Losing both the director-general and the very obvious heir apparent as the result of such an orchestrated attack is truly existential stuff for the BBC.
It’s also a *massive* challenge for Lisa Nandy, who has so far failed to impress anyone as culture secretary.
It is looking that if I take the plunge it will be the M3 Chip, 15" display, 16Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD (been playing with dashcams today - after a bit of dabbling it demand 60Gb of space just for the transfer), 2023 or 2024 date.
Cost refurbed is around £900-£950, which looks OK compared to the 13" M4 16Gb 256Gb for £880 new.
It is looking that if I take the plunge it will be the M3 Chip, 15" display, 16Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD (been playing with dashcams today), 2023 or 2024 date.
Cost refurbed is around £900-£950, which looks OK compared to the 13" M4 16Gb 256Gb for £880 new.
Just need to check warranty.
And turn on "tinted" on Liqud Arse.....if you don't want to be blinded.
The GOP agreeing to ban OMB from further reducing the admin state after campaigning against the admin state for 30+ years would be the most GOP thing ever.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
One of Leon’s many florid boasts was descent from Woden, I think these lads might have a stronger claim (insofar as descent from a mythical being can be a thing).
Luckily he is banned otherwise this entire thread would become about how he once shagged Woden's actual daughter in a noom church somewhere in rural France.
Can't we have him back? What did he do wrong?
The discussions on here are far more amenable during his absence. Aren't we due a regeneration anyway? Leon was a remarkably long lived character. I suspect his new name will be that of another Mercian king like Eadric. Maybe Leofric.
We are now in the bizarre situation where allegedly serious people are arguing that the national broadcaster was required to ensure due impartiality to supporters of the former President of a different country, one who continues to lie on a daily basis about a free and fair election being rigged and stolen, and who explicitly urged a mob of his followers to attempt to overturn said election in a coup d’état.
Nice pleasant change on ever increasing prices, time for annual car insurance shopping around.
Last year my car insurance cost £381 Renewal quote was £333, so already a discount. Best quote was £244
If only more prices changed like that.
What car are you driving for £244, a Robin Reliant....
I have 3 cars, a top of the range Sportage, a bottom of the range Picanto and a Cobra. All are under £244 insurance. Being 70, accident free and mileage limited to 9000/3000/2000 miles and no business usage helps.
My 18 plate Hyundai I10 is less than £200 a year.
However being retired and doing around 2,000 miles a year probably contributes to that.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
One of Leon’s many florid boasts was descent from Woden, I think these lads might have a stronger claim (insofar as descent from a mythical being can be a thing).
Luckily he is banned otherwise this entire thread would become about how he once shagged Woden's actual daughter in a noom church somewhere in rural France.
Can't we have him back? What did he do wrong?
The discussions on here are far more amenable during his absence. Aren't we due a regeneration anyway? Leon was a remarkably long lived character. I suspect his new name will be that of another Mercian king like Eadric. Maybe Leofric.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
One of Leon’s many florid boasts was descent from Woden, I think these lads might have a stronger claim (insofar as descent from a mythical being can be a thing).
Luckily he is banned otherwise this entire thread would become about how he once shagged Woden's actual daughter in a noom church somewhere in rural France.
Can't we have him back? What did he do wrong?
The discussions on here are far more amenable during his absence. Aren't we due a regeneration anyway? Leon was a remarkably long lived character. I suspect his new name will be that of another Mercian king like Eadric. Maybe Leofric.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
They did do the recent two seasons of Dr Who back to back. Shame they had a lead who couldn’t really commit to it and the show was tat
Nice pleasant change on ever increasing prices, time for annual car insurance shopping around.
Last year my car insurance cost £381 Renewal quote was £333, so already a discount. Best quote was £244
If only more prices changed like that.
What car are you driving for £244, a Robin Reliant....
I have 3 cars, a top of the range Sportage, a bottom of the range Picanto and a Cobra. All are under £244 insurance. Being 70, accident free and mileage limited to 9000/3000/2000 miles and no business usage helps.
My 18 plate Hyundai I10 is less than £200 a year.
However being retired and doing around 2,000 miles a year probably contributes to that.
I am 70 , 8000 miles, no business usage, never had a claim and my BMW SUV is a lot more than that
PS: I cannot remember how much but think it was high 400's
Rather amusing to watch the British and political media establishment tear itself apart over fear of insulting Trump just at the same time as Trump's myth of invincibility is falling apart in America
Even if we hate Trump’s guts, can we at least all agree that the BBC editing his speech from:
“March to the Capitol, peacefully and patriotically”
To:
“March to the Capitol, and fight like hell”
Is not just misleading, but deliberately and deceptively so on their part.
'If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore'
i guess he just meant fighting peacefully
The problem is that the BBC edit in the documentary gave the impression that President Trump was inciting a mob to attack the Capitol, whereas any attentive fair-minded observer who watched the whole speech would conclude that he was inciting a mob to attack the Capitol.
We can't have that, now the hypersensitive volatile despot has been reelected and wields huge power according to personal whim. You have to pretend Jan 6th didn't happen. The Beeb have the excuse that the doc aired before the election, but it's not a great one. There was always the risk he would win.
Re the BBC, the issue was not just about the Panorama report but the internal Prescott Report sent to the Board.
