# BBC in hopeless position



## George Caplan (Oct 25, 2012)

ive been following this savile story and further proof and some vindication to naysayers of the bbc.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 25, 2012)

George Caplan @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> ive been following this savile story and further proof and some vindication to naysayers of the bbc.



I should know better than to enter a political debate with you George. But clearly I don't.

Within 3 weeks of this story breaking, the BBC has launched two independent inquiries, and broadcast an hour long documentary on its main channel sharply criticising the Corporation. I wonder how Fox News would have handled this? Come to that, would any other broadcaster in the world have done that?

It's a horrible incident, mistakes unquestionably have been made - as loudly pointed out by the BBC itself. And sure, it's a short term gift horse to all the usual suspects who wait for absolutely any excuse to lay into an institution that they ideologically loathe. But the BBC is, and will remain, a flawed but brilliant institution loved by the majority of Britons, and long may it be the absolute antithesis of Fox News.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 25, 2012)

i dont agree. the lance armstrong affair pales into insignificance compared to this story.
my concern is whether the nyt will continue with mark thompson.

i stick with the bbc being broken up or even finished completely. they are a shadow of what they once were and not really able to commission anything worthwhile. they are a left wing organization and nothing more than a glorified news channel the last time i saw it. sky is by far the largest program maker and distributor in the uk today. this case of savile will probably be the end of the bbc as anyone knows it.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 25, 2012)

Oh Oh, the "You watch Fox News insult"...............Originality at it's finest.... :roll: 

Don't know George C. too well, but I am quite sure that bounced right off of him as he is more of an CNBC, Cantos, Wall Street or FBN kind of guy.

I never had a favorite "News Channel" but it seems this is a really important issue for folks too busy to research thier own interests.
Just curious though, was BBC paying these gals Hush money to appear as a legitimate source of news or something...?
Not sure what all the Hub-Bub is about.

But I must say if you enjoy watching fine looking women and checking on stock trends, FBN has some serious babes, and I am atrracted to fiscally smart women, with a streak of risk in their system.
If I liked little girls and horny old men with the Back To THe Future hair-dos I suppose I would have liked BBC.

But NYT and the Sulzbergs need something, as they bleed cash even with Online services that seem to be popular.
They could use another Kingpin from Mexico to float them 200 Million or something.
Or maybe just report the news like they use to do, and have a little more ideas from different people instead of that hack Maureen Dowd. She has to know where somebodys' buried. 

She's the new Helen Thomas..... >8o


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 25, 2012)

[George and Chimuelo's replies...] What on Earth?!!!

Er, no. This isn't a serious debate. And on with my day....


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 26, 2012)

Well, could you let the rest of us in on it...


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 26, 2012)

chimuelo @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Oh Oh, the "You watch Fox News insult"...............Originality at it's finest.... :roll:
> 
> Don't know George C. too well, but I am quite sure that bounced right off of him as he is more of an CNBC, Cantos, Wall Street or FBN kind of guy.



cbnc. 

not a serious debate? well it sure looks serious from this lookout. if lance armstrong and competing laboratories is a serious debate then i sure as hell think bbc employees and pedophilia could be construed as serious. the bbc are in deep deep deep shit and so it should be. that corporation is finished.


----------



## Aer Gui Ta (Oct 26, 2012)

> the bbc are in deep deep deep [email protected]#t and so it should be. that corporation is finished.



Does the same apply to the Catholic church?


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't think they're related, but if you were an Alter Boy, you have my sympathy, and hopefully BBC pays as well as the Vatican..

Now back to the real story, I prefer hearing from someone who has a vested interest in this, then if it's interesting I know how to spell Google...

CNBC is a big favorite for trends and info. But check out Lori Rothman if you get a chance. She doesn't even have to say anything important, she's just real pretty and fun to watch until my interests are flashed below.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 26, 2012)

I doubt that the BBC is finished in any shape or form. After all, there are many things that go on at the BBC, other than those issues that are in the news at the moment. For a start, all those Orchestras are something that no other broadcaster has.

I think that this story won't fatally harm the BBC in the long run, because there are too many reasons to keep the BBC as it is. That's not to say that changes won't happen, but it's probably that many changes have already been made over the last 4 decades.

