BBC Fact checkers extraordinaire

[KeithEdsgoalWards]

are we winning?

No. We went into admin at half time and were wound up.

 

[Tom Bott]

You a freeview guy then?

Freeview or freeload ?

 

[Nickydblade]

The BBC exists to 'inform, educate and entertain' unlike most other media which has one purpose 'to make as much money as possible' (and there are niche places like S24SU that exist out of a common interest or passion).

There are strengths and weaknesses of 'public service' institutions (NHS, schools, the BBC, free museums, libraries etc) versus commercial ones (BUPA, Eton, TikTok...). This is a complex debate that countries have been working through, with the BBC (over a century old) as an archetype that has been copied by much of the developed world (but not the US who have preferred mainly a market model). I think there is a case to follow Sweden, who with SVT copied the BBC model, but recently changed funding from a one size fits all fee like ours to a progressive tax along with other stuff so if you have more you contribute more and if you have less you may pay nowt. I understand the argument that, in the age of a globally competitive media market, we should simply leave it to market forces, but I think that has its own problems . Even If I don't access 'Songs of Praise' for older Christians or 'Something Special' for kids with physical or mental disabilities I'm happy that niche audiences get quality content, and I think it makes us a better and nicer (and as an excellent previous post argued, more educated) society.

I value (relatively) objective news and information as it is increasingly rare. A lot of us criticise the clickbait and advert heavy journalism in much news (Reach PLC own most regional papers as well as the Mirror, Express, Star and some others... and these brands are basically just gateways to their advertising), the quality end of the press are moving behind paywalls, so someone has to pay for well funded journalism. The BBC is one of the most trusted sources in the world with good reason (and I say that as someone who thought the way it reported the pandemic was shockingly bad, but then so was almost everyone else!). My lefty mates think it is too right-wing (it is neo-liberal with economics but then so is mainstream politics) and the right wing attack it for being too left-wing (it is 'left' if you believe we are involved in a 'culture' war against woke). So, if it can challenge both of these I think it's doing something right, in an age when we are more likely to exist in an echo-chamber.

I also think the combined content of the streaming giants offers less than the BBC in terms of quality (although Netflix, Disney etc do produce some good stuff most of the things I've seen are rubbish). Something as simple as the BBC archive of 'In Our Time' shows what good public service broadcasting can do:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/player

...and when people talk about 'free' stuff we should be aware of the price of free. It is usually funded by advertising which means if you are not paying then 'you' are the product (your clicks and attention) for info that is passed on to advertisers and their algorithms. Most seem happy with this set-up, and I access lots of ad-driven 'free' stuff myself so I see the positives. This does not factor in the 'stealing' of content... and I've done a fair bit myself (music, footy streams etc) so I'm not getting moralistic about it, but it does have a consequence in particular for smaller artists / content creators.

It's great that there is so much choice out there and perhaps the role of a PSB like the BBC is coming to an end. The question is what replaces it... if we all end up living in a cultural 'Disneyworld' then God help us all.

... but no defence of 'Mrs Brown's Boys' from me! Mi mam loves it though, so maybe it's not all about me.

 

[Tom Bott]

As for the BBC, they sell programmes globally and make some reyt money. Don't be fooled.

Precisely, that shows the quality of the content that they produce.

For 44p.

The rest of the world sees the quality, yet we think we know better by criticising and avoiding paying for it.

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

Precisely, that shows the quality of the content that they produce.

For 44p.

The rest of the world sees the quality, yet we think we know better by criticising and avoiding paying for it.

So why do I have to pay 44p if they're self-funded?

 

[Katzenjammer]

Is he still crying?

That's brilliant

 

[Katzenjammer]

I've got Darvel v Aberdeen on telly right now by the way.

On BBC.

Totally free, love it.

 

[247Blade]

I've got Darvel v Aberdeen on telly right now by the way.

On BBC.

Totally free, love it.

Yeah bet it is that village football ...

 

[Katzenjammer]

Yeah bet it is that village football ...

Crap game so far. I feel sorry for the poor sods who think they have to pay for it.

 

[Katzenjammer]

Tell ya summat, these Thai sweet chilli peanuts are lovely. The perfect accompaniment for a night in watching TV without a licence.