As usual, there were 2 issues:-
1. Concerns about editorial decisions and standards across a range of issues over a number of years. 2. Concerns about how complaints about these issues - both from staff and viewers - had been handled. This was in some cases even more damaging because it tended to suggest a senior management cadre that was incapable of dealing with concerns at all and so the same mistakes kept on being repeated. It damaged trust in the BBC's ability to police its behaviours and so trust in its output.
How far these complaints were justified is hard to say. But the point is that the BBC seems not to have made a good enough effort to try and address them rather going into defensive mode.
The BBC also - unforgivably - allowed the creation and continuation of conflicts of interest which allowed lobby groups to impact its professionalism, affecting both its journalism and editorial standards.
Of course some of its output continues to be great but as we know bad stuff tends to drive out good and once trust starts being lost it is a lot of work getting it back.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
Taboo was shit though.
But I agree with the broader point.
And this is an ITV programme, but as a country, why haven't we had the gumption to get Julian Fellowes to churn out Downton (or I suppose now its newly invented non-American owned successor) forever? The tourism benefits of that programme are still being felt to this day. It is bad for the country that we can't even get our act together to do costume drama these days.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
One of Leon’s many florid boasts was descent from Woden, I think these lads might have a stronger claim (insofar as descent from a mythical being can be a thing).
Luckily he is banned otherwise this entire thread would become about how he once shagged Woden's actual daughter in a noom church somewhere in rural France.
Can't we have him back? What did he do wrong?
The discussions on here are far more amenable during his absence. Aren't we due a regeneration anyway? Leon was a remarkably long lived character. I suspect his new name will be that of another Mercian king like Eadric. Maybe Leofric.
sooner he is back the better
Why? It's none of my business but this seems a happier place when he's on a sabbatical.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
They did do the recent two seasons of Dr Who back to back. Shame they had a lead who couldn’t really commit to it and the show was tat
I presume that was because Disney was putting a load of money in. The message the BBC will probably take from it was too rushed, we need to do Peaky Blinders and spend 10 years to get 30 odd episodes. Rather than wrong lead, and a writer who has lost the plot where everything has to be political and gay.
Rather amusing to watch the British and political media establishment tear itself apart over fear of insulting Trump just at the same time as Trump's myth of invincibility is falling apart in America
Would splicing two sentences together from either Fred West or Harold Shipman make them innocent and deserving of compensation?
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
Don’t watch much TV, but I would seriously miss their radio output. Their educational resources are pretty good too - God save us from relying on the rubbish Oak National Academy are turning out.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
The worldwide number of people who would pay the license fee to watch BBC output is huge. Far more than the UK license fee collection.
Imagine if the BBC had actually sorted out the world wide rights of their content. Encrypted, like all the other services - pay to access. Sold worldwide.
They would have been up there with Netflix etc. Independence and actual money to do stuff.
Wasn't that the idea behind Britbox ?
As usual, the idea was chopped up and fucked about with until it was useless.
The big problem was in getting world wide rights.
A common pattern was for the BBC to commission a program. And pay for the full cost of the program. And get just the UK broadcast rights. The company making the program would then sell it round the world - all profit...
The fact that various people in the BBC commissioning the program would be related to/married to/friends/etc of the company so commissioned was completely irrelevant.
It's not just the BBC; it happened at Channel 4 too.
And the issue is not just the slightly incestuous world of UK TV production, where commisioning editors know/date/marry production company owners and execs, it's the fact that you - as commissioning editor - have to fill time with a drama/documentary/etc, and you are expected to do it for as little money as possible.
When Chap X at HatTree Productions tells you he can do it for 15% less, if you allow him to potentially find other buyers in -say- Finland, you jump down his throat. Because you are judged on what you spend now, not on whether there is revenue two years from now from ABC or Canal Plus or whoever.
So... yes, it's incestuous, but even without the ... errr ... incest, it would still happen because TV buyers aren't rewarded for potential revenues some time in the future. (And if no revenues appear, you probably find yourself fired.)
Nice pleasant change on ever increasing prices, time for annual car insurance shopping around.
Last year my car insurance cost £381 Renewal quote was £333, so already a discount. Best quote was £244
If only more prices changed like that.
What car are you driving for £244, a Robin Reliant....
I have 3 cars, a top of the range Sportage, a bottom of the range Picanto and a Cobra. All are under £244 insurance. Being 70, accident free and mileage limited to 9000/3000/2000 miles and no business usage helps.
My 18 plate Hyundai I10 is less than £200 a year.
However being retired and doing around 2,000 miles a year probably contributes to that.
Amazingly the Cobra is the cheapest at around £150, yet it is the most expensive car and obviously the most powerful and dangerous by an order of magnitude. But Classic car insurance is peanuts because of low mileage and the care taken when driving them. I won't go out in the rain for instance because it is probably lethal.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
Taboo was shit though.
But I agree with the broader point.
And this is an ITV programme, but as a country, why haven't we had the gumption to get Julian Fellowes to churn out Downton (or I suppose now its newly invented non-American owned successor) forever? The tourism benefits of that programme are still being felt to this day. It is bad for the country that we can't even get our act together to do costume drama these days.
It did 7 million viewers an episode.....I thought it was alright. But it was Tom Hardy as lead and it was a project he was actually really into (not for the money). 7 episodes, delay, dither, Hardy becomes bigger than ever, dead.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
Nice pleasant change on ever increasing prices, time for annual car insurance shopping around.
