Reform or Abolish the BBC

I suppose in the absence of knowledge name-calling is the only option left.

Cop in and I'll join you, cop out and I'll point it out. I don't blame you, I want to help you.

Help is best directed to the needy.

Not always, sometimes to the greedy.

Yangonite: I actually agree with you that BBC4 is one of the better channels (although interestingly much of its content now seems under threat); if something like BBC4 was set up as a separate entity I might even consider paying a subscription IF - and only IF - it was voluntary. However, it is quite inexcusable for me or you to decide that just because WE like it everybody else should pay. And, whilst not wishing to be snobbish about "popular" entertainment which constitutes the bulk of BBC output, I see no reason whatsoever for this to be paid for by the licence fee.

HI

My point was the LF is not about watching the BBC, its about watching any "Live Feed" television, that is why I thought you point was a mistaken one

aps

COMbbc4 has a different type of vapid, melodramatic list and clip show than COMbbc 1, 2 and 3. Compare its thin gruel with a proper docu like The Great War, instead of contrasting it with contemporary phlegm and its turdishness is obvious.

Hi Sou'Wester

It could be that the only way of funding BBC4 in a viable way is through the LF. If it were subscription only I doubt the revenue would cover the cost of making the progs.

Not liking the same TV that the masses enjoy could be construed as being snobbish. However, I would say it is more a matter of taste and of freedom of choice. That sort of TV just does nothing for me - never has, never will. It would be stupid of me to pretend it did. I have zero empathy with something like 'Strictly' - I know millions do, and that is fine - but I don't.

Back to my first paragraph, and it raises the question is it fair of me to expect the rest of the TV watching nation to fund something that is more of interest to me than to the average person.

Well, as I said in a previous post part of Statehood is that the Individual is required to contribute toward things they object to, so I guess BBC4 is just another of these. Also, it is an avoidable tax levied only on TV owners, so if Joe Average really doesn't want to pay for it he doesn't have to - doesn't seem that unfair to me.

For the Individual to say - I want to watch TV, I don't want to pay for any BBC progs although I still want to watch Eastenders, etc. - seems far more selfish than my stance.

Hi AP Suri

I think we are both arguing about slightly different things. I was suggesting an hypothetical case and then commenting on that.

I would imagine that for the licensing authorities to bring a successful case against an individual someone viewing live feed through a device other than a TV (a computer, say) would be very difficult.

If TradBBC still existed I would agree but we have the worst of both worlds - a poll-tax on telly ownership and lousy programmes that would make ITV blush. It's not a matter of snobbery it's a matter of justice. Can you imagine the BBC of 1979 doing a travesty like Death in the Med?

The directions of the channels has changed - all the good stuff has migrated from BBC2 to BBC4.

BBC4 is far better than 2 ever was. For one thing, just look at the length of the progs - usually an hour on BBC4 - BBC2 of your 1979 had zero progs more than 40 mins length.

Consider last night for instance, there was a prog in that African history series about the islamic empires based on modern day Morocco. It was hugely informative, visually great to look at with all the desert and mountain scenery, gave interesting insights into the Moroccan people of today (i.e. how 'frenchified' they were, how islamic they were), was easy to understand and assimilate the knowledge. The only negative comment I could make is that the presenter was slightly irritating - but that is only my personal view, and that some things were glossed over without explanation - but then there are time constarints.

On Sunday night there was another prog in the Last Explorers series presented by Neil Oliver. That was similarly extremely informative giving an explanation of how Japan opened up to the West and the part played by one of Oliver's fellow nationals

After both of these progs I can say I am knowledge-enriched regarding these two areas of History.
I accept that criticisms could be levelled at the progs, as at anything, but to me as a 'first-port of call' these were extremely worthwhile and enjoyable.

These are both examples of History offerings on 4. My view is that the Science progs are even better. Recent ones worthy of mention are the astronomy/cosmology 'specials' partly presented by Prof. Brian Cox, the Botany series, all the geology ones presented by that zero risk-averse Scots guy (name?), Sky at Night, the Horizon prog on Psychopaths.

So there Mr. Crosby - that is substantiation of my stance on BBC4.
Maybe you would care to offer similar substantiating argument for your negative stance.

I appreciate that as you do not own a TV and only get to see BBC4 as you are passing through friends' houses this may be difficult.

Though vehemently opposed to the licence fee, I would accept the case for some public funding for artistic/cultural activity that cannot flourish in a purely commercial environment. An obvious example is activity supported by the Arts Council; yes, some of their decisions can seem strange and controversial at times, but I think something on these lines is a much better way of financing diversity on television than the blank cheque handed to the Beeb. I would therefore be in favour of perhaps of having one channel, supported by some kind of public funding other than the licence fee, which has a very strict remit to produce quality programming of a type that commercial TV wouldn't consider viable. Alternatively, commercial TV could apply for funding to produce such programmes (and let us not forget that at one time commercial TV did put out some outstanding material). What I do not accept is that, at a time when many excellent and valid areas of artistic and cultural activity are struggling to survive because of cuts in financing, public money is wasted on the BBC, the bulk of whose output is indistinguishable from that of commericial TV.

