fairly nominal post, only kept busy by coalitions falling apart. In the 1980s, most Swiss could not name the Federal President, iirc it is some kind of Federal Council with one being primus inter pares. I recall once reading of a Swiss President called Herr Egli, in pre-Wikipedia days, but the main issue with term limits in Switzerland probably used to be the President forgetting that he had the job and forgetting to stand again.
The Russian constitution is a slight improvement on the Stalin Constitution.
Only question with closing the BBC down therefore is who would actually pocket the money for the rights to Sherlock, Dr Who, Eastenders, Masterchef (look, I still maintain this is excellent entertainment, no matter what the rest of the intranet thinks…) etc. Never really worked this out – the BBC is a chartered institution, and not a branch of government, so if it closes down without being bankrupt first (so the charter is revoked) what happens to the assets? I presume the government will nationalise them, but should that happen legally?
Oh no! Don’t ban the BBC! It’s fun to listen to their whines and sneers (if you doubt this, close your eyes and listen to the tone of the BBC television flagship news; you can almost hear their lips curling when it comes to anything but ‘social compassion’) and their ‘correct’ view of the world which now revolves around lefty opinions and not reporting events. I even like how they send people who look as if they are related to some issue to cover it. And every so often on a world issue they lead with what Resident Obumble thinks about it, as if that matters to the UK.
No, for me Al-Beeb is the perfect barometer of leftoid thinking. Without it we would flounder round, looking for what the unthinking are chattering about. Unless it is EastBenders whose paper-thin characters are forever screaming at each other, in a way that seems to be reflected in classroom behaviour up and down the nation.
Watchman, nationalise the assets, pay compensation to those harassed to pay the licence fee, repeal any convictions, and the authors of the dramas can have their authorship rights. Why not provide the BBC IP royalty-free? If not, the royalties could be used to pay off the Savile victims, and replace the signal on BBC TV channels with a testcard, amended to include the face of Jimmy Savile in place of the child.
In place of the clown, surely?
A fair point about the racquets. I’ve often thought that it would be interesting to see some of the current top professionals play a match using the old wooden racquets from the 50s. I’ll bet there be a lot more broken strings!
But despite the big serves, today’s top players are remarkably agile and cover an amazing amount of court space. And I defy you to show me any champion, old or new, more graceful than Roger Federer. Yes, the game has changed, but it’s not all for the bad (says someone who was a big fan of Rod Laver in the 60s, and who has watched the evolution of tennis since then).
That really only applies to one specific player (who currently is ranked #1, but still). Most of the top women professionals (the men, too) have fairly normal body types; they are just terrific athletes. I suspect that anyone in the current top 10 could consistently beat some of the champions from prior eras, whether using modern or old racquets. In general, professional athletes in all sports today are far superior to their counterparts in the halcyon days of yore.
I wasn’t aware that the BBC is your only source of Wimbledon broadcasts, although it doesn’t surprise me. Here in the US it was broadcast on private cable channels (ESPN and The Tennis Channel), for which those of us who are interested pay subscription fees (I do). As far as I know they don’t even use the BBC feed; certainly they have their own announcers and pundits. The system works fine. If the BBC were privatized I very much doubt that you would lose the ability to watch the matches.
Perform Group send their own camera people to various tennis matches in order to make them available online. I’m sure they would be happy to tackle Wimbledon.
Well, the poor child might be someone’s granny now, no wish to upset the blameless former child model. I always though the clown was a bit creepy, so upstage the clown with that good Knight.
No, No, NO. Don’t nuke it from orbit. That destroys the value that’s there. Nobody disputes that the BBC’s content and process has TREMENDOUS value – the dispute is about how it’s funded and managed. Saying ‘let’s just DESTROY it!’ because we dislike the organizational method and the politics of its governance is laughable spite, the favoured approach of the 13-year-old schoolgirl. You’re letting your visceral dislike of the license fee and the luvvie politics cloud your better judgement.
Do like any other bankruptcy – organize and sell off the existing assets (including all the content and the spectrum slots) to the highest bidder. Lay off all the employees, and invite them to apply for positions with the replacement organization. Most cameramen and tea-ladies are just working stiffs, you need their skills but they don’t bring and ideological bias to the product. Re-organize the BBC as a joint-stock company, with a strong, non-partisan board and sell shares. I’d buy stock in an offering like that. Make it (essentially) just another TV broadcaster on the UK dial, albeit with a very strong catalogue to build from and a proven track record in production. How could a new company, like that, possibly fail?
The recent ‘Top Gear’ brou-ha-ha shows what tremendous value there is in BBC productions. No reason to destroy all of that, or indeed, any of that. What we don’t like is the compulsory funding mechanism and the accumulated-over-decades political bias. Fine – find ways to get rid of those things. But don’t kill the cow just because it has a few worms.
llater,
llamas
and Laird’s comment.