Last year my car insurance cost £381 Renewal quote was £333, so already a discount. Best quote was £244
If only more prices changed like that.
What car are you driving for £244, a Robin Reliant....
I pay £210 for a hot (well, warm) hatch. Insurance is weird.
£150 for a 16 year old Megane. <5000 miles pa, no business miles as I was about to retire and in any case they discovered they had pissed the travel budget up against the wall and cancelled travel. Really, how can you not manage something as simple as a travel budget?
Nice pleasant change on ever increasing prices, time for annual car insurance shopping around.
Last year my car insurance cost £381 Renewal quote was £333, so already a discount. Best quote was £244
If only more prices changed like that.
What car are you driving for £244, a Robin Reliant....
I have 3 cars, a top of the range Sportage, a bottom of the range Picanto and a Cobra. All are under £244 insurance. Being 70, accident free and mileage limited to 9000/3000/2000 miles and no business usage helps.
My 18 plate Hyundai I10 is less than £200 a year.
However being retired and doing around 2,000 miles a year probably contributes to that.
I am 70 , 8000 miles, no business usage, never had a claim and my BMW SUV is a lot more than that
PS: I cannot remember how much but think it was high 400's
It’s not you, Malc, it’s everyone else who drives a BMW SUV. They give the odd careful one a bad reputation!
It’s not an assault on the BBC. It’s an assault on facts.
The edit was only remotely a problem if your position is that Trump played no part whatsoever in encouraging January 6th. Which he plainly and obviously did.
I mean, it might well also be an assault on the BBC, but in the grand scheme I’m much less concerned about that than the precedent we’re setting here by allowing reality to be rewritten.
We are now in the bizarre situation where allegedly serious people are arguing that the national broadcaster was required to ensure due impartiality to supporters of the former President of a different country, one who continues to lie on a daily basis about a free and fair election being rigged and stolen, and who explicitly urged a mob of his followers to attempt to overturn said election in a coup d’état.
The BBC were obviously daft to do what they did in editing, because they have, or had, a world class reputation for reliability and care and are a public service broadcaster.
But the egregious bias they are showing is their very soft and gentle coverage of Trump and Trumpism and its actions, aims and intentions, illegalities, authoritarianism and corruptions. This is so obvious that it seems to me they must be acting under orders from our government to go easy on them. Compare, for example, with LBC's outstanding coverage from Simon Marks.
Even if we hate Trump’s guts, can we at least all agree that the BBC editing his speech from:
“March to the Capitol, peacefully and patriotically”
To:
“March to the Capitol, and fight like hell”
Is not just misleading, but deliberately and deceptively so on their part.
'If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore'
i guess he just meant fighting peacefully
The problem is that the BBC edit in the documentary gave the impression that President Trump was inciting a mob to attack the Capitol, whereas any attentive fair-minded observer who watched the whole speech would conclude that he was inciting a mob to attack the Capitol.
We can't have that, now the hypersensitive volatile despot has been reelected and wields huge power according to personal whim. You have to pretend Jan 6th didn't happen. The Beeb have the excuse that the doc aired before the election, but it's not a great one. There was always the risk he would win.
The problem is that "Fake, but accurate" doesn't work as an excuse.
Even if we hate Trump’s guts, can we at least all agree that the BBC editing his speech from:
“March to the Capitol, peacefully and patriotically”
To:
“March to the Capitol, and fight like hell”
Is not just misleading, but deliberately and deceptively so on their part.
'If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore'
i guess he just meant fighting peacefully
The problem is that the BBC edit in the documentary gave the impression that President Trump was inciting a mob to attack the Capitol, whereas any attentive fair-minded observer who watched the whole speech would conclude that he was inciting a mob to attack the Capitol.
We can't have that, now the hypersensitive volatile despot has been reelected and wields huge power according to personal whim. You have to pretend Jan 6th didn't happen. The Beeb have the excuse that the doc aired before the election, but it's not a great one. There was always the risk he would win.
Trump's speech on January 6th is one of the most hotly debated and contested political speeches of all time. I have a very dim view of Trump's actions on January 6th, and I think they should have disqualified him from becoming President again, and then some.
But you do not as an impartial broadcaster approach such a deeply sensitive topic by adding to the fog of confusion around it by splicing sentences together and not making people aware of that fact. Particularly because in the context of the wider speech, the "peacefully and patriotically" line, which followed straight on from the line in question, is what has been used to argue against incitement.
It's shoddy journalism, and they've been rightly called out for it.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
They did do the recent two seasons of Dr Who back to back. Shame they had a lead who couldn’t really commit to it and the show was tat
I presume that was because Disney was putting a load of money in. The message the BBC will probably take from it was too rushed, we need to do Peaky Blinders and spend 10 years to get 30 odd episodes. Rather than wrong lead, and a writer who has lost the plot where everything has to be political and gay.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
They did do the recent two seasons of Dr Who back to back. Shame they had a lead who couldn’t really commit to it and the show was tat
I presume that was because Disney was putting a load of money in. The message the BBC will probably take from it was too rushed, we need to do Peaky Blinders and spend 10 years to get 30 odd episodes. Rather than wrong lead, and a writer who has lost the plot where everything has to be political and gay.
It looks like they’re seeking another partner to fund it, talk of Paramount, and the Beeb want RTD to stay on.
