Well your trying to say that the BBC isn't a monopoly becuase they don't control the fees the government does.

Well wake up, SOMEONE HAS TO CONTROL IT.

BBC = state television, similar to the ones you get in china and Iran etc etc.

Sure they don't spout profanity and propaganda(atleast not on the surface), but it's the same thing, now considering the other tv broadcasters such as itv pay taxes witch go to the people who control the BBC ehich in this case you can say they pay taxes to BBC as well as there audience paying another seperate tax/fee to them it's a monpoly through and through, yes they are not the single tv channel but they are the single broadcaster, and when there is a single in any industry that is automaticly a monpoly by definition.

Hopefully this will clear this up for you and others.

Out of interest. How is ABC funded? And just how much is it's yearly 'appropriation?' And just how much is that in percentage terms against your annual tax bill? And how much does it bring in through commercial revenue and how much is your 'tax' bill off set by that?

Erm, how much do you pay for your own public broadcaster?

the BBC is a trust. It has a board of trustee's. And whilst it mayt adear to government guidelines, I think you'll find ALL the broadcasters in the UK have to adere to Gevernment guidelines so therefore all programming is state TV.

The BBC has very strict editorial procedural guidelines. It can't just go around willy nilly making porno movies becuase they get the most Bang for your buck. It is beholden to the public purse and I think they do actually do a reasonably good job at it. Old boy networks aside, it's stil the most popular broadcaster in the the UK taking all formats into account. So they gotta be doing something right.

Quote from Mustafur :

yes they are not the single tv channel but they are the single broadcaster

Lol.. can't argue with someone who just makes stuff up.

Quote from col :

Lol.. can't argue with someone who just makes stuff up.

''Free to air''/public broadcaster(this term is used in UK due to the seperate tax applied to the people who choose to watch it) is what i ment but its not exactly free is it.

Its more like, pay the monopoly first before you watch.

Quote from Mustafur :

but they are the single broadcaster

In defence of your argument, you have just stated as fact that the BBC is the only TV broadcaster in the UK. This is blatant fantasy, you are just making stuff up, so whats the point.

Quote from Funnybear :

Old boy networks aside, it's stil the most popular broadcaster in the the UK taking all formats into account. So they gotta be doing something right.

It's popular because it has a gigantic budget and pretty much holds all the best positions in the broadcasting market.

All that aside, it's still a politically bias broadcaster.

I consistently watch BBC News and read many of their economic blog and I am astounding on a day a to day basis how bias they are.

There was a brief interview the other day for example with an economic professor from some Uni, and almost completely unopposed (the anchor didn't really understand anything) said more spending was necessary on 'infrastructure' to save the economy and used a highly debatable event in the depression to back up her point.

Fine it's one argument, but it's one that goes constantly unopposed. However when the counter argument is presented, quite often he BBC suddenly turns into this impartial broadcaster that must present all areas of the argument. Their use of language as well is interesting. The bail-outs 'saved' the economy. This is an often used term. Sometime I don't even think they themselves are aware of it. How wrong they are, how dangerously wrong.

A tax funded bias-broadcaster in a free country? huh?

Even creative content on the BBC is pretty poor. No wonder Ricky Gervias admitted he pretty much only watched Yank TV. Which I have to say, I'm getting the same. Their drama makes UK drama look like a kids nativity play.

Maybe if you watched more BBC stuff you'd learn how to spell "biased".

The quality of BBC broadcasting has no doubt not been helped by the huge cuts forced on them. I see you've dropped your favorite word (monopoly) and replaced it with bias, was it not working for you?

Are you seriously naive enough to think a completely impartial broadcaster is a realistic possibility? Nothing run by humans will be completely impartial. The BBC certainly makes more of an effort at it than most privately funded broadcasters.

Quote from 5haz :

The quality of BBC broadcasting has no doubt not been helped by the huge cuts forced on them. I see you've dropped your favorite word (monopoly) and replaced it with bias, was it not working for you?

Are you seriously naive enough to think a completely impartial broadcaster is a realistic possibility?

1. The funding cuts are a recent event and do not reflect on the average content the BBC has pumped out for years. 90% of BBC Three is turd for example and the less we speak about Radio "Everything is either 'legendary' or 'amazing' " One the better.

2. I don't think an impartial broadcaster is a real possibility, hence why the fundamental point of the BBC is a fallacy. It can not ever been anything more than the Guardian with bells attached.

