Forum menu
So there's a saving right there... scrap Casualty and Eastenders (£40m a year) and use the money to create a load of new interesting programmes that can be produced at lower cost.
Sounds good.
It's not like anybody actually watches Casualty or Eastenders is it.
@GrahamS - It's true that Andrew Gilligan "broke" the story pertaining the sexed up dossier but I don't think this was some attempt to hold Blair's Government or indeed any facet of the British establishment accountable for anything - moreover to position David Kelly as the sole source of information - thus covering the backs of the other corroborative sources and marginalizimg the scepticism towards the claims - That Sadam could launch WMD's in 45 mins .. It frankly shocks me that folk would and can buy into the BBC's contrived modus operandi of impartiality.. According to Economist/Journalist Max Keiser of The Keiser Report the BBC has been the only news organization that has ever briefed him prior to interview about what he can't talk about ..
For all of you saying the news output isn't good, where would you go? ITV, C5 and Sky news output is shite of the highest order and C4 is a bit personality driven.
If you have a problem with the BBC's news output, spend a week in the US and try watching news over there. You can watch CNN for a whole day and get less information than watching 5mins of BBC news. When you listen to R4, the density of information gets even better, especially some of the late night news where they get candid interviews with major players who aren't high profile, but have deep insight into current issues, and will talk without spinning or trying to influence peoples opinion.
For a democracy to function effectively, the population has to be educated. The BBC does a very good job at doing that.
Look at UK newspapers on both side of the political fence, who basically blatantly went all out to get people to vote how they wanted on the run up to the election. Most of the output from the Telegraph / Guardian in the weeks leading up to the election was a disgrace. Do people really want to pay for a paper who tries to tell them how to vote? Contrast that with how the BBC behaved.
Some of the other BBC output, like the R4 series on the Magna Carta is just priceless. That content will be relevant for decades.
The BBC is one the positive things which define the UK to the rest of the world as a progressive country. If the Conservatives start attacking it, I for one will be fighting very hard to resist.
Really rather skewed logic to state that if one finds fault with BBC broadcasting they should try an American network equivalent It's effectively saying that - Oh well at least it's not as rubbish as some of the other stuff - Its high time we all started demanding a little more from Journalism and if that ever comes it's not going to happen via some collectivist mandatory licensing model ..
it's not going to happen via some collectivist mandatory licensing model
Why not ?
Commercialism and journalism don't mix. I think the BBC's charter is just about the only way to provide consistent good journalism. The license fee though - that could go and be replaced by a tax increase, I wouldn't care.
Commercialism and journalism don't mix.
You do realise, other than Pravda and a few equivalent publications, every newspaper is a commercial enterprise - it is not a profession.
EDIT: ITN and Sky's news output is pretty good, much quicker reacting than the BBC on much smaller budgets. ITV were often 10 mins earlier reporting election results on the night. Both are required to be impartial and are regulated by Ofcom, BBC isn't but maybe should.
Ok so they mix with varying degrees of success. After all, we have tabloids. And Murdoch.
After all, we have tabloids. And Murdoch.
What? Very successfully.
Did you think I was talking about financial success?
Journalism is about communication, tabloids are incredibly good at communicating information very succinctly, even stuff you don't like.
Journalism is about communication, tabloids are incredibly good at communicating information very succinctly, even stuff you don't like.
It should be, but theses days (perhaps it's always been this way) it's about pushing a message. Whether you like the message will vary by publication but to says tabloids are good at communication information isn't quite true. Information should be impartial imo.
Their news sections are still pretty straight, however comment is cheaper than maintaining bureaux so is given a lot more space.
Whenever I've read a tabloid, their 'news' items are so loaded they might as well be editorial.
Their news sections are still pretty straight,
😯 😆
Whenever I've read a tabloid, their 'news' items are so loaded they might as well be editorial.
+1