D


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 26, 2012)

Daryl @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> I doubt that the BBC is finished in any shape or form. After all, there are many things that go on at the BBC, other than those issues that are in the news at the moment. For a start, all those Orchestras are something that no other broadcaster has.
> 
> I think that this story won't fatally harm the BBC in the long run, because there are too many reasons to keep the BBC as it is. That's not to say that changes won't happen, but it's probably that many changes have already been made over the last 4 decades.
> 
> D



wouldnt be so sure daryl but i dont know anything about the orchestras. a lot will depend on ensuing court cases and the amount of money that finally gets awarded down the line. i think its going to be a lot.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 26, 2012)

George Caplan @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> Daryl @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that the BBC is finished in any shape or form. After all, there are many things that go on at the BBC, other than those issues that are in the news at the moment. For a start, all those Orchestras are something that no other broadcaster has.
> ...


In order that there can be a lot of money awarded, there will have to be some sort of proof. As JS is dead and can't answer for himself, that makes things very difficult. It would also have to be proven that the BBC was guilty of some crime, and not just JS. Not an easy task for anyone to sort out.

D


----------



## Leosc (Oct 26, 2012)

Anyone want to clear things up as to what all this is about for all us currently not residing in the UK? I feel quite ignorant right now.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 26, 2012)

Acall @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> Anyone want to clear things up as to what all this is about for all us currently not residing in the UK? I feel quite ignorant right now.



Jimmy Saville, an eccentric TV presenter popular from the 1950s-1980s has now been revealed as a peadophile, a year after his death. He abused kids in mental institutions, hospitals and at the BBC. There is concern that some people in all these institutions knew what was happening, but did not act to stop it, and further concern that some other people were involved.

A BBC news programme, Newsnight, had filmed an investigative report on it last year, but the item was pulled before transmission. The following month, December, the BBC showed two tribute programmes to Jimmy Savillle. Last month, ITV (a British commercial channel) broke the story.

There is currently a police investigation, and the BBC have commissioned two independent inquiries, which will cover the past abuse and the decision to drop the Newsnight investigation.

You can read a whole lot more on a special area of the BBC news website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20026910 .

It's a big deal, the investigations are necessary. From all I've seen I think its unlikely that the 2011 investigation was dropped due to influence from on high - it was probably just a bad judgement call as the editor thought there wasn't enough evidence to justify the story. However, I fear it is likely that in the past, a blind eye was turned at the BBC and the other institutions. But as I say, in both cases, thorough investigations are needed.

There's a good chance some people will be sacked, possibly senior, in the current administration, and there's a good chance any individuals still alive who were complicit / part of a ring will be arrested. But talk of the end of the BBC is, frankly, idiotic.


----------



## Leosc (Oct 26, 2012)

Thanks for your detailed post, noiseboy!
I had already read about the Saville "incident", but couldn't figure out that that was the topic from the first 3 posts.

I'm quite saddened by this. Not only because of the horrific things he's done towards those children, but also because I've always thoroughly enjoyed BBC's documentaries, concerts among others. Even the occasional round of QI - Stephen is one of my personal heroes. BBC's one of the great institutions that generally produce a dependable quality program. This, however, is simply a disgrace...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 27, 2012)

Acall @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> Thanks for your detailed post, noiseboy!
> I had already read about the Saville "incident", but couldn't figure out that that was the topic from the first 3 posts.
> 
> I'm quite saddened by this. Not only because of the horrific things he's done towards those children, but also because I've always thoroughly enjoyed BBC's documentaries, concerts among others. Even the occasional round of QI - Stephen is one of my personal heroes. BBC's one of the great institutions that generally produce a dependable quality program. This, however, is simply a disgrace...



It is indeed disgaceful, but most of the more hysterical reactions are not seeing the wood for the trees.

There are two separate core issues. The first is the abuse that took place decades ago. This was common to the different institutions. There's no excusing it, but it is probably true that this was an era where people just shut up more because of fear and "that's how things are". There's been a lot of debate about "have things really changed?" From my own experience and conversations, a qualified "yes" to that. The protection issues for children are vastly increased today (anyone working with kids has a police check, as one obvious example, but the culture has changed too), I think anything similar really would be virtually impossible, thank God. I'm not quite so convinced about abuse for adult women - again, I think things are better, but I suspect they are a long way from perfect. In no way is the BBC any different here to many other companies and institutions. Indeed, I do know of one presenter who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near women imo, and he works in independent TV.

