Quote Frisonic:

---

But they do have certain, recently revealed cultural issues concerning hierarchy, 'star' culture and 'follow my leader into a melt down' (in the end the Fushima inquiry highlighted that).

---

It's 'Fukushima' BTW ('windy island' I think). Whatever...

Those nuclear power plants were several decades old using old technology (which had never caused a problem before) and (granted) they weren't ideally placed perhaps in the event of an overwhelming tsunami such as they experienced that fateful day and weren't equipped to deal with it all. Easy to say/criticise from your armchair in hindsight.

And like everything, Japanese society isn't perfect either although it's not a bad model... little or no crime and so on and an inherent sense of safety and honesty (*).

And I am not not sure these are "recently revealed cultural issues concerning hierarchy" such as you claim. They are well known and have been for some time. In fact, much off Japanese culture is (and always has been) based on "hierarchy". It's in their genes. The language even allows for this with different ways of talking to people and the use of honorifics within the language. It's complex and subtle and can be used sarcastically and for other purposes and to subtly disrespect others. They play power games with this .... depending on circumstances. And it has to be carefully played with not much margin for error for 外人 ('gaijin' or, more literally 'outside person').

(*) I went there once with Chris Huggett, he of Wasp, OSCar, Novation and Akai S-series OS fame. We travelled together, polished off a half-bottle of duty-free whisky on the 12 hour flight and at a time when you could smoke on an airplane. Happy days. Whatever...

He took with him a newly purchased video camera so he could show his missus a day in the life in Japan. The dopey minded daft bastard left it on the coach from Narita airport to Tokyo.

We got to the office, were welcomed, were sat down by our hosts, given green tea and Chris moaned about how he was daft enough to leave his camera on the coach.

Mr Hokkyo made a few phone calls and within no time at all, someone from the coach company was round with Chris's camera - it'd been handed in either by a fellow passenger or some employee of the company.

That's the level of decency and honesty you're dealing with in Japan ...

In much the same way as 10 year olds can take the amazingly precise trains, so damned precise you can set your watch by them (and clean enough to eat your breakfast off the floor), any time of the day and wander down the back alleys even at night time on the way home without any fear or trouble!

We could learn a lot from them

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

> But people pay income tax to pay for, for example, schools and child benefit when they have no children of their own. That must be a real kick in the nuts for single individuals or those who can't have or choose not to have children to be paying for their neighbours' sprogs and their education, etc.. Most here pay tax and contribute towards an (illegal) war we disapprove of or dish out foreign aid to countries whose regimes we don't agree with where the aid gets lost in armour plated Mercedes for the regime's leaders. I pay tax which goes towards the NHS and I haven't used it in several decades apart from two minor A&E incidents.

Yep, amen to all of the above. My wife has had two operations, umpteen visits to a consultant and pain specialist and is on (and may remain on) medication which costs around £300 a month. This is only possible because others pay into it.

Thing with the BBC is that like the NHS, it would probably collapse if people could opt out and this wouldn't be good for anyone.

Quote Frisonic:

---

I do not begrudge the tax I pay to contribute to health, education, law enforcement, central or local government et al.... I recognise that I benefit from the general societal uplift these spendings bring.

---

And exactly the same is true for the BBC Licence. With it it historically we wouldn't have independent TV at all, and certainly none of the current technologies they rely upon.

The licence fee paid for the vast majority of the trained staff that independent Tv relies upon. Sky, the ITV stations and most independents are stuffed full of people who were trained by the BBC funded from the licence fee. Similarly a lot of the technologies used in TV were pioneered or developed by the BBC R&D department (now closed). Almost the entire terrestrial transmission network was built by the BBC and then sold off at a pittance to private companies.

Essentially, anyone and everyone that watches any TV at all, on any channel, has benefitted directly or indirectly from the licence fee, and continues to do so.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote hollowsun:

---

You want get steamed up about something? You pay £1.25 (+/-) for a litre of milk, The dairy producers who bring you this milk get as little 10 or 15p and many dairy producers are are on the bone of their arse and struggling (I know some). The rest is sheer profit for the übermarkets and their shareholders. That (IMO) is more criminal than the Beeb's licence fee.

