Whittingdale doesn't seem to be the man for the Culture Secretary role because his personal biases and ideologies run too deep, and it's starting to look impossible to sweep them under the rug.
Resignation is the way forward. It might be a bitter pill for him to swallow in the short term, but maybe he can be found a more suitable Government job, as a spoonful of syrup to help the medicine go down.
...but he's also past it. Look how 'on it' Bryant was last Monday. Whitless couldn't handle the occasion at all.
I think I need to compile some megamixes of BBC programme themes from down the years. The nation needs stiring.
Sadly, to an extent the BBC has itself aped and copied the ITV approach (or they ape and copy each other), certainly so far as the safe and formulaic elements are concerned over much of the schedule - for the BBC endless antiques and property shows and game shows in daytime, factual reality/entertainment and soaps in peak (coming next week - Britain at the Bookies focusing on life at Corals, and Cashing In focusing on life at Cash Converters). ITV does sensationalist more, the BBC rarely. The schedules both in daytime and peak time of both BBC and ITV are remarkably similar in many respects even if, to be fair, the BBC programmes are more up market and generally higher quality than those on ITV.
Sadly also the BBC isn't free from the pressures of the commercial imperative - by choice. It chases audience share and obsesses about ratings (even though its funding method should set it free from that necessity) - and as a result too often plays it just as safe, if in its own way, as ITV. It frets over Jeremy Clarkson because of how much money Top Gear is worth to it rather than because of what he did. Why do we have Holby and Casualty 52 weeks a year rather than the sort of variety of 13 part drama series we used to enjoy across the week and across the year in the golden age of television - because its safer to show the same things all the time than experiment.
Many who seek change don't want massive change - just a change of emphasis and focus. I want a BBC which in terms of range and breadth of programming is a bit more like how it used to be in the pre digital age, but with a 21st century approach. And the BBC does need to be primarily about mainstream entertainment because that is what forces ITV and the rest to up their game also.
I agree with you up to a point. I do believe that the BBCs drama output taken as a whole is superior to that of ITV.
I do think that the BBC needs to do more one off dramas with stories that are written as one offs perhaps for a daytime slot along the lines of Radio 4 afternoon plays /dramas. That would be distinct and non formulaic. I do think up to a certain extent some of the BBC output plays a bit too safe and too tried and tested. But I don't think that's happened to the extent that it isn't discernable better than ITV.
I don't mind daytime quiz shows but I think the BBC needs to be a bit more off centre with its formats. I recall a daytime quiz show shown in 2000 for instance called Quotation Marks that was different and informative but definitely light entertainment but it wasn't given a chance to take off.
I think there may be some people who support the thrust of these changes who like you want the bbc restored to its creative daring original style moreso of previous years. I think the tory chair of the culture committee Jesse Norman may fall into this camp but people like Osborne who thrust an effective half a billion cut on the bbc via having them pay for free TV licenses seems like a move when you consider the demographic timebomb intended to damage the organisation and shrink it it to a weakened state ripe to be abolish the licence fee.
The political repercussions of Osborne and Whittingdale's Beeching style cuts in the BBC are beginning to gather.
Here's a new organisation ready to mount a fight for the BBC's survival. As someone said earlier, certain government ministers have bitten off more than they can chew, in particular the hapless and stumbling Whittingdale, Osborne's messenger boy who looks like he's only just been given permission to wear long trousers.
I'd be happy to. It portrays and normalises an ersatz version of real life which is nothing but conflict, misery, and hostility. Nothing nice, nothing positive, nothing good happens in EastEnders. It's a tabloid soap opera that lunges from one crisis to the next, focusing eagerly on who is the biggest bitch of the square this week, who's going to get taken down a peg or two the next week, who just got murdered, which landmark is going to burn down, who might be pregnant, or if they are pregnant, will they lose it, or will the mystery father be revealed in yet another 'EASTENDERS BABY SHOCK WEEK', to use the vernacular of the magazines that follow these things closely.
EastEnders is a grindingly, unremittingly miserable programme. It has no redeeming features whatsoever and exists purely to get ratings and publicity. It is the absolute opposite of what the BBC should be doing.
