The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:05 am**

The BBC which can't support itself finacially just like PBS here in the states now want to charge U.K NetFlix users a BBC liscence fee even if they don't want BBC content

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk ... 88161.html

My question is with all the available options is there a need for any public TV services in a western country?

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:35 am**

Public broadcast serves a purpose in carrying programming that the networks won't carry. But using its power that way is ridiculous.

PBS in the US was the one back in the 1970s that carried BBC shows like Monty Python's Flying Circus and short limited run British dramas on Masterpiece Theater. Before Disney bought the rights,
it was whee you saw Dr. Who until it went to BBC America. Even popular series like Downtown Abbey initially didn't have enough episodes to make commercial channels want to carry them.

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2025 2:38 pm**

Visitor wrote: ↑
1 year ago
Public broadcast serves a purpose in carrying programming that the networks won't carry. But using its power that way is ridiculous.

PBS in the US was the one back in the 1970s that carried BBC shows like Monty Python's Flying Circus and short limited run British dramas on Masterpiece Theater. Before Disney bought the rights,
it was whee you saw Dr. Who until it went to BBC America. Even popular series like Downtown Abbey initially didn't have enough episodes to make commercial channels want to carry them.

I remember those times, but that was several decades ago in the U.S

where you had the big three networks and maybe 1 or 2 uhf independents

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:53 pm**

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
The BBC which can't support itself finacially just like PBS here in the states now want to charge U.K NetFlix users a BBC liscence fee even if they don't want BBC content

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk ... 88161.html

My question is with all the available options is there a need for any public TV services in a western country?

I thought this was always the case? there used to be a big thing about needing a TV licence if you were streaming? did the fcuking ass hat Tories change the rules when they were trying to run it down and flog it off cheap to Russia Today?

There is a need for Public TV in most western countries. You will struggle to get original content is Norwegian or about Switzerland or in Gaelic or Danish or Latvian wihtout some sort of public/ state supported service because it is easier/ cheaper to just dub the output of the massive Holywood machine

I'm not saying BBC shows are great, most of them are painful garbage and why the fcuk are things like Strictly come Dancing a thing (I know, cause pensioners need to be treated like the entitled over indulged babies they are) but I don't mind having a TV licence if I get local news and weather and the kids get some Gaelic exposure, even if none of the little bastards speak it (you won this one Wales)!

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2025 4:05 pm**

(update: interesting, it seems like on demand services are cuaght by the TV licence requirement but services like Netflix never were before)

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:42 pm**

The whole BBC licencing issue needs reform but it isn't just used for TV it funds radio and online services as well and whilst the west doesn't really get informed by radio any more large parts of the world need the BBC World service as it provides an important health and educational role.

It's not healthy to have all TV channels reliant on company money as they end up towing the line that's required of them rather than that of factual accountability

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 3:17 pm**

tallyho wrote: ↑
1 year ago
The whole BBC licencing issue needs reform but it isn't just used for TV it funds radio and online services as well and whilst the west doesn't really get informed by radio any more large parts of the world need the BBC World service as it provides an important health and educational role.

It's not healthy to have all TV channels reliant on company money as they end up towing the line that's required of them rather than that of factual accountability

If the BBC wasn't so left slanting and misinforming perhaps

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 3:27 pm**

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑
1 year ago

Visitor wrote: ↑
1 year ago
Public broadcast serves a purpose in carrying programming that the networks won't carry. But using its power that way is ridiculous.

PBS in the US was the one back in the 1970s that carried BBC shows like Monty Python's Flying Circus and short limited run British dramas on Masterpiece Theater. Before Disney bought the rights,
it was whee you saw Dr. Who until it went to BBC America. Even popular series like Downtown Abbey initially didn't have enough episodes to make commercial channels want to carry them.
I remember those times, but that was several decades ago in the U.S

where you had the big three networks and maybe 1 or 2 uhf independents

I agree. You can make a great argument for PBS in the 70's and 80's when you only had three networks and perhaps two UHF independent stations, but nowadays in a 500 channel universe with numerous options, I quetsion whether there is that same need for public television when there is indeed something for everyone already available on the airwaves. PBS really was an essential public service early on, but as cable television became more integral to American viewers, that essential public service became less essential, that PBS niche lane was appropriated by other cable networks who aired similar programming. PBS doesn't serve a unique, singular purpose anymore.