The problem with Gatwa was signing him on when he couldn’t fully commit to it and now he appears to be being thrown under the bus. Same happened to Eccleston.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
You have to question why the BBC even did this, effectively handing a political win to Trump
I understand they produced a programme on Gaza by the son of a Hamas fighter without declaring his identity, so again why undermine their credibility
This is self inflicted 'hari kari' and the demands to abolish the licence fee have just been handed a huge boost
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
I suppose there are millions who would not notice it, but millions would. I am one, and don't watch television at all but use radio a lot. However, BBCs standards of expertise in news coverage has really suffered. Remember, for example, when their legal journalists were real experts? And the level of questions put to leading politicians by generalist journalists is toe curling.
The BBC may survive even a Reform government. Abolition of the BBC in a manifesto would be like a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarch: it may switch a couple of million votes, so it is a risk.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
Taboo was shit though.
But I agree with the broader point.
And this is an ITV programme, but as a country, why haven't we had the gumption to get Julian Fellowes to churn out Downton (or I suppose now its newly invented non-American owned successor) forever? The tourism benefits of that programme are still being felt to this day. It is bad for the country that we can't even get our act together to do costume drama these days.
It did 7 million viewers an episode.....I thought it was alright. But it was Tom Hardy as lead and it was a project he was actually really into (not for the money). 7 episodes, delay, dither, Hardy becomes bigger than ever, dead.
Bodyguard was another very popular potential franchise that never went anywhere. Can't remember what channel that was.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Its also how poor they are at exploiting hit shows, Strictly and now Traitors being an exception.....I mean the sort of box set high quality drama shows.
I mentioned the other day I rewatched McMafia the other week. A really good show. And of course they didn't sign up the actors, they delayed, COVID came, then Ukraine / Russia, and now its a dead franchise. Taboo was another from a similar time, they spent a fortune on having Tom Hardy, was part of their big Christmas / New Year schedule....and dead...Compare to Slow Horses, they filmed the 2 two seasons back to back, they signed up Jackson Lamb for 5 seasons from the get go.
Taboo was shit though.
But I agree with the broader point.
And this is an ITV programme, but as a country, why haven't we had the gumption to get Julian Fellowes to churn out Downton (or I suppose now its newly invented non-American owned successor) forever? The tourism benefits of that programme are still being felt to this day. It is bad for the country that we can't even get our act together to do costume drama these days.
It did 7 million viewers an episode.....I thought it was alright. But it was Tom Hardy as lead and it was a project he was actually really into (not for the money). 7 episodes, delay, dither, Hardy becomes bigger than ever, dead.
Bodyguard was another very popular potential franchise that never went anywhere. Can't remember what channel that was.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
You have to question why the BBC even did this, effectively handing a political win to Trump
I understand they produced a programme on Gaza by the son of a Hamas fighter without declaring his identity, so again why undermine their credibility
This is self inflicted 'hari kari' and the demands to abolish the licence fee have just been handed a huge boost
I still question on this Remembrance Sunday why BBC news editors felt it appropriate in 2019 to substitute Prime Minister Johnson tossing his wreath upside down at the Cenotaph with a video of Mayor Johnson laying his wreath properly in 2016.
I have no doubt as he has done in the US, Trump will demand compensation which the BBC will probably pay.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
You have to question why the BBC even did this, effectively handing a political win to Trump
I understand they produced a programme on Gaza by the son of a Hamas fighter without declaring his identity, so again why undermine their credibility
This is self inflicted 'hari kari' and the demands to abolish the licence fee have just been handed a huge boost
I still question on this Remembrance Sunday why BBC news editors felt it appropriate in 2019 to substitute Prime Minister Johnson tossing his wreath upside down at the Cenotaph with a video of Mayor Johnson laying his wreath properly in 2016.
I have no doubt as he has done in the US, Trump will demand compensation which the BBC will probably pay.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
I'm not saying, "nope, no corporate interests here". Where did I say that? Why are you saying I said that?
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
I suppose there are millions who would not notice it, but millions would. I am one, and don't watch television at all but use radio a lot. However, BBCs standards of expertise in news coverage has really suffered. Remember, for example, when their legal journalists were real experts? And the level of questions put to leading politicians by generalist journalists is toe curling.
The BBC may survive even a Reform government. Abolition of the BBC in a manifesto would be like a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarch: it may switch a couple of million votes, so it is a risk.
The polling on the licence fee post today will be interesting
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
I'm not saying, "nope, no corporate interests here". Where did I say that? Why are you saying I said that?
I am not saying that at all. You were saying well ITV wouldn't be happy about them doing ads. I am just demonstrating they are running ads all over the shop already. And actually ITV don't have a say anyway. They also don't half run a lot of ads for their own stuff as well.
So in terms of funding, if allowed they could easily switch on the ads for UK for things like the news channel. And bring UKTV under the BBC banner and then have a range of "ad supported" channels and say BBC 1 being the non-ad channel.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
I suppose there are millions who would not notice it, but millions would. I am one, and don't watch television at all but use radio a lot. However, BBCs standards of expertise in news coverage has really suffered. Remember, for example, when their legal journalists were real experts? And the level of questions put to leading politicians by generalist journalists is toe curling.
The BBC may survive even a Reform government. Abolition of the BBC in a manifesto would be like a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarch: it may switch a couple of million votes, so it is a risk.