I haven't watched it for a long time, but I am sure it does include some more positive storylines.
And I would definitely argue that when it covers sensitive subjects that people can relate to in a very real way and provide links to relevant support is a very valuable aspect of the show:
Dyou really think women are more than twice as likely to be licence evaders than men? If you do why dyou think the numbers have gone more and more in that direction? If it carries on like this only women will be being prosecuted.
Dyou really think women are more than twice as likely to be licence evaders than men? If you do why dyou think the numbers have gone more and more in that direction? If it carries on like this only women will be being prosecuted.
I think it should be fair.
Oh, so you've no idea. Any advance on "some sort of bias"? Maybe TVL just don't like women, so let a lot of men off - that sort of thing?
I think its quite simple. When a 6ft TV Licensing thug bangs on the door and then makes threats and intimidates you. A women is more likely to give in to the Fear that creates and sign his papers just to make the terror end.
Where as men are more likely to argue back and be stubborn.
Oh, so you've no idea. Any advance on "some sort of bias"? Maybe TVL just don't like women, so let a lot of men off - that sort of thing?
It could be anything mate. I can dream up some ideas but I wont be impressed if you come back an complain about me dreaming up ideas.
It could be that men are more likely to tell the TV licesning ppl to do one. It could be that the TV licesning ppl see the list of ppl on their computers and pick out the women cos they think theyll be easier to deal with. It could be that women really are easier to deal with and so there more likely to fess up.
Could be any of those things. Or could be a combination of them. Or could be something else.
The Beeb should be looking at whats going on and sorting it out if its biased.
Because private schools, hospitals etc. are not fighting for pupils and patients in the way commercial broadcasters are fighting for viewers in order to retain advertising revenue. The BBC impacts the commercial sector - something admitted by the BBC itself (re BBC1+1).
It could be anything mate. I can dream up some ideas but I wont be impressed if you come back an complain about me dreaming up ideas.
It could be that men are more likely to tell the TV licesning ppl to do one. It could be that the TV licesning ppl see the list of ppl on their computers and pick out the women cos they think theyll be easier to deal with. It could be that women really are easier to deal with and so there more likely to fess up.
Could be any of those things. Or could be a combination of them. Or could be something else.
The Beeb should be looking at whats going on and sorting it out if its biased.
I suspect it's just that women are more likely to be home during the day when the TVL inspectors visit because they tend to look after small children rather than their husbands/partners. The fact that the system then charges the person who answers the door, as opposed to allowing the couple to decide which of them should face prosecution, is just one of its many flaws.
You almost have to admire the way they stick with a 19th century method of enforcement in the face of the digital alternatives. Maybe it's to make the TVL itself seem less antiquated.
Because private schools, hospitals etc. are not fighting for pupils and patients in the way commercial broadcasters are fighting for viewers in order to retain advertising revenue. The BBC impacts the commercial sector - something admitted by the BBC itself (re BBC1+1).
I wasn't saying it had no impact on the commercial sector.
I was more interested in why that fact was an issue for the BBC and not other publicly funded services.
Presumably any publicly funded service (with a private alternative) has an advantage over that private alternative due to its guaranteed funding.
It could be anything mate. I can dream up some ideas but I wont be impressed if you come back an complain about me dreaming up ideas.
It could be that men are more likely to tell the TV licesning ppl to do one. It could be that the TV licesning ppl see the list of ppl on their computers and pick out the women cos they think theyll be easier to deal with. It could be that women really are easier to deal with and so there more likely to fess up.
Could be any of those things. Or could be a combination of them. Or could be something else.
The Beeb should be looking at whats going on and sorting it out if its biased.
Nothing you have suggested so far suggests any bias.
It could just be what it is. There doesn't always have to be some conspiracy involved.
Your "high and mighty" posts were the ones following my OP which seem to relish belittling me - but that is your style anyway, you enjoy belittling people on public forums. You have an air of self importance about you.