But what is being focused on here is past abuse. The victims need to be heard, empathised with and believed. All the institutions failed in their duty of care, individuals may well be culpable. Does this mean we close all hospitals today because of individual gross misconduct 40 years ago? Of course it's absurd, it doesn't require any debate. But a review of measures taken since then would doubtless be a good idea.

The second issue concerns the dropping of the 2011 Newsnight investigation. The most serious outcome would be that it was dropped because either it was embarrssing to the BBC and/or because it caused a scheduling conflict with the billed Christmas specials. If this is the case, senior heads will definitely roll. The senior management who initially denied any issues will find their positions untenable. This is a worst-case scenario, but in that the problem is with specific leadership. The Panorama investigation broadcast last week brought new revelations, and was hghly damning of Newsnight - solid investigative journalism by the BBC of itself. Few, if any, other broadcasters in the world would do this - not with such speed, prominence and authority. During the BBC1 broadcast, BBC2 was in fact broadcast Newsnight - itself holding a discussion on the seriousness of the allegations.

So in a worst-case scenario, it has no real bearing on the basic structures of the institution, it was a failure to correctly implement, and a significant part of senior management will be replaced.

IMO more likely, the editor of Newsnight simply exercised poor judgement. He felt that, with no police cooberation, the story wasn't strong enough. In his own words at the time (in private email) all he has was the words "of the women". This phrase as understandably caused some uproar, but you can argue that without more material evidence he may have felt on shaky legal ground. This view needs a broad discussion, because it is what women constantly face with rape allegations, and why only a pathetic percentage of rape charges end in conviction. Of course, occasionaly there will be false allegation so it's not as simple as one person's word, but to me there's a strong case to answer that in society at large, a woman's testimony is not given the weight it deserves.

I suspect in that case, the Newsnight editor will lose his job, but that might well be it.

Of course, there's likely to be further complexities which will come to light. But does this affect the very future of the BBC, its staggering TV programming, its orchestra, its radio, its website, its on demand catch up? Of course not - so fear not, Acall. Given that the past abuse cannot take place now (which needs affirming), the biggest question at stake today is to safeguard the independence of its journalism. If that is shown to have been wanting - the worst case scenario - there needs to be new systems in place to address it as a priority. Panorama has demonstrated the BBC is fully capable of this, and it needs to be the norm, not a special case. Incidentally, I frequently work on BBC childrens TV programmes, and the level of care and concern over child protection is almost all-consuming, and has been the case for many years.

Of course, none of this is of the slightest interest to the many vocal critics of the BBC who chose any problem whatsoever to repeat their ideological belief that it is in some way a corrupt institution which needs to be disbanded. Not talking about anyone specifically, but in general I find their scorn shallow and borderline offensive. I see no genuine empathy for the children who were abused, I see no genuine concern for just and honest investigative journalism. I simply see a blunt political agenda, which moulds and bends to suit the circumstances. One day the BBC is full of communists pushing their liberal agenda (which will include positive discrimination of women, presumably), the next they are mock-outraged that women have not been listened to. It's simply a chance for Rupert Murdoch and his allies to get some revenge on a year which has revealed genuine institutional corruption on such a vast scale it encompassed politics and the police - on the part of News International.

And, meanwhile, those voices of the women and men who dared to speak out do yet again get lost amid the deafening power plays and bluster. Shame on them.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 27, 2012)

Guy, I think that we are pretty much in agreement over all of this. I would add one caveat though; in all of the discussions that are going on, we are forgetting that none of this has even been to court yet, never mind been proved in court. Therefore all the crimes are still alleged. Furthermore, statistically a small portion of the claims will be false, either from people just wanting attention, or worse, people who are trying to cash in on the misery of others. It will be really difficult, if at all possible, to get to the truth in all cases. I don't envy the people whose job it is to get to the bottom of all this.

