|
Post by batfink30 on Jul 4, 2016 11:15:35 GMT -5
Sex pest. Typical BBC presenter!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 4, 2016 14:53:40 GMT -5
I'm pro-BBC as I think public broadcasters are essential, but I sound like a Tory in saying that this is the kind of thing that the license fee is paying for - and that thing is some twat getting paid for thinking Chris Evans was a good idea. We - the general public - could literally have done a much better job of finding suitable replacements.
Meanwhile, sex pest allegations leave BBC execs groaning "for fucks sake, not again".
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jul 4, 2016 16:17:30 GMT -5
I'm pro-BBC as I think public broadcasters are essential, but I sound like a Tory in saying that this is the kind of thing that the license fee is paying for - and that thing is some twat getting paid for thinking Chris Evans was a good idea. We - the general public - could literally have done a much better job of finding suitable replacements. Meanwhile, sex pest allegations leave BBC execs groaning "for fucks sake, not again". One of the few things we disagree on matt I can see the point of them in the pre-internet days as a government viewpoint or 'impartial' (depending on the subject) broadcaster to counter privately held media, but in the age of bloggers, instant news from various media and private individuals and social media it seems more like an archaic structure that like many of the privately held media concerns is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The matter of Chris Evans we agree on as there were opportunities to both revamp the show completely with a presenter team that were nothing like the trio that came before, and plenty of better options if you wanted to stick closely to the blokeish format. The allegations I will see what actually comes of them before passing judgement as although the BBC and some of their former stars are no stranger to this sort of thing, I still believe in "Innocent until proven guilty", which in theory exists in the UK although as proven on more than one occasion across the board "Trial by (social) media" would seem to be just as apt. On a side note if these allegations are true it makes me wonder why none of it was reported to the police during Yewtree, given that at least one of the complaints goes back to the 1990's. That's not to say it is or isn't true, just my own thoughts. Lastly The Verge are amongst a fair few who have decided that Top Gear is now instantly more watchable with news of Chris Evans departure, with a memorable line describing Jeremy Clarkson as having had "Caveman Charisma" which was a mistake for Evans to try and recreate!
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jul 4, 2016 16:21:45 GMT -5
Good to see Chris is out! I do feel a bit bad for him though, getting such negative reviews from every direction must be tough, not to mention embarrassing. Humble of him to tweet that though, like theyknowwhatimean said.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 4, 2016 17:12:26 GMT -5
I'm pro-BBC as I think public broadcasters are essential, but I sound like a Tory in saying that this is the kind of thing that the license fee is paying for - and that thing is some twat getting paid for thinking Chris Evans was a good idea. We - the general public - could literally have done a much better job of finding suitable replacements. Meanwhile, sex pest allegations leave BBC execs groaning "for fucks sake, not again". One of the few things we disagree on matt I can see the point of them in the pre-internet days as a government viewpoint or 'impartial' (depending on the subject) broadcaster to counter privately held media, but in the age of bloggers, instant news from various media and private individuals and social media it seems more like an archaic structure that like many of the privately held media concerns is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The matter of Chris Evans we agree on as there were opportunities to both revamp the show completely with a presenter team that were nothing like the trio that came before, and plenty of better options if you wanted to stick closely to the blokeish format. The allegations I will see what actually comes of them before passing judgement as although the BBC and some of their former stars are no stranger to this sort of thing, I still believe in "Innocent until proven guilty", which in theory exists in the UK although as proven on more than one occasion across the board "Trial by (social) media" would seem to be just as apt. On a side note if these allegations are true it makes me wonder why none of it was reported to the police during Yewtree, given that at least one of the complaints goes back to the 1990's. That's not to say it is or isn't true, just my own thoughts. Lastly The Verge are amongst a fair few who have decided that Top Gear is now instantly more watchable with news of Chris Evans departure, with a memorable line describing Jeremy Clarkson as having had "Caveman Charisma" which was a mistake for Evans to try and recreate! I have issues with the BBC - the full wrath of the aftermath of the terrible Savile scandal was entirely deserved but I don't think that warrants it to be used as a political football by the Tories to privatise it. The BBC is massively important in the agenda setting of the news, I really do believe that. While the left disparage it as a neoliberal propaganda channel, the right are scathing for its socialist sympathies. People see what they want to see, but the reality is it is the most impartial major news outlet out there. The scale of its importance can be seen with its internet traffic and high viewing figures for the BBC News, in addition to other political shows. On a non-political front, I think it is the UK's greatest cultural export - most of British television's greatest TV shows have come from within the BBC. Much of my favourite TV shows have come from the service. It is ironic for a political party that claims to be so patriotic like the Tories that they would want to dismantle such an institution that has been a great outlet for creativity in this country. I struggle to comprehend why I pay the license fee when Strictly Come Dancing pops up every second minute on my television for half a year, but when you listen to the radio stations like 6 Music, 5 Live Radio 4 along with the great dramas that are still made on the channel, in addition to great documentaries on BBC 4, then I think it is well worth it. When you compare it to Murdoch's Sly, then there's no comparison in its quality output.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jul 4, 2016 17:44:09 GMT -5