Frankly, when I post I couldn't give a flying hoot whether someone has economic knowledge as to how the media works - I post on DS for entertainment and to gauge the opinion of others - sometimes I argue my point, sometimes I don't. What I do have though, is the mature and rather "British" attitude of accepting anothers opinion as legitimate even if I disagree with it. Facts, figures, links and so on will never, or at least rarely, change a posters mind because their mindset is what their mindset is. It takes a lot of respect and common courtesy and, dare I say it, maturity, to accept that rather than just push an agenda over and over and over to try and gain some kind of cocky, smug, know-it-all authority.
I will just say that it is not important to me what someone does, someone knows or what someone has experience in. If it's relevant to the discussion, fine and dandy, but otherwise, so what? So whether you actually know or think you know or pretend to know about media economics, who cares? I certainly don't. As I said, I come onto DS for fun and a chat, why don't you do the same?
My post saying that grand claims are best fact checked if their to stand up?! That's what's provoked you to dish out personal insults to me on this forum? That being the case then it really isn't me who takes the forums too seriously. There's nothing that fits the definition of belittling in my post at all.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by accepting other people's opinions -Isn't that why we debate because we don't accept the rightness of their opinion? I accept people's right to hold an opinion but that isn't quite the same .
For example if it was somebody's opinion that women were inferior and shouldn't be allowed to vote -I wouldn't respect or accept their opinion even though they are entitled to differ from me .Similarly if somebody held views denying the holocaust or promoting genocide -I would not accept their opinion .These are extreme examples to make a point on the difference between having the right to an opinion and having it accepted and respected .
Freedom of speech is about a person's right to respond to an opinion as well as the right to give an opinion .
I'm also not sure how this is especially a British thing ?
Anyway in this instance I actually wasn't challenging your opinion but challenging your facts.
Your entitled toyour own opinion but your NOT entitled to your own facts -Or as the Guardian says comment is free facts are sacred !
You choose to make a factual claim against the BBC that was unfair and also factually untrue. It's not a matter of opinion how much the bbc pays in salary to George Entwistle is a matter of fact -exaggerating his pay level to make a point in a debate as you did is likely to lead to someone pointing out to you not unreasonably that it was wrong .
The future of the BBC IS far too important to just allow inaccuracies like George Entwistle was paid more than the running costs of BBC3 in his payoff to become an accepted unchallenged urban myth !
My attitude to ds is similar to my philosophy towards the BBC. i come on DS forums to be informed ,educated and entertained .I enjoy the forums very much and I'm not sure why you think I don't enjoy them .I enjoy being informed ,educated and entertained hence I enjoy digital spy
I don't come on just to chat -If I wanted to just chat I'd go into a chatroom because that's what their designed for!
I think in terms of the BBC I'm eager for more people to highlight the wonderful and unique content and role of BBC RADIO. More commissioned plays for the radio in the UK than most other countries -there's nothing akin to radio 4 anywhere in the world and it really is a hotbed of creative and intellectual high quality talent and content.
Push the bbc in a much more commercial direction and I fear that the family jewel of bbc radio will be tarnished and become less distinct .
I'm glad that so many celebrities have signed this lady today including my special crush the rather dapper and handsome 007 Daniel Craig !
An elderly lady is just leaving home to meet a friend when a TV licensing van pulls up outside and they ask to see her TV licence.
Apologetically she says she can't wait but her husband will be home in five minutes.
''Tell him it's behind the clock over the fireplace'' she says
Exactly five minutes later the husband turns up. The licensing man asks to see the licence
''I think you'll find it's behind the clock over the fireplace'' he says
''Blimey'' says the husband, ''I knew you lot could tell if we had a licence or not but I didn't know you could tell us where the licence was'':D
An elderly lady is just leaving home to meet a friend when a TV licensing van pulls up outside and they ask to see her TV licence.
Apologetically she says she can't wait but her husband will be home in five minutes.