Today. The direction of travel for viewership for the post boomer generations is not friendly to long term affections.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
You have to question why the BBC even did this, effectively handing a political win to Trump
I understand they produced a programme on Gaza by the son of a Hamas fighter without declaring his identity, so again why undermine their credibility
This is self inflicted 'hari kari' and the demands to abolish the licence fee have just been handed a huge boost
I still question on this Remembrance Sunday why BBC news editors felt it appropriate in 2019 to substitute Prime Minister Johnson tossing his wreath upside down at the Cenotaph with a video of Mayor Johnson laying his wreath properly in 2016.
I have no doubt as he has done in the US, Trump will demand compensation which the BBC will probably pay.
Do you ever comment without whataboutery
Never.
Isn't whataboutery mandatory on PB anyway?
P S. My post isn't (unusually in this instance) whataboutery. It is undeniable fact from six years ago to the day.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
The worldwide number of people who would pay the license fee to watch BBC output is huge. Far more than the UK license fee collection.
Imagine if the BBC had actually sorted out the world wide rights of their content. Encrypted, like all the other services - pay to access. Sold worldwide.
They would have been up there with Netflix etc. Independence and actual money to do stuff.
Wasn't that the idea behind Britbox ?
As usual, the idea was chopped up and fucked about with until it was useless.
The big problem was in getting world wide rights.
A common pattern was for the BBC to commission a program. And pay for the full cost of the program. And get just the UK broadcast rights. The company making the program would then sell it round the world - all profit...
The fact that various people in the BBC commissioning the program would be related to/married to/friends/etc of the company so commissioned was completely irrelevant.
It's not just the BBC; it happened at Channel 4 too.
And the issue is not just the slightly incestuous world of UK TV production, where commisioning editors know/date/marry production company owners and execs, it's the fact that you - as commissioning editor - have to fill time with a drama/documentary/etc, and you are expected to do it for as little money as possible.
When Chap X at HatTree Productions tells you he can do it for 15% less, if you allow him to potentially find other buyers in -say- Finland, you jump down his throat. Because you are judged on what you spend now, not on whether there is revenue two years from now from ABC or Canal Plus or whoever.
So... yes, it's incestuous, but even without the ... errr ... incest, it would still happen because TV buyers aren't rewarded for potential revenues some time in the future. (And if no revenues appear, you probably find yourself fired.)
So savings in the short term at the likely costs of future revenues?
Like everything else in this blo[scuffles as he is taken somewhere quiet and peaceful for a bit, without that much resistance, really]
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
I'm not saying, "nope, no corporate interests here". Where did I say that? Why are you saying I said that?
I am not saying that at all. You were saying well ITV wouldn't be happy about them doing ads. I am just demonstrating they are running ads all over the shop already. And actually ITV don't have a say anyway. They also don't half run a lot of ads for their own stuff as well.
So in terms of funding, if allowed they could easily switch on the ads for UK for things like the news channel. And bring UKTV under the BBC banner and then have a range of "ad supported" channels and say BBC 1 being the non-ad channel.
If you're "not saying that at all", why did you write, "You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here"?
The BBC does not have ads on its main channels/iPlayer, as I said and as you well know. I didn't say ITV have a say: I said they wouldn't be happy about the competition. It is frustratingly difficult having any sort of conversation with you if you keep replying to things I've never said.
Yes, they could do all sorts of things. My point is that there isn't an unlimited amount of money available from ads.
I think the NewsAgents take is going to be predictable...
The former Apprentice host says ‘you’re fired’ - and out go the DG and News CEO - over a dumb, moronic Panorama edit. Why on earth didn’t the BBC simply apologise when this first came to light. Whole thing seems bizarre
Tim Davie was one of the best D-Gs the BBC has had, and Deborah Turness was a brilliant head of news. Only the BBC’s enemies could possibly be glad they’ve resigned. We’ve now got a real fight on our hands to defend public service broadcasting, because that’s under threat too.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
I'm not saying, "nope, no corporate interests here". Where did I say that? Why are you saying I said that?
I am not saying that at all. You were saying well ITV wouldn't be happy about them doing ads. I am just demonstrating they are running ads all over the shop already. And actually ITV don't have a say anyway. They also don't half run a lot of ads for their own stuff as well.
So in terms of funding, if allowed they could easily switch on the ads for UK for things like the news channel. And bring UKTV under the BBC banner and then have a range of "ad supported" channels and say BBC 1 being the non-ad channel.
If you're "not saying that at all", why did you write, "You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here"?
The BBC does not have ads on its main channels/iPlayer, as I said and as you well know. I didn't say ITV have a say: I said they wouldn't be happy about the competition. It is frustratingly difficult having any sort of conversation with you if you keep replying to things I've never said.
Yes, they could do all sorts of things. My point is that there isn't an unlimited amount of money available from ads.
"You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here"?
I apologise if you took that the wrong way, that wasn't meant to imply that is what I think you have said. I think we are at crossed wires. It was my general take on how the BBC have deflected against the idea of ads in the past, which doesn't hold true now. They are very much engaged in the ad supported eco-system.
Notwithstanding the egregious nature of the Trump edit, there's a whiff of Al Capone and tax evasion to all this. Systematic partiality on sex and gender, for over a decade, is the real story.
