Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Bbc Is At Least A Thousand Times More Evil And Dangerous Than Rupert Murdoch


_w_
 Share

Recommended Posts

I love to watch Question Time, I think its brilliant, it's the best programme on the telly in reminding me what a bunch of dumbf*cks are running the country.

The total bias week after week from the panel and the audience when it comes to any fiscal responsibility and the tortuous use of the words debt and deficit reminds me why we are so fuc*ed.

Watched the audience boo and heckle Peter Hitchens the other week for suggesting we live within our means, it really drove home the point that we will always end up debasing our currency to try to continue living the dream there is no way out.

Fiscal responsibility will only come as a result of a calamity not through any democratic process, we have an entitlements democracy we are unable to extracate our selves from the situation.

Don't shout at the telly but bet against the lot of them because they are all heading for a great big fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I love to watch Question Time, I think its brilliant, it's the best programme on the telly in reminding me what a bunch of dumbf*cks are running the country.

The total bias week after week from the panel and the audience when it comes to any fiscal responsibility and the tortuous use of the words debt and deficit reminds me why we are so fuc*ed.

Watched the audience boo and heckle Peter Hitchens the other week for suggesting we live within our means, it really drove home the point that we will always end up debasing our currency to try to continue living the dream there is no way out.

Fiscal responsibility will only come as a result of a calamity not through any democratic process, we have an entitlements democracy we are unable to extracate our selves from the situation.

Don't shout at the telly but bet against the lot of them because they are all heading for a great big fall.

.....and equally the dumbf*cks who vote for those running the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an early warning sign.

I worry that we are in the same position as the Weimar Republic was in 1920.

Political parties of all stripes try to gain enough control to force their views on society often against the wishes of the majority. When this gets to be too extreme, the resultant "blow off" can be very powerful with unpredictable and unforeseen effects.

I worry that way that politics in the UK has been conducted in the last decade or so is creating a fertile breeding ground for extremists.

Absolutely I couldn't agree more. Hitler came to power after the failed policies (we are doing the same) destroyed the middle classes - the Jews became the scapegoat initially for their financial acumen.

Germany in 1920 was not a crackpot nation - it had lost the first world war and had massive debts but it still had some of the most advanced engineering in the world many of the great names existed during these times. It was still an industrial power house and yet it still went through a hyperinflation.

From my reading of the Weimar Republic it was politics popularity and personalities that ultimately lead to bad decisions being made.

We are on the same path no question and we seem to have nothing to steer us away from calamity especially not the BBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's largely middle class. And if working class, then ones they could find to support their middle class values.

Whilst dumbed down and made to appeal to working classes, it by no means covers the full gamut of their lives, their challenges, their complaints.

How many Muslims from Birmingham, poor Bangladeshis from Bradford, or white disenchanted youth from Burnley do you see on our blessed BBC being allowed to freely air their grievances?

Even the other day when listening to Radio 5 Live, they were interviewing a white teenager 'witness' of the fire in Boston Lincolnshire and he said they thought it was an alcohol still, that 'Latvians' come round to the farms asking for a particular kind of potato and that gas cylinders were being stolen from farms to run thewse illegal stills....very quickly cut off and told that was 'just speculation' as if it were 'wrong' and 'racist/tabboo'. Of course it has since been confirmed that there was a still and that the local guy was right to speculate on the causes.

I hear this sort of attitude very frequently even from the likes of Tony Livesey on his phone ins. Supposedly for people to air their views but they leave in no uncertain terms whether their views are acceptable or not without being subject to a valid airing and discussion.

+1. Whenever I listen to the BBC I think what am I not being told?

Two examples spring to mind. One was a couple of years ago when some Roma gypsies left a Belfast council estate en masse supposedly due to persecution by the locals. Firstly, the Beeb never once described them as gypsies or Roma, but 'Romanians', and secondly made no attempt to speak to locals to find out why they were angry about them. Another was a recent story on London Tonight about rises in malaria cases in the capital supposedly caused by 'returning holidaymakers'. The whole story basically called for more taxpayers' money (surprise surprise) to be spent on anti-malarial medication, without considering a. that such medication has questionable efficacy and b. that in addition to 'holidaymakers' it could be due to high levels of immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are to be believed, whats Marr prattling on about then?

Gay, definitely ( but that's the same across all show-business. Part of the overrepresentation might also be down to the lack of Kid's allowing a more linear career path) . Young- hmmmm....if you see a lot of people in their late 40's and early fifties dressing like teenagers, then you might assume they are younger than they actually are.

Andrew Marr worked in the news and current affairs dept, which was pretty insular and pretty well window dressed. Outside of that dept, it was pretty vanilla.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1. Whenever I listen to the BBC I think what am I not being told?

Two examples spring to mind . . .

Every single phone-in comes with an editorial directive on how to put the Government's point of view to the caller.