''Tell him it's behind the clock over the fireplace'' she says
Exactly five minutes later the husband turns up. The licensing man asks to see the licence
''I think you'll find it's behind the clock over the fireplace'' he says
''Blimey'' says the husband, ''I knew you lot could tell if we had a licence or not but I didn't know you could tell us where the licence was'':D
A well-known joke (Two Ronnies IIRC, but probably pre-dates them) goes like:
A TV Licence inspector knocks at the door and ask to see the TV Licence and the householder duly hands over a paper. The inspector says "I'm afraid this is no good sir, it's out of date", to which the householder replies "Well, I only watch repeats so I thought I was OK to give you a photocopy of last year's licence!"
Comments
...but he's also past it. Look how 'on it' Bryant was last Monday. Whitless couldn't handle the occasion at all.
I think I need to compile some megamixes of BBC programme themes from down the years. The nation needs stiring.
I agree with you up to a point. I do believe that the BBCs drama output taken as a whole is superior to that of ITV.
I do think that the BBC needs to do more one off dramas with stories that are written as one offs perhaps for a daytime slot along the lines of Radio 4 afternoon plays /dramas. That would be distinct and non formulaic. I do think up to a certain extent some of the BBC output plays a bit too safe and too tried and tested. But I don't think that's happened to the extent that it isn't discernable better than ITV.
I don't mind daytime quiz shows but I think the BBC needs to be a bit more off centre with its formats. I recall a daytime quiz show shown in 2000 for instance called Quotation Marks that was different and informative but definitely light entertainment but it wasn't given a chance to take off.
I think there may be some people who support the thrust of these changes who like you want the bbc restored to its creative daring original style moreso of previous years. I think the tory chair of the culture committee Jesse Norman may fall into this camp but people like Osborne who thrust an effective half a billion cut on the bbc via having them pay for free TV licenses seems like a move when you consider the demographic timebomb intended to damage the organisation and shrink it it to a weakened state ripe to be abolish the licence fee.
The political repercussions of Osborne and Whittingdale's Beeching style cuts in the BBC are beginning to gather.
Here's a new organisation ready to mount a fight for the BBC's survival. As someone said earlier, certain government ministers have bitten off more than they can chew, in particular the hapless and stumbling Whittingdale, Osborne's messenger boy who looks like he's only just been given permission to wear long trousers.
http://saveourbbc.net/
That theres something wrong with TV licesning if this is what its doing.
I dont believe that women are more than twice as likely to be licence evaders.
Do you?
Should there be some sort of quota?
Why is the an issue with regards the BBC any more than any other publicly funded service?
I haven't watched it for a long time, but I am sure it does include some more positive storylines.
And I would definitely argue that when it covers sensitive subjects that people can relate to in a very real way and provide links to relevant support is a very valuable aspect of the show:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/11tgcRR4bBG27C6lG9mRHR/health
Dyou really think women are more than twice as likely to be licence evaders than men? If you do why dyou think the numbers have gone more and more in that direction? If it carries on like this only women will be being prosecuted.
I think it should be fair.
You really have to ask?
Yes, that's why I asked.
Oh, so you've no idea. Any advance on "some sort of bias"? Maybe TVL just don't like women, so let a lot of men off - that sort of thing?
Where as men are more likely to argue back and be stubborn.
It could be anything mate. I can dream up some ideas but I wont be impressed if you come back an complain about me dreaming up ideas.
It could be that men are more likely to tell the TV licesning ppl to do one. It could be that the TV licesning ppl see the list of ppl on their computers and pick out the women cos they think theyll be easier to deal with. It could be that women really are easier to deal with and so there more likely to fess up.
Could be any of those things. Or could be a combination of them. Or could be something else.
The Beeb should be looking at whats going on and sorting it out if its biased.
Because private schools, hospitals etc. are not fighting for pupils and patients in the way commercial broadcasters are fighting for viewers in order to retain advertising revenue. The BBC impacts the commercial sector - something admitted by the BBC itself (re BBC1+1).
I suspect it's just that women are more likely to be home during the day when the TVL inspectors visit because they tend to look after small children rather than their husbands/partners. The fact that the system then charges the person who answers the door, as opposed to allowing the couple to decide which of them should face prosecution, is just one of its many flaws.