FWIW when I was a kid I wouldn't watch anything with JS in it, because I couldn't stand him (not that I ever met him). I don't know why; it was just a feeling I had. However, I thought that Gary Glitter (who I did meet) was really nice, so it shows just difficult it is to see what's in front of you when you are a kid.

D


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 27, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> Guy, I think that we are pretty much in agreement over all of this. I would add one caveat though; in all of the discussions that are going on, we are forgetting that none of this has even been to court yet, never mind been proved in court. Therefore all the crimes are still alleged. Furthermore, statistically a small portion of the claims will be false, either from people just wanting attention, or worse, people who are trying to cash in on the misery of others. It will be really difficult, if at all possible, to get to the truth in all cases. I don't envy the people whose job it is to get to the bottom of all this.
> 
> FWIW when I was a kid I wouldn't watch anything with JS in it, because I couldn't stand him (not that I ever met him). I don't know why; it was just a feeling I had. However, I thought that Gary Glitter (who I did meet) was really nice, so it shows just difficult it is to see what's in front of you when you are a kid.
> 
> D



Yes, agreed re proving all the allegations. I'd bet the farm that there's a huge amount of genuine cases, but as ever various other sorts come out of the woodwork. Still, the specific cases are a police matter I guess.

I'm pretty sure I worked on a Jim'll Fix It early in my career. I'm staggered that I can't even remember if I did or didn't... gee I'm getting old. What a crap memory I have... maybe I just passed through the studio, but I'm pretty sure I actually worked on a show or two. He just looked to me like he did to most - bloody odd, but filed under "eccentric" not "child abuser", but I can well understand those like you whose radar went PING.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 27, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> I'm pretty sure I worked on a Jim'll Fix It early in my career. I'm staggered that I can't even remember if I did or didn't... gee I'm getting old. What a crap memory I have... maybe I just passed through the studio, but I'm pretty sure I actually worked on a show or two. He just looked to me like he did to most - bloody odd, but filed under "eccentric" not "child abuser", but I can well understand those like you whose radar went PING.


The thing is, I have no idea why my radar went off. I was discussing this with my sister a couple of days ago, and she said exactly the same as I did. I wondered whether or not it was a family opinion that I had just absorbed, but as I tried to have the opposite opinion to the rest of my family on everything, I don't think that was it.

D


----------



## Barrie B (Oct 27, 2012)

I've *always* thought that he was really creepy but I guess I was bought off with the "Yes, but he does a huge amount for charity" line.

Good analysis of the BBC situation I thought Guy,

Barrie


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 27, 2012)

we did an analysis of the bbc and it was approximately 89 pages.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 9, 2012)

just heard about the lord mcalpine issue. thats going to cost the bbc a lot. they are a shambles and no mistake.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 10, 2012)

George Caplan @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> just heard about the lord mcalpine issue. thats going to cost the bbc a lot. they are a shambles and no mistake.



Yaaaawwn, how predictable.

The BBC is now in full self-flagellation mode. It seems to happen under massive political pressure. Newsnight editorial sure has questions to answer, but - again - it hardly warrants the hysterical over-reaction fired at the whole corporation.

The silly thing is that the recent Newsnight piece didn't name the Tory MP at all. That was done by the Twitterati. This entire subject is beginning to have the whiff of hysteria about it. It'll calm down.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 10, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> just heard about the lord mcalpine issue. thats going to cost the bbc a lot. they are a shambles and no mistake.


It may cause the Newsnight team some credibility issues, but it won't cost the BBC a penny, because they never named anyone, so nobody can sue them.

D


----------



## Daryl (Nov 10, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> George Caplan @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > just heard about the lord mcalpine issue. thats going to cost the bbc a lot. they are a shambles and no mistake.
> ...


Agreed.

In light of other cases against people on Social Media sites, those people who wrongly named McAlpine should be the ones quaking in their boots.

D


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 10, 2012)

the bbc director general just got fired. 

who will be next. i understand he lasted less than 2 months as head of bbc. the fact that the bbc did not name lord mcalpine directly is going to be irrelevant. they intimated it and that will be enough.

it will not calm down. it does not look like hysteria. it looks like a shambles that is not going to go away. they are in serious trouble.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 10, 2012)

These are horribly dark days for the BBC. Reactionary blowhards like George here are out there in the big wide world, and - again, just like george - they are laughing, cackling and now in a full on attack on the instittution. They couldn't care less about notions such as truth or child abuse, all they want to see is the BBC weakened or, better still, destroyed.