My "stance" isn't negative, I want quality telly not the thin gruel you described. The African history series is a travelogue; where's the analysis, synthesis and evaluation? 40 minutes of quality beats an hour of coffee-table gossip. The science stuff is equally dire - bimbo presenter wiggling his hips like a cut-price Elvis, travelogue and colouring-book pictures. No ambition, no depth and no requirement to look listen and think; this is ITV circa 1986. Psychopaths? Didn't see it because I can't bear to watch rubbish hiding under the looted title of a formerly great science documentary series. I bet you a pint of Guinness that no-one on the programme said that psychopathology was a myth which borrowed the antisemitic tropes of the nazi party to scapegoat some people, regardless of the similarity of their behaviour to 'respectables'. Harold Shipman psychonutter, Bliar pillar of the community....

There is nothing in that post I can really find to argue against.

For the time being at least we are stuck with the LF, whether we approve of it or not.
Often it is better to stick with something which is perceived to be imperfect rather than replacing it with an 'improvement' which could conceivably be something far worse than that it replaces. There is also all the hassle of the transition from the one system to the other.

Mrs. Jones

If the Berber thing could be described as a 'travelogue' then so be it - it was most informative. How much did you manage to assimilate from it?

Your wild speculations about what the Horizon prog was like are mostly diametrically opposed to its actual content, I'm afraid.
One portion of the prog did in fact deal with 'respectable psychopaths' and their niche in our society.
Also, I think you may find that the word is "psychopathy" rather than "psychopathology".

If you focussed more on Brian Cox's words rather than what his hips were doing you may learn something.

A travelogue is not history. So the Horizon didn't address the bogusness of the concept of psychopathology (the English term) but only questioned it within acceptance of it as a fact, rather than a fantasy in the ignoble tradition of guilt by association.

Brian Cox's words? "Blah, blah and blah"? Where are the docos with the calibre of Copenhagen?

PS Mrs Jones was me on The Babe's laptop. ;O)

Now I think about it, it wasn't a 'travelogue' - Ripley's Cat is in error. A prog that deals at length and mainly with the Almoravid and Almohad (sp?) Dynasties can hardly be described as a travelogue.

"psychopathology" is the study of psychopathy. So the usage of the word in the previous post was an error - do you agree? if not, please justify?

The role of TV progs is not to present conflicting arguments concerning academically debated topics. Horizon assumed one argument to be the correct interpretation of the phenomena and worked within that frame to present findings of researchers, which thus yielded a fascinating narrative.
It's a shame you didn't see it.

Your assessment of Prof. BC's words is obviously at odds with that of his professional peers, otherwise how did he get to put 'Prof.' at the beginning of his name. I'm guessing you are not a Physics Professor, btw.

Mrs. Jones' observation of BC's hip movements was excusable, if irrelevant, but now you tell me it was actually you - OK.

"The role of TV progs is not to present conflicting arguments concerning academically debated topics.". Really? Someone ought to tell COMbbc. A fascinating narative it may have been, as scientifically credible as Der Ewige Jude it cetainly was.

" Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities."

"Prof"? This is England and it's 2012! Academic excellence is a rarity and not to be assumed by labels - like "Horizon" formely a creditably informative programme, now a soap opera.

The best thing I learned at college (no PhD alas) was to compare what's seen with what's said. I suggest you try it. I predict that you'll find that you have been defending the idea of good telly rather than the fact of it.

I wouldn't dismiss The Babe quite so glibly....

If only you could supply some valid substantiation for your arguments we might have an interesting discussion.

However, your stance of extreme and entrenched negativity, without convincing arguments in support, does nothing to move the debate on.

There is nothing of credibility in your last post whatsoever. Take your decrying of the honorific of 'Professor'. What do you really know about the state of academic physics today?

Your entrenched views cloud your objectivity - a man of opinions rather than facts.

The sort of man who makes an assertion and when challenged, simply repeats the assertion, but in a louder voice as if repetition will thus stifle debate.

Debate, of course is dangerous, as this will undermine the assertion - if the assertion falls so does the man.

EDIT - apologies to the glib dismissal of The Babe - but if you will play the fourteen year old regarding your Amazon identity, then what do you expect?

I quote the COMbbc charter and you complain about a lack of objectivity? I offer you a constructive alternative to blind loyalty and you call me repetitive?

Physician, heal thyself.

PS The Babe is a little older than 14 and so am I. I told you i put one message on using her laptop without noticing that it went on in her name.

You like COMbbc 4 for what it is and I don't because it flatters to deceive. The content belies the form but that's a con that even TradBBC played, just not as cynically.

The BBC can and should be criticised, but abolished? I think not. That would only open the door for Murdoch and Fox 'News'.

A good point except that BBC has been abolished, all that's left is COMbbc a commercial simulacrum.

[Deleted by the author on 16 Feb 2012 20:56:05 GMT]

I guess just about everything can be criticised on some point.

The larger an organisation is the more potential there is for criticism.

The BBC is very large.

and now for somwething completly different, well not actually but rather a humrous look at the licence fee
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cd/m/Fx1V2D87UIY3H5Z/-/Tx2GNA72YESIL1S/11/Mx24FBABHPXSN7A