---

Hhear hear! Dairy farmer at the bottom of my village struggling because of it. I was talking to another local farmer last year who was complaining that he'd had to plough in a crop field because the Tesco buyer had suddenly decided the crop wasn't to Tesco's size requirements -- nothing wrong with any of it, just not big enough. He couldn't find another buyer in time before the crop was lost so lost thousands on that. The Ubermarkets are destroying the farming in this country.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote hollowsun:

---

You pay £1.25 (+/-) for a litre of milk, The dairy producers who bring you this milk get as little 10 or 15p and many dairy producers are are on the bone of their arse and struggling (I know some). The rest is sheer profit for the übermarkets and their shareholders. That (IMO) is more criminal than the Beeb's licence fee.

---

Its appalling how dairy farmers get stitched up. You might have mentioned the suicide rate in farming generally and dairy farming in particular. The cartels screw them from one side, the bureaucracy courtesy of Defra screws them from the other. But its a different debate. The problems with the BBC go a lot deeper than just the licence fee. The biggest problem is how it distorts competition in media. The licence fee is only a part of that problem.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote hollowsun:

---

You pay £1.25 (+/-) for a litre of milk, The dairy producers who bring you this milk get as little 10 or 15p and many dairy producers are are on the bone of their arse and struggling (I know some). The rest is sheer profit for the übermarkets and their shareholders. That (IMO) is more criminal than the Beeb's licence fee.

---

Its appalling how dairy farmers get stitched up. You might have mentioned the suicide rate in farming generally and dairy farming in particular. The cartels screw them from one side, the bureaucracy courtesy of Defra screws them from the other. But its a different debate. The problems with the BBC go a lot deeper than just the licence fee. The biggest problem is how it distorts competition in media. The licence fee is only a part of that problem.

---

Could I just mention that B Sky B distort competition in the media also, you seem to be fighting shy of that issue?

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote Frisonic:

---

The biggest problem is how it distorts competition in media.

---

This argument was the axe that Thatcher used in the eighties. Sky milked the 'unfair monopoly' card and drove a horse and cart over british broadcasting norms. It was as difficult then as it is now for the BBC to defend itself from republican notions of free market. I think that was the watershed moment for the Beeb. It has been on the back heel ever since.

Edited by Airfix (31/07/12 11:31 AM)

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

But they do have certain, recently revealed cultural issues concerning hierarchy, 'star' culture and 'follow my leader into a melt down' (in the end the Fushima inquiry highlighted that).

---

It's 'Fukushima' BTW ('windy island' I think). Whatever...

Those nuclear power plants were several decades old using old technology (which had never caused a problem before) and (granted) they weren't ideally placed perhaps in the event of an overwhelming tsunami such as they experienced that fateful day and weren't equipped to deal with it all. Easy to say/criticise from your armchair in hindsight.

And like everything, Japanese society isn't perfect either although it's not a bad model... little or no crime and so on and an inherent sense of safety and honesty (*).

And I am not not sure these are "recently revealed cultural issues concerning hierarchy" such as you claim. They are well known and have been for some time. In fact, much off Japanese culture is (and always has been) based on "hierarchy". It's in their genes. The language even allows for this with different ways of talking to people and the use of honorifics within the language. It's complex and subtle and can be used sarcastically and for other purposes and to subtly disrespect others. They play power games with this .... depending on circumstances. And it has to be carefully played with not much margin for error for 外人 ('gaijin' or, more literally 'outside person').

