The BBC? Revolution is in the air!!
klytamnestra
Posts: 1,398 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Following the MPs expenses scandal i sense a change in the public mood! The BBC is now being exposed as an overmanned and profligate organisation - the obscene salaries/sending 400 plus people to Glastonbury etc/dodgy expenses - not to mention the flat rate TV tax which so many resent in our multi channel digital age. Its time to scrap the licence fee and make the BBC compete in the market place - it provides little i cant get elsewhere and if it deserved my hard earned cash id pay it! Lets revolt!! :mad:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Completely agree but the BBC has brainwashed people into believing it is good for people when it actually has a adverse effect.
There's no issue with Glastonbury numbers, many were non BBC and no dodgy expenses.
Not the Nine O Clock News
Hear Hear, lets get rid of the BBC and just have Sky, I love SKY I do , and I just wish I was mad enough to give SKY £500 odd a year or however much it is to watch endless repeats, lets get rid of the BBC now, VIVA LA REVOLUTION
Has this been cut and pasted from a Daily Mail/Daily Express piece? Or written by one of their propaganda mongers judging from the join date of the author.
It's truely weird to watch the BBC nowadays, they out-trash ITV many days.
Maybe. But would *you* have watched what the BBC would have produced had, as many assumed, Birt secured its survival based on the "Himalayan option", rather than (as he managed to do against all the 1993/94 odds) as a popular broadcaster which was encouraged by a government which had previously wanted to dismantle it to become a "global player" once they could tell he really did want to marketise its internal structures?
I always get the impression that most of the people on threads like this who moan about the BBC having dumbed down are the very same people who, had the BBC taken the "Himalayan option", would be moaning about it being posh, snobbish, elitist, boring and irrelevant.
Low brow OR high brow. It's amazing that the BBC is now doing BOTH (in their own respective channel ghettos)
And both types of TV reveal a contempt for the viewer, a lack of respect.
I think better quality TV is impossible while those entrusted to provide it don't have a high regard for the viewer.
Indeed not. Unfortunately the BBC was forced to adopt one or the other if it wanted to survive in the post-1990 environment. Did you support those reforms to the structure of UK broadcasting? Because that is the main reason the BBC is under so much pressure today.
Hear hear.
Let's not, some of the poster on DS are revolting enough already.
From dictionary.com -
bargain - noun 1.an advantageous purchase, esp. one acquired at less than the usual cost: The sale offered bargains galore. 2.an agreement between parties settling what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction.3.such an agreement as affecting one of the parties: a losing bargain. 4.something acquired by bargaining.
Oddly, no mention of a universally imposed tax, levied on the basis that those who would like to view some television must subsidise an increasingly irrelevant, paranoid and desperate state broadcaster.
Funny how Beeb supporters find free speech and democracy inconvenient when they oppose the vast edifice of mediocre self indulgence which much of the BBC has become.
Really? Care to explain why? Or is that just more recycled crap that gets increasingly posted round here without any desire to actually explain or even form a cogent argument?
Brainwashed?... What a load of infantile nonsense.
More paranoid silliness. It's like a GCSE debating society here at the moment.
Care to explain where you think your free speech has been curbed, or your democratic rights?
Because I don't think you really understand the concepts when you're applying them with this kind of hyperbole.
It's the BBC and their fee that's revolting.
The BBC spend vast amounts of the BBC licence fee on self-promotional propaganda, such as the this is what we do advertising campaign (conveniently cherry picking top shows and not reflecting the tat which is more representative of their output).
Some people are easily suckered in by propaganda.
Surely 'sucked'?
off you go then...
How to start a revolution....
1. Post a load of misinformed nonsense about something on an internet forum.
check!
2. Um, dunno. what next klytamnestra?
as an aside, why is it that most of this sort of nonsense comes from people almost exlusively interested in sci-fi and dungeons and dragons?
i'm starting to notice a trend.
Iain
oh! sounds intriguing!
can you expand on that at all Jack?
Iain
you should have your own tv show slow motion! you're that entertaining.
i loved the
given that you're the one with the minority view, has it ever occured to you, however briefly, in the darkest of nights, that you're the one who's wrong?
Iain
It doesn't make sense when a show catering to that very audience is in fact on BBC 2 tonight at 9 p.m...
Still Charlie Brooker's goes behind the spin of broadcasting and apologists, getting an audience both on his BBC and Channel four shows. Perhaps there is a demand for the truth out there.
Yet the BBC do have these cherry-picked programme advertising campaigns (at licence-payers expense of course) about this is what we do which focus on the tiny quality element like 'planet earth', yet neglect to mention lots of their output is more usually along the lines of 'Hole in the Wall'.
this is what we'd like to convince you we do, more like.
Perhaps you think about the BBC "in the darkest of nights", I can assure you I don't! You'd have to be pretty obsessed.
And you've got that the wrong way round as usual, great spin though, turning it round like that!
You know full well that succesive polls like YouGov and the BBC's own Panorama poll, found the BBC licence fee is disliked by the majority of people.
If you had the confidence that people were happy with everything BBC and fee related, you wouldn't be racking up 50,000 posts constantly knocking back any criticism which people express.