I agree that there are many good things about the BBC. Costume drama, whatever. I just utterly resent it masquerading as a news source and charging me for unashamed spin, distortion and the property-centric, media-luvvie view of the world. It has enough popularity and business activities to be self-funding.

The Iraq war coverage was quite sickening. On the day of the Fallujah massacre, the BBC chose to run a feature on a group of brave marines. These were the guys lobbing the 'shake and bake' phosphor bombs into civilian streets and clearing houses by shooting through the walls as they went past.

No one should have to pay for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iraq war coverage was quite sickening. On the day of the Fallujah massacre, the BBC chose to run a feature on a group of brave *[united States]* marines. These were the guys lobbing the 'shake and bake' phosphor bombs into civilian streets and clearing houses by shooting through the walls as they went past.

No one should have to pay for this.

*[fixed.]*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the 'United States' ?

Because it was not our Royal Marines.

You aren't aware that the massacre was ably assisted by our own lovely Black Watch?

Not aware of the specifics of your example. But aware of many others.

And Thank god our rules of Engagement are different from the Yanks.

Edited by Dan1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iraq war coverage was quite sickening. On the day of the Fallujah massacre, the BBC chose to run a feature on a group of brave marines. These were the guys lobbing the 'shake and bake' phosphor bombs into civilian streets and clearing houses by shooting through the walls as they went past.

No one should have to pay for this.

Sanitised embedded journalism. Same goes for property or Journalism - they are all embeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should just make everything pay for view, on a program by program basis. I can then spend my money on TV programs, exactly where I want to.

I suspect that's precisely what Rupert Murdoch fears.

Obviously this is just opinion, but I'd say 90% of what's on Sky is crap, and were people to have true video-on-demand - that's to say to be able to watch what they want when they want - then his entire subscription based model of "packages" dies a death because most are only interested in a small selection of what is broadcast.

It's only because Virgin Media don't seem to have much in the way of commercial acumen or "balls" that Sky really got a foothold, as cable could have had comprehensive video on demand years ago (the new Tivo service is proving very, very popular - partner works for them), indeed they have the only network capable of that and Murdoch certainly burned his bridges with them over Sky One; he can't really get back into bed with BT since they're only in the early stages of actually delivering some semblance of a comparable broadband network and people don't want to watch streaming TV on their HD box that looks like something upscaled from YouTube.

Oh, and he just had to shut his paper as well. Poor Murdoch :):):)

Now, if the licence fee were abolished, and BBC was broadcast and/or streamed over a pay per view platform would the revenues go up or down? Genuinely don't know. I wonder if, actually revenues might increase - as they could then charge for the World Service which would gain a fair few subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we were in it together, I am certain the rest of the world doesn't see the subtle distinction you make.

True, in pretty much the same way as the subtle difference between most Muslims and deranged suicide bombers that plenty of people in this country doesn't see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that's precisely what Rupert Murdoch fears.

Obviously this is just opinion, but I'd say 90% of what's on Sky is crap, and were people to have true video-on-demand - that's to say to be able to watch what they want when they want - then his entire subscription based model of "packages" dies a death because most are only interested in a small selection of what is broadcast.

It's only because Virgin Media don't seem to have much in the way of commercial acumen or "balls" that Sky really got a foothold, as cable could have had comprehensive video on demand years ago (the new Tivo service is proving very, very popular - partner works for them), indeed they have the only network capable of that and Murdoch certainly burned his bridges with them over Sky One; he can't really get back into bed with BT since they're only in the early stages of actually delivering some semblance of a comparable broadband network and people don't want to watch streaming TV on their HD box that looks like something upscaled from YouTube.

Oh, and he just had to shut his paper as well. Poor Murdoch :):):)

Now, if the licence fee were abolished, and BBC was broadcast and/or streamed over a pay per view platform would the revenues go up or down? Genuinely don't know. I wonder if, actually revenues might increase - as they could then charge for the World Service which would gain a fair few subscribers.

I don't know what people would watch either, but it would be a great way for the TV companies to know what people like or dislike - the decision of the market would be loud and clear.

TBH, we have the technology for any household with broadband (even just a phone line). Sky have been doing it for years with the movie channels and with a slick integration of a payment system (maybe it's already there with Sky? I just use Freeview) it would be seamless.

Ofc, there is nothing to stop people using pay per channel, and/or advert breaks, and/or product placement either. As long as I wouldn't have to pay a telly tax and could pay the minimum for the bits I actually wanted, then I would be a happy bunny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we've been watching the same programme. I can remember instances where Dimbleby would push the Labour minister again and again to howls of laughter and derision from the audience, and very nearly got Jack Straw to admit out loud that the war in Iraq was wrong.