---

I think what was new about the Fukushima (thanks for the correction!) inquiry was that the cultural problems were officially highlighted as never before, with apologies for the human failings coming from the highest level (the ex PM). Which you know was a big thing and I'm sure millions in Japan applauded the acknowledgement. There was also the recent Olympus scandal, which was obviously not as serious but highlighted similar issues. Japan is currently facing up to what amounts to a cultural dichotomy (more women in senior roles would go a long way to fixing it IMO). In the case of Fukushima it was the over chummy relationship between the regulators in Tokyo and the managers at the power station itself that was cited as a principal villain. In Japan people are not just frightened but terrified to challenge their boss. Corners were being cut but it went unchecked. Yes it was an old design but as you say, it had been safe for decades. What went wrong was how it was being run. The tsunami found it out. A friend who works at the IEA gave me the skinny on this back in April. They were watching closely and knew what had happened, but didn't break the story because they also knew the Japanese were going to do it themselves, in the inquiry. Which was brave of them (the Japanese). Well, maybe the IEA would have blown the whistle had they not. But anyway, his words, as an expert in that field: There's no such thing as bad technology, only bad management. I did worry that sounded a bit black and white but he assures me it always turns out that way when they investigate these things.

BTW I think there is much about Japan that makes it a truly great country. And its often a useful comparison the the UK because both are island nations, have a not dissimilar sized population and GDP.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

The biggest problem is how it distorts competition in media.

---

This argument was the axe that Thatcher used in the eighties. Sky milked the 'unfair monopoly' card and drove a horse and cart over british broadcasting norms. It was as difficult then as it is now for the BBC to defend itself from republican notions of free market. I think that was the watershed moment for the Beeb. It has been on the back heel ever since.

---

Its still way bigger than anybody else though! There's actually a very good discussion about the rights and wrongs of competition to be had in the side discussion about how farmers get screwed by over powerful supermarket buyers. Who is the villain: Is it the supermarkets and their shareholders? Is it their customers who continue to support the 'Tesco' model because they are more concerned about cheap food than the economic health of the countryside? Is it the government for not intervening with the market by trying to set a 'fair' price? Big subject and I certainly do not claim to have a monopoly on the wisdom. But its relevant to the BBC debate and possibly helpful as a 'for example' in what is going to be a passionately fought, very public row (about what happens post current BBC charter). A very wise man once told me "there are no saints in competition - only sinners".

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote GlynB:

---

The BBC might not be perfect, but it's a damned sight better than allowing megalomaniacs like Murdoch to have total control of the media...which is the only likely alternative.

---

I see it as exactly the same actually, except the BBC are probably slightly more megalomanic, and have a greater share of voice (by market share) which I suspect is why more people are seduced into their propaganda than Murdoch's. Even highly intelligent people. Murdoch and his people versus the BBC's hand picked Board of Governors, the pervading culture that exists within its senior executive and the political will of those who pull its strings behind the scenes (since it was humbled by Huton). What's the difference? Exactly the same as any other media empire. To me, in the UK Murdoch is the antidote to the BBC, not the other way around! Anyway I've said all I want to say about that for now. Nothing anybody else has said has caused me to reconsider my view. Except Hugh's comment that the licence fee funds more than just the BBC. That's fair and I'd like to know more about what percentage of it goes to modern broadcasting infrastructure. Then I would know how much money the public purse would need to commit when taking up the slack when we abolish it altogether, as I would prefer!

To return to the opening post, Grace Jones's performance at the Jubilee concert in June deserves to go down as one of the great performances of the decade. End of.

---

In any society 'big media' is going to be controlled by someone, how else would it function? I'd prefer it to be done by an oligarchy than a dictator. The very fact that the BBC exists and is powerful places some (IMO valuable) constraints on the privately owned media run by the likes of Murdoch for his own aims... and at least the BEEB doesn't have those bloody ADVERTS in the middle of progs which drive me potty!

I realise I'm a dying breed of BEEB fans, young folk only ever seem to begrudge the licence fee, the future is online ans subscription based I suppose, but personally I think much will be lost to the UK if the BBC does not exist, it allows us to punch above our weight.

--------------------

Quote Frisonic:

---

And its often a useful comparison the the UK because both are island nations, have a not dissimilar sized population and GDP.

---

An american might see the symmetry - Albion to the east and Nippon to the west - and USAF bases in both. How neat and convenient the post war world is - if your an american.

Quote Frisonic:

---

Its still way bigger than anybody else though!

---

It was certainly true once, but I'm not so sure that is still the case. Sky employs far more sound crew at its broadcast centre than are employed at TV centre (pre-manchester -- it's a ghost town in there now!) -- and I know that first hand because I've trained both! I strongly suspect the same is true for other technical roles and in-house production staff.

