- This topic has 65 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated April 19, 2006 at 2:38 pm by snarf.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 19, 2006 at 11:32 am #1070780
I must have imagined all those interviewers giving the government a hard time since he went, obviously.
Let’s not forget I was responding to a comment claiming that the BBC was a source of government propaganda. I didn’t realise that you subscribed to this view Andy.
🙂
April 19, 2006 at 11:46 am #1070768J. B’Stard. wrote:I must have imagined all those interviewers giving the government a hard time since he wentYou cited PM which is completely Westminster-centric, and therefore completely distorted. Just because it criticises the government doesn’t mean it’s not propaganda. It’s almost always about some minor technical point of order, when these are life and death matters.
April 19, 2006 at 11:47 am #1070781How often do you listen to PM Ed? Honestly.
(Ignoring the fact that you just picked and chose between the programmes I listed)
Actually, don’t bother answering because it’s not Westminster-centric. It deals with all of the days news in a magazine format. As you’d know if you listened.
😀
April 19, 2006 at 11:51 am #1070795J. B’Stard. wrote:I must have imagined all those interviewers giving the government a hard time since he went, obviously.Let’s not forget I was responding to a comment claiming that the BBC was a source of government propaganda. I didn’t realise that you subscribed to this view Andy.
🙂
i certainly wouldn’t subscribe to that view, grumble, no.
😀
but paxo can give a hard time to whichever junior minister is unfortunate enough to find themselves in his crosshairs on any given evening and we can call the resultant entertaining pantomime “investigative journalism” if it soothes us. don’t even get me started on the fucking punch and judy show that Question Time has become.
when it matters, the government will crack down, to the extent of effectively sacking the dg. everyone who works for the bbc is now under no illusions that this is the case, and that is not my definition of impartial, personally.
April 19, 2006 at 11:57 am #1070782So you’re conceding that they do indeed give the government a hard time, and that they aren’t a source of propaganda?
Safe.
😛
If you want to talk about the state of investigative journalism and political debate, help yourself, I’ll agree. But I was dissing Usey’s daft assertion that Beeb is nothing but a source of propaganda.
April 19, 2006 at 12:00 pm #1070769J. B’Stard. wrote:How often do you listen to PM Ed? Honestly.(Ignoring the fact that you just picked and chose between the programmes I listed)
Sorry I was thinking of The World At One!
The last time I heard John Humphrys interview someone it was a self-absorbed verbal fencing match from which nothing was learned.
The UK political content of BBC News is utterly Westminster-centric, how can you deny that? That may be where the power is, but I’m really not interested in hearing about the machinations of politicians, I want to know what is happening on the ground.
April 19, 2006 at 12:07 pm #107078327 super goat wrote:The UK political content of BBC News is utterly Westminster-centric, how can you deny that? That may be where the power is, but I’m really not interested in hearing about the machinations of politicians, I want to know what is happening on the ground.Hahaha. Find me the part where I said ‘BBC News isn’t Westminster-cetric’.
You can’t because I didn’t say it.
That isn’t just a problem with the BBC though, is it? All national media are obviously Westminster-centric. That’s where nearly all the decision making is made and that’s where most of them are based. I don’t think that problem is exclusively one to do with the Beeb.
April 19, 2006 at 12:29 pm #1070770J. B’Stard. wrote:So you’re conceding that they do indeed give the government a hard time, and that they aren’t a source of propaganda?Safe.
😛
More Grumble: words->mouth etc
but the smiley made me do a LOL!
Take a look at the front page of BBC News now…. tell me what the effect of that story is going to be and if that’s not an awfully convenient result for the establishment then you can put a marmot down my slacks and call me Susan.
April 19, 2006 at 12:37 pm #1070760I dont particularly think the licence fee is too steep.
look at the bbc website and bbc3 and 4 (the best new channels about in my opinion)
and even 1xtra.
I am no saying that the bbc doesnt need to cut down on the middle management and the ‘job for life’ attitude that used to prevail there.
But ffs can’t we be proud of something we are good at for once?
April 19, 2006 at 12:39 pm #1070784Looks fairly unbiased to me Ed.
Peugeot moving production from an extremely expensive plant to a cheaper plant (facilitated by our shit employment laws)
Unions saying they’ll picket.
Government saying this is the nature of the free market.
I’m not getting your point at all.
April 19, 2006 at 12:43 pm #1070761stop being coy jack. If ed says they are the mouthpeice of the state then they are.
now look at this brainskan smiley i found. :group_hug
April 19, 2006 at 12:46 pm #1070757Anonymous
J. B’Stard. wrote:So you’re conceding that they do indeed give the government a hard time, and that they aren’t a source of propaganda?Safe.
😛
If you want to talk about the state of investigative journalism and political debate, help yourself, I’ll agree. But I was dissing Usey’s daft assertion that Beeb is nothing but a source of propaganda.
alright, i have overstated my case. being fecicious. sue me.
what i should have said is that the bbc is under enormous pressure from the government, who basically contol its source of income (by keeping it paid for by lisence fees) and also have sacked a lotof top brass who they found to be providing a dissident veiw which they found objectionable.
some of the people who work in the bbc are genuinely trying to present balanced reporting of political issues, but they are limited by pressures from the top. they all know what happens when the bbeb step out of line.
also newsnight is great, but its hardly primetime. the actual bbc news does seem to present the veiws of westminster and as has been pointed out, very rarely critise the government in a general way, just pick at technicalities. when they do present a decent debate, it is on issues such as the iraq war when it would be obvious to everyone where their allegances lie if they didnt. the british public may be dumb, but theyre not that dumb. so a little tact has to be used in covering up the connections from westminster and the beeb.