On the run up to the local elections this year every week they had a question worded in an anti-liberal way. The culmination was when Dimbleby held up some pictures taking the mickey out of Nick Clegg - between - questions. I didn't imagine it because I posted it in here:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=163308&st=0&p=2978675entry2978675

There was another week where the Labour MP actually started patting Dimbleby on the back for his pro-Labour comments

Edited by Redhat Sly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whether there is a BBC or not. Organisations do NOT have free editorial leeway over news content. They are told to be 'impartial' and there only yardstick of 'impartiality ' is the BBC line.

And can they just decide not to air the news? No., Again that is part of the remit. Do you think the point of BBC Radio 1 for instance is to provide entertainment for the licence fee payers of the future. No - of course not. They provide what they want to hear...without the interruption of ads on the radio which can be very annoying - but at the cost of having to listen to the news every half an hour. I do not know of any kids who would freely chose to listen to the news every half hour. It is there for a reason.

It's the whole concept of 'balance' that leads to a lot of the BBC's most warped journalism. Rather than presenting a neutral, logical interpretation of events, they will instead roll out two 'counterbalancing' extremes that both miss the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cable is slower to roll out and possibly more expensive to reach everyone compared to the cost of beaming a sattelite signal with a footprint that coveres the whole of the UK including islands like the Outer Hebrides.

It must be cheaper in the long run though. The satellite costs must be horrendous, and there is the major problem of interactivity with satellite systems that cable nails. I can send info back down a cable, the satellite is one-way traffic though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://biggovernment.com/jdelingpole/2011/07/12/the-bbc-is-at-least-a-thousand-times-more-evil-and-dangerous-than-rupert-murdoch/

Just thought I'd post this for a bit of counter balance. I wonder if Auntie Beeb will run with this article and viewpoint anywhere on their main news bulletins to show off their famed impartiality?

Good to add some balance - but the media was so biased in the direction you are posting there is no need for any more guff.

The BBC is a great media organisation, most people against it are Murdoch drones. What is the actual argument against the BBC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be cheaper in the long run though. The satellite costs must be horrendous, and there is the major problem of interactivity with satellite systems that cable nails. I can send info back down a cable, the satellite is one-way traffic though.

When we had a Sky dish, we could call and "subscribe" to a pay per view movie (I think this was meant to be possible on screen but the phone line was so crap it could barely manage dial up internet, so the Sky box wouldn't work over it) which would start e.g. every 15 minutes so you didn't have long to wait after you'd forked out your three quid or whatever it was.

I'm not sure that could apply for every single programe on a PPV basis, though, wouldn't that require a separate channel for more or less every programme they have?

With cable it's streamed down the fixed line and starts immediately.

I have a feeling HDTV streaming requires about a constant 12Mbps connection and only about 5% to 10% of the phone lines in this country can achieve that, or 5Mbps for lower quality but again only about 40% of the phone lines can achieve that. It needs fibre optic, at least to the cabinet, which BT is just getting started with, but Virgin have had for ages and failed to fully exploit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said. I'm pretty sure the reason the BBC survives is that half of the population like the brilliant bits and are prepared to put up with the left-wing group think to get them and the other half of the population is dumb enough to like the whole of it. If they ever give in to the urge to dumb down the remaining good bits completely then they're toast and I think they know that.

Yeah, I agree as well with Durch's reaction to R4. But I've heard there will be a shakeup on that station - something to do with a shift outside the capital and more focus on science.

Ever listen to Woman's Hour? 90% is devoted to state welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whether there is a BBC or not. Organisations do NOT have free editorial leeway over news content. They are told to be 'impartial' and their only yardstick of 'impartiality ' is the BBC line.

And can they just decide not to air the news? No., Again that is part of the remit. Do you think the point of BBC Radio 1 for instance is to provide entertainment for the licence fee payers of the future. No - of course not. They provide what they want to hear...without the interruption of ads on the radio which can be very annoying - but at the cost of having to listen to the news every half an hour. I do not know of any kids who would freely chose to listen to the news every half hour. It is there for a reason.

I wouldn't care how partial they were. As long as they don't pretend to be impartial, then why not call a spade a spade? Besides, who gets to define what is impartial and how can they possibly know? Who is watching the watcher?

As for the BBC being some sort government mouth piece for the education of the populous, I think this an example of all which is wrong about the BBC and the way the government uses it as a tool for propaganda. I do not want to to force people to hear the news - I honestly could not care less. If people want to watch/listen/read some news, it's their choice. If they don't, it's their choice. Arguably, the rubbish like 'Newsbeat' on Radio 1 does more harm than good, being lined with bias and over simplification, covering topics that verge on trivia.

I can see no valid argument for why the whole lot (of broadcasters) can't become as partial as they like and charge what they like, just as long is it isn't via a telly tax. The unique way it's funded? It's not unique... it's the same model the government always uses - extortion through threats of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In engineering a common complaint is 'why aren't there more women in engineering' (I think it is pretty self-explanatory if you've ever been in a workshop or an office where there is only one woman)

That's circular.

And I don't think it's self-explanatory.

Why aren't there more women with Engineering degrees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.