The independent UK TV production companies total more staff than the Beeb. And if you compare the national and regional BBC TV sites with the same national and regional independent TV sites I think the numbers are broadly similar.

And if there is any market skewing going on it is from Sky who rake in so much money from its viewers that they can afford to totally distort the going rates for sports coverage, pricing the Beeb out of the market and preventing the Beeb from covering most of the footie, cricket, F1 and so on and so on. The same is increasingly true for many cultural events too, including opera and rock festivals.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote GlynB:

---

I realise I'm a dying breed of BEEB fans,

---

I don't think you are Glyn! There's huge affection for the BBC. I suspect that after the debate has been had and the civil service goes off to massage the results into what they deem acceptable, the new charter won't end up being that different from the current one. I just think that would be a missed opportunity.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

And if there is any market skewing going on it is from Sky who rake in so much money from its viewers that they can afford to totally distort the going rates for sports coverage, pricing the Beeb out of the market and preventing the Beeb from covering most of the footie, cricket, F1 and so on and so on. The same is increasingly true for many cultural events too, including opera and rock festivals.

hugh

---

The sport thing is certainly true. I agree. Although to be fair to Sky they do seem to cover a larger variety of sport than the BBC seemed to when it had the whip hand in that area. So they do it well. Perhaps that's really a reflection of how sport in the UK has developed. As for the cultural stuff I'm going to be subjective for a change, rather than objective, and say I'm enjoying the competition between BBC Four and Sky Arts because between them I'm seeing a lot of great content. Jazz, folk and country music have all benefited. Although when it comes to classical music nothing in the UK comes close to Radio 3.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

I have a television licence. I have never said this was a financial hardship. I do say I resent that I have to buy one even to view independent broadcasters. I have likened that situation to a protection racket. That's how strongly I feel about it.

---

Either you don't understand what a protection racket is or you are being ridiculously hyperbolic.

Quote:

---

... you charge me with being elitist. Yet you assume the moral high ground! What's that all about???

---

Its about making statements like "For me, this debate needs to be had at a higher level than that." and boasting of a superior IQ to everyone else here. That's elitist and arrogant.

Quote johnny h:

---

... you charge me with being elitist. Yet you assume the moral high ground! What's that all about???

---

Its about making statements like "For me, this debate needs to be had at a higher level than that." and boasting of a superior IQ to everyone else here. That's elitist and arrogant.

---

I don't think so. I haven't said what it is and I don't know what everybody else's is. Anyway that only came up because Hugh implied that my IQ might be bellow average because I wasn't seeing the BBC thing the same way as everybody else. So I defended myself and qualified my defense with the story about being psychometrically assessed because I had been! Most people I tell that to are more interested in what its like to find out you had blocked a memory for 40 years. I just assume this is an intelligent forum and I'm debating amongst my peers. Incidentally I have noticed that since I made that admittedly bitchy remark about the quality of the debate it has ratcheted up a notch or two. People in these forums do debate things at a sophisticated level. That's one of the main reasons I come here.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Hugh implied that my IQ might be bellow average because I wasn't seeing the BBC thing the same way as everybody else.

---

Er... that wasn't what I was implying at all and I'm horrified that you took it that way. I didn't mean to suggest or imply anything about your personal intelligence, and I'm sorry if I inadvertantly caused offence in that way.

What I was trying to say was that all sensible people who saw and heard what Clarkson said in context within that 'interview' would absolutely have perceived it as very much a tongue-in-cheek statement designed to be deliberately provocative in a humourous way -- the way which we all associate with Clarkson's style of wit.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Hugh, that was a neat side step between 'intelligent' and 'sensible'. Which I would agree are not the same thing!!! No offense taken.



