BBC News 24, reporting the government’s apparent intention to at last cut the extortionate, ever-rising BBC licence fee, described culture secretary Jeremy Hunt as being “aggressive” towards the corporation. How dare he suggest that the BBC should be part of cuts was the indignant tone, especially as sacrifices such as the closure of the Asian network were being made. Would that the same language was applied to Palestinian terrorists and other “activists” described in BBC reporting of acts of outrageous (real)aggression in the middle east.
Without a breath of irony, the next item on News 24 was a reverential reference to that Jonathan Ross had presented his last show on BBC1. Why that was considered “news” in a national bulletin defeats me (except in the context of BBC self-worship), but that will be the same Jonathan Ross who has been paid millions by the corporation, despite his intrinsic, gratuitous unpleasantness – and is one of the reasons why the licence fee is so high.
The BBC only understands one thing: broadcast.
They may claim they listen; they may invite comment. But they are not configured to hear anything that does not conform to their preconeptions.
Though, oddly, they can seem to respond to threats quite robustly, which suggests a defence system in place.
The ongoing blog threads by Steve Hermann on the site redesign is an hilarious manifestation of this (as is the attitude of the hapless harpie Mary Hockaday currently on Newswatch ‘defending’ their woeful Moaty coverage: ‘I am sorry… that you do not worship us’).
The attitude seems to be that the public exists solely to provide the £3.6B necessary to indulge in the mass comm experiment of a small, but very privileged, for now, minority.
Oh but they will listen. If I wrote in to say that Israeli soldiers were eating babies from the peace loving Hamas community and I saw it with my own eyes they would definitely want to listen! If I said that I conducted a survey amongst 10 peace loving Islamic fundamentalists proving that the British are racists they would listen.
Quite right. The BBC are the 3 monkeys in reverse.
“See no good, hear no good, speak no good “.
Let us hope that there is some fire left at the heart of the Conservative Party. It is well past time that the BBC learnt the old adage, ‘As ye reap, so shall ye sow’ – on which basis, the license fee should be phased out to zero over three to four years max and the Humphreys and Naughties should be dumped unceremoniously (though I would happily participate if ceremonies seem called for!) on the scrap heap of History!
The significance of Hunt’s statement is that it is now open season for criticism of the BBC – its policies as well as its extravagance. Hunt appears to imply a fairly token reduction in the licence fee – say 10% max – but public consultation when the review process begins will show a public hunger for much bigger cuts, and also for a move towards subscription support for the BBC.
The BBC’s own plans for economies amounted to the puny ideas of dropping Radio 6 and Asian radio – and they baulked at half of that. So they ended up with miniscule savings.
There are virtually no defenders of the idea that the BBC should run 4 mainstream TV channels, dropping BBC3 and BBC4 is one big cut that the whole public would welcome. Telling the BBC that now it has finished spending huge sums on London refurbishings and the Manchester relocation – that’s another big chunk of annual money it won’t need in future years. Further reductions in the bloated website saves further funds (think of all the non-stories they publish that are not real news). I am sure there will be other suggestions for cutting out entire activities, as against marginal trimming.
Then add in a reasonable demand that there should be a cut of 10% across the board for “tightening up on efficiency” – and you start to look towards say 20%/25% reduction in total of the licence fee. Which of course the BBC would furiously contest. But the bigger the arguments – the more the bland public focuses on deeper questions such as – why not introduce subscription for some if not all of the BBC’s services. And the more Ministers will realise that when the whole economy is under acute strain, there is every good reason to put the BBC through the mangle.
Roll on the licence fee review.
Speaking of language they don’t mind.
Just watched the Saturday paper ‘review’ by favoured luvvie Simon Fanshawe, who selects and then ‘merely shares what is written in the Daily Mail.’
Well, when it is a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations about Boris J, that is. Nice to ignore the feelings of all others dragged in when you wish to nail a political enemy. They must be so proud.
Mr. Fanshawe, in full proxy, one-degree of separation mode, can’t see how Londoners will be able to support such a man for mayor, with the giggling blonde and bouffant trying hard to suppress their giggles.
Blatant. If typical.
I can’t think of anyone less aggressive than Jeremy Hunt.
Accusing him of being aggressive, coming from the BBC of Paxman, Naughtie, Humpreys et al. just shows how totally unself-aware Beeboids are.
Spot on!
‘Aggression’ is a loaded term, straying way beyond fact to opinion.
A bit like the narrative enhanced, events interpreted ‘content’ that passes for the rest of the BBC ‘news’ output these days.
If the likes of Mr. Hunt can’t detect the difference between self-serving propaganda and reporting, then he rather deserves all he gets.
“Waste 101 from the BBC”
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2010/07/waste_101_from.html
“‘As shallow as a paddling pool’: BBC dumbing down row as Panorama reporter attacks channel boss in email ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295399/As-shallow-paddling-pool-BBC-dumbing-row-Panorama-reporter-attacks-channel-boss-email.html#ixzz0tvXdWaTu
I read this. It looks like a strong attack on those ,like Hunt, who control the news agenda. I wager that her views on everything strictly follow the libleft party line. To deviate is a thought crime.
By the way I recommend the ‘Assyrian International News Agency’ at http://www.aina.org for a source of possible stories the BBC would never dream of covering. Certainly not the sainted Bowen with his one dimensional view on ME politics. I urge you all to give it a look.The stories of ethnic cleansing and persecution of minorites in the region at the hands of Arab aggression deserve a much wider audience. The BBC would never touch any of it, after all Israel is the only villain and this fiction has to be maintained at all costs.