There should be no reason why a commercial broadcaster could not broadcast advert-free content for a sufficient subscription, get rid of the bundles of channels. Wimbledon could be shown advert-free to willing customers.
I went to Wimbledon over a decade ago. Venus Williams was on No.1 court and she served faster than the (journey)men who played after her match, but I suspect their returns were faster.
To improve tennis, get rid of the first service rule, so that accuracy carries a premium and you might get more breaks. Currently, a particular game is like chess with White having a 3 move start.
And yes, some people wonder if chess is racist.
llamas, you’re being entirely too rational.
Mr Ed, the Tennis Channel has an on-line subscription service called Tennis Channel Plus, which I believe meets your criteria.
Watchman etc.
Most BBC content is commissioned by the Beeb but made by outside contractors these days. Also, large parts of it were sold off in the 2000’s, and their services are now purchased by the beeb. (Far be it from me to suggest that the whole thing is a scam of the same proportions as NHS private finance initiatives whereby the worst kind of cronyism takes place.)
So, Llamas, your cleaners and cameramen and gaffers are safe. The main target for nucular destruction is the vast bureaucracy that sits parasitically at the centre drawing large salaries while making sure that every program from news to kiddies cartoons broadcasts the correct message. That is, you plebs are helpless children who need us patricians to keep you from your own vices and protect you from the devil’s clutches while producing the circuses and whining for ‘the rich’ to feed you their bread.
Was about to reply but this pretty much says what I was going to:
Yup.
I am relieved to learn that the BBC can be blown up to smithereens with no substantial loss; but surely the collateral damage must be substantial? actually i don’t even know where the BBC is located in London.
WRT Presidents, Mr Ed gets it right about Italy afaik.
Also afaik: the Swiss Federal Council is a group of 6 top executives, and the office of President rotates: every year there is a new President, and most Swiss people outside the Council probably have trouble remembering whose turn it is.
WRT Russia the BBC is correct in the sense that Putin can continue to be President for the rest of his life, as long as he skips 1 term every 3. The trick is to retain power during that term out of office.
WRT the tennis channel, apparently it’s not available here. On Eurosport i get all major tournaments except Wimbledon, perversely. Fortunately i found a betting shop where i could watch it, on condition that i accept a free drink or 2 and a few euros to bet, which, invested wisely (Djokovic at 1.9 was a bargain) paid for the other drinks.
@Snorri Godhi
> I am relieved to learn that the BBC can be blown up to smithereens with no substantial loss;
Well not really, what about the Blue Peter garden? Surely that would be a loss?
The only way I’ll watch women’s tennis is if they start playing topless, with wooden racquets. Otherwise, no.
As for the BBC: every time I travel to Britishland or Yurp and I watch it, I’m reminded why I support commercial television, as horrible as it is.
Paul Marks
Few remember that 80% (and rising) of industrial workers were members of fraternities (Friendly Societies) before the state got involved in taking over the basic functions of life – so most people thing that the alternative to the state is to leave people to starve in the gutter.
This cant be repeated enough. Few working people starved in the streets as people knew there were serious consequences if you failed to make provision for illness or temporary unemployment or even bad mate selection.
The government replaced that with a “right” to be protected from the consequences of shit life choices, and has (especially in the field of family and health) actively begun subsidising aberrant and self destructive behaviour.
And the only way to treat the public broadcaster is the Carthage option.
Every cut made is “well that money is going to orphans puppies, why do you hate orphans puppies Mr Millipede”? and similar sickening covers.
Interesting point, mole. Very good.
1) Fire management. All of it. Put in your own people.
2) Tell your people to clear out the luvvies. Get creatively nasty.
3) All hires to be Tory or UKIP
That’ll work.
The fundamental underlying point is that broadcast as we know it is lumbering towards the radiogram of doom. I do have a TV but it is down the wire. The idea of everyone crowding round the set to hear the news about what that nice Mr Wilson said to that nice Mr Heath. Broadcast was fucked by the internet. Video Killed The Radio Star and now we have broadband.
Having said that I’d like to do to BT Openreach things not suitable to mention on a family blog. Things of Chinese ingenuity and Afghan cruelty. Things. Very Bad Things. They are the real chokepoint. Not that I’d choke the cunts because what I would do would involve kid goats and milk.
I just would like to know who the moron on the Top Gear staff was that thought not having catered fare on call was a good idea? They were in England, not the middle of the Hindu Kush on mopeds. Clarkson is a pompous boob, but they knew that all along, it’s his ‘thing’.
The BBC report that the RAF’s Lancaster will be at the Sunderland Airshow 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-33656433
But the Lancaster is grounded after an engine fire.
Lazy, lying, cut-and-pasting old news scoundrels.