But I do like to think that in at least my more lucid moments I am capable of being sensible and I did not take those comments the way you did. Like I rather inelegantly said last night, I am hoping for a high quality debate about where the BBC, given that the status quo is probably not an option, should be going. The kind of debate the BBC itself cannot hold, for obvious reasons. And the kind that its competitors can't be trusted to host either, for equally obvious reasons. I'm learning from this thread. Clarkson is a side show.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote hollowsun:

---

We could learn a lot from them

---

Too true. That story reminds me when we went to Tokyo and we went to eat at a McDonalds (my 4 year old's choice, not mine!!!). Anyway, the wife went to the counter to order and I sat down at our table. I noticed a few empty tables with what appeared to be wallets on them! When my wife (who is Japanese) returned, she explained that people left their wallets (or other posessions) on the table to "reserve" the seating while they ordered at the counter.

Only in Japan.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote Frisonic:

---

I did not take those comments the way you did.

---

I'm astonished that anyone who watched the complete interview and heard him say what he said could take it in any way other than a provocative joke. Perhaps there's some preconditioning or personal agenda here that biases your view to see/hear what you want to see/hear, rather than the genuine intent.

Quote:

---

Clarkson is a side show.

---

That much is certainly true and we can agree on that, at least

As for the rest, I doubt your views or mine will affect the outcome in 2016. The prevailing political agenda of the Government of the time will drive it, and I fear neither of us will like the result!

H

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Perhaps there's some preconditioning or personal agenda here that biases your view to see/hear what you want to see/hear, rather than the genuine intent.
H

---

I think that's self evident Hugh! Although I still think I can see the genuine intent and reserve the right to do so!!!

There will be a debate about it though. Neither of us can yet know how noisy it will be or how much notice people take. I am still naive enough to believe what people say can influence the agenda. You have a lot to offer to the debate. A depth of knowledge on the detail I certainly don't have. Few people have. Your voice carries weight and will be heard, by some at least. We have diverging views but that's fine. The more robust the debate the better for the BBC I say!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

The more robust the debate the better for the BBC I say!

---

We have noticed Frisonic. Hugh helps too - a little!

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

The more robust the debate the better for the BBC I say!

---

We have noticed Frisonic. Hugh helps too - a little!

---

Yes but this debate lacks compare and contrast.

Let us start with Fox News.

More of that content on the BBC or less?

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

The more robust the debate the better for the BBC I say!

---

We have noticed Frisonic. Hugh helps too - a little!

---

Yes but this debate lacks compare and contrast.

Let us start with Fox News.

More of that content on the BBC or less?

Reg

---

Fox News is designed for the American public's consumption. Which is culturally very different from anything Europe would stomach! Its owned by News Corps, who own News International in the UK and have a 40% stake in BSkyB. Which has its own news service, broadcast and designed specifically for British consumption. So we've already got it, as far as it goes. Sky News is actually very professionally done. Along with the Financial Times I always check and compare how big stories are being covered by both the BBC and Sky in the UK. Those are actually the only three British news agencies I monitor daily. The BBC and Sky both cover broadly the same stories and offer up more or less the same 'facts'.

So I'd say the answer is News Corps wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt to inflict something like Fox News on the British public 'cause it would bomb! They developed Sky News instead, which hasn't. However, Fox at their worst are infamous for using the 'shock jock' formula in their presenters. I can think of one or two British presenters who have emulated it. And at least one of them regularly appears on a television channel that isn't BSkyB...

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

The more robust the debate the better for the BBC I say!

---

We have noticed Frisonic. Hugh helps too - a little!

---

Yes but this debate lacks compare and contrast.

Let us start with Fox News.

More of that content on the BBC or less?

Reg

---

Fox News is designed for the American public's consumption. Which is culturally very different from anything Europe would stomach! Its owned by News Corps, who own News International in the UK and have a 40% stake in BSkyB. Which has its own news service, broadcast and designed specifically for British consumption. So we've already got it, as far as it goes. Sky News is actually very professionally done. Along with the Financial Times I always check and compare how big stories are being covered by both the BBC and Sky in the UK. Those are actually the only three British news agencies I monitor daily. The BBC and Sky both cover broadly the same stories and offer up more or less the same 'facts'.