My dislike of Reeves was kindled when I heard her pre-election chit-chat with Bad Al and Rory Stewart.
In a generally soft-ball interview, Stewart innocently asked whether her tax plans would be sufficient, and Reeves jumped down his throat and started ranting about Tory effrontery.
She’s obviously quite a bitter individual, and as we’ve now discovered, destructively useless as well.
When she is angry she reminds me of early 80s Siouxsie Sioux, albeit sounding like Harry H Corbett
Mum's convinced Rachel is an "AI robot" (her words) created by Starmer
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
At least 10 Senate Democrats are expected to support a procedural motion to advance a package of spending bills and a short term-funding measure through the end of January, multiple sources from both parties told Axios.
The deal would include a promised vote on extending Obamacare tax credits in December, the sources said. It could also include some kind of language to help federal workers who have been laid off under the shutdown. https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1987601173742862833
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
I actually think Davie was making the BBC news a bit more objective again. It wasn’t him who doctored the report but he still took responsibility and resigned. Not sure Kemi wants to be encouraging a culture of too many people currently failing to make a great success of a high profile role to resign at the moment either. Tory MPs might also start taking notice
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct. It would give a solid start to a renewed but ecumenical caliphate under KCIII.
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
I actually think Davie was making the BBC news a bit more objective again. It wasn’t him who doctored the report but he still took responsibility and resigned. Not sure Kemi wants to be encouraging a culture of too many people currently failing to make a great success of a high profile role to resign at the moment either. Tory MPs might also start taking notice
It isn't really this one story. Its a landry list of things. TBH, he really shound have gone over Huw Edwards, where he was the one directly in charge, and made a massive balls up over it. The family went to the BBC were ignored, the Sun raised it, they were deflected, finally it was dragged out and other revealed they had complained and yet he still paid Edwards £100k's to be off sick....and then it turns out the family were telling the truth and Edwards is a paedo and acted in very dodgy manner with a number of young vunerable men.
Compared to say the twenty something on the ones and twos at Glastonbury who is things live streaming ranting about Zoinist music bosses using all the antisemitic tropes doesn't need turning off, which wasn't him.
It’s not an assault on the BBC. It’s an assault on facts.
The edit was only remotely a problem if your position is that Trump played no part whatsoever in encouraging January 6th. Which he plainly and obviously did.
I mean, it might well also be an assault on the BBC, but in the grand scheme I’m much less concerned about that than the precedent we’re setting here by allowing reality to be rewritten.
I see the focus is going to be 100% on this one edit, not the dossier all the other issues, many of which weren't known before, but there were plenty of previous issues there were known. This was just the latest in a long last of stories where the BBC response is always well we got it about right and nobody is held responsible.
Indeed. I don't think it's a bad thing that they have resigned, but it is/will be spun as anti-Trump bias and will be used to try and swing the BBC even more to the fascists
It won't though, all the talking heads will run cover and say Orange Man bad, inferering in UK, booo, it will get bogged down in the details of the edit of that one clip and be decided that nothing to see. We will just get a Labour stooge instead a Tory one and it will be same old same old in a few months time.
🧵 While the BBC remains fairly well trusted overall and one of the most trusted media sources in the country, the broadcaster has an image problem with Reform voters who are much less likely than average to say they trust the broadcaster and are split between trust/distrust.
The bigger problem isn't the right wing oldies, its youngsters, the BBC doesn't exist to them.
Nor does ITV I presume?
Graun just published this, as it happens, if anyone is interested. Haven'#t read it as I DGAF about Traitors (still don't know or care what it is about) but the blurb stuck in my mind:
"Fandom memes, influencers and TikTok deal helped secure industry’s holy grail: gen Z loyalty"
Watching a show for 2 hours a week for 4 weeks then getting on with the rest of your lives != loyalty.
For decades this has been my biggest bugbear with people who defend the BBC by claiming one decent show, often years ago, shows how valuable it is. No, it does not.
It takes more than just 1 show to inspire loyalty and young people today, quite rightly, are not loyal to a failed and frankly boring outdated behemoth from the past.
Just because someone watched Traitors for an hour does not mean they will now watch Bargain Hunt or the rest of the drivel linearly broadcast.
Er, Traitors is (apparently) not broadcast by the BBC. ...
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct.
Charles is not a descendant of Princess Margaret at all. And Edward VIII had no descendants at all as far as we know, so Charles is certainly not Edward's descendant, direct or otherwise*.
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
I've unsubscribed from most of the BBC current affairs podcasts due to their 'dark pattern' advertising of their own effing podcasts. Get a minute or two into the show, then suddenly AT MUCH HIGHER VOLUME get an advert for BBC SOUNDS NEW PODCAST which you really should know is available on BBC SOUNDS.
Interesting that resigning head of news denies the BBC is biased.. they just don't get it. Corrupt.. biased... call it what you like. If you can't trust the BBC then something is terribly wrong. To call a disgraceful edit that had to be by design.. "a mistake" is not fooling anyone.
The BBC was forced to make 215 corrections in the last two years over the coverage by its BBC Arabic arm ( funded through our licence fee) of the Gaza conflict.
This is why it isn't really the Trump thing, although that will be all the focus.
Losing both the director-general and the very obvious heir apparent as the result of such an orchestrated attack is truly existential stuff for the BBC.
It’s also a *massive* challenge for Lisa Nandy, who has so far failed to impress anyone as culture secretary.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct.