 

[prince albert]

Tell ya summat, these Thai sweet chilli peanuts are lovely. The perfect accompaniment for a night in watching TV without a licence.


View attachment 151930

Why have you still got your Christmas tree up

 

[Katzenjammer]

Why have you still got your Christmas tree up

Makes a nice feature all year round

 

[Nickydblade]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

Very shocking and sad local story. BBC journalism attempting to uncover 'facts'.

Also another example of 'private' replacing 'public' institutions, but also failings at every level because we as a society would rather not pay for a good service. These things are rarely as simple as we would hope.

I am NOT equating the license fee with this situation by the way, as has been said and I agree with there is a difference between the BBC services and institutions that look after our health and well being.

 

[Charlieblade]

The BBC should be holding the government - any government - to account, not supporting it. Its job is not to propagandise for the status quo but scrutinise it. If the BBC is an extention of the state then we may as well be in North Korea.
I beg to differ. It is not the BBCs job or any other media source to hold the government to account. That is the job of His Majesty’s government opposition.
The fact that this job is not being done very well does not shift responsibility for it to the BBC.

 

[Jon Bon II]

I certainly would not give any appendage for a service kike the BBC.

Freudian slip already?

 

[blade too long]

its weird how I had to pay for bbc in england but its broadcast free here in Spain both tv and radio
spanish tv is free and has excellent 24 hour news services

bbc has been funded by the licence long enough , it could just have ads between programmes to fund it as it has long adverts already for bbc output

 

[Nickydblade]

its weird how I had to pay for bbc in england but its broadcast free here in Spain both tv and radio
spanish tv is free and has excellent 24 hour news services

bbc has been funded by the licence long enough , it could just have ads between programmes to fund it as it has long adverts already for bbc output

I don't know but I would imagine most BBC channels are not 'broadcast' abroad (a version of BBC News often is as it has a remit to give international content). You can of course get them via iPlayer or Sounds but I would have thought (could be wrong) that would need something like a VPN.

The 'just have ads' way is a possibility and that is what C4 do - they have a public service remit as well (to provide 'alternative' and 'diverse' content) but are funded by advertising.

I don't like advertising in general, particularly with kids programming, and would rather pay the licence fee not to have it. There is enough consumerist propaganda in almost every other place and it is nice to have a space away from it. As Tyler Durden wisely said 'advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need'.

However, perhaps the main reason the BBC does not have commercial ads is that they have to make niche and diverse content. Commercial providers have to target an advertising market so less profitable content would not get made as there is no money in it. I posted a link to the 'In Our Time' archive and mentioned 'Something Special' earlier - I doubt there's much ad revenue for those so you instead you are more likely to make 'clickbait' or populist / sensationalist content instead... just like everyone else does (compare a typical Channel 5 and BBC4 documentary for example... or, in my very limited experience, the delights of commercial Spanish TV!).

That said, I get the argument that if you want the luxury of an ad-free BBC you should have to subscribe and pay for it, something like Netflix, but as I said in a post before I think the BBC is a different sort of institution that exists for different reasons, provides a different sort of (public) service and often, but not always, much better content.

In its current format it is probably on its way out though... and I completely understand why in a highly competitive market driven economy and culture. Bring on TikTok TV!

 

[blade too long]

I don't know but I would imagine most BBC channels are not 'broadcast' abroad (a version of BBC News often is as it has a remit to give international content). You can of course get them via iPlayer or Sounds but I would have thought (could be wrong) that would need something like a VPN.

The 'just have ads' way is a possibility and that is what C4 do - they have a public service remit as well (to provide 'alternative' and 'diverse' content) but are funded by advertising.

I don't like advertising in general, particularly with kids programming, and would rather pay the licence fee not to have it. There is enough consumerist propaganda in almost every other place and it is nice to have a space away from it. As Tyler Durden wisely said 'advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need'.

However, perhaps the main reason the BBC does not have commercial ads is that they have to make niche and diverse content. Commercial providers have to target an advertising market so less profitable content would not get made as there is no money in it. I posted a link to the 'In Our Time' archive and mentioned 'Something Special' earlier - I doubt there's much ad revenue for those so you instead you are more likely to make 'clickbait' or populist / sensationalist content instead... just like everyone else does (compare a typical Channel 5 and BBC4 documentary for example... or, in my very limited experience, the delights of commercial Spanish TV!).

That said, I get the argument that if you want the luxury of an ad-free BBC you should have to subscribe and pay for it, something like Netflix, but as I said in a post before I think the BBC is a different sort of institution that exists for different reasons, provides a different sort of (public) service and often, but not always, much better content.

In its current format it is probably on its way out though... and I completely understand why in a highly competitive market driven economy and culture. Bring on TikTok TV!

in the 60 s and 70s the bbc were responsible for 50 to 75 per cent if what we could watch as there was only bbc 1 bbc2 and itv. but now with freeview and iptv we can access thousands of channels and streams and box sets. I would think be pushing it to say its 10 per cent of what we watch. It needs to become self supporting.
UK gold can do it so can the bbc

 

[Nickydblade]

in the 60 s and 70s the bbc were responsible for 50 to 75 per cent if what we could watch as there was only bbc 1 bbc2 and itv. but now with freeview and iptv we can access thousands of channels and streams and box sets. I would think be pushing it to say its 10 per cent of what we watch. It needs to become self supporting.
UK gold can do it so can the bbc

Fair points, and I see the argument.

BBC radio is just under half and TV just under a third of UK consumption, but it is falling steadily as competition increases.

Isn't UK Gold basically repeats... of mainly BBC shows?

 

[blade too long]

Isn't UK Gold basically repeats... of mainly BBC shows?

isn't the bbc mainly repeats of bbc output

 

[Nickydblade]

isn't the bbc mainly repeats of bbc output

Not really.

I wasn't trying to be funny, Gold is literally full of repeats, that is what it does, repeat 'golden' tv shows. If you picked ITV or one of the other mainstream channels I think that would make your (very reasonable) point better .

 

[Newbury Blade]

isn't the bbc mainly repeats of bbc output

No.

 

[blade too long]

I've just watched repair shop repeat and then a antiques programme repeat

 

[blade too long]

Not really.

I wasn't trying to be funny, Gold is literally full of repeats, that is what it does, repeat 'golden' tv shows. If you picked ITV or one of the other mainstream channels I think that would make your (very reasonable) point better .

just picked one at random. W Alibi Dave legend comedy channel ....all independently funded

 

[Nickydblade]

just picked one at random. W Alibi Dave legend comedy channel ....all independently funded

I think all three are owned by the BBC, who use them to show old content as a way to create more revenue, to put back into other stuff (not to make profit as they don't aim for profit, although it is fair to sometimes question the wages they pay).

As I said ITV is a better example!

 

[blade too long]

I think all three are owned by the BBC, who use them to show old content as a way to create more revenue, to put back into other stuff (not to make profit as they don't aim for profit, although it is fair to sometimes question the wages they pay).

As I said ITV is a better example!

paramount smithsonian now70s talking pictures euronews great action really challenge eurosport pick food network quest
5 star babestaion. the list is endless

 

[Plymouthblade]

Always fucks me off immensely when it's decided that we absolutely must have Lineker, Shearer and the rest of the gormless gaggle of free loading twats all simply having to travel away to the world cups and Euros, staying in top hotels no doubt and being treated very very well, and paid a lot of money to commentate on the games and come up with nothing insightful that the average fan couldn't already see for themselves. All paid for no doubt by the BBC fee payers. Obviously they couldn't possibly stay in the UK and commentate from London could they...nah they have to be there swanning it up and having a nice little jolly up. And...who in all that his holy, thought Gary Lineker was worth nearly £2m a year a few years ago for doing MOTD....feckin hell no wonder the BBC is fucked and getting worse. Personally I object to paying anything to the BBC. Set of free loading wankers.

This 100%

 

[Nightsweats]

This 100%

Anyone who pays for a BBC licence is an idiot. 8 years down the line since and not a dicky bird. Nearly a grand saved to pay for things I actually watch.

 

[blade too long]

I think all three are owned by the BBC,

and all 3 show ads.which is a conundrum

 

[Nickydblade]

and all 3 show ads.which is a conundrum

I see that in a way, but it is the BBC attempting to increase resources with old content (to help fund new services). It is not part of usual ad-free broadcasting that the BBC have to provide to justify their funding (you may not think it does but I've tried to make a case for it). It is a bit like when they sell DVD box-sets of David Attenbrough series or sell on content to almost every country in the world.