So I'd say the answer is News Corps wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt to inflict something like Fox News on the British public 'cause it would bomb! They developed Sky News instead, which hasn't. However, Fox at their worst are infamous for using the 'shock jock' formula in their presenters. I can think of one or two British presenters who have emulated it. And at least one of them regularly appears on a television channel that isn't BSkyB...

---

So you have engaged...

What about my B Sky B question? Our evil BBC is of course provided with a beautiful, almost mirror, contrast with B Sky B's behaviour is it not?

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

The more robust the debate the better for the BBC I say!

---

We have noticed Frisonic. Hugh helps too - a little!

---

Yes but this debate lacks compare and contrast.

Let us start with Fox News.

More of that content on the BBC or less?

Reg

---

Fox News is designed for the American public's consumption. Which is culturally very different from anything Europe would stomach! Its owned by News Corps, who own News International in the UK and have a 40% stake in BSkyB. Which has its own news service, broadcast and designed specifically for British consumption. So we've already got it, as far as it goes. Sky News is actually very professionally done. Along with the Financial Times I always check and compare how big stories are being covered by both the BBC and Sky in the UK. Those are actually the only three British news agencies I monitor daily. The BBC and Sky both cover broadly the same stories and offer up more or less the same 'facts'.

So I'd say the answer is News Corps wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt to inflict something like Fox News on the British public 'cause it would bomb! They developed Sky News instead, which hasn't. However, Fox at their worst are infamous for using the 'shock jock' formula in their presenters. I can think of one or two British presenters who have emulated it. And at least one of them regularly appears on a television channel that isn't BSkyB...

---

So you have engaged...

What about my B Sky B question? Our evil BBC is of course provided with a beautiful, almost mirror, contrast with B Sky B's behaviour is it not?

Reg

---

BSkyB are not themselves directly tainted by what happened at News International though, are they? To assume so by association would surely make one guilty of what I stand accused of regarding a certain media personality! Or did I miss something?

I also get a number of other news stations on my Sky subscription. I'm not sure how many of these are broadcast on Freeview these days but I think its some at least. From memory I get:

Bloomberg
CNN
Russia Today
France 24
Al Jazerra

BTW nobody has mentioned that Virgin don't seem to actually create anything, or is that wrong? Which to my mind makes them a somewhat non contributory provider. I used them myself for about ten years but got fed up (just before they introduced Tivo which is probably good technology - the Americans have been using it for years)!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

The more robust the debate the better for the BBC I say!

---

We have noticed Frisonic. Hugh helps too - a little!

---

Yes but this debate lacks compare and contrast.

Let us start with Fox News.

More of that content on the BBC or less?

Reg

---

Fox News is designed for the American public's consumption. Which is culturally very different from anything Europe would stomach! Its owned by News Corps, who own News International in the UK and have a 40% stake in BSkyB. Which has its own news service, broadcast and designed specifically for British consumption. So we've already got it, as far as it goes. Sky News is actually very professionally done. Along with the Financial Times I always check and compare how big stories are being covered by both the BBC and Sky in the UK. Those are actually the only three British news agencies I monitor daily. The BBC and Sky both cover broadly the same stories and offer up more or less the same 'facts'.

So I'd say the answer is News Corps wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt to inflict something like Fox News on the British public 'cause it would bomb! They developed Sky News instead, which hasn't. However, Fox at their worst are infamous for using the 'shock jock' formula in their presenters. I can think of one or two British presenters who have emulated it. And at least one of them regularly appears on a television channel that isn't BSkyB...

---

So you have engaged...

What about my B Sky B question? Our evil BBC is of course provided with a beautiful, almost mirror, contrast with B Sky B's behaviour is it not?

Reg

---

BSkyB are not themselves directly tainted by what happened at News International though, are they? To assume so by association would surely make one guilty of what I stand accused of regarding a certain media personality! Or did I miss something?

I also get a number of other news stations on my Sky subscription. I'm not sure how many of these are broadcast on Freeview these days but I think its some at least. From memory I get:

Bloomberg
CNN
Russia Today
France 24
Al Jazerra

BTW nobody has mentioned that Virgin don't seem to actually create anything, or is that wrong? Which to my mind makes them a somewhat non contributory provider. I used them myself for about ten years but got fed up (just before they introduced Tivo which is probably good technology - the Americans have been using it for years)!

