Forum menu
Aaand yet another thread disappears down a rabbit hole.
Another question for you:
Do you think the Ali G show would be commissioned today and if the answer is no, then explain why it was ok 20 years ago?
I understand that some think that because this was so long ago it doesn't matter but I contend that what happened then has a bearing on the media landscape we find ourselves in today.
More than half the UK population lives in cities or large towns with diverse populations, yet until very recently they [we] never saw that population represented on television. My original point was that virtually the only non white faces we saw on TV back then were white people mimicking black people and it creates a false notion of reality.
DM readers go apoplectic when they see a mixed heritage family on a John Lewis advert, saying diversity is being thrust upon them when what they are actually seeing on screen these days is a world that matches up to the reality that most of us see when we step out of our front doors.
Had TV been more representative over the last 20 or more years then we might be in a better place today.
Frank,
Would you agree that the asylum situation we find ourselves in is at least in part due do a racism that's been allowed to fester over the last couple of decades?
I don't think discussing the role that television may have played over that period and how it might have contributed to the current situation is disappearing down a rabbit hole.
Do you think the Ali G show would be commissioned today and if the answer is no, then explain why it was ok 20 years ago?
So to sum up......you dig up some 20 year old article to make the point that Ali G was unacceptable in the context of 20 years ago, when that fails because you haven't read the article properly and it is pointed out that the readers of the black British newspaper were overwhelmingly fans of Ali G you decide to ask whether Ali G would be acceptable in today's context.
And this is after complaining that the BBC has only leftie comedians who you criticise for not basing their material on what some geezer, who might or might not have been a comedian, said a couple of thousands years ago.
Is that a fair summing up?
Back to brass balls himself, looks like the BBC is going to have to fight for it's life as the governmrnt and their shills will be looking to cancel the licence fee. It's the only revenge they can get, to try and create the narrative that Gary Lineker destroyed the BBC.
I also expect that there's going to be a serious drop in revenue as people don't renew their licences.
the governmrnt and their shills will be looking to cancel the licence fee.
Good. Payback for decades of bullying old people and students with hired goons.
I also expect that there’s going to be a serious drop in revenue as people don’t renew their licences
Sound, they can start by binning out Eastenders. If people don't want to pay for the Beeb, lop off the light entertainment and soaps, before they pare off the Reithian content.
It wasn’t an opinion piece it was a piece canvassing opinions, there’s a difference.
They're the same words in a different order.
The article clearly states that 6 out of 7 comedians spoken to had a negative view of the character,
You should talk to L'Oreal with those statistics, they'd totally run with "86% of black people agree..."
All those comedians never got the opportunities their talent deserved and are still pissed off about it [as are Lenny Henry and Mo Gilligan] to this day.
The same Lenny Henry who created Trevor McDonut? The Lenny Henry who's forged a career out of satirising black people? That Lenny Henry?
Oooooo....kaaaayyyyyy...
Intentions and outcomes are different things. Does it matter what “the point os the character” is if it ends up causing an opposite effect to that which is intended?
So your actual argument is that the caracature was misguided? That's fair.
But it's not exactly an example of blackface now, is it.
I’ll ask you again, would you have the brass balls to explain to all those comedians how wrong they are?
I'd have the brass balls to ask them what they thought of SBC's character a quarter of a century on, for sure. And I wouldn't presume to disagree with them if they didn't like it today.
I'm torn when it comes to BBC funding, I love the radio and BBC4 etc but feel that the time for high paid presenters and actors maybe coming to a close. Let ITV take over the Premier League, I know MOTD is an institution and all that but ITV hosted it during the 90's for a few years didn't they?
The radio output changed from chasing mainstream audiences and it got much better for it.
live in a country without a BBC equivalent, and see what you think of the license fee then
I also expect that there’s going to be a serious drop in revenue as people don’t renew their licences.
Really? why? In protest at Lineker or at his treatment?
