I don't think Farage need be too concerned about Newsnight and Channel 4 infecting the nation with bias. Nobody watches them-well maybe a few Guardian readers ;-)
I don't think Farage need be too concerned about Newsnight and Channel 4 infecting the nation with bias. Nobody watches them-well maybe a few Guardian readers ;-)
You obviously don't see Newsnight. The picture you paint is not what I recognise. As usual, complete fabrication from 'the right'.
No, I don't watch it much-my point was that its influence is hardly great whatever its bias as very few people tune in anyway.
So as you don't watch it, what qualifies you to comment on it's content? Plenty of 'right-wingers' pop up on it as well as 'left-wingers'. It's a brilliant show...I love it...especially when Laura or Emily are hosting.
So as you don't watch it, what qualifies you to comment on it's content? Plenty of 'right-wingers' pop up on it as well as 'left-wingers'. It's a brilliant show...I love it...especially when Laura or Emily are hosting.
Im not commenting in the slightest on content, merely its viewing figures and influence.
Which are both small!
So to drill down here, you class an interviewer doing his job by holding a politician to account as "...partial..."? What you actually don't like (and Farrage too) is actually being challenged / questioned / held to account over policy? He is the same as Cameron. He doesn't think he should be questioned or challenged at all. Appauling. Who does he think he is?
Well you are drilling down in the wrong place and in the wrong way,again.>:(
Please read my posts more carefully before selectively misquoting them and commenting on same.
I have never on these boards or anywhere else criticised an interviewer for trying to hold a politician to account.
I have here and in my real life no problem with my views being challenged, questioned or held to account.
However can you claim otherwise?
The word partial related to, part incomplete sentences spoken by Farage. Sometimes he was interrupted by Marr.....standard technique, I passed no comment on that.
And if anyone reads the relevant post they will see I passed no comment on Marr's partiality or otherwise except to remind members he is an employee of The BBC.
In another thread you accused me of lying I will not tolerate that.
I also will not tolerate being misquoted, intentionally but perhaps you failing is more done to pure ignorance or illiteracy?
In your apology you can tell me which of the 3 it is?
You really should consider becoming a tabloid headline writer, The Mirror of course being closet to your dislike of Right Wing politicians.
Well you are drilling down in the wrong place and in the wrong way,again.>:(
Please read my posts more carefully before selectively misquoting them and commenting on same.
I have never on these boards or anywhere else criticised an interviewer for trying to hold a politician to account.
I have here and in my real life no problem with my views being challenged, questioned or held to account.
However can you claim otherwise?
The word partial related to, part incomplete sentences spoken by Farage. Sometimes he was interrupted by Marr.....standard technique, I passed no comment on that.
And if anyone reads the relevant post they will see I passed no comment on Marr's partiality or otherwise except to remind members he is an employee of The BBC.
In another thread you accused me of lying I will not tolerate that.
I also will not tolerate being misquoted, intentionally but perhaps you failing is more done to pure ignorance or illiteracy?
In your apology you can tell me which of the 3 it is?
You really should consider becoming a tabloid headline writer, The Mirror of course being closet to your dislike of Right Wing politicians.
I interpreted your use of "...partial..." to mean biased. If I misinterpreted what you meant, then I apologise.
The BBC...given it's funding structure has to be balanced. It is closely watched and monitored by us all (including Ofcom) and rightly so.
No where have I called you a liar. I would never call anyone a liar.
What I will always defend is the services which benefit this country against those parties who want to destroy them for political and / or commercial reasons.
Its just a stupid lazy idea , presumably based on the notion that the licence fee shouldn't be funding popular entertainment which should be on the commercial channels.
But its riddled with problems:
Who decides what is popular enough to be on the BBC?
How do you know how popular a programme will be when it is commissioned?
Why should the BBC take the initial risk and development costs in a new show / format, only to have to hand it over to a commercial channel if and when it becomes too popular?
I note with interest that not a single person from the 'anti' side has actually bothered to answer this question; and we all know why that is, don't we? Because they can't without it sounding like the usual "I don't like it so it shouldn't be shown"-type of argument.
One excellent example is, of course, Strictly Come Dancing.
The show was a huge gamble for the BBC as nothing like it had been done before. The first episode only got 4.61m viewers (Source: BARB; BBC1 Top 30, May 2004) and was only the 20th most-watched show of that week.