---

Oh Hello!

So we are BBC-phobic but commercially okay.

That is good.

Why?

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote Frisonic:

---

Although I still think I can see the genuine intent

---

So you genuinely think/believe that Clarkson actually wanted all the strikers to be executed in front of their families and that was his genuine intent? Really? Doesn't say much for those IQ tests you took!

You obviously need to watch more of him - I am surprised he can speak sometimes because his tongue is so firmly in his cheek, it should cause diction problems. It's his stock in trade - it's what he does. You can either enjoy the brand of humour that pricks away at political correctness with provocative statements or, ermmm, you can just ignore it. To take it or him seriously is just idiotic.

But he's obviously doing something right because you have given him and his programme(s) (and columns and DVDs, etc.) yet more publicity. Which is exactly what the media do - they just LOVE a contentious comment from him because then they can fulminate about it thereby giving him, TG, etc., yet more free advertising. D'oh!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

Although I still think I can see the genuine intent

---

So you genuinely think/believe that Clarkson actually wanted all the strikers to be executed in front of their families and that was his genuine intent? Really? Doesn't say much for those IQ tests you took!

You obviously need to watch more of him - I am surprised he can speak sometimes because his tongue is so firmly in his cheek, it should cause diction problems. It's his stock in trade - it's what he does. You can either enjoy the brand of humour that pricks away at political correctness with provocative statements or, ermmm, you can just ignore it. To take it or him seriously is just idiotic.

---

Absolutely. I do find him quite annoying as a person but I can't deny that he makes good entertainment. The pious 'I didn't see it but I'm offended by proxy' brigade are really beneath contempt. I hope the BBC continue to dismiss, ignore or outwardly bait these kind of people!

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

Although I still think I can see the genuine intent

---

So you genuinely think/believe that Clarkson actually wanted all the strikers to be executed in front of their families and that was his genuine intent?

---

What I think is that he genuinely thought it was cool to make cheap capital out of other people's suffering and hardship. And that a public broadcaster is not the right platform for that brand of whatever you would call it (humor/entertainment... I have no idea - its neither of those to me).

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote johnny h:

---

I hope the BBC continue to dismiss, ignore or outwardly bait these kind of people!

---

You'd have thought that would be more the independent broadcaster's line of country. But strangely they seem to behave better than the BBC. I'm trying to think of a similar example to the Clarkson/Brand type incidents from an independent broadcaster but none come to mind so far. Perhaps that's because they recognise they have a duty not to offend their sponsors?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

offending poncers is required , that is if your really british - i suppose. More fish!!
That could be mis read couldnt it? to exp. only poncers need apply to the 'kill fris' thread later 2moro before Uri arrives.
oh god i wish i hadnt done that now. i'm [ ****** ] ! Huung for a sheeep as a laaamb. i just made that up. i'm going to put it to music. i digress -
The BBC b*gger up then they un-b*gger up
carry on.

Edited by Airfix (01/08/12 12:40 AM)

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

What about my B Sky B question? Our evil BBC is of course provided with a beautiful, almost mirror, contrast with B Sky B's behaviour is it not?

Reg

---

BSkyB are not themselves directly tainted by what happened at News International though, are they? To assume so by association would surely make one guilty of what I stand accused of regarding a certain media personality! Or did I miss something?

I also get a number of other news stations on my Sky subscription. I'm not sure how many of these are broadcast on Freeview these days but I think its some at least. From memory I get:

Bloomberg
CNN
Russia Today
France 24
Al Jazerra

BTW nobody has mentioned that Virgin don't seem to actually create anything, or is that wrong? Which to my mind makes them a somewhat non contributory provider. I used them myself for about ten years but got fed up (just before they introduced Tivo which is probably good technology - the Americans have been using it for years)!

---

Oh Hello!

So we are BBC-phobic but commercially okay.

That is good.

Why?