Sometimes, it’s hard to distinguish one from t’other.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7894915/Lord-Mandelson-is-flawed-but-he-does-have-a-salutary-tale-to-tell.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7896110/BBC-boss-Jay-Hunt-labelled-shallow-as-a-paddling-pool.html
I suspect a true insult to paddling pools, from what she’s ‘issued’ before.
All that is certain is that the country has pad, is paying and will pay for the games these guys play.
It was Jay Hunt who fired Carol Thatcher for not making the specifically Maoist form of apology she demanded.
Of course what the BBC don’t ask is there a better way to fund public broadcasting.
Do we really need the BBC at all? My view is we don’t. We do need money to fund some programming, in particular science, engineering and educational programmes, but we don’t need to fund Eastenders for example, that can be made in the private sector.
The problem with the BBC is it’s simply forgotten what it’s there for, it now believes that like the NHS it has a right to exist to simply employ thousands of useless people who don’t contribute anything to society.
So you drugged up scum at the BBC, looks like the axe may finally be being sharpened, I can’t wait.
I think I might drop another email to Mr Hunt (I’ve sent him a few asking for this very thing) giving him the thumbs up.
The BBC will of course be looking around for ‘friends’ to defend it, so expect St Polly to be all over the airwaves as some Liebour scum, but no one listens to them.
Dame Nikki will no doubt get all his Islington friends to ring in next week saying how wonderful the BBC is and how they’d pay double what they pay now. Fine, pay it, but I don’t want to .
In response to Martin 9:45 I do think there was a ‘need’ for the BBC up till about 10 to 15 years ago and I was a stout defender.
But it has shown us that there is no ‘need’ for it beyond what ITV offers. It used to provide us, the public, with information both of the news variety and education. It used to provide us with a ‘classical’ education – the excellent period dramas which can now be produced to sell around the world and so make a profit. So many programmes are made to compete with X factor and the like- the many phone in and vote type; plus the similar ones to ITV made because they are cheap; the Cash in the Attic, A Home in the Country type, the Cooking progs etc.
We no longer need a BBC – it has proved that the country can manage without what it was and ITV can provide what it is.
And since the last GE was declared there has no longer been any pretence of hiding political bias. The search for splits in the Coalition is scarcely hidden; the negative narrative that follows every published figure compared to their ‘this figure isn’t as bad as it appears’ every time a number appeared before May 6th.
Time the BBC was sold – or just closed down (now perhaps I am daydreaming).
You are right, but there is a need for people to make specialist programmes, educational programmes and so on. however, this could be done in the following way.
1. Some Government money
2. Money from the lottery
3. Perhaps a small tax on all new TV’s being sold
4. Sponsorship
Does it really matter which TV platform a programme made with public money goes out on? ITV, C4, Sky? Do we really need 25,000 useless Guardian readers to be employed who for the most part do nothing?
Let the BBC go it alone and it can perhaps fun itself via subscription and all those luvvies who think it’s good value for money can fund it.
but, preferably option 5:
pure profit-seeking private provision from media organisations who generate income from adverts, sales of DVDs, but primarily in receipt subscriptions from people who demand such speciality programmes.
If there is no demand, then there is no programme. That’s the only valid equation for any product supply.
Has anyone heard the BBC interview ANYONE today who supports Hunt’s plan to cut the TV tax? Some tosser is on News 24 right now saying what a terrible idea it is, with ugly female beeboid agreeing with him of course.
What the tool being interviewed doesn’t get is MANY OF US don’t want the BBC’s output of crap shitty garbage, nor do we like the leftie view of the BBC nor do we like the BBC wasting millions of freebie trips for talentless twats like Nikki Campbell.
The BBC will cut dramas featuring Children, the Police and Fireman first.
These front-line shows about the most vulnerable and most valuable are always the first to go!
And Casualty too?
Craig. Yes.
Even though Casualty is “the envy of the world”… it has to go first.
I suspect you could use a 10 year old Radio Times to find out what is on the BBC this week. So introducing a subsription service is feasable – its not as if you don’t know what you will get for your money.
why do we pay the beeb,70% are repeats so we’ve paid for those time and time again.put all the repeats on a free channel and subscribe to the rest….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7896709/We-need-a-better-and-leaner-BBC.html
What we need is a cull of all who feel they are uniquely entitled to others’ money like some kind of broadcast droit de seigneur
They’ll get and keep the money, but with luck the likes of Byford and his ilk is that they will be held accountable by the others in the gilded bubble for the end of the gravy train, which may make for some healthy introspection in their well-funded dotage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10667242
An amusing little story. Love the bit that states
“Certain topics, faces and names are deemed undesirable on state TV”
Can’t imagine the BBC ever indulging in self-censorship!
It’s also good to see the report being so sniffy on nepotism. Get the job on merit, eh Dimblebys?
The report doesn’t mention that she’s doing it for free (according to the Telegraph). During last year’s expenses scandal, a harried MP on the news channel asked the female autocue-reader what SHE was paid. Her response? Almost £100,000.
Incidentally, If Jonathan Ross was being paid 4 times over the odds by the BBC (6M a year at the beeb, 1.5M at itv) does this mean that we are paying 4 times over the odds for the whole shebang? A licence “fee” of about 35 quid a year sounds a bit more reasonable!