: Melanie shoots another fish in the barrel– again this incident I saw, being a Newsnight item where the appearance of John Redwood brought out the spiteful worst in the Newsnight team, as they repeatedly mocked him for not knowing the Welsh national anthem when Welsh secretary years ago. An oldie but a goodie for the Conservative-haters at the Beeb.
Melanie Phillips is back on her beat– and angry at the bias of the BBC.
The first item deals with the distortion of the facts about terrorists threatening Israel’s existence. The second (an episode I saw myself) where Newsnight loaded a discussion of abortion with two people who both agreed on the fundamental rightness of the abortionist’s cause. One of the participants thought this represented a cultural step forward. Paxman you could see tended to agree, but was a little embarrassed to have it pointed out so brazenly by the dozy lady he’d invited on his programme. Follow links for more.
Brilliant, particularly on the abortion interview. I love and hate Melanie Phillips, but I’m loving her right now for pointing out what I noticed last night on newsnight.
You had 2 pro abortion campaigners and one of them stupid enough to say “Great, it’s a step forward that we’re all in agreement” or words to that effect, thus exposing the nonsense of the panel chosen by Newsnight.
It’s a pity they don’t get so embarrassed on Question Time, but I was disgusted watching that discussion on Newsnight. They are even more blatant when choosing panels to discuss multiculturalism, but that’s another story.
Surely everybody knows that ‘Melanie Phillips’ is a satirical fictional character dreamt up for the amusement of the non demented population. Obviously not.
Given the frezied fury about terminology on this site recently it’s rather ironic that ‘she’ refers to the ‘disputed’ territories, thus revealing her own considerable bias on the issue. Stretching a point I suppose it’s true but….
Like I said. I have a love and hate affair with Phillips. Regarding the “Frenzied fury about terminology”, we’re talking out the BBC on this site, not a writer for the Daily Mail.
If you were required by law to pay £121.00 a year for Melanie Phillips or the Daily Mail to spout a one sided view of the world you would be in a “frenzied fury”.
If the Daily Mail provided me with a large proportion of the intellectually stimulating TV output in the UK, just about all of the decent radio and the most informative website, as well as maintaining respect and appreciation for Britain around the world I’d be more than happy to pay 33p a day for it.
Actually I frequently buy it anyway for a good laugh at Melanie and the decent footy coverage.
How about if they put you in Jail for not buying the Daily Mail everyday?
Now that’s “intellectually stimulating”!
I (reasonably) happily pay all my taxes so nobody is going to jail me. If there were a Daily Mail tax I’d pay that as well and think about voting for somebody who promised to repeal it.
I wouldn’t squeal about it like a baby. At 33p a day life’s too short.
Why is it that ‘Anonymous’ commenters writing in praise of the BBC and all its works (and what good value the telly-poll-tax is) tend to coincide with visits to this blog from BBC connected computers?
Perhaps ‘Anonymous’ should be declaring an interest.
Now there’s an allegation!
I’m a corporate tax consultant. I apologise for posting as anonymous, but I don’t particularly wannt to put my name up and I can’t be bothered to think up a crap pseudenom.
A corporate tax consultant without a ready imagination? Pardon me while I medicate my strained credulity. 😆
‘TaxMan’ would be an excellent pseudonym, don’t you think? ‘LoopHoleFinder’?
Okay, I’ll stop.
Let’s not be too paranoid here. I don’t think it’s a given that everyone who disagrees with criticisms of the BBC is a stooge of some sort. A large number of non-BBC employees appear to believe the BBC and the license fee are worthwhile. That certainly seems to be the case among many people I know – and before you say it, most of them have nothing to do with the media.
It’s good someone raised the point about jail again – just to comment on the “thrown into jail for not paying your TV license” point that comes up. It’s the same as non-payment of any other tax – it’s not an offence that qualifies for a custodial sentence. Not paying the fine may get you locked up. It’s an important distinction.
(Standard disclaimer: I do work for the BBC)
John
Ok we’ll try one more time…
(I’m typing it slowly in case that helps you.)
Some people DON’T want to pay the licence in the FIRST place let alone worry about paying a fine for not paying for it.
As a BBCer
Why should anyone HAVE to pay this tax?
(other than because you and your mates think its worthwhile)
It’s OK, I have no problem understanding that some people have an objection to the licence fee, so the condecension is probably unnecessary.
I think the licence fee qualifies as a “least worst feasible solution” – but obviously it’s only a tenable solution for funding the BBC if a majority of the population believe the BBC provides something sufficiently worthwhile for them (you’re not obliged to agree with them, but that’s not normally a get-out for taxes!). As a tax instituted and perpetuated by elected politicians, it can be ended. Why do you HAVE to pay it? The same reason as for other taxation – it serves a goal that society believes is important.
Assuming that the majority of the population want the BBC to continue to exist, how would it better be funded? If the funding is optional, how do we ensure that people who don’t pay for the BBC don’t watch it? Subscription is not currently a realistic proposition for many BBC services.
(contd)
Of course, an income stream for the BBC only matters if you believe it has a positive purpose – it’s also possible (as I suspect some people on this blog believe) that it serves no positive purpose and should not exist.
I would disagree (and would have disagreed before I was a BBC employee too) and believe that the BBC does provide something of value, and that there isn’t currently a better alternative to the licence fee for funding it.
John,
‘but obviously it’s only a tenable solution for funding the BBC…’
So why doesn’t the BBC want it put to the vote?
‘As a tax instituted and perpetuated by elected politicians, it can be ended’
That is a point of this blog
‘Subscription is not currently a realistic proposition for many BBC services.’
So stop them.Or are you saying for eg bbc6,7,8,9… are fundamental to the countries well being?
‘believe that the BBC does provide something of value’
yes of course it does, but so does my dog and I don’t expect you to pay for him.
I’m glad I haven’t missed anything and the main reason for keeping the licence seems to be that ”it’s the law and what are you gonna do abaht it”
There is nothing repeat nothing that the BBC SHOULD offer that is not replicated or bettered by other organisations or which could be funded by voluntary subscription.
Yoy, I’m not sure how they would put it to the vote, but the outcome is obvious http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3537567.stm
Subscription may not be practical for many BBC services, but if the BBC provides “something of value” then revenue would be there given a demand for the service. If it’s not then I would question the value of that something being provided where there is not sufficient demand for it.
Last time I heard the licence fee was not a hot election issue, but I guess that’s one reason I’m here. There would be alot more value IMO if the output was regulated for quality and impartiality, but it isn’t and in any case I don’t see any value that isn’t available elsewhere.