Entwistle is looking very much like he was the wrong man at the wrong time. It really beggars belief that he knew nothing about this story as late has he did. In one sense George Caplan is right - there was a vacuum of management leadership below him as well. This was a very big story, and apparently nobody referred up.

There is a narrative appearing that is making sense. Newsnight makes one bad decision that there wasn't enough evidence to broadcast the original Saville piece. In the slightly hysterical attitude afterwards, the editor steps down - leaving a demorlised vacuum, and here the rudderless ship analogy comes into play. The fallout of the programme's earlier poor decision - and budget cuts - now has left it wide open to make a much worse one. The Guardian reported earlier yesterday 



> Insiders say the Newsnight fiasco happened because the BBC had removed senior executives responsible for the programme from their posts while the inquiry into the first Newsnight scandal – why its Jimmy Savile investigation was dropped – was taking place.
> 
> They say morale at Newsnight was terrible all week and asked why an outside journalist was entrusted with carrying out an investigation into such a serious allegation as child abuse by a Tory close to Margaret Thatcher.
> 
> Insiders say Newsnight has been in crisis for some time – it has been understaffed as posts are cut across news and current affairs programmes, and Entwistle, a former editor, may well have been aware of this. "They are all at each other's throats, blaming everyone. It is a programme lacking leadership, lacking good producers and reporters," said a journalist closely associated with it. It also suffers high turnover because ambitious young producers under the BBC system are essentially encouraged to move on quickly, undermining the base of expertise," the insider added.



So that looks like a plausible basis of the specifics of how we got here. Then there's an excellent article this morning again in The Guardian by John Ware, putting this into a rational context - highly reccommended reading - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ights-woes . As he eloquently says:



> Almost every week, one BBC programme or another breaks a story with something new, important and interesting to say. All the presenters on the flagship Today programme are ruthlessly independent in their interrogation of public figures with questions to answer – as John Humphrys showed yet again with his grilling of the BBC's now former director general.
> 
> Panorama – the programme I worked on for 25 years – has been right on song recently, with some hard-hitting investigations, most notably corruption at Fifa and unconscionable brutality at a special hospital. In the latter case, the culprits have just been jailed.
> 
> At almost every level, BBC journalism illuminates areas of our national life, and around the world, with a care and precision unmatched by other media outlets. On any objective view, the BBC is overwhelmingly a force for good and understanding. And this really is the point. The Newsnight debacle is an aberration.



I think the issue of budget cuts in particular also needs looking at. Good journalism is very expensive. Nick Davies' excellent Flat Earth News (written before he broke the Murdoch phone hacking story) makes the very powerful point that the numbers of TV / radio / print journalists working in the UK have shrunk dramatically in the last 15 years, while at the same time the numbers working in corporate PR have increased by more than the same amount.

Much news is just recycled corporate PR, yes even in the BBC. Why? Because it is cheap and easy, while quality investigative journalism is expensive and hard. A press release just lands on a desk, all shiny and ready to eat. It'll already be dressed up in an interesting way, so their job is done for them. Academic studies have revealed just how widespread this is (a phenomena called Churnalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism ). In the quality press, only 12% of news stories are originated by their own reporters.

Davies writes powerfully on how dangerous this situation is, how the checks and balances have been eroded in an effort to be a) first and b) cheap. What has now happened in newsnight is a classic example that will be taught to student journalists for years of what happens when the system breaks. An independent producer makes a film with rudimentary errors in it (it should have been discovered before even the Newsnight editor heard about it), and the chain of command has broken above him. There's a structural problem here (quite possibly exacerbated by the fallout of the first problem), but I strongly suspect a programme weakened by budget cuts (the BBC has cut budgets year on year now for longer than I can remember) will almost certainly have had an effect.