Let ITV take over the Premier League
There speaks someone who’s clearly never watched any ITV football coverage 😂
A license fee is very old fashioned approach. Just get rid of it, have adverts on BBC and have subscriptions to iPlayer if you want to see ad free. The BBC is not offering anything on TV that is not elsewhere and its quality is no better. It is no longer the 1950's.
They do make some high quality drama series but they sell those to Netflix/whoever and would continue to get money from that so therefore continue to make them. The other stuff would live or die based on popularity just as other channels. What they offer would not take my £14 a month given the choice.
1) I’m a bit confused with all of this Ali G discussion? The character was clearly a white guy wanting to be a black guy. White people were being lampooned by a white person. If there’s any racism involved in Ali G then I clearly don’t understand what racism is.
2) The license fee and the BBC. I can’t think of another British institution other than the NHS that I have more pride in. Its output and influence is staggering and everyone in Britain has been shaped by and benefitted from its radio and tv programming. I’m sure the right wing types will immediately start throwing mud about pedos in a way that they won’t about the wider entertainment industry or scouting or youth football- all just as complicit.
When JRM, the ERG and the Tufton Stret ghouls are howling for blood on an issue, we should know by now that it’s generally in no one’s best interest accept that of the super rich tax avoiders behind most of the bad decisions of the last decade or so.
Let ITV take over the Premier League
Dear christ no, never. Please. FTLOG. Won't you think of the children? Lee Dixon. That is all.
If the BBC goes private then it can be bought by anyone. It would need some protection otherwise it may go down the Fox/GB route and be controversial to get viewers.
It will also focus purely on revenue and getting viewer numbers up which would reduce the less profitable but often very useful content.
There probably is some sensible compromise to be struck with its funding. I don't trust this government to do that. Probably not any government. It would be good to see it somehow set up as a freestanding institution free of political interference. This is one thing that always scuppers state owned institutions. They become political footballs. You can see it now with the NHS, decisions being made with regards to how they will be received publicly rather than if they make sense to the organisation.
Good to see Lineker come out on top though. Shame there wasn't more criticism and discussion of the awful government policy.
the governmrnt and their shills will be looking to cancel the licence fee.
Good. Payback for decades of bullying old people and students with hired goons.
I receive monthly letters from TV Licensing with the latest stating that they are going to visit me on a specific date. If anyone else was to send such malicious communications through the postal service they'd be appearing in Court yet TV Licensing/Capita have special dispensation. My "crime" is failing to inform them every 2 years that I do not watch live telly. Is this a good use of license-payers money? How do you feel about that?
Just to be clear, I have not watched any live telly since I cancelled my license. It's a nice feeling having saved around £400 so far.
If anyone else was to send such malicious communications through the postal service they’d be appearing in Court yet TV Licensing/Capita have special dispensation.
Yeah its a private company, it isn't the BBC
https://www.capita.com/careers/your-career-at-capita-tv-licensing
A license fee is very old fashioned approach. Just get rid of it, have adverts on BBC and have subscriptions to iPlayer if you want to see ad free.
This. I've cancelled my direct debit in the wake of this nonsense. I barely watch BBC anyway and welcome the opportunity to miss out on crap like Question Time. They really need to move to a subscription model like everyone else. I want to be able to pay to watch specific stuff when I want rather than being forced to fork out £160 a year for the privelege of owning a television.
Agree with dazh, the time has long come for the licence fee to be dropped. It's weird it's got to be the only paid service I can think of where the onus is on you to prove you dont use their service.
If you buy all your media, we’ll all pay the price.
The license fee model delivers us a media landscape like no other… getting rid of it would be a big mistake… one Conservatives will be cheering for decades to come.
My “crime” is failing to inform them every 2 years that I do not watch live telly. Is this a good use of license-payers money? How do you feel about that?
Similar to SORN - it's no big deal to play by the rules, whether you like them or not. When those rules change, then go nuts! In the meantime, meh.