You almost have to admire the way they stick with a 19th century method of enforcement in the face of the digital alternatives. Maybe it's to make the TVL itself seem less antiquated.
I wasn't saying it had no impact on the commercial sector.
I was more interested in why that fact was an issue for the BBC and not other publicly funded services.
Presumably any publicly funded service (with a private alternative) has an advantage over that private alternative due to its guaranteed funding.
Nothing you have suggested so far suggests any bias.
It could just be what it is. There doesn't always have to be some conspiracy involved.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=78964809&postcount=1089
Forgive me, but isn't it a "hard fact" that women are more likely to be at home at the times when the TVL person knocks on the door?
Maybe not so melodramatic as you make out...
My post saying that grand claims are best fact checked if their to stand up?! That's what's provoked you to dish out personal insults to me on this forum? That being the case then it really isn't me who takes the forums too seriously. There's nothing that fits the definition of belittling in my post at all.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by accepting other people's opinions -Isn't that why we debate because we don't accept the rightness of their opinion? I accept people's right to hold an opinion but that isn't quite the same .
For example if it was somebody's opinion that women were inferior and shouldn't be allowed to vote -I wouldn't respect or accept their opinion even though they are entitled to differ from me .Similarly if somebody held views denying the holocaust or promoting genocide -I would not accept their opinion .These are extreme examples to make a point on the difference between having the right to an opinion and having it accepted and respected .
Freedom of speech is about a person's right to respond to an opinion as well as the right to give an opinion .
I'm also not sure how this is especially a British thing ?
Anyway in this instance I actually wasn't challenging your opinion but challenging your facts.
Your entitled toyour own opinion but your NOT entitled to your own facts -Or as the Guardian says comment is free facts are sacred !
You choose to make a factual claim against the BBC that was unfair and also factually untrue. It's not a matter of opinion how much the bbc pays in salary to George Entwistle is a matter of fact -exaggerating his pay level to make a point in a debate as you did is likely to lead to someone pointing out to you not unreasonably that it was wrong .
The future of the BBC IS far too important to just allow inaccuracies like George Entwistle was paid more than the running costs of BBC3 in his payoff to become an accepted unchallenged urban myth !
My attitude to ds is similar to my philosophy towards the BBC. i come on DS forums to be informed ,educated and entertained .I enjoy the forums very much and I'm not sure why you think I don't enjoy them .I enjoy being informed ,educated and entertained hence I enjoy digital spy
I don't come on just to chat -If I wanted to just chat I'd go into a chatroom because that's what their designed for!
I think in terms of the BBC I'm eager for more people to highlight the wonderful and unique content and role of BBC RADIO. More commissioned plays for the radio in the UK than most other countries -there's nothing akin to radio 4 anywhere in the world and it really is a hotbed of creative and intellectual high quality talent and content.
Push the bbc in a much more commercial direction and I fear that the family jewel of bbc radio will be tarnished and become less distinct .
I'm glad that so many celebrities have signed this lady today including my special crush the rather dapper and handsome 007 Daniel Craig !
An elderly lady is just leaving home to meet a friend when a TV licensing van pulls up outside and they ask to see her TV licence.
Apologetically she says she can't wait but her husband will be home in five minutes.
''Tell him it's behind the clock over the fireplace'' she says
Exactly five minutes later the husband turns up. The licensing man asks to see the licence
''I think you'll find it's behind the clock over the fireplace'' he says
''Blimey'' says the husband, ''I knew you lot could tell if we had a licence or not but I didn't know you could tell us where the licence was'':D
A TV Licence inspector knocks at the door and ask to see the TV Licence and the householder duly hands over a paper. The inspector says "I'm afraid this is no good sir, it's out of date", to which the householder replies "Well, I only watch repeats so I thought I was OK to give you a photocopy of last year's licence!"
1. The TV Licence goons will visit in the evenings.
2. Women also have jobs now.
Welcome to 2015.
You were making out that women were, in essence, weaker when it comes to knowing their rights!
Are they? Really?
And how many visits are made in the evening compared to the daytimes?
Your "hard fact" was only specualtion