The difference of course, is that in the US, they have a choice of who to watch and listen to, but in the UK, the massive public subsidy kills off any commercial competition to the BBC. So they (and the clone like politics in public subsided Channel 4) have a virtual monopoly on “intellectual” programming. Indeed, “intellectuals”, meaning a few politicians and academics have a channel devoted to brainwashing them: Radio 4. The result is that our “elite” (as they see themselves) are so completely brain-washed by the BBC hate filled bile, that they just inherently adopt the attitudes of the BBC and cannot fathom why anyone could complain when they parrot the brainwashed propaganda.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Media & Journalism · Slogans & Quotations · UK affairs January 29th, 2017 |
 19 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I was stationed in the UK at RAF Bentwaters back in 1992 until it closed. I can only hope that BBC programming has improved since then as it seemed that 65% of the programs were scottish sheepdog sheep herding competions and about cheese making. Then of course we had the Danish station where every sentence uttered was “Darty dar-dar, woop-dar bo-der, derp-derp”. Ah…good times.
Yes, here in the US we have a choice of who to listen to. We can listen to far left propaganda masters 1, or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. Or we can get on the WWW and possibly find a truthteller or two that hasn’t sold their soul to Soros or some globalist corp.
Although the BBC is still bad, I think it has improved a bit, both relative to ITV and in absolute terms, compared to the Greg Dyke era (early 2000s) and before.
Back in the 80s, the beeb would report arab hostage-killing as “Britain is paying the price for supporting the US’ bombing of Libya. Three British hostages in Lebanon were shot today in revenge …” (I recall seeing that episode of the nine-o-clock news in 1986 and am quoting from memory). The ITV’s ten-o-clock news said, “Three British hostages were murdered in Lebanon today. A spokesman for their captors said it was in revenge for the UK’s support of the bombing attack on Libya…” (again, I am quoting from memory). Up to and including the Greg Dyke years, the beeb just went down from there.
I watched both the BBC and the ITV ten-o-clock news (using the +1 channel) on the day of Trump’s inauguration. ITV was all about how Trump’s ‘America First’ remarks clearly cast a huge shadow on May’s hopes for any trade deal. The BBC, by contrast, included some sensible discussion of why May’s trade hopes might not be too dampened by that part of Trump’s speech.
A few days later, BBC ten-o-clock news told me how absurd it was for Trump to order an investigation of voter fraud because “there’s hardly any evidence of it happening” but despite that (and much else), the beeb has improved a little, and I think it and ITV have swapped places – I suspect ITV told viewers how absurd the thought of voter fraud in the US was at least as emphatically.
(Both are of course worse about the US than the UK. The new law to require ID to vote in the UK got less contemptuous coverage AFAICS.)
Does anyone here think politics is just the cock-wallop of the damned? Study science or engineering and fuck the rest.
Political television is celebrity gossip for smart people.
I think Niall’s right that it’s improved slightly, but the trouble with the BBC (apart from the tax, obviously) is that its propaganda is relentless. You stumble over stuff about AGW and the dangers of leaving the EU everywhere, from documentaries about something else entirely (which always seem to end up really being about the evils of the British class system and usually manage to cram in a word or two on the wonders of the NHS) to entertainment shows.
Nick, I’ve always said that my interest in politics is the same as it would be in any catastrophe which befell my family. Anyone who likes it is deeply suspect.
I wish people would quite trashing the Beeb. After all, they gave us Yes Minister, et seq., and 1990. (They maybe shoulda quit while they were ahead….)
For which they should enjoy Divine Grace for all Eternity. I can’t think of anything on American TV, EVER, that rises to the level of those.
[Especially Y.M. And I’m planning to marry Sir Arnold, as soon as I can catch up with him.]
😉
–J.
A few days later, BBC ten-o-clock news told me how absurd it was for Trump to order an investigation of voter fraud because “there’s hardly any evidence of it happening”
Until after Trump won the election at which point everybody did a volte-face and said there was massive voter fraud in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, as well as claiming Russia “hacked” the election.
No.
It is worse that this quote would lead people to believe.
It is actually illegal (illegal) to have a conservative radio or television news service in the United Kingdom.
The regulations insist on “balance” and so on – and guess how the officials (and their media friends) interpret that.
We have “liberal” left radio and television BY LAW.
It is not accident that Sky News and so on have the same leftist politics that the BBC has – it is the law that it does.
Trying to decide which is worse (the BBC or ITV or C4 or Sky News) is a waste of time – they are all horrible.
The Talk Radio conservatives (and libertarians) that Ronald Reagan legalised (and Fox News later) do not have British versions – because it is ILLEGAL here.
I would have no problem with the BBC if they were a subscriber only channel that did not demand money with menaces on the doorstep.
Since you are physically located in the US, this is an aspect of the BBC that you don’t see / have to put up with.
The bias and propaganda is pretty awful to be honest.
People who sing the BBC’s praises often warn us about the dangers of media monopolies, especially in the provision of news.
But the BBC’s huge dominance of broadcast news never seems to bother them.
pete – for a similar reason, many of the same people oppose free / charter schools. They’re not actually bothered about bias, whether it’s in a curriculum or expressed by a news network. They only really care about bias that doesn’t go their way.
Of course, if you asked them they’d suggest that the BBC and state run curriculums have no bias and present the objective truth. Which is a bit strange, given that the modern left purports to believe in no such thing.
Would Paul Marks care to identify the relevant passage from the relevant act?
JG — I know, and I were only kidding. (I think Sir A. would be a pain to live with in real life, but Mr. Nettleton does his character perfectly.) I hope it goes without saying that I hate that “license fee” or whatever you call it, on principle.
As to propaganda and Fake News, and editorial sneering posing as News, we have first-hand acquaintance with that.
Living in the US, I don’t get much BBC. But long ago, I realized that National Public Radio didn’t like the likes of me. So I quit listening. Part of my tax money still goes to them; but they don’t come sniffing around my door with radio vans.
DuckyMcDuckface
You alright me duck? Would what you were looking for be Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990?:
My tip, Paul Marks does not lie, he has the same attitude to the truth as a typical 17th Century Quaker. That’s why I have never seen him eat a bowl of Quaker oaths.
To amplify Paul Marks’s observations about balance being mandatory: there’s a lot on impartiality in the OFCOM guidelines here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/24534/section5.pdf. The guidelines themselves are not statute law, but seem to be used to interpret and apply that law. Wouldn’t it be marvellous if the whole pile of repetitive guff could be binned?
NickM, you can study science for entertainment if you like, but politics is reality. It’s necessary to study it in order to understand what is being done to you, how it is being done, and to have at least a remote chance of fighting back.
Julie, for Christmas my wife got me a boxed set of the complete Yes Minister series DVDs (including Yes Prime Minister), so I no longer have to watch it on YouTube!
Mr Ed!
You’re doing it again. 👿
Terrible. Just terrible. *EE-e-e-ew-w-wwww!!* :>)))!!!
. . .
Laird,
Congratulations on having such a loyal and loving wife. They don’t come much better than that! (And you poor thing, all except two of the episodes on UT are ghastly to watch.)
Is there a prize for guessing which particular religion this refers to?