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 6:34 pm**

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑
1 year ago
I agree. You can make a great argument for PBS in the 70's and 80's when you only had three networks and perhaps two UHF independent stations, but nowadays in a 500 channel universe with numerous options, I quetsion whether there is that same need for public television when there is indeed something for everyone already available on the airwaves. PBS really was an essential public service early on, but as cable television became more integral to American viewers, that essential public service became less essential, that PBS niche lane was appropriated by other cable networks who aired similar programming. PBS doesn't serve a unique, singular purpose anymore.

Is it just the number of outlets that matters, or the diversity of their character? In short: is choice "more stuff", or "more stuff that's different"..?

The more channels you have, the more thinly advertising revenue is spread between channels, and the harder is becomes to make quality content. So, if anything, there's a stronger case for having channels that don't all rely on the same funding model. Have some that run adverts. Have some that are entirely subscription based. Have some that are pay-per-view. And have some where their money is not directly tied to the audience figures, so they can focus on content that doesn't have to chase ratings.

R5

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 6:47 pm**

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
If the BBC wasn't so left slanting and misinforming perhaps

I work with right wingers who are convinced to their very core that the BBC is left wing. I also work with left wingers who never shut up about the establishment/conversative bias all across the BBC. When I tell a right-winger about what the left-wingers say, or a left-winger about what the right wingers say, they both look at me like I'm being deliberately obtuse.

They moan about it so much, particularly since Brexit, that I've started telling both groups, "look, just watch the 50% that isn't biased!" (Believe it or not that argument usually does shut them up, until they get triggered by some fresh headline.)

R5

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 7:25 pm**

five_red wrote: ↑
1 year ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
If the BBC wasn't so left slanting and misinforming perhaps
I work with right wingers who are convinced to their very core that the BBC is left wing. I also work with left wingers who never shut up about the establishment/conversative bias all across the BBC. When I tell a right-winger about what the left-wingers say, or a left-winger about what the right wingers say, they both look at me like I'm being deliberately obtuse.

They moan about it so much, particularly since Brexit, that I've started telling both groups, "look, just watch the 50% that isn't biased!" (Believe it or not that argument usually does shut them up, until they get triggered by some fresh headline.)

R5

A few examples without being too political

the BBC during the Student protests got their information from a student newspaper which openly sided with the rioters
They give 90% time to the terrorist 10% to Israeli spokesman during the terrorist attacks
on any U.S issue they talk to a Democrat not a Republican

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 7:53 pm**

Demonstrably, the BBC have a hugely left-wing bias.

It makes sense, they have spent the best part of 2-decades exclusively hiring from left-wing circles, quite apart from the fact that the media work available at the BBC substantially appeals to persons of a left-wing persuasion - the arts always has.

The left-wingers described for whom the BBC are too right wing are the extreme left (although in this world of echo chambers, they don't even realise how extreme left their views are I would imagine).

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 7:57 pm**

five_red wrote: ↑
1 year ago

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑
1 year ago
I agree. You can make a great argument for PBS in the 70's and 80's when you only had three networks and perhaps two UHF independent stations, but nowadays in a 500 channel universe with numerous options, I quetsion whether there is that same need for public television when there is indeed something for everyone already available on the airwaves. PBS really was an essential public service early on, but as cable television became more integral to American viewers, that essential public service became less essential, that PBS niche lane was appropriated by other cable networks who aired similar programming. PBS doesn't serve a unique, singular purpose anymore.
Is it just the number of outlets that matters, or the diversity of their character? In short: is choice "more stuff", or "more stuff that's different"..?

The more channels you have, the more thinly advertising revenue is spread between channels, and the harder is becomes to make quality content. So, if anything, there's a stronger case for having channels that don't all rely on the same funding model. Have some that run adverts. Have some that are entirely subscription based. Have some that are pay-per-view. And have some where their money is not directly tied to the audience figures, so they can focus on content that doesn't have to chase ratings.
I just don't see anything that PBS is doing that isn't already being done in the marketplace. Sesame Street now runs on HBO as well as PBS nowadays, at least until 2027. The original mandate for PBS relied on the premise that there were underserved audiences, PBS was built to fill in that void. I don't think you can make that argument anymore that there is a void in the marketplace, PBS isn't unique anymore, there are places to get the programming that was once just a PBS staple. That original mission statement that led to PBS is obsolete. There is a time and place for everything, I believe PBS has outlived both its original mandate as that beacon of light in the dark wilderness. It's a pretty crowded wilderness nowadays.