Charles is not a descendant of Princess Margaret at all. And Edward VIII had no descendants at all as far as we know, so Charles is certainly not Edward's descendant, direct or otherwise*.
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
KCIII *is* a collateral descendant of KEVIII. Who was brother of his granddad. But not, so far as we know, as you say, a direct descendant.
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
I actually think Davie was making the BBC news a bit more objective again. It wasn’t him who doctored the report but he still took responsibility and resigned. Not sure Kemi wants to be encouraging a culture of too many people currently failing to make a great success of a high profile role to resign at the moment either. Tory MPs might also start taking notice
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
I actually think Davie was making the BBC news a bit more objective again. It wasn’t him who doctored the report but he still took responsibility and resigned. Not sure Kemi wants to be encouraging a culture of too many people currently failing to make a great success of a high profile role to resign at the moment either. Tory MPs might also start taking notice
It isn't really this one story. Its a landry list of things. TBH, he really shound have gone over Huw Edwards, where he was the one directly in charge, and made a massive balls up over it. The family went to the BBC were ignored, the Sun raised it, they were deflected, finally it was dragged out and other revealed they had complained and yet he still paid Edwards £100k's to be off sick....and then it turns out the family were telling the truth and Edwards is a paedo and acted in very dodgy manner with a number of young vunerable men.
Compared to say the twenty something on the ones and twos at Glastonbury who is things live streaming ranting about Zoinist music bosses using all the antisemitic tropes doesn't need turning off, which wasn't him.
Edwards liked young men and acted in a sleazy way towards them and got some dodgy pictures he shouldn’t have. Clearly he couldn’t stay at the BBC. Was he a paedo though? Unlikely
Interesting that resigning head of news denies the BBC is biased.. they just don't get it. Corrupt.. biased... call it what you like. If you can't trust the BBC then something is terribly wrong. To call a disgraceful edit that had to be by design.. "a mistake" is not fooling anyone.
I have just seen the edit on Trump and frankly it was idiotic and unacceptable
I cannot understand how anybody can start to excuse such a crass bit of journalism
It’s not an assault on the BBC. It’s an assault on facts.
The edit was only remotely a problem if your position is that Trump played no part whatsoever in encouraging January 6th. Which he plainly and obviously did.
I mean, it might well also be an assault on the BBC, but in the grand scheme I’m much less concerned about that than the precedent we’re setting here by allowing reality to be rewritten.
I see the focus is going to be 100% on this one edit, not the dossier all the other issues, many of which weren't known before, but there were plenty of previous issues there were known. This was just the latest in a long last of stories where the BBC response is always well we got it about right and nobody is held responsible.
Indeed. I don't think it's a bad thing that they have resigned, but it is/will be spun as anti-Trump bias and will be used to try and swing the BBC even more to the fascists
It won't though, all the talking heads will run cover and say Orange Man bad, inferering in UK, booo, it will get bogged down in the details of the edit of that one clip and be decided that nothing to see. We will just get a Labour stooge instead a Tory one and it will be same old same old in a few months time.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
That is so true and so unjust, though I do not know the answer
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
I've unsubscribed from most of the BBC current affairs podcasts due to their 'dark pattern' advertising of their own effing podcasts. Get a minute or two into the show, then suddenly AT MUCH HIGHER VOLUME get an advert for BBC SOUNDS NEW PODCAST which you really should know is available on BBC SOUNDS.
BBC SOUNDS.
I can only speak for myself but I’m gagging to hear the new Ready to Talk with Emma Barnett podcast.
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
I actually think Davie was making the BBC news a bit more objective again. It wasn’t him who doctored the report but he still took responsibility and resigned. Not sure Kemi wants to be encouraging a culture of too many people currently failing to make a great success of a high profile role to resign at the moment either. Tory MPs might also start taking notice
It isn't really this one story. Its a landry list of things. TBH, he really shound have gone over Huw Edwards, where he was the one directly in charge, and made a massive balls up over it. The family went to the BBC were ignored, the Sun raised it, they were deflected, finally it was dragged out and other revealed they had complained and yet he still paid Edwards £100k's to be off sick....and then it turns out the family were telling the truth and Edwards is a paedo and acted in very dodgy manner with a number of young vunerable men.
Compared to say the twenty something on the ones and twos at Glastonbury who is things live streaming ranting about Zoinist music bosses using all the antisemitic tropes doesn't need turning off, which wasn't him.
Edwards liked young men and acted in a sleazy way towards them and got some dodgy pictures he shouldn’t have. Clearly he couldn’t stay at the BBC. Was he a paedo though? No
Hmmm. It was far more than "acted in a sleazy way". And he was extremely lucky not to go to prison over the "dodgy" pictures.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Personally I don’t care about the BBC and its journalism or its output. I do care that I have to pay £180 a year for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Local TV news is garbage, mainly lobbyist and pressure groups press releases recycled as news.
You want it, you value it, fine. You pay for it. Others are also welcome to.with Netflix we have a choice. With the BBC we have no choice if we want to receive live TV signals.
As for funding then Ads, subscription, pay as you go. Any lf those will do for the means of funding, if people value it so highly they will still pay for it. Demanding people,pay a license fee then prosecuting them through the SJP for not having one is little short of disgraceful.