One of the few things we disagree on matt I can see the point of them in the pre-internet days as a government viewpoint or 'impartial' (depending on the subject) broadcaster to counter privately held media, but in the age of bloggers, instant news from various media and private individuals and social media it seems more like an archaic structure that like many of the privately held media concerns is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The matter of Chris Evans we agree on as there were opportunities to both revamp the show completely with a presenter team that were nothing like the trio that came before, and plenty of better options if you wanted to stick closely to the blokeish format. The allegations I will see what actually comes of them before passing judgement as although the BBC and some of their former stars are no stranger to this sort of thing, I still believe in "Innocent until proven guilty", which in theory exists in the UK although as proven on more than one occasion across the board "Trial by (social) media" would seem to be just as apt. On a side note if these allegations are true it makes me wonder why none of it was reported to the police during Yewtree, given that at least one of the complaints goes back to the 1990's. That's not to say it is or isn't true, just my own thoughts. Lastly The Verge are amongst a fair few who have decided that Top Gear is now instantly more watchable with news of Chris Evans departure, with a memorable line describing Jeremy Clarkson as having had "Caveman Charisma" which was a mistake for Evans to try and recreate! I have issues with the BBC - the full wrath of the aftermath of the terrible Savile scandal was entirely deserved but I don't think that warrants it to be used as a political football by the Tories to privatise it. The BBC is massively important in the agenda setting of the news, I really do believe that. While the left disparage it as a neoliberal propaganda channel, the right are scathing for its socialist sympathies. People see what they want to see, but the reality is it is the most impartial major news outlet out there. The scale of its importance can be seen with its internet traffic and high viewing figures for the BBC News, in addition to other political shows. On a non-political front, I think it is the UK's greatest cultural export - most of British television's greatest TV shows have come from within the BBC. Much of my favourite TV shows have come from the service. It is ironic for a political party that claims to be so patriotic like the Tories that they would want to dismantle such an institution that has been a great outlet for creativity in this country. I struggle to comprehend why I pay the license fee when Strictly Come Dancing pops up every second minute on my television for half a year, but when you listen to the radio stations like 6 Music, 5 Live Radio 4 along with the great dramas that are still made on the channel, in addition to great documentaries on BBC 4, then I think it is well worth it. When you compare it to Murdoch's Sly, then there's no comparison in its quality output. You make some good points there, although I have issues with the BBC as well that go beyond the Saville incidents, vile as those episodes were. I still find it amusing the notion that the BBC is impartial having watched the reaction of their morning broadcasters the morning of the 2015 election results, or Reggie Yates doing a hatchet job on the worst aspects of Russia presented as the general standard- imagine RT doing the same with a UK documentary and the BBC/British response to that? EDIT- On the subject of Saville, reprehensible as it was I have a personal opinion that the senior figures at the BBC who turned a blind eye may not have had as much of a choice as some might think, which is based on the allegations made that relate to civil servants, MP's and such around the same time frame. As grim as it is to imagine I can see Saville and others having not only been sordid themselves but also acting as fences for finding victims for people in higher positions of society than themselves. IF that was the case then it would certainly be a reason that no allegations ever came out before as whilst the loss of high profile entertainers in such a way would have been damaging, it would have paled compared to any fallout in the high social and political circles. The BBC in my view, and I appreciate here we will differ again, is that it is no more impartial than any other major news outlet, regardless of charter. I will say it comes across different though as take The Guardian out of the equation and the UK is by and large wall to wall right wing news in the traditional broadcast and print mediums. The scale of it's importance by traffic and viewing figures could just as easily be argued that it has as much to do with having a guaranteed annual budget for operations, coupled with a well established brand name built up through longevity, although without polling it's users I cannot say that is definitely the case. I accept that it is used as a political football, but I would say far less than for example the NHS which arguably is of greater importance as a national service. The BBC itself did not get involved in politics but on a personal level senior figures like Alan Yentob did with Kids Company and Labour, which as a private matter is his business but when it comes to public actions and statements that clash with an impartial role it is ill advised at best and provide ammunition for critics including those as you say who would dismantle the organisation. I have enjoyed TV shows from the BBC in the past, although purely on a personal level not very many since the turn of the century. That is not a slight at the BBC, simply that my tastes do not coincide with their output at that point which is neither here nor there for a debate on the organisation as a whole. I think they are part of the cultural exports of Great Britain, although I don't know if compared to other arts, philosophies, sciences, sports, etc. I would put them up there with the greatest, but again that is only my opinion. The Conservatives are as patriotic as Labour were under Tony Blair, i.e. when it's needed to get the votes up which you and both know anyway. Beyond that their loyalties lie to Lord Ashcroft, various banking families and other vested interests who pull the strings after the nuisance of elections as a sop to the masses is out of the way. Rupert Murdoch and Sky are an easy target, and rightly so for their news output especially, but when people talk of monopolies I would be just as uneasy with a BBC one as I would a Sky monopoly. The market could do with more players really, but the reality of modern technology and the prohibitive costs of launching networks means this is highly unlikely in the future. I apologise if any of my above ramblings go off topic or come across as rude, they were certainly not meant to be but being an old(er) man I hold up the 'getting late' card I think when it comes to the BBC we will on various aspects of it disagree, but can at least agree that in terms of broadcasting and competition it is better to have a flawed broadcaster with opposing views to it's rivals than one solitary broadcaster with no alternatives for people to choose their entertainment and news stories from
|
|
|
Post by Rain on Nov 27, 2016 3:33:43 GMT -5
Amazon went all out on production just like Top Gear was. thoughts on it? 2 episodes been aired
|
|