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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – It’s not a mystery why so many hate the BBC I can answer this simply. William Shakespeare doesn’t send me a monthly letter threatening to send the boys round if I don’t give him money for something I don’t want, don’t need and don’t use.
However, less flippantly, the BBC’s bias is blindingly obvious to anyone who takes even a passing look. The most egregious recent example being the Trump edit. But even before that, we have a flat refusal to engage with anyone who dares to disagree with the climate hysteria. Their COVID coverage was not only dire; it was blatantly untrue and hysterical. At no point did they do any journalism and question the inflated death figures coming out of Downing Street via Half-Whitty.
– Longrider
|
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.
|
BBC is a political organization. Its sole propose is politics
At no point did they do any journalism and question the inflated death figures coming out of Downing Street via Half-Whitty.
But why would you expect them to? They are paid by the government, or at least by means of the government, so they are the publishing arm of the state. He who pays the piper calls the tune, an although the British public send in their money, it is not their tune that is followed, it is the tune of the master who forcibly collects it all. And it is worth pointing out that it is not the politicians that call the tune, it is the civil service, that permanent part of the government that changes little with the vicissitudes of elections. They are the masters and the BBC is their voice.
The idea that we need a public, government funded broadcaster in a world where there are so many sources of information people feel like they are drowning, is just ridiculous. The only realistic explanation is that they want to have control of one of them, one made big and powerful by putting their hands in the pockets of people who they want to control.
The post that Longrider was commenting on was suggesting that the BBC is unpopular due to “Right Wing Bias”. Yes, I’m sure, that must be it.
About 30 years ago I used to have a good shortwave receiver at my bedside to listen to the foreign service of the BBC. I liked it for it’s objectiveness, news from all the world over, and shows like ‘Brain of Britain’. This all ceased to be. The device got ‘regionalized’, so you only got news from your own part of the world, and the there was the environment issue. You could never escape it, is was hammered into your head relentlessly. The problem is now solved – you can hardly catch a shortwave BBC transmission in Europe, it’s all China now.
Are you sure about that? wasn’t that for the BBC Fidel Castro was already a Cuban “Leader” and Augusto Pinochet was a Chilean “Dictator”
Palestinian terrorist attacks were classified as terrorism or as “explosions”, “firefights”?
I’ve argued before that the BBC is not particularly political but it is part of the Establishment. The Establishment used to be socially conservative but now that the Establishment has been captured by the social progressives its output reflects the Uniparty worldview (whether Labour, Conservative, or Liberal Democrats). Other worldviews are supressed or deliberately downplayed and the BBC doesn’t even realise the extent to which this happens. Fish are unaware of the water they swim in.
Hence my argument that we should defund the BBC.
DJ’s comment makes a lot of sense to me.
DJ,
Agreed. Also, a state broadcaster in the era of Amazon and Netflix is an incredible anachronism.
I have noted that the BBC (which doesn’t rely on adverts 😜) is increasingly advertising itself as some unique “Envy of the World” (much like the NHS). Well, if you’re really that great you don’t have to say it all the time do you? I think they are running scared. Good.
Sell it off. Should make a few quid because they do have some top-end IP. Sell it off and give the money to everyone with a TV license.
For the record the (also state-owned – sort-of) C4 ought to be sent to the knacker’s yard. Literally after “Naked Attraction”.
NickM,
I know some of their contestants are a tad on the equine side, but even so…
People have been complaining about obvious leftist BBC bias since at least 1963 – yet the obvious response, getting rid of the BBC Tax (“License Fee”) is never taken – instead there is absurd “reform”, appointing a new “Director General” or what-not – moves that will achieve nothing.
By the way – regulations (“Ofcom” but not just “Ofcom”) mean that most of commercial television is also leftist in the United Kingdom – with the exception of some of GB News.
In the United States the FCC bureaucracy has (since the 1930s) backed a handful of broadcasters – in modern (television came in after World War II) times ABC, CBS and NBC, giving then a stranglehold for their leftist propaganda (both news and “entertainment”) – Fox was never really a full answer to this. We will see what the Ellisons (father and son) who now own CBS and CNN will do.
CBS may be worth saving – I do not know.
But CNN is surely beyond saving – it needs to be closed.
Of course, a “Federal Judge” is holding up the sale of CNN (and so on) to the Ellisons.
According to Karl Marx judges serve capitalism, if only that was true.