April 19, 2006 at 12:49 pm #1070773andy ridgeway wrote:i’d say that bbc3 has done more for innovative british comedy in the last couple of years than anyone else has, ever.Yeah, we really needed that 3rd series of LB, just in case we didn’t get the half dozen or so stale jokes the first or second time round.
:bigsmile:
Boosh is wicked though.
April 19, 2006 at 12:51 pm #1070745The best thing by far about the beeb’s their website. Definately very useful IMHO…
April 19, 2006 at 12:56 pm #1070785USE wrote:alright, i have overstated my case. being fecicious. sue me.what i should have said is that the bbc is under enormous pressure from the government, who basically contol its source of income (by keeping it paid for by lisence fees) and also have sacked a lotof top brass who they found to be providing a dissident veiw which they found objectionable.
some of the people who work in the bbc are genuinely trying to present balanced reporting of political issues, but they are limited by pressures from the top. they all know what happens when the bbeb step out of line.
also newsnight is great, but its hardly primetime. the actual bbc news does seem to present the veiws of westminster and as has been pointed out, very rarely critise the government in a general way, just pick at technicalities. when they do present a decent debate, it is on issues such as the iraq war when it would be obvious to everyone where their allegances lie if they didnt. the british public may be dumb, but theyre not that dumb. so a little tact has to be used in covering up the connections from westminster and the beeb.
So say that to start with, innit, and not just knock out another bit of cliched antibabylon rhetoric.
Also, not risking all out war with the government is not the same as presenting them in a glowing light. The things that have been stated on here would lead the casual observer to believe that we are living in an Orwellian nightmare where we hear nothing but good about the goverment. This is blatantly untrue.
All I’m saying is be realistic.
April 19, 2006 at 1:04 pm #1070758J. B’Stard. wrote:So say that to start with, innit, and not just knock out another bit of cliched antibabylon rhetoric.got you debating it didnt it? check my manipulative face.
and fixxy’s right, it may be shit, but in the world of telly its superb. shame telly as a medium is proper gash, or is compared to its amazing potential.
easy to critisise, but when compared to say itv, its genius.
April 19, 2006 at 1:09 pm #1070771J. B’Stard. wrote:Looks fairly unbiased to me Ed.Peugeot moving production from an extremely expensive plant to a cheaper plant (facilitated by our shit employment laws)
No no, ‘Saddam signed death warrants’
come on, nobody gives a fuck about 148 peasants from some poxy Iraqi village. nobody cares about the Saddam trial in Iraq, nobody cares about it here, but it’s front page news…. hmmmm
April 19, 2006 at 1:13 pm #1070786Put the crackpipe down Ed.
You are properly into Hollyhockville.
April 19, 2006 at 1:15 pm #107077427 super goat wrote:No no, ‘Saddam signed death warrants’Well they did try to assassinate him, and it is in the Iraqi consitution.
April 19, 2006 at 1:18 pm #1070797cant be faffed to read the whole thread
two points
1. why is a hippy reading the FT? trustafarian?
2. the BBC is outsourcing hand over fist to Crapita, why the suprise there overspent? its fairly standard!April 19, 2006 at 1:21 pm #1070772So am I alone in thinking the purpose of the trial is mostly propaganda? :surprised
dan u wrote:1. why is a hippy reading the FT? trustafarian?he has a pink bathroom
April 19, 2006 at 1:24 pm #1070798andy ridgeway wrote:i’d say that bbc3 has done more for innovative british comedy in the last couple of years than anyone else has, ever.??
yeah 2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps is great!
you reckon its better than the devlopment of satire in the 60s or stand up in the 70s/80s?
or the not the nine o clock news/young ones generation of the 80s?
– i admit i am only new to BBC3 but little britain, ideal? hardly ground breaking.
April 19, 2006 at 1:48 pm #1070796dan u wrote:??yeah 2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps is great!
you reckon its better than the devlopment of satire in the 60s or stand up in the 70s/80s?
or the not the nine o clock news/young ones generation of the 80s?
– i admit i am only new to BBC3 but little britain, ideal? hardly ground breaking.
you’re comparing the development of uk comedy across all media over a period of 30 years, to a single channel over 2 years…
🙂
monkey dust, mighty boosh, the smoking room are all class and groundbreaking in their own ways.
ideal and nighty nighty etc are ok
plus loads of others i’ve forgotten…
April 19, 2006 at 1:50 pm #1070807andy ridgeway wrote:monkey dust, mighty boosh, the smoking room are all class.ideal and nighty nighty etc are ok
plus loads of others i’ve forgotten
The Thick Of It started on BBC 3 I think.
April 19, 2006 at 1:51 pm #1070754dan u wrote:cant be faffed to read the whole threadtwo points
1. why is a hippy reading the FT? trustafarian?
2. the BBC is outsourcing hand over fist to Crapita, why the suprise there overspent? its fairly standard!1 i ain’t no hippy, i’m taking the piss outta my self, and FT has all the proper news 😉
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.