Quite frankly I do not want to be forced to be pay for the broadcasting arm of The Guardian.

I prefer a completely free market and open press, full stop. I like the Guardian, I like the Telegraph. I like to CHOOSE to pay for those when I wish.

Oh how different it would be if Murdoch put in an application for the licence fee.

Quote from Intrepid :

1. The funding cuts are a recent event and do not reflect on the average content the BBC has pumped out for years. 90% of BBC Three is turd for example and the less we speak about Radio "Everything is either 'legendary' or 'amazing' " One the better.

I notice you're very selective with your examples, and yet you moralise to us about bias. Personally I've noticed the number of repeats has probably doubled since the cuts started.

Quote from Intrepid :

2. I don't think an impartial broadcaster is a real possibility, hence why the fundamental point of the BBC is a fallacy. It can not ever been anything more than the Guardian with bells attached.

Quite frankly I do not want to be forced to be pay for the broadcasting arm of The Guardian.

Do you even watch BBC news? There is nowhere near as much opinion as there is in the Guardian. Its very juvenile to associate everything to the left of centre with the Guardian, by the same logic everything to the right of say... Ken Livingston should be associated with Hitler. But thats not the case is it?

Quote from Intrepid :

I prefer a completely free market and open press, full stop. I like the Guardian, I like the Telegraph. I like to CHOOSE to pay for those when I wish.

I suppose your idea of a free market is the vast majority of publications falling under the control of one man? I noticed you didn't use any News Corp papers as an example there.

Quote from Intrepid :

Oh how different it would be if Murdoch put in an application for the licence fee.

Well durr, the man is under investigation and at the centre of a scandal that undermines entire states! If he applied for his own license fee it'd no doubt raise a few eyebrows. At least the state is (sort of!) accountable to us, while Mr Murdoch isn't.

Oh Intrepid. How we wish for well constructed view points and researched opinion, and yet again you fail to deliever on both points.

You do seem to pick some very obtuse examples of the Beebs bias. Let's take another look at the 'marketplace' that you so desperatly desire to have.

Can you name the biggest grossing viewer/listener shows in the uk? Now I ain't done any research here, but as a shot in the dark I'm going to say that the majority of them will be from the BBC.

It is generally known that the BBC News channel is pretty crap. Sky have that covered, I'll let you have that point. But your missing a HUGE amount of content and tarneshing it all with the same brush.

I live by the radio, I have it pretty much on all day. And when you've done the same for a number of years and taken inthe many current affairs and news programmes on air from the beeb, as well as on catchup, then you will realise that the Bias you speak off, is really non existent. There is no other broadcaster more self critical than the Beebs very own employees. And you know what, they don't get fired for it. Due to the unique way they are funded.

I begrudge you this, that you are on the side of a sensible arguement. Unfornuantly, you are not providing a sensible arguement. As even this thread has proven, people like the BBC. And they are very loyal to the 'brand' and many of them understand the true nature of what we are privalidged to have.

Because the alternative is Fox.

Quote from col :

In defence of your argument, you have just stated as fact that the BBC is the only TV broadcaster in the UK. This is blatant fantasy, you are just making stuff up, so whats the point.

so you refuse to listen to my admitted mistake and correction the post above, to make your argument more valid.

Keep telling your self that.

Quote from Intrepid :

It's popular because it has a gigantic budget and pretty much holds all the best positions in the broadcasting market.

All that aside, it's still a politically bias broadcaster.

I consistently watch BBC News and read many of their economic blog and I am astounding on a day a to day basis how bias they are.

There was a brief interview the other day for example with an economic professor from some Uni, and almost completely unopposed (the anchor didn't really understand anything) said more spending was necessary on 'infrastructure' to save the economy and used a highly debatable event in the depression to back up her point.

Fine it's one argument, but it's one that goes constantly unopposed. However when the counter argument is presented, quite often he BBC suddenly turns into this impartial broadcaster that must present all areas of the argument. Their use of language as well is interesting. The bail-outs 'saved' the economy. This is an often used term. Sometime I don't even think they themselves are aware of it. How wrong they are, how dangerously wrong.

A tax funded bias-broadcaster in a free country? huh?

Even creative content on the BBC is pretty poor. No wonder Ricky Gervias admitted he pretty much only watched Yank TV. Which I have to say, I'm getting the same. Their drama makes UK drama look like a kids nativity play.