Of course, once it started getting more and more viewers then ITV decided to get in on the action with "Dancing On Ice".
I note with interest that not a single person from the 'anti' side has actually bothered to answer this question; and we all know why that is, don't we? Because they can't without it sounding like the usual "I don't like it so it shouldn't be shown"-type of argument.
One excellent example is, of course, Strictly Come Dancing.
The show was a huge gamble for the BBC as nothing like it had been done before. The first episode only got 4.61m viewers (Source: BARB; BBC1 Top 30, May 2004) and was only the 20th most-watched show of that week.
Of course, once it started getting more and more viewers then ITV decided to get in on the action with "Dancing On Ice".
So... at what point did SCD become "commercial"?
I tried to drill down on this earlier in the thread... in no circumstance should the public sector, in this case the BBC, be 'used' to benefit the private sector. The public sector does not exist to 'serve' the private sector.
Regarding Strictly...you are of course right... as always. If latin and ballroom dancing was so 'commercial' why didn't the ITV do it years ago? We all know the answer...because it wasn't / isn't commercial. What types like Farage do is equate 'ratings' with 'commercial'...which of course is totally wrong and inaccurate. If Songs Of Praise suddenly got 12 million viewers, does that suddenly make the content commercial? Does it suddenly mean that 'ITV could have done it'? Of course not.
Strictly and Songs Of Praise are exactly the type of shows the BBC should be doing. Whether Farage likes them or not is irrelevant.
Just think on this for a minute...had it not been for the licence fee funded BBC, we would have never seen Strictly. Look at the millions of people who would have been denied a brilliant show... nevermind the tours ...the increase in the number of people taking up ballroom and latin dancing... Strictly is one of the BBC's best shows ever. Very BBC, very British...all LiVE and ad-free. Strictly... public service broadcasting at it's finest.
Farage is a joke, the policies they have are so knee-jerk -
To stop the BBC being popular, cut the license fee to as low as possible. Don't make worldwide hits....Maybe he doesn't realise that popular shows make revenue that goes towards other shows.
Does anyone wonder how all those other hundreds of channels and radio stations manage to survive and broadcast successful shows - adverts and charges. Of course ITV and it's myriad of channels, C4, C5, Sky News even Russia Today for those of that ilk are free and cost you nothing.
How about we just say rethink the £150 tax on people watching telly - many of whom are on low incomes - and consider having adverts on the BBC and let people choose what they want to watch and pay for. RTE in Ireland has ads - why not the BBC.
In any case Dr Who and Strictly would not disappear as they are commercially viable and successful shows whoever broadcasts them. So that is of course a silly argument.
Shame no one can have a serious debate about the BBCs poll tax to allow you to own and use a tv - if your council imposed a flat rate tax on everyone irrespective of income people would be campaigning to bring down the government.
In Ireland the TV licence is €160, the eqivalent to £118. Plus they have adverts.
So what you're saying is that the Irish market is different, and it's difficult to make comparisons between it and the UK?
Perhaps that's why the BBC shouldn't take commercials like RTÉ does. TV advertising money is more or less a finite resource, so if the BBC were to muscle in, suddenly the 'loads of commercially viable freeview channels' would find themselves with a much smaller pot of cash to play with.
As you say, in Ireland, there is little commercial competition, which means RTÉ can hoover up vast amounts of the advertising revenue. Or is it that RTÉ hoovers up vast amounts of the advertising revenue which results in little commercial competition?
Many people in Iteland have Sky which provides everything that is available to UK viewers including all of the BBc channels.
In exchange for the money that Richard Desmond has given him - and it plays well to Murdoch as well.
He's not doing it for anyone's good other than theirs and his....
...and that's why he is so wrong. The corporate power (Mudoch/Desmond) wielded by these is so negative for this country. They really need bringing down a peg or two.
The thread was about "UKIP would scrap Dr Who & Strictly...."
Given that the range of polls suggest that UKIP will get between 1 and 9 seats, I doubt that they'd get to scrap anything. Unless they get control of Great Yarmouth Council, which is a possibility. In that case, inevitably they will forget the BC and concentrate on improving the A12.
Comments
You obviously don't see Newsnight. The picture you paint is not what I recognise. As usual, complete fabrication from 'the right'.
No, I don't watch it much-my point was that its influence is hardly great whatever its bias as very few people tune in anyway.