Again, none of this is what the BBC's critics are interested in. They love to say "it's all a shambles", and print headlines like in today's Sun. They WANT a weaker BBC, they don't care about truth and independent journalism. My fear is that in the current almost insane atmosphere, they might get their wish. Those of us who value the BBC will really have to fight to make our voices heard.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 11, 2012)

uhh yeah. when are they going to start firing everyones ass including pattons.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 11, 2012)

"Radical Overhaul" needed at BBC -- according to chairman Lord Patten

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20286198


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 11, 2012)

Interestingly, I read yesterday that the false ID made by the witness at the centre of the recent Newsnight report was actually made by the police. I can't vouch for this 100%, but the gist was that the police investigated the victim's claims, showed him a picture and asked "is this the man who abused you", the guy said yes and the police had the wrong name associated with the picture. And presumably the BBC used that ID as the basis for their allegations. (also odd - the BBC originally reported 2 witnesses, I've no idea what's happened to the 2nd).

So you're not going far enough, George. Yes, everyone at the BBC should be fired. But so should everyone in the police force. And everyone who works in a hospital - they were all implicated over Saville. In fact, I think anyone in any job in the UK that ever has anything to do with children should be fired. Fire EVERYONE immediately, and hand the reigns of the lot to Rupert Murdoch. It's the only reasonable and rational course of action here, clearly.

Admittedly it won't help any of the victims of child abuse, but I think we can surely all agree that we don't give a toss about them any more.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 12, 2012)

before we left the uk and incidentally probably watched bbc tv before most here were born, they ceased to be a program maker and have become an unglorified news channel that have left wing political bias and everyone in the business knows it. 

that is of no real importance to me except when you look at its original modus operandi it is meant to be neutral. this is presumably why everyone in the uk has no choice, no choice mark you, in paying for something they either dont want or dont agree with which is causing serious problems with successive governments. sky television is by far the biggest deliverer of tv in the uk. ask yourself why.

the bbc would last 5 seconds over here trying operate in that vein.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 12, 2012)

George Caplan @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> before we left the uk and incidentally probably watched bbc tv before most here were born, they ceased to be a program maker and have become an unglorified news channel that have left wing political bias and everyone in the business knows it.
> 
> that is of no real importance to me except when you look at its original modus operandi it is meant to be neutral. this is presumably why everyone in the uk has no choice, no choice mark you, in paying for something they either dont want or dont agree with which is causing serious problems with successive governments. sky television is by far the biggest deliverer of tv in the uk. ask yourself why.
> 
> the bbc would last 5 seconds over here trying operate in that vein.



Ah yes, one of George's trolling posts. Nice try.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 13, 2012)

George Caplan @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> before we left the uk and incidentally probably watched bbc tv before most here were born, they ceased to be a program maker and have become an unglorified news channel that have left wing political bias and everyone in the business knows it.
> 
> that is of no real importance to me except when you look at its original modus operandi it is meant to be neutral. this is presumably why everyone in the uk has no choice, no choice mark you, in paying for something they either dont want or dont agree with which is causing serious problems with successive governments. sky television is by far the biggest deliverer of tv in the uk. ask yourself why.
> 
> the bbc would last 5 seconds over here trying operate in that vein.


Grorge, unfortunalye your argument basically means that there should be no subsidy for anything, including the Arts. I know that a lot of people in the US believe this, which is why it is in such a bad state over there. For example, how many of the broadcasters in the US even have an orchestra? The BBC has 5, AFAIK.

As far as Sky is concerned, you're right that it is popular. It is an opiate for the masses. :lol: However, the BBC has actually moved away from where I think it should be placed; it ought to be providing good quality programs, whether they are for a large audience, or not. This whole commercial thing is what is slowly destroying the BBC. Not these little spats that are going on at the moment.

D


----------



## TheUnfinished (Nov 13, 2012)

Bless you George. Every time you write about your experiences in the UK, it's of a country and prevailing attitude I've never experienced.

I suppose you still think there are punks on the streets...


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 13, 2012)

BBC is in trouble again - or at least this won't help it if some of the mainstream print media and others pick it up. It's interesting to see the names of some of the BBC executives earlier in their careers and (not surprising to see the list of activists involved). 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/b ... more-74210


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 13, 2012)

Oh good lord Stephen, can we keep the latest wild climate change conspiracy theories to the other thread?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 13, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> Oh good lord Stephen, can we keep the latest wild climate change conspiracy theories to the other thread?