R5

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:06 pm**

I came here for BBC and all wow was I let down

lol

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 10:28 pm**

swampy170 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
Demonstrably, the BBC have a hugely left-wing bias.

Actually the BBC's bias is strictly monitored by Ofcom, which actually looks at things like how many hours of news and current affairs programming is devoted to different political groups and viewpoints. Any complaints about content can be made initially to the BBC themselves, who are required to make and publish a judgement about whether its Editorial Guidelines have been violated. The complainant can then take the complaint to Ofcom if they are not happy with the BBC's judgement. The BBC's guidelines are a code of conduct it is required to publish as part of the Royal Charter granted to it by Government to broadcast, and lay out exact how the BBC promises to deal with matters of balance. This balance doesn't just relate to UK politics, but covers political leaders and movements around the world. And it can be quite restrictive, too. Indeed a number of high profile BBC journalists have resigned in recent years (Emily Maitlis, John Sopel, Andrew Marr) because they claim the BBC's obsession with balance was too heavy handed. You'll recall the news reader Naga Munchetty fell foul of the BBC's guidelines merely by mentioning briefly that she had experienced racial abuse in the past. (The BBC decided that a black newsreader telling audiences that she had personally been the target of racism -- without even mentioning any details -- meant that she might be seen as being biased when reporting stories that dealt with racism.)

I accept that you'll just dismiss the above. No matter what I tell you, you're likely convinced that the BBC is biased against your own beliefs. But this is more down to a type of confirmation bias, where you remember the stuff that angered and upset you far more than you remember the stuff that didn't. The same confirmation bias operates for people on the opposite side of the political spectrum too. That's why they are just as convinced as you are that the BBC is biased, except in favour of the right. And, like you, they assume that the only right-wingers who think the BBC is biased must to be extreme far right. (I've experienced both mindsets personally, when dealing with people I work with.)

It makes sense, they have spent the best part of 2-decades exclusively hiring from left-wing circles, quite apart from the fact that the media work available at the BBC substantially appeals to persons of a left-wing persuasion - the arts always has.

Actually it doesn't make sense, because since the 1980s an increasing amount of the BBC's output is created by independent production companies that are not part of the BBC. Even "BBC Studios" is actually a separate commercial production company these days. That's why almost all BBC programs now have a slew of logos and brands idents in the closing credits. The BBC acts as a commissioning body, but the programmes themselves are created by independent production companies, some of them not even British (Endemol, for example, is Dutch.) Obviously the BBC requires any programmes made to be consistent with its guidelines, but as the guidelines are public and insist on balance, it would be very difficult for the BBC to put its thumb on the scales (so to speak) without being detected.

Now, the BBC Guidelines do not operate in a vacuum. They need to be based around certain moral and ethical standards, particularly when it comes to matters of taste and decency. For example, the BBC is unlike to broadcast content that is openly anti-Semitic, advocates racial violence, or is supportive of terrorism. But these standards are set (thanks to Ofcom) based upon surveys of the general British public. The BBC has started to include more and more gay and lesbian representation in its programming in recent decades, simply because surveys show that the British people's attitudes towards those communities have softened. However the BBC has not (unlike some American broadcasters) been particularly keen to include transgender individuals in its programmes. And when transgender people are included in programmes, the BBC usually invites someone to give an anti-trans viewpoint. This is likely due to there being lower levels of acceptance within the general public. So, while the BBC is now fine with having gay people on its shows without requiring an anti-gay voice also be present, they are not so accommodating with transgender people. If you've spent more than five minutes listening to transgender podcasts or reading transgender Twitter feeds, you'll be fully aware of just how hated the BBC is within transgender circles because of this.

The BBC is far from perfect. Indeed, there are many areas in which it is very much lacking. But bias -- generally speaking -- isn't one of them. If anything, one of its failings is that is way too afraid to show any bias, and goes to absurd lengths to be seen to be balanced. (Even I thought the Naga Munchetty stuff was silly.) But the problem is the way the BBC goes about providing that balance is by pissing all sides off equally. Which means everyone -- left and right -- is totally and utterly convinced the BBC is biased against their own viewpoint. And they absolutely cannot be convinced otherwise!

R5

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 10:35 pm**

five_red wrote: ↑
1 year ago

I accept that you'll just dismiss the above. No matter what I tell you, you're likely convinced that the BBC is biased against your own beliefs. But this is more down to a type of confirmation bias, where you remember the stuff that angered and upset you far more than you remember the stuff that didn't. The same confirmation bias operates for people on the opposite side of the political spectrum too. That's why they are just as convinced as you are that the BBC is biased, except in favour of the right. And, like you, they assume that the only right-wingers who think the BBC is biased must to be extreme far right. (I've experienced both mindsets personally, when dealing with people I work with.)