Reg

---

The above list comprised only the 24hr rolling news channels, or some of them. Freeview also offers Channel 4 news (which is partly publicly funded and it has to be said Channel 4 never seem to find themselves in contentious rows). And ITV News. I think there's a Channel 5 news too isn't there? What I'm saying is that just in the area of television news alone there are multiple players in both the publicly and privately funded sectors. Its much broader than just Sky versus the BBC and nothing is sacrosanct. That's the environment within which the BBC needs to make its case in the review. Its very easy to make the case that its expensive and top heavy. Especially in a world where less is the new more, which is currently the direction in all things, in case you haven't noticed. £145 per annum is a bigger chunk of change for a lot of people today than it was five years ago. I am seriously worried that by 2016 the economic situation might be even worse. So that point is going to get made. It won't only be about value for money but how much you can reasonably tax people, directly or indirectly.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Airfix:

---

if your really british

---

I'm not Airfix. I'm an Irish Fin and identify as a European. The BBC have sponsors. They are the licence fee payers. Who a lot of people here seem to be arguing should either be ignored or claim to speak for them all. Not clear which it is. I only speak for myself but I know from what I've seen and read that there is not a unanimous public support for the BBC as it is.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

What about my B Sky B question? Our evil BBC is of course provided with a beautiful, almost mirror, contrast with B Sky B's behaviour is it not?

Reg

---

BSkyB are not themselves directly tainted by what happened at News International though, are they? To assume so by association would surely make one guilty of what I stand accused of regarding a certain media personality! Or did I miss something?

I also get a number of other news stations on my Sky subscription. I'm not sure how many of these are broadcast on Freeview these days but I think its some at least. From memory I get:

Bloomberg
CNN
Russia Today
France 24
Al Jazerra

BTW nobody has mentioned that Virgin don't seem to actually create anything, or is that wrong? Which to my mind makes them a somewhat non contributory provider. I used them myself for about ten years but got fed up (just before they introduced Tivo which is probably good technology - the Americans have been using it for years)!

---

Oh Hello!

So we are BBC-phobic but commercially okay.

That is good.

Why?

Reg

---

The above list comprised only the 24hr rolling news channels, or some of them. Freeview also offers Channel 4 news (which is partly publicly funded and it has to be said Channel 4 never seem to find themselves in contentious rows). And ITV News. I think there's a Channel 5 news too isn't there? What I'm saying is that just in the area of television news alone there are multiple players in both the publicly and privately funded sectors. Its much broader than just Sky versus the BBC and nothing is sacrosanct. That's the environment within which the BBC needs to make its case in the review. Its very easy to make the case that its expensive and top heavy. Especially in a world where less is the new more, which is currently the direction in all things, in case you haven't noticed. £145 per annum is a bigger chunk of change for a lot of people today than it was five years ago. I am seriously worried that by 2016 the economic situation might be even worse. So that point is going to get made. It won't only be about value for money but how much you can reasonably tax people, directly or indirectly.

---

Remarkably not an answer to my question...

Why is the commercial model so great?

In fact, does it work at all?

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote Frisonic:

---

I'm an Irish Fin and identify as a European.

---

My apologies Frisonic.

With the greatest respect to the thread - oíche mhaith.

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Why is the commercial model so great?

In fact, does it work at all?

Reg

---

That is self evident.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Dont tell anyone this , but i thought Frisonic was an american. u no, like from outer space or something. I was wrong!

Dont tell anyone about this either, but -I think Hugh Robjohns thinks the BBC stinks out loud. But he keeps it to himself.

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

oíche mhaith.

---

And I don't speak a word of either! Although I wish I could speak Gaelic (I probably spelt that wrong). Its beautiful to hear. As a language Finnish is just plain weird! Even the Fins admit that. I don't dare ask what you actually said!!!



I was born and bred in London. My mother was Finish and my father was Anglo Irish (Catholic, which I didn't follow up on). So I simply identify as European. Covers all the bases.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Airfix:

---

Dont tell anyone... but I think Hugh Robjohns thinks the BBC... but he keeps it to himself.

---

Hugh has often said there are things about the modern BBC he would like to see done differently. But he's never said what, the inscrutable man!



I'm married to an American.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun