Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
tomandlu

Greek State Broadcaster Closed

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/state-broadcaster-ert-shut-down-greece

"ERT is a typical example of unique lack of transparency and incredible waste. And that ends today," Kedikoglou said. "It costs three to seven times as much as other TV stations and four to six times the personnel – for a very small viewership, about half that of an average private station."

ERT has long been seen as a bastion of quality programming in a media landscape dominated by commercial stations. But it was also used by successive governments to provide safe jobs for political favourites, and, while nominally independent, devoted considerable time and effort to showcasing administration policies.

I support the BBC as a concept, but I hope they take notice and perhaps give time to the question of whether they ought to spending the licence fee producing programs that really belong on the commercial channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/state-broadcaster-ert-shut-down-greece

I support the BBC as a concept, but I hope they take notice and perhaps give time to the question of whether they ought to spending the licence fee producing programs that really belong on the commercial channels.

that is the opposite of the Greek argument where the state broadcaster was showing programmes that would never make it to private channels and that no-one wanted to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how much are they going to save in this action on the "state funded" station - it doesn't say.

According to the radio yesterday the people also contribute about £5 per month through their electricity bills.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is the opposite of the Greek argument where the state broadcaster was showing programmes that would never make it to private channels and that no-one wanted to watch.

You missed out the relevant bit - they were spending a fortune doing it.

I support the idea of a state broadcaster dedicating themselves to quality non-commercial content, whether the non-commercial aspect is because of low-viewing figures or expense. But, ffs, have you ever watched the One Show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC (or any state funded broadcaster) should focus on three things.

Innovation, Incubation and information.

Let them incubate genuinely new talent, innovate new formats (comedy, light entertainment etc) and deliver high quality, informative, documentaries and current affairs.

Simple.

When the talent gets popular, sell them. When a format get's popular, sell it. There are plenty of low-risk commercial channels happy to pick up the next Britains Got Talent or Strictly Come Dancing on Ice....

I'd pay my £10 month for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC should use a subscription model, if they don't want to use advertising.

While it's harder to charge a subscription to Radio, I suppose they could always ask free-loaders to make a payment. I suspect it is a relatively small portion of the BBC budget (hell, it could even come from general taxation in the interim).

With today's technology, there is no excuse for forcing everyone to pay for the BBC, even if they don't want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC should use a subscription model, if they don't want to use advertising.

While it's harder to charge a subscription to Radio, I suppose they could always ask free-loaders to make a payment. I suspect it is a relatively small portion of the BBC budget (hell, it could even come from general taxation in the interim).

With today's technology, there is no excuse for forcing everyone to pay for the BBC, even if they don't want it.

I'm sure that you could and would make the same argument against just about anything else funded by the licence/tax-payer. Personally, I think that a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster providing a service along the lines suggested by JimDiGritz (i.e. a slimmed-down and more focussed BBC) would not be a bad thing.

Edit: Since a slimmed-down BBC would no longer compete directly with the commercial channels in many areas, but would rather provide a service for them, perhaps it would make sense for those channels to contribute towards its funding?

Edited by snowflux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly every household pays a licence fee and the licence fee idea goes back to the days when people were paid cash and a lot didn't have bank accounts and cheques so they would pay up in cash at the local post office and the post office would issue the licence.

Apparently the licence fee is paid into a government fund and the BBC is then paid by the government - in reality no better than just an additional tax with the money distributed by the government.

These days and in those circumstances it might be more convenient and a better reflection of reality for the BBC to be funded by the state through general taxes.

Mind you in that case likely some jobsworths would lose their jobs.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that you could and would make the same argument against just about anything else funded by the licence/tax-payer. Personally, I think that a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster providing a service along the lines suggested by JimDiGritz (i.e. a slimmed-down and more focussed BBC) would not be a bad thing.

Edit: Since a slimmed-down BBC would no longer compete directly with the commercial channels in many areas, but would rather provide a service for them, perhaps it would make sense for those channels to contribute towards its funding?

And where do they get their money from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that you could and would make the same argument against just about anything else funded by the licence/tax-payer. Personally, I think that a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster providing a service along the lines suggested by JimDiGritz (i.e. a slimmed-down and more focussed BBC) would not be a bad thing.

Edit: Since a slimmed-down BBC would no longer compete directly with the commercial channels in many areas, but would rather provide a service for them, perhaps it would make sense for those channels to contribute towards its funding?

