BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro

Subject: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Jim Martin
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 10:09 AM

"How the badly maimed BBC can stand up to parasitic Sky:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/02/maimed-bbc-parasitic-sky?INTCMP=SRCH

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:37 AM

Isn't life strange?

Fully agree with the thrust of the article in that the BBC is a heritage we can be proud of and vindication that entertainment isn't something to do with the lowest common denominator.

If really pushed, I would add that the lack of adverts helps me enjoy BBC over and above other channels.

In fact, my disdain of adverts, as much as I appreciate the need for programs to be paid for somehow, led me to find a system of watching any channel sans adverts.

i found the perfect system.

It's err... Sky+

Oh bugger. the dirty digger gets my money (again.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 02:43 AM

Martin is right. Murdoch is a menace to democracy and civilisation ans we have already seen what he does to newspaper integrity. No way will I ever contribute a ha'penny to any venture of his.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Sam Hudson
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 03:12 AM

When someone is successful in business there will always be those who will attempt to discredit them, usually it comes from someone who is a failure. It is called jealousy. It is very unlikely Mr.Murdoch will lose much sleep over such comments.

It reminds me of someone filled with deep bitterness over the loss of a loved one, their first reaction is to say they died as a result of incompetence by the NHS instead of facing the facts.

Celebrate success, don't knock it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 04:30 AM

I fully agree with Sam, but would put the caveat that success doesn't mean at the expense of.

Sky's intent was to get the unique status of The BBC removed, making it work at the same level as commercial operators.

Hence the ratings success of The BBC is to be celebrated if you value quality broadcasting that does not have to dumb down to the mindless drivel that is favoured by advertisers, who just want TV to be wallpaper, getting their message about their carpet emporiums through to people subliminally.

it would appear to be a well proven fact that if your mind is active, messages from advertisers don't sink in as well as when you are half comatose..

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: melodeonboy
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 04:41 AM

It appears to be common practice on a number of Mudcat threads to write off any criticism of popular or financially successful musicians/businessmen etc. by categorising such criticism as "jealousy", without giving it due consideration or respect. How cheap!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Sam Hudson
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 04:52 AM

Jealousy comes into play by being cynical about other people's wealth and success. It is the true failure who assumes all wealthy people are crooks or had to cheat to achieve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 05:31 AM

Clearly Sam does not understand how pay TV works. Pay-to-carry only comes into play in commercial reality when audience numbers drive revenues for the carried channel. In other cases the carrier pays for the content. So if Sam has read the article, the charge that the carriage payments made by the BBC to Sky are onerous and unfair is in fact sound.

There are wealthy men of personal integrity. A good example is Dickie Attenborough. Another was Sir John Woolf who took great pride in ensuring that the talent contracts of Anglia TV were fair. Then there are others.

Perhaps Sam would like to reveal his or her true personal identity so we can judge what success he or she has had, and whether he or she has lost say a husband or wife to medical killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: banjoman
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 06:04 AM

Well said Richard. Its high time a few more eyes were opened as to the continual stream of biased content that come from the likes of Sky. I did compare the reporting of the Phone Hacking enquiry between the BBC and Sky and there was no doubt in my mind that someone somewhere was pulling on the reigns of the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

Banjoman makes a good point, but media is media. At the delivery end of things, BBC claim to be objective and so does Sky.

be careful to ensure that your perceived difference is that you agree with one and not the other. That may be convenient, but not always objective.

That said, Sky news is rather piss poor, regardless of what view they are trying to impose on you. The BBC I think genuinely does try to be impartial, although regional BBC news can try to be sensationalist at times...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 08:14 AM

My perception of the BBC is that it has a leftish bias. This certainly true of many of the guests on comedy programmes. Mind you it does seem to be de riguer for all comics to be lefties. However it's not a matter of such great concern as the overwhelmingly right wing attitudes of Murdoch and his minions. Fox news, from the little I've seen of it, is scary, and we don't want none of that there 'ere.
I'm not a fan of Polly Toynbee's, but in that article she seems to have struck pure gold.
Mind you, I think the BBC has gone OTT with the amount of content it now has on the internet. It seems a bit futile to insist on us all paying a TV licence, then making content freely available on line, to all and sundry. In the UK that is, I know a lot of the content is not available abroad. However they could possibly save themselves some money by cutting down their internet presence a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 08:47 AM

Surely there comes a point where the acquisition or the pursuit of power becomes a fault. I think its fair enough for anyone to want to own newspapers. But with that desire to own a newspaper must come s sense of responsibility - social responsibility.

When people like Tony Blair and David Cameron feel they cannot get elected without striking a deal with Murdoch and his like, something has gone wrong.

The politicians and the press barons are in each others pockets. We cannot rely on the politicians to rule us fairly, or the newspapers to report and comment in a fair and responsible masnner.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 08:53 AM

Perhaps we could insist Murdoch becomes a UK citizen before he can own UK media outlets? That requirement is after all, why he's now a US citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 09:32 AM

There used to be all sorts of regulations about media ownership. Guess who dismantled them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 09:50 AM

The EEC?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 09:55 AM

It looks like Sky in the UK has a cognate here in the US: FOX. Both owned or largely owned and managed by Rupert Murdoch and both aiming at the lowest common denominator. Truth or investigative reporting need not be part of their news programs.

If you have a way to set him back on his heels, more power to you. A long time ago he stopped being about "media" and being a publisher. Now he's a corrupt investor, plain and simple.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:20 AM

Wrong, Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:24 AM

The likes of Murdoch do test your sense of fair play somewhat.

I believe in the right to do well out of supplying goods or services, and feel there can be a sense of serendipity in that. Sam Hudson pointed out that this can lead to jealousy by others and in that, I agree with him, as I pointed out above. (I can't agree about his NHS stance in all cases, though. There are many reasons why people will feel let down by the system and that can include having good cause.)

Press barons, like leaders of religious bodies, realise they can have a huge effect on the lives of others and the shaping of tomorrow's society, and that can make you giddy with power. Murdoch has that, and so do / did many others. The role of his companies in fairly disgraceful repugnant actions in order to get "stories" on the basis that if people didn't wish to read it, they wouldn't do it, just doesn't wash.

That said, I do have a Sky dish and only last week signed to get my broadband with them too, on the basis of unlimited download and a promised speed that due to new equipment in the local exchange, should be faster than what I have at present. (A bit slow out here in the sticks..) I don't feel guilty about that though, and as Mr Bridge pointed out that some wealthy men can have integrity, they will only have become wealthy by occasionally putting pragmatism before principle. For many people posting on Mudcat, the term wealthy men of integrity sounds like an oxymoron. My principle for instance (not that I am a wealthy man..) would be not to give Murdoch a penny, but Sky + and a decent broadband are key components to my everyday comfort.

(I used to have some shares in BSkyB too that I got as a job lot in a portfolio. Managed to offload them at a profit so some of Murdoch' wealth has recently seen its way to the till behind the bar of my local.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:29 AM

Well we can only hope that now the Tories have lost their craven fear of Murdoch, they may drop their plans to liberalise UK media ownership. After all to be seen standing up to him, may win them votes :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Sam Hudson
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:15 AM

In reply to that post of 05 Jan 12 - 05:31 AM there is no such thing as "medical killing" in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 01:45 PM

Perhaps 'killing' is too strong a word, Sam, but I for one believe that many deaths in hospital could be attributed to negligence, bad management, incompetence and poor-quality professional 'care'. I bet the Hospital Managers would just love people to 'face the facts' (ie accept the death of their loved ones meekly). However, I hope they DON'T!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 03:52 PM

Don't be stupid, Sam, any more than you can help. Of course people get killed by medical action or inaction. Presumably you know about the DNR notes that appear in medical notes. Presumably you don't think that the medical profession is infallible. If you mean there is no such crime on the statute book, say so.

Oh, and by the way, why not stop hiding who you are or where you live?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Sam Hudson
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 06:34 PM

The other two were Patterson and Dipper as I recall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM

You certainly wouldn't have thought the BBC had a leftish bias in the miners strike. If anything - it had a London bias. There was a widespread view on both sides of the dispute that they didn't understand or care to understand what was being discussed. Certainly they didn't seem to grasp what what both sides were saing - it was just reported like a game of cowboys and indians out in the sticks.

Similarly - all my left wing friends told me that Blair was lying about WMD's being Iraq. I didn't believe them - it seemed to me that someone who cared about his immortal soul wouldn't start a war for base reasons.

The trouble was that the Tories were lying from the same agenda. And as the press was either Blair, or Tory supporters - no one was putting it on the front page that we were being lied to - and the BBC and Sky News certainly weren't letting on.

Sometimes you need a free and conscientious press, and I think these two cases prove the English press is neither.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 03:50 AM

I'm at a loss as to why my (now defunct) trio has been brought into this discussion...Any Clues?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 03:54 AM

What on earth has Patterson,Jordan,Dipper got to with this topic? Mind you, like many others I wouldn't have any dealings with those oily scumbags the murdochs in anyway,shape or form.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,jonesnudger
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:29 AM

The BBC is an example of a "public" body on the verge of devouring itself. It (very subjective this) broadcasts too much mindless drivel and the number of "news correspondents" it employs beggars belief. It needs reigning in and to concentrate more on quality not the lowest common denominator.Thank goodness it took the phone hacking disgrace to slow down the Murdoch menace.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 06:56 AM

Would still like to know why my Late musical Trio has been named in this thread...Any Clues?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 12:29 PM

Eliza, I have met with every single NHS Chief Executive in England over the last few years, in both past and present roles. As an ex chairman, I have appointed a couple too. My present role includes spending time on wards, in clinics and with front line staff, both where care is good and where care is not to the standard people should expect.

I have yet to meet one who would be happy to have people face facts meekly. Their role is to try and run high quality healthcare and learning from events is part of that.

Sorry, but I can't just ignore such a sweeping statement from someone whose posts are normally thoughtful and objective.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Jim Martin
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 09:22 AM

Sky replies + other correspondence in The Guardian on the subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/05/sky-bbc-free-sport?INTCMP=SRCH

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:40 AM

Glad to see the Dirty Digger is getting the p0stings he deserves. A semi-humourous thread I started about a 'worse person in history' list in a book where Nixon made it to the top for one year and where I wondered would Murdoch ever make it, was quickly and firmly shot down. I was begining to wonder what else Murdoch owned.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Jim Martin
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 08:18 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 08:55 AM

Big Al, at the start of the Gulf War, there was no reason not to believe in WMD.
Sadaam encouraged the belief.
Later, the BBC took on the Blair government over it in a big way.
Remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour must help BBC recoup millions fro
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 06:01 PM

at the start of the Gulf War, there was no reason not to believe in WMD.
Sadaam encouraged the belief.

That seems to imply that if Saddam encouraged people to believe he had WMDs, that was a reason to believe he had them.

And presumably of course, if he discouraged the belief that he had them, that would also count as a reason to believe he had them...