Keynesian economics, should never be questioned, as its bulletproof and that's fact(i mean look at the world economys now).

The only people that BBC looks impartial to are the ones that agree with their way of expressing their own opinion, which in a the leftist world of UK isn't hard to take a majority.

Quote from Mustafur :

Keynesian economics, should never be questioned, as its bulletproof and that's fact(i mean look at the world economys now).

The only people that BBC looks impartial to are the ones that agree with their way of expressing their own opinion, which in a the leftist world of UK isn't hard to take a majority.

LOL. Keynesian economics are not bulletproof. Do you even believe what you are saying? This is getting so funny to read because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote from Mustafur :

Keynesian economics, should never be questioned, as its bulletproof and that's fact(i mean look at the world economys now).

The only people that BBC looks impartial to are the ones that agree with their way of expressing their own opinion, which in a the leftist world of UK isn't hard to take a majority.

Sorry, your post is rather vague. Are you taking the mickey out of Keynesian poitics? Or are you for it?

And a leftist broadcaster for a leftish country. Sounds like the bias is following popular trends of the population. The people. The demos. The democracy. If it was left to the governement we'd have a 'free' and open broadcasting market, with no true public broadcaster, and with compition brings right wing politics.

So yea, I'm pretty happy with my lefish telly as it fits my leftish view of the world.

Quote from Juzaa :

LOL. Keynesian economics are not bulletproof. Do you even believe what you are saying? This is getting so funny to read because you have no idea what you are talking about.

you obviously don't if you said that

Quote from Funnybear :

Sorry, your post is rather vague. Are you taking the mickey out of Keynesian poitics? Or are you for it?

And a leftist broadcaster for a leftish country. Sounds like the bias is following popular trends of the population. The people. The demos. The democracy. If it was left to the governement we'd have a 'free' and open broadcasting market, with no true public broadcaster, and with compition brings right wing politics.

So yea, I'm pretty happy with my lefish telly as it fits my leftish view of the world.

sarcasm is hard to read these days i guess(even after i basically POINTED OUT the massive fault).

And i don't see how this equals impartial.

Quote from Funnybear :

Sorry, your post is rather vague. Are you taking the mickey out of Keynesian poitics? Or are you for it?

And a leftist broadcaster for a leftish country. Sounds like the bias is following popular trends of the population. The people. The demos. The democracy. If it was left to the governement we'd have a 'free' and open broadcasting market, with no true public broadcaster, and with compition brings right wing politics.

So yea, I'm pretty happy with my lefish telly as it fits my leftish view of the world.

He's taking the mick out of Keynsian politics because it's a complete and utter joke. Wrecked the economy.

The Guardian? The Mirror? The ENDLESS amount of left-wing websites... all free from state-interference and funding. How incredible that they can exist. And frankly they are better off without it.

Maybe I am from planet zong, but I'd feel as uncomfortable with the state sponsoring something I do support as I do about them sponsoring something I don't. I am very empathetic with those who are burdened by tax and receive no direct benefit themselves, even counter productive for them, despite me myself benefiting.

The BBC is NOT a democratic entity so how on earth can it follow the trend of the nation. That's an absurd statement to make. There is NO democracy within the BBC, and the funding is a disproportionate burden on the poor. It's the opposite of democratic and quite often does not follow the trend of the nation.

Saying the BBC is a good thing because it's left-wing?? It is quite frankly frightening that this viewpoint even exits.

Why is it frightening that it leans further left than it does right? I'd be frightened if it was the other way. And the Mirror? Left? I must have missed something in Rag Top politics 101.

The UK is a left of centre country. It has a welfare state, it has a free at point of use health care system. I do not begrudge my taxation going to help those that need it, because one day I might pay for that ambulance that picks you up from the road. I might not like your politics, but I'll pay for that.

Sometimes you just gotta except that the money you pay into something sometimes does not make it back to you as your desire. But, if that money goes to someone else, which eduacates them in a certain way, that then influences their work choices, which dictates the tax band they are in which then gives the government more tax revenue to put back into the economy and re tarmac the shocker of a road that I live on, then surely, its a good thing.

Feel free to live your life on your own, pay only for which you want to pay for. But could you stop spending my money, like, don't drive on the roads, don't go use the GP, don't send your kids to a state school (Or a subsidised private one for that matter), don't look at the flowerbeds, don't take advantage of your local park, don't use the footpaths, the buses or the trains, stay of the motorways, don't go to museams, leave the internet alone, oh and leave the country too please. Ta.