Well, of course - wouldn't you agree that it is better to have voluntary trades, rather than forced trades?

Putting my statist devil's advocate hat on, I can understand how people would like police, army, courts, schools, roads etc funded by general taxation*... but TV?! There is no need.

EDIT: * Or telly tax license.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course - wouldn't you agree that it is better to have voluntary trades, rather than forced trades?

Putting my statist devil's advocate hat on, I can understand how people would like police, army, courts, schools, roads etc funded by general taxation*... but TV?! There is no need.

EDIT: * Or telly tax license.

You've obviously never seen Sky, Fox, or Berlusconi tv.

TV is a community good.

I pay taxes, I want to watch properly regulated, quality tv - not some sh1te churned out by an octogenarian Aussie tw&t or a mafia boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them incubate genuinely new talent, innovate new formats (comedy, light entertainment etc) and deliver high quality, informative, documentaries and current affairs.

For me the BBC's news and current affairs coverage is the worst thing they do and the most damaging to the country as a whole. Despite their risible claims of impartiallity they are in reality the broadcast arm of the Guardian and advance the same left wing high tax big government agenda.

Why is this important? Would a genuinely impartial broadcaster have allowed The Cretin Brown to bankrupt the country then help him claim ignorance and blame bankers instead? Would it have swallowed Bliar's lies over Iraq so tamely? Would it be so happy to pump out NHS propaganda and ignore the imense failings that it undoubtedly has?

Fundamentally the BBC shifts the political agenda away from its natural centre ground towards its own preferred left wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting my statist devil's advocate hat on, I can understand how people would like police, army, courts, schools, roads etc funded by general taxation...

There are some of the above that could well be better delivered by the private sector. The wretched state of much of the education system provides a strong argument against government supply (a subsidy to parents would be a different matter), roads would be harder to outsource but then the way things are managed at the moment I'm not convinced that things would be any worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TV is a community good.

I pay taxes, I want to watch properly regulated, quality tv - not some sh1te churned out by an octogenarian Aussie tw&t or a mafia boss

Unfortunately for you you're in the minority, judging by how popular the sh1te is.

(I don't disagree mind, it is sh1te. So is the BBC. Which is why I don't have a TV.)

Edited by EUBanana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've obviously never seen Sky, Fox, or Berlusconi tv.

TV is a community good.

I pay taxes, I want to watch properly regulated, quality tv - not some sh1te churned out by an octogenarian Aussie tw&t or a mafia boss

Then if the telly tax was scrapped, you would subscribe to the BBC instead then, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some of the above that could well be better delivered by the private sector. The wretched state of much of the education system provides a strong argument against government supply (a subsidy to parents would be a different matter), roads would be harder to outsource but then the way things are managed at the moment I'm not convinced that things would be any worse.

Without my statist devil's advocate hat on, I would say nothing needs to be monopolised by the state (ie. funded via taxation)... but that's for another debate! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course - wouldn't you agree that it is better to have voluntary trades, rather than forced trades?

Putting my statist devil's advocate hat on, I can understand how people would like police, army, courts, schools, roads etc funded by general taxation*... but TV?! There is no need.

EDIT: * Or telly tax license.

I see TV funding in a similar light to funding to the arts in general; I also see some parallel to the funding of such things as fundamental scientific and medical research. These areas may not need to be funded by the taxpayer in the same way as the police, etc., but I think there is an argument for the case that the collective funding of areas such as these is ultimately beneficial for society as a whole.

I actually watch very little TV and have never seen an opera in my life, but I still see taxpayer support for such things as a worthwhile investment in the maintenance of our culture for future generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see TV funding in a similar light to funding to the arts in general; I also see some parallel to the funding of such things as fundamental scientific and medical research. These areas may not need to be funded by the taxpayer in the same way as the police, etc., but I think there is an argument for the case that the collective funding of areas such as these is ultimately beneficial for society as a whole.

I actually watch very little TV and have never seen an opera in my life, but I still see taxpayer support for such things as a worthwhile investment in the maintenance of our culture for future generations.

If people appreciate the arts, will they not pay for it to be funded? Should our culture not the result of our free decisions?

FWIW, I would probably pay for a BBC subscription as there are things I enjoy on it. However, I don't think that people should pay for it if they don't want it. We do not have a Sky subscription either.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the BBC's news and current affairs coverage is the worst thing they do and the most damaging to the country as a whole. Despite their risible claims of impartiallity they are in reality the broadcast arm of the Guardian and advance the same left wing high tax big government agenda.