So as you don't watch it, what qualifies you to comment on it's content? Plenty of 'right-wingers' pop up on it as well as 'left-wingers'. It's a brilliant show...I love it...especially when Laura or Emily are hosting.
Im not commenting in the slightest on content, merely its viewing figures and influence.
Which are both small!
#127 implies that it (and Channel 4 News) is biased to the left. How can you say that if you don't watch the show?
... absolutely correct and factually accurate.
The UK LF-funded BBC operation is a non-profit Public Service Broadcaster. BBC Worldwide is a commercial (ie profit-making) company.
Well you are drilling down in the wrong place and in the wrong way,again.>:(
Please read my posts more carefully before selectively misquoting them and commenting on same.
I have never on these boards or anywhere else criticised an interviewer for trying to hold a politician to account.
I have here and in my real life no problem with my views being challenged, questioned or held to account.
However can you claim otherwise?
The word partial related to, part incomplete sentences spoken by Farage. Sometimes he was interrupted by Marr.....standard technique, I passed no comment on that.
And if anyone reads the relevant post they will see I passed no comment on Marr's partiality or otherwise except to remind members he is an employee of The BBC.
In another thread you accused me of lying I will not tolerate that.
I also will not tolerate being misquoted, intentionally but perhaps you failing is more done to pure ignorance or illiteracy?
In your apology you can tell me which of the 3 it is?
You really should consider becoming a tabloid headline writer, The Mirror of course being closet to your dislike of Right Wing politicians.
I interpreted your use of "...partial..." to mean biased. If I misinterpreted what you meant, then I apologise.
The BBC...given it's funding structure has to be balanced. It is closely watched and monitored by us all (including Ofcom) and rightly so.
No where have I called you a liar. I would never call anyone a liar.
What I will always defend is the services which benefit this country against those parties who want to destroy them for political and / or commercial reasons.
I note with interest that not a single person from the 'anti' side has actually bothered to answer this question; and we all know why that is, don't we? Because they can't without it sounding like the usual "I don't like it so it shouldn't be shown"-type of argument.
One excellent example is, of course, Strictly Come Dancing.
The show was a huge gamble for the BBC as nothing like it had been done before. The first episode only got 4.61m viewers (Source: BARB; BBC1 Top 30, May 2004) and was only the 20th most-watched show of that week.
Of course, once it started getting more and more viewers then ITV decided to get in on the action with "Dancing On Ice".
So... at what point did SCD become "commercial"?
I tried to drill down on this earlier in the thread... in no circumstance should the public sector, in this case the BBC, be 'used' to benefit the private sector. The public sector does not exist to 'serve' the private sector.
Regarding Strictly...you are of course right... as always. If latin and ballroom dancing was so 'commercial' why didn't the ITV do it years ago? We all know the answer...because it wasn't / isn't commercial. What types like Farage do is equate 'ratings' with 'commercial'...which of course is totally wrong and inaccurate. If Songs Of Praise suddenly got 12 million viewers, does that suddenly make the content commercial? Does it suddenly mean that 'ITV could have done it'? Of course not.
Strictly and Songs Of Praise are exactly the type of shows the BBC should be doing. Whether Farage likes them or not is irrelevant.
Just think on this for a minute...had it not been for the licence fee funded BBC, we would have never seen Strictly. Look at the millions of people who would have been denied a brilliant show... nevermind the tours ...the increase in the number of people taking up ballroom and latin dancing...
Strictly is one of the BBC's best shows ever. Very BBC, very British...all LiVE and ad-free. Strictly... public service broadcasting at it's finest.
Thanks, accepted.
To stop the BBC being popular, cut the license fee to as low as possible. Don't make worldwide hits....Maybe he doesn't realise that popular shows make revenue that goes towards other shows.
In Ireland the TV licence is €160, the eqivalent to £118. Plus they have adverts.
Many people in Iteland have Sky which provides everything that is available to UK viewers including all of the BBc channels.
In exchange for the money that Richard Desmond has given him - and it plays well to Murdoch as well.
He's not doing it for anyone's good other than theirs and his....
...and that's why he is so wrong. The corporate power (Mudoch/Desmond) wielded by these is so negative for this country. They really need bringing down a peg or two.
Given that the range of polls suggest that UKIP will get between 1 and 9 seats, I doubt that they'd get to scrap anything. Unless they get control of Great Yarmouth Council, which is a possibility. In that case, inevitably they will forget the BC and concentrate on improving the A12.