Yeah its a private company, it isn’t the BBC
https://www.capita.com/careers/your-career-at-capita-tv-licensing/a >
Contracted, instructed and working on behalf of the BBC…
It’s probably only the Tory’s attacking them all the time which is keeping them in check. If not they’d likely be using drones to spy through your windows. Just to check you don’t need a TV license you understand… If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear…
There speaks someone who’s clearly never watched any ITV football coverage 😂
I know.....but on a serious note I think the argument for paying a licence fee to pay star presenters millions is hard to justify.
This presents an incredible opportunity for ITV well beyond the football. Their news coverage has got better over recent years to the point that I think it's better than the BBC. If they did get the footie then I'd expect them to make a better job of it this time.
Are you sitting comfortably Lee Dixon?
And what no politician wants to admit is that Western countries with ageing demographics need young workers
I thought SNP and Scottish Green govt have been openly saying exactly this for a number of years?
Advert from Scottish Government mixed in with my daily podcasts this morning actively encouraging people to move to Scotland.
I receive monthly letters from TV Licensing with the latest stating that they are going to visit me on a specific date. If anyone else was to send such malicious communications through the postal service they’d be appearing in Court yet TV Licensing/Capita have special dispensation. My “crime” is failing to inform them every 2 years that I do not watch live telly. Is this a good use of license-payers money? How do you feel about that?
The TV Licensing enforcement lot have always been shits. The current debacle aside, their attitude was the one thing that would convince me to sack off the licence.
They really need to move to a subscription model like everyone else. I want to be able to pay to watch specific stuff when I want rather than being forced to fork out £160 a year for the privelege of owning a television.
It already is a subscription model. You need a subscription to watch or record TV as broadcast, or watch iPlayer. It has nothing to do with owning a television.
It’s weird it’s got to be the only paid service I can think of where the onus is on you to prove you dont use their service.
You don't have to prove anything. The only legal powers Capita has is a healthy supply of red ink. If you don't need a licence, just ignore them.
I know…..but on a serious note I think the argument for paying a licence fee to pay star presenters millions is hard to justify.
You wouldn't be saying that after 90 minutes listening to Ally McCoist and Andy Townsend, I can assure you of that
Maybe, as with other jobs, people get paid a lot of money because, compared to their competition, they're actually very good at it?
I'm not sure how much Jamie Carrigher and Gary Neville get paid at Sky but I bet its a damn site more than Gary Lineker gets paid at the BBC, and those two gob off endlessly on Twitter with not a hint of censure from their employer. Having said that, they do have to work with Graeme Souness, so probably deserve their millions
TJagain
Really? why? In protest at Lineker or at his treatment?
effectively both.... certainly another reason on top of many
binners
There speaks someone who’s clearly never watched any ITV football coverage
I've never willingly watched ANY TV football coverage ... why am I paying for it?
The TV Licensing enforcement lot have always been shits. The current debacle aside, their attitude was the one thing that would convince me to sack off the licence.
Again certainly a factor for me... I haven't watched Live TV in years... (excepting some guidance stuff in lockdown and that shouldn't IMHO be charged for)
TBH I don't think the aerial even works .. pigeons seem to have wrecked it but as its not plugged in not easy to know...
It already is a subscription model. You need a subscription to watch or record TV as broadcast, or watch iPlayer. It has nothing to do with owning a television.
On top of that you have to pay IF you watch ANY TV channel that has for example been recorded and uploaded on YT...
I think I'm paying as insurance no-one in the house accidentally or otherwise watches one of those.
Similar to SORN – it’s no big deal to play by the rules, whether you like them or not. When those rules change, then go nuts! In the meantime, meh.
Its not that similar... if I get a car certified taken permanently off the road and destroyed that's it - I also need to have at least purchased a road car to have a requirement to declare it SORN.
You aren't being asked to prove you didn't buy another car and threatened.
The thread is was about Lineker.
His BBC contract pays £1.35 million - not 'millions'.
… why am I paying for it?
Why are you paying towards it? For others to watch. Just like others are paying towards things you use. I don't watch football either, or Eastenders... but I also don't travel on the M25, haven't yet had cancer treatment... etc, etc.