Why is this important? Would a genuinely impartial broadcaster have allowed The Cretin Brown to bankrupt the country then help him claim ignorance and blame bankers instead? Would it have swallowed Bliar's lies over Iraq so tamely? Would it be so happy to pump out NHS propaganda and ignore the imense failings that it undoubtedly has?

Fundamentally the BBC shifts the political agenda away from its natural centre ground towards its own preferred left wing.

Sadly, you forget that the BBC was excellent until it was rendered impotent by Blair and the Hutton report.

It was about the only media channel (apart from Al Jazeera) not to swallow Blair's Iraq lies, and subsequently Andrew Gilligan and Greg Dyke's heads had to roll. It is now the Government's editorial policies which prevail - left or right, though I see no distinction in current UK politics. State propaganda is just that, neither left nor right, simply totalitarian.

The BBC (and the Guardian, by the way) is monitored by MI6 - and some say run.

I think the BBC is home to a lot of broadcasting talent and I find it educationally valuable, whether in terms of costume drama or learning languages.

The hobbling of the BBC is something else to Blair's undying shame. Though apparently Andrew Campbell still doesn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV stations were closed because they were an easy target for a government that has agree with the troika to make 10,000 state workers redundant by the end of the year. The TV station gives them 27% of their target in one fell swoop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking I reckon the BBC mostly gets it right.

News. It seems to me that they generally toe the line of the Government of the day. They are certainly not left wing. Left wing compared to Fox News perhaps. Nor is it particularly right wing either. Some of the attempts at balance are probably actively harmful at times eg letting fringe scientists or doctors on mainstream news.

Content. Most of it is crap, but that seems to be what most people want to see. Since they're paying for it that seems fair enough. Once a star starts demanding more than a couple of hundred K for a salary though - it's time to give them the heave-ho and encourage new stars. There's no shortage of youngsters wanting to have a go. New talent seems to get less encouragement than previously. Oddly, you're more likely to see the more successful X-factor/reality TV stars/other new talent ship up on the commercial channels.

Salaries. I'm still shocked by some of the remuneration deals. Some are far far too high.

There was a time around 2004, where I was beginning to think they were overstepping the mark on the internet. If someone launched some cool site, a few months later you'd see the BBC version turn up. They even had their own rival to wikipedia and a search engine at one point. The balance seems better now - and more what I'd expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support the BBC as a concept, but I hope they take notice and perhaps give time to the question of whether they ought to spending the licence fee producing programs that really belong on the commercial channels.

You are Rupert Murdoch and I claim my £10 prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, you forget that the BBC was excellent until it was rendered impotent by Blair and the Hutton report.

Sorry but I don't accept that. The BBC has been advancing a solidly left wing agenda since long before the gulf war and Hutton should have had no effect on the reporting of day to day politics.

It was about the only media channel (apart from Al Jazeera) not to swallow Blair's Iraq lies, and subsequently Andrew Gilligan and Greg Dyke's heads had to roll....

Gilligan produced one short report on an early morning slot some months after the invasion had already taken place, the fact that he was absolutely spot on was why heads had to roll.

The only significant pre war questioning of the WMD facts was an interview by Simon Mayo of Scott Ritter in which he explained exactly why Iraq could have no meaningful WMD, this was on a weekday afternoon on radio 5 but I don't think it was picked up anywhere else on the BBC.

Robin Cook's resignation was covered but the fact that the former foreign secretary (who presumably was as well informed as anyone else in government) believed that there were no material WMD did not influence later reporting.

These were isolated events in a sea of coverage that was almost completely a repetition of Bliar governement claims about Iraqi WMD capacity.

Let me be clear here, anyone who spent 45 minutes googling "Iraq WMD" would quickly see that there were major flaws in the claims about WMD (and not just from stop the war type sources), if the BBC had been remotely objective they would've reported things very differently.

It is now the Government's editorial policies which prevail - left or right

Is this the same BBC that recently was in such a rush to label a tory peer as a nonce that they ended up libeling a totally innocent man?

Bedroom tax, pasty tax, granny tax etc... I don't remember headlines like that when The Cretin Brown was whacking up every tax he could find.

The fact that they persist in calling the conservative party "Tories" is telling in itself.

I stand by my original point, the BBC is the broadcast wing of the Guardian.

Edited by Goat

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 239 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.