NickM
Sell it off. Should make a few quid because they do have some top-end IP. Sell it off and give the money to everyone with a TV license.
IPO the whole thing. Forbes estimates it’d raise about $20 billion dollars which should pay off half the PSBR for this year. This number seems low to me, they surely have as much good IP as Netflix, which is valued at $300 billion, but who knows? Then, as a free market entity, it would be free to actually serve the public. It actually produces a lot of good and innovative programming. Freeing it up to do that as the market dictated would be amazing. The idea that adverstising is so terrible — I mean people are drowning in ads, and they could easily have a subscription service (one that doesn’t have the power to send plod over if you don’t subscribe) to skip ads.
The idea that these entities should be public companies is so ridiculous it is hard to believe some people advocate for it. Maggie really should have privatized it with British Telecom.
The BBC would be a much better source of entertainment if they did this. Will they? Of course not. The purpose of the BBC is not to entertain but to allow the establishment and the civil service in particular to manipulate the public discourse in their favour.
But the idea that they are great marketing and persuasion tools for a regime is quite easy to believe.
POSIWAD. The purpose of something is what it does. The BBC is a huge and valuable suasion tool.
Get rid of the BBC – it is not worth selling, and its staff are so leftist (it is institutionally leftist) that it would be madness for anyone to buy it
And get rid of “Ofcom” and the regulations – that make most of the commercial stations much the same as the BBC.
But the real problem is the education system – which has become a production line for leftists.
An IPO of the BBC is an excellent idea. In the meantime, the best way to defund it is to stop paying for it. Cancel your licence. It is easy and legal.
Lucklucky,
Yes, you are right, but that’s more a sign for how leftish everyone (including me) were at that time. I want to a German gymnasium in the 70s, where we pupils were leftish hippies while our teachers were pretty neutral, if not conservative. The cultural mainstream, directed at young people by the media, was left, so we held it for self-evident, and called us ‘critical thinkers’, another form of opportunism. In that light aunty BBC was objective – you should have listened to our media.
I haven’t watched BBC News or much contemporary TV of any sort for the past decade, perhaps longer. I do use bbc website for sports scores and weather. The BBC archive website is excellent. Perhaps without any such intention it is quite a radicalising source as you get to see a lot of the old Britain that has been taken away from us. Certainly had more of an impact on me than hearing whatever slop the likes of the Daily Mail/Telegraph, and GB News are going on about at any one time these days . So, perhaps one cheer for the BBC for its old content.
Unfortunately such content is now just on YouTube these days but it is somewhat outstanding that the BBC in the 1990s showed a documentary series on the Tory Party by the controversial MP Alan Clark (BBC also commissioned a decent serial based on Clark’s diaries after his death too). I suspect, if he was alive today, that GB News would find Clark too ‘far-right’ to have on.
Fraser,
I think valuing the BBC is incredibly difficult for obvious reasons. But the money should go direct to the public, not the government. I might use some of mine to get an HBO subscription… 😄
Fraser,
Absolutely not! The BT “privatisation” was a farce which left us with the likes of Openreach!
Close down the BBC – nuke it from orbit “it is the only way to be sure”.
And the commercial stations (with the partial exception of GB News) are just about as bad – thanks to “Ofcom” (the regulator) and the general culture produced by the education system.
Why do people here want the BBC to continue under different ownership? Just get-rid-of-it.
Still has millions of viewers, audience skewed towards over 50s. Over 50s vote disproportionately. Both the Tories and Reform rely heavily on over 50s to vote. Probably why they won’t get rid of the BBC anytime soon even if they don’t like the News coverage. Millions still watch stuff like Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing, Traitors, Call the Midwife etc
Does The Beeb still charge extra for colour?
Martin – although I do not know anyone who likes the BBC (and I am older than sin – and twice as ugly), you may be correct.
Of the top 10 most watched non-sports TV programmes in the UK last year, 5 were on BBC, 2 from ITV, 1 C4, 1 Netflix, 1 Prime. Maybe few people say they like the BBC but many are clearly watching and in greater numbers than the alternatives.
I also note that the supposedly centre right media like the Daily Mail and Telegraph will complain about BBC news coverage and TV licencing yet then effectively provide huge amounts of publicity to the BBC by running endless stories about BBC programmes like Traitors and Strictly Come Dancing and gossip about the celebs involved.
Martin – yes Sir, it is a grim situation indeed.