Keep up man. It’s gone from nazis, to humourless comedians who don’t like Ali G and back to fascist bullyboys employed by the BBC.
Sounds like a song 🎵
They really need to move to a subscription model like everyone else. I want to be able to pay to watch specific stuff when I want rather than being forced to fork out £160 a year for the privelege of owning a television.
The problem with this is a country where the BBC's Natural History output (which is eye wateringly expensive to produce as it takes hundreds of people years to make a series that's only 6 hours long) is only affordable to the middle classes and anyone below that can only afford Bargain Hunt (which costs peanuts as it's about 6 people churning out an episode a week). Would probably be doing even less about climate change.
There's no business case for that output, if there was ITV would do it. And it's so expensive C4 can't afford it even on their non commercial model where the profits have to be spent on something. Another prime example is compare BBC Ambulance at primetime to any one of the similar, but far cheaper to make, versions on other channels? Would people give half as much a damn about the state of the NHS if the BBC wasn't showing it to them at 8pm on a Thursday?
Just worth mentioning that the Licence fee contributes to all of the BBC radio programming too, it's not just about TV.
Personally I'd have no problem with paying the licence fee as a subscription for that alone.
Radios 1.2.3.4
Five Live
6 Music
Local Radio
World service
Just my opinion, but I cannot understand anyone having an issue with paying a few quid a week for that ?
@frankconway From a logical POV 1.35 million is greater than 1 and thus is entitled to the plural form millions.
The duffle coat with Fermat's theorem in the pocket please.
Just my opinion, but I cannot understand anyone having an issue with paying a few quid a week for that ?
So because YOU like it. Everyone needs to pay 💰
Righto.
Fair enough though, there’s some quality content there. Why not lump the fee into income tax instead of the current sinister method of collection?
I know MOTD is an institution and all that but ITV hosted it during the 90’s for a few years didn’t they?
And it was shit.
The highest salaries are ridiculous, as they are in most sectors. But sadly, while I absolutely support him, Lineker has given the nutters another stick to beat the BBC with.
Pat Nevin spoke well on 5 Live last night - have a review, tell us clearly what the rules are, and we can decide whether we want to work for you.
So because YOU like it. Everyone needs to pay 💰
Righto.
? Quite clearly didn't say that. Merely can't understand why anyone wouldn't be prepared to pay for it.
I'd be more than happy for it to come out of general taxation. It would seem like a much fairer way of financing it. Providing of course that everyone pays their fair share of tax, which clearly doesn't happen.
instead of the current sinister method of collection?
I think you probably need to reappraise your understanding of the word 'sinister'
Back to the dictionary for you Binners 😉
The TV Licensing enforcement lot have always been shits. The current debacle aside, their attitude was the one thing that would convince me to sack off the licence.
@Cougar I know. Their language is shocking, they've said I should expect a visit from an "Enforcement Officer" from the Guildford Enforcement Division. WTF? Enforce what?? Trying to make out they have some sort of quasi legal powers. Treating everyone as a criminal. What happens if you're not savvy, it doesn't bear thinking about. Silence will be my friend if/when they visit.
Similar to SORN – it’s no big deal to play by the rules, whether you like them or not. When those rules change, then go nuts! In the meantime, meh.
No, it isn't similar. I don't wish to buy a service, that should be the end of it.
CG, don’t open the door even an inch and tell them to **** off through the letterbox.
I once experienced them wedging a foot in the door and barging in when one of the girls I was living with at uni opened the door to them.
On top of that you have to pay IF you watch ANY TV channel that has for example been recorded and uploaded on YT…
I don't think that's the case. You'd need to pay if you watched live streaming of TV broadcasts on YouTube. Anything that's been recorded and uploaded probably breaks copyright anyway.
Sounds to me like you don't need the licence.
So because YOU like it. Everyone needs to pay 💰
Righto.
Do you use the fire brigade?