If we didn't pay for the beeb the way we did, we'd still pay for it through taxation. I'd rather keep paying for it this way and have the old girl semi autonimous than have it completly in the hands of whitehall beurocrats.

And as for Keynes and his economics, if he saw what the bankers where doing with the current fiscal crisis, he'd be spinning in his grave. We are not using Keynesian economics, we are using a bastardized version of it that has been manipulated and twisted beyond anything Keynes would recognise. Or rather he did recognise it and pushed away from it knowing it for what it is.

I learnt that this morning on Radio 4.

And the circle is complete.

http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/#/projects/channel-4

So C4 did have a serious bid... in-fact that marketing looks superb...

If you read the language at the side it's pretty clear the final decision was Bernie's though...

Quote from Funnybear :

Feel free to live your life on your own, pay only for which you want to pay for. But could you stop spending my money, like, don't drive on the roads, don't go use the GP, don't send your kids to a state school (Or a subsidised private one for that matter), don't look at the flowerbeds, don't take advantage of your local park, don't use the footpaths, the buses or the trains, stay of the motorways, don't go to museams, leave the internet alone, oh and leave the country too please. Ta.

Sure thing, but only if you do the same, right?

Quote from col :

It's no surprise though to see you spouting emotive phrases like "free society" in your defense. What a load of manipulative marketing bull that is. The more power you take from government and institutions like the BBC who are answerable to us, and give it to the likes of Murdoch, the less free it gets (it's never been very free, and is steadily becoming less so). The phrase itself "free society" is an oxymoron anyway.

The more power you take from government ... the more free it gets is the phrase you are looking for I think. Giving people more power can only help give them freedom, to choose what they do, e.g. with their money. We have a choice of whether we give any money to Murdoch, we don't have a choice of whether we give it to subsidise Sky's F1 coverage, nor do we have a choice of paying the BBC. Closing down Sky/NewsCorp is easy - don't buy, read or watch anything from them!

Anyway, let's play a little game. According to Radio Le Mans, BBC get the pick of 3 races, then Sky with 3, and back to Sky 1 then BBC 1. Assuming a 20 race season with the 2012 calendar (dunno which version :shrug, what races will be shown by which broadcaster?

BBC - Monaco, Silverstone and Interlagos
Sky - Canada, USA and ?

Do continue

... and surprise surprise this little gem turns up

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm ... ames-murdoch-wrong-on-bbc

Mark Thompson writing for the Guardian in a wholly impartial manner.... cough cough.

Mark Thompson of the BBC finding refuge with the Guardian??? NEVER.

Using the disaster at News Corp to justify the BBC is one of the lamest and downright pathetic opportunist arguments I've read in a long time.

I particulary like this part

Quote :

Subsequent events have given James's famous final flourish – that "the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit" – an unexpected and almost tragic irony. It's a phrase which sums up his entire case: that all forms of public intervention in and regulation of media are both morally reprehensible and practically useless, and that it is the market alone which can deliver brave, worthwhile, independent journalism. Yet it was under just these conditions – the lightest of light touch regulation, minimal oversight and accountability, commercial considerations to the fore – that the catastrophe at the News of the World unfolded.

Was it not the Guardian under these very same condition that exposed what was going on? The free market WORKED. The Guardian exposed the failings of a major corporation. Sorry Mark, you're talking nonsense.

He pitches the BBC right as an opposition to Sky. But it's very typical for the 'impartial' BBC to play political games.

Quite frankly I couldn't give two flying ****s about either of them. Neither should receive any money, unless the person giving it is making it under their own choice.

The BBC and Sky are two pees in a pod... just one robs you and tells you it's 'for your own good.

Quote from boothy :

The more power you take from government ... more free it gets is the phrase you are looking for I think.

No, you are misunderstanding, or (more likely) intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

The UK government is answerable to the UK people. Murdoch is not. So if you take power away from the government and give it to Murdoch, the people have less of a say, and freedom of choice will be reduced. Simples.

Why are you assuming Murdoch would gain more power?

Murdoch gets his power because OF government, not despite of government. He's a corporatist (Corporatism is often naively mistaken for capitalism). With no or less government power he has no power.

I'm sure his protfolio will keep him afloat for a while without governmental help.