Sunday, 11 September 2016

BBC Behemoth becoming accountable to its funders

Those of you in the UK torn between Poldark and Victoria must wonder why the BBC, which needs no advertising revenue, for whom ratings are irrelevant, have quite deliberately attempted to sabotage ITV's big, quality, commercial offering. Actually, I suspect you already know why. 

The debate this morning on R4's BH over the new requirement for the BBC to disclose all salary earners with a wedge of over £150k revealed with a startling honestly exactly who the BBC is working for - and the answer is itself. The sole argument made against the high earnings disclosure was that it would be 'unfair' to the BBC as ITV and Sky could offer the top earners more money and poach them. 

Bugger the BBC. The people who watch TV really couldn't give a monkey's fart which channel their fave slebs appear on - why should we protect the BBC? In fact if the BBC uses its compulsory tax funding to find and nurture talent and then to pass it on to the commercial channels is actually the best solution for everyone; the BBC doesn't waste tax money, the commercial channels are more attractive to advertisers, make more revenue, and can therefore afford to pay the talent more AND to commission more quality TV such as Victoria. Everyone's a winner - except the non-productive dags at the beeb who justify their own leech-like salaries by the amount their talent earns. The overall effect will be to reduce waste, duplication and redundancy at the BBC. 

With the new Charter now written, and to be published this week, we will see what else is in store for the bloated Behemoth. But the reason of course that the BBC is using our tax money to sabotage a commercial company is that it is scared - for so long it has trumpeted that only the BBC can make quality drama, and that this is therefore the major justification for its cost, that if ITV's ratings give this the lie, they will truly have something to worry about.


Apparently said...

In my view the BBC shouldn't be making any programmes of this nature. As the establishment mouthpiece, its job should be to broadcast its views.

The commercial channels otoh should not be involved in parroting the views of the BBC, which is what they seem to do.

This system works very well in the USA, the public service broadcasting system is devoted to being the government mouthpiece, along with a liberal dose of educational programming, and this comes out of taxation.

Entertainment, religious programming, political opinion, comedy and so on is made and sold through a combination of advertising and subscription and in general, is of a very high standard... It has to be, otherwise people would not buy into it.

As it stands in the UK, we have to pay for the BBC, even if we don't want anything to do with it. We have to pay, just for having a television in the house.

Anyway the whole thing is currently undergoing huge change, more and more is coming down the telephone lines via 'the net', and this presents all sorts of new funding methods.

As you say Raedwald the 'non-productive dags' are a waste of our money, but are entrenched...

Which brings me back to my clarion call about things BBC...



James Higham said...

You always leave little still to comment.

Fred Karno said...

Not even a television, a smart phone or laptop with internet access (capable of accessing BBC Player) makes you liable for the TV Tax.

Anonymous said...

A further aspect of this 'rain on ITV's parade' business is that the BBC genuinely believes that it is in competition, and this behaviour is legitimate.

John Miller said...

"I say Reggie, overheard one of those ITV types at the Ivy talking about a PVR. Wnat on earth is that?"


Budgie said...

Don't buy a TV licence, obey the law, and the BBC will collapse. The fate of the BBC is in your hands. It's not difficult. And no, you are not cut off by not having a TV. Unfortunately most people prefer to whinge than take action.

RAC said...

Don't care one iota what the Boy Buggering Corporation says, they are renowned liars.
One simple answer, encrypt the signal and make it pay to view, then we will all see how well they manage on a level playing field.
Not had a t.v. in the house for years and have never been tempted to watch online, sans their twisted propaganda on multicultiglobalwarmypoliticalcorrecty sh1te my blood pressure is just about back to normal.

Dave_G said...

The BBC is and always was a mouthpiece for Government. It was created to frustrate the then privately promulgated radio stations of the day on the basis of 'he who controls the media controls the agenda' and NOTHING has changed since.

It will never go away and, if it weren't for the fact that the 'other' stations are equally compliant with the current agenda the Government would introduce more stringent 'laws' to enforce licence payment to guarantee its dominance.

As part of ALL the media, the BBC leads the way in corrupting the public - never mind their efforts at undermining big-ticket productions or handing out massive pay packets to their selected Borg, this is yet another 'distraction' from the real problems - and yes, even Radders is caught up with the issue whilst the world burns down in front of us.....

The BBC Charter is a sham - if it had any legal basis we could all refuse to pay our licence fee on the grounds that it's illegal to knowingly fund illegal activities (if bias, misrepresentation and lying by omission were actual offences) but I refuse to pay it anyway and will call for the Balen Report to be used in supportive evidence of their corruption should they try to enforce their will.

mikebravo said...

Did someone leave the cellar door open?

G. Tingey said...

WHY do you all seem to hate the BBC?

Because it's not fascist enough?

Do fucking grow up.

I well-remember the "Wilsundra" years, where the BBC was accused of being a US-Republican plot set to undermine the then PM - not that he couldn't have done with undermining, a lot sooner, but that's another story.

One small point - I only watch any TV very occasionally & always on "repeat" - I DO, seriously object to being supposed to pay for it, now - brought in by a tory guvmint too (!)