What's wrong with a media outlet leaning left? That's the goal or at least it was the goal when I was a lefty in the 80s. Yeah so what it leans left.

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2025 10:46 pm**

Mr. X wrote: ↑
1 year ago
What's wrong with a media outlet leaning left? That's the goal or at least it was the goal when I was a lefty in the 80s. Yeah so what it leans left.

There's nothing wrong with it. Most media outlets have a left or right bias. All newspapers in the UK do, but newspapers only serve their readers.

As a public service broadcaster, the BBC is supposed to represent ALL of the British people. That's why it is required to be balanced. And that's why there's so much monitoring and reporting around how it represents different political beliefs, and so much oversight and guidelines.

(If you really were a lefty in the 80s, you'll recall how the BBC reported on trade unions, and the Militant movement in Liverpool.)

R5

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2025 10:23 am**

Let's keep the politics in general terms everybody, so far so good.

I would point out though that in UK we have had 33 out of the last 44 years with right wing governments in power and unfortunately as the saying goes, power corrupts and we have seen a complete decline in standards culminating in the worst sequence of incompetent liars in power in our history. (One had been sacked from 4 previous jobs specifically for lying and was subsequently found guilty in court twice of deceiving the Queen (his boss don't forget) and then blatantly lying to parliament yet didn't resign.

If you have the BBC or any other media calling them out on that, their only defence was always 'BBC left wing bias' whereas that doesn't mean it isn't true .

Is it really 'bias' to call a liar a liar?

Anyhow I think there is consistent agreement that the licence fee funding needs to change. Change to what though I don't really have an answer.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2025 11:00 am**

Ground news is pretty much the world-leading authority on media bias.

Worth checking out the BBC.....

https://ground.news/interest/bbc-news_bf95f4

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2025 11:22 am**

tallyho wrote: ↑
1 year ago
If you have the BBC or any other media calling them out on that, their only defence was always 'BBC left wing bias' whereas that doesn't mean it isn't true .

This

also, having politically partisan news channels is a bad idea generally.

Note on "bias" one of the horde of trust fund nepo babies we have in the UK , who mooch about London and write terrible articles for niche news magazines and who look like they are missing a set or two of grandparents, James Delingpole once went on Question time (a sort of audience shouts at MPs thing). He was convinced it was biased and the audience was packed with left wingers. It turned out and he confirmed it was as perfectly balanced as it could be, but what was happening was that people didn't really like to stand up on TV and scream at that thier MPs that school kids should go hungry or the homeless should be euthanised or that millionaire CEOs need more cash etc (this will be alien to the US readers where it is ultra taboo to address poverty - I mean ffs, it's less taboo to say girls have dicks than maybe spending money on homelessness should be a thing)

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:09 pm**

The question though should the BBC charge a liscence fee who don't watch their content because some of their shows are on a third party site

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2025 3:26 pm**

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
The question though should the BBC charge a liscence fee who don't watch their content because some of their shows are on a third party site

OK, I have an open mind about this, what is the rationale for the BBC charging a license fee for Netflix? It feels like a shakedown to me.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2025 3:37 pm**

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑
1 year ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
The question though should the BBC charge a liscence fee who don't watch their content because some of their shows are on a third party site
OK, I have an open mind about this, what is the rationale for the BBC charging a license fee for Netflix? It feels like a shakedown to me.

Has to do with the Royal Charter ending in 2027. Perhaps a UK can give more details

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/uk ... k-30898141

But this would be the equvilent of the U.S charging every person a fee for a streaming service we don't use

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2025 3:53 pm**

batgirl1969 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
I came here for BBC and all wow was I let down lol

I came hoping it would be about Jenna Coleman not getting enough spandex and nipple clamps or Karen Gillan not get more episodes in the stripper cop outfit. A big let down. More political blather…

Posted: **Sun Feb 02, 2025 3:55 pm**

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑
1 year ago
The question though should the BBC charge a liscence fee who don't watch their content because some of their shows are on a third party site

It's really more of a TV tax that the government distributes, I think Capita have the contract to collect it etc and some it goes to the other terrestial channels, I think channel 4 gets a small chunk

The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

BBC Arrogance

BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance

Re: BBC Arrogance