Err, it's not theoretical - it was part of a very recent court case that the BBC were involved in (circumventing FOI requests). And it's of course about the BBC (the subject of the thread). So I think it belongs here in the BBC thread, because it's about the BBC. :roll:


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 13, 2012)

Media servants are such pillars of the community.
Murdoch, Soros, and even the Clinton boss Haim Saban, dominate the USA's pathetic media.
Some say Unavision was key in getting the Latino vote, and it's owner also owns s large Germany Media groups too, a regular Elliot Carver from a Bond Movie.

It's so bad over here nobody reads a newspaper anymoe, but watched this hypnotic fan boys rip apart each other for the blood thirsty Americans. But the less eductaed people are the more succeptable to the progandists triccks.

It's what the "donors", who are basically no liable for the taxes, or responsibility, but rather use money to order their puppets arpound, that scares me. 
Koch Brothers get a few Governors and this guy gets a future candidate after she gets expoerience as a Senator and Liar of the................sorry ......I meant Sectretary of State.

Personally I don't care if they hide behind childrens shows and symphonys.
I'll enjoy watchint them sink in the Thames, the sooner the better.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 2N0rfYyJBA


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 13, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Tue Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good lord Stephen, can we keep the latest wild climate change conspiracy theories to the other thread?
> ...



of course its theoretical stephen. everything he disagrees with is a theoretical conspiracy.

i understand that recent polls now show for the first time in history that more people distrust the bbc than trust it. thats a sad reflection and of course people like me feel completely vindicated. the bbc dont make programs they make news. that is an indictment that reflects on licence payers and i am sure they will hopefully continue to be vilified in the press. as youre almost certainly aware there is a growing movement in certain sections of the uk press that would like them to be broken up. i agree with that. they are not viable.

if you go through the bbc day and evening tv guides its really a mess. unless you like cooking of course. 3 billion plus per annum and they are repeating everything they can get their hands on. yes i agree that sky is the opiate for the masses but thats not what is at stake. this is a purely financial and politically motivated chaos.

also if they reduce entwistles payoff to 6 months instead of a year i would be disappointed with that. that would be another pathetic piece of behavior. god knows we have enough rubbish on tv here in the us.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 13, 2012)

Reference a reputable source, Stephen (not Watts Up With That), and demonstrate - from that reputable source - there's anything of interest in the meeting.

I know nothing about it - not trawling these blogs, I miss out on a lot of this kind of thing admittedly. But methinks there might - just might - be a reason why the world's mainstream media has not been set on fire by this supposedly earth-shattering revelation.

There's plenty of real stuff to discuss here on the BBC thread. Well, that's amid George's curious inability to recognise the existence of any non-news BBC programme. Lord only knows what I've spent the last 27 years of my career doing (besides singing The Red Flag with my comrades, obviously).


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 13, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> Reference a reputable source, Stephen (not Watts Up With That), and demonstrate - from that reputable source - there's anything of interest in the meeting.
> 
> I know nothing about it - not trawling these blogs, I miss out on a lot of this kind of thing admittedly. But methinks there might - just might - be a reason why the world's mainstream media has not been set on fire by this supposedly earth-shattering revelation.
> 
> There's plenty of real stuff to discuss here on the BBC thread. Well, that's amid George's curious inability to recognise the existence of any non-news BBC programme. Lord only knows what I've spent the last 27 years of my career doing (besides singing The Red Flag with my comrades, obviously).



Guy, you really must do some research of your own if you are to avoid being duped.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 13, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Tue Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Reference a reputable source, Stephen (not Watts Up With That), and demonstrate - from that reputable source - there's anything of interest in the meeting.
> ...



Oh yes, reading conspiracy theory blogs and avoiding peer reviewed science and the mainstream media is certainly the way to enlightenment Stephen.

Anyway.... back to the BBC?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 14, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Nov 14 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Tue Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > noiseboyuk @ Tue Nov 13 said:
> ...



You should be in stand up Guy. Do you understand the significance of this?


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 14, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed Nov 14 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Baysted @ Tue Nov 13 said:
> ...



sadly i think not. we spent a crazy amount of time at gs looking into this. granted there are many other bodies that do the same thing.....but they more or less come to the same conclusions.


----------