The argument used to be no ads so they could be totally impartial, however BBC News outside UK, ads, podcasts, ads, they own 100% of UKTV, ads....
Ad revenue is collapsing, and ITV don’t want the BBC showing ads as it would cut into their income.
Huh? They already are showing ads, thats the whole point. They own 100% of UKTV is that is fully ad supported network of tv channels. So all these claims about impartiality over corporate interests, "other brands are available" stuff is just nonsense these days.
They're not showing ads on their main UK channels/iPlayer.
BBC News is now combined worldwide, when it goes to time wasting hold nonsense in the UK, they are showing ads in the rest of the world. You can't really hide behind the nope, no corporate interests here, just because Joe Bloggs in the UK doesn't see it.
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
I've unsubscribed from most of the BBC current affairs podcasts due to their 'dark pattern' advertising of their own effing podcasts. Get a minute or two into the show, then suddenly AT MUCH HIGHER VOLUME get an advert for BBC SOUNDS NEW PODCAST which you really should know is available on BBC SOUNDS.
BBC SOUNDS.
I can only speak for myself but I’m gagging to hear the new Ready to Talk with Emma Barnett podcast.
I look forward to skipping the advert for it on the one remaining BBC podcast I have before I unsubscribe from that too.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
The price of not voting as much as the oldies do. Its expensive.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
When many boomers worked there were not really many companies offering pensions either.
Comments
Losing both the director-general and the very obvious heir apparent as the result of such an orchestrated attack is truly existential stuff for the BBC.
It’s also a *massive* challenge for Lisa Nandy, who has so far failed to impress anyone as culture secretary.
https://bsky.app/profile/jamesrball.com/post/3m57sw72o222t
It is looking that if I take the plunge it will be the M3 Chip, 15" display, 16Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD (been playing with dashcams today - after a bit of dabbling it demand 60Gb of space just for the transfer), 2023 or 2024 date.
Cost refurbed is around £900-£950, which looks OK compared to the 13" M4 16Gb 256Gb for £880 new.
Just need to check warranty.
SCOOP: There’s a deal to reverse the mass layoffs of federal workers (RIFs) since Oct. 1 as part of the bill to reopen the gov’t
Sen. Collins told R’s at lunch that the issue of *future* RIFs is unresolved & Sen. Kaine pushing hard on it. WH opposes
@rachelbovard
The GOP agreeing to ban OMB from further reducing the admin state after campaigning against the admin state for 30+ years would be the most GOP thing ever.
We are now in the bizarre situation where allegedly serious people are arguing that the national broadcaster was required to ensure due impartiality to supporters of the former President of a different country, one who continues to lie on a daily basis about a free and fair election being rigged and stolen, and who explicitly urged a mob of his followers to attempt to overturn said election in a coup d’état.
However being retired and doing around 2,000 miles a year probably contributes to that.
PS: I cannot remember how much but think it was high 400's
Oh, sorry, were you referring to the BBC?
Rather amusing to watch the British and political media establishment tear itself apart over fear of insulting Trump just at the same time as Trump's myth of invincibility is falling apart in America
We can't have that, now the hypersensitive volatile despot has been reelected and wields huge power according to personal whim. You have to pretend Jan 6th didn't happen. The Beeb have the excuse that the doc aired before the election, but it's not a great one. There was always the risk he would win.
As usual, there were 2 issues:-
1. Concerns about editorial decisions and standards across a range of issues over a number of years.
2. Concerns about how complaints about these issues - both from staff and viewers - had been handled. This was in some cases even more damaging because it tended to suggest a senior management cadre that was incapable of dealing with concerns at all and so the same mistakes kept on being repeated. It damaged trust in the BBC's ability to police its behaviours and so trust in its output.
How far these complaints were justified is hard to say. But the point is that the BBC seems not to have made a good enough effort to try and address them rather going into defensive mode.
The BBC also - unforgivably - allowed the creation and continuation of conflicts of interest which allowed lobby groups to impact its professionalism, affecting both its journalism and editorial standards.
Of course some of its output continues to be great but as we know bad stuff tends to drive out good and once trust starts being lost it is a lot of work getting it back.
But I agree with the broader point.
And this is an ITV programme, but as a country, why haven't we had the gumption to get Julian Fellowes to churn out Downton (or I suppose now its newly invented non-American owned successor) forever? The tourism benefits of that programme are still being felt to this day. It is bad for the country that we can't even get our act together to do costume drama these days.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
And the issue is not just the slightly incestuous world of UK TV production, where commisioning editors know/date/marry production company owners and execs, it's the fact that you - as commissioning editor - have to fill time with a drama/documentary/etc, and you are expected to do it for as little money as possible.
When Chap X at HatTree Productions tells you he can do it for 15% less, if you allow him to potentially find other buyers in -say- Finland, you jump down his throat. Because you are judged on what you spend now, not on whether there is revenue two years from now from ABC or Canal Plus or whoever.
So... yes, it's incestuous, but even without the ... errr ... incest, it would still happen because TV buyers aren't rewarded for potential revenues some time in the future. (And if no revenues appear, you probably find yourself fired.)
That if you generally believe someone played a part in something, you must also believe it's not a problem to falsify evidence to support that belief?
On what planet is that remotely logical?
But the egregious bias they are showing is their very soft and gentle coverage of Trump and Trumpism and its actions, aims and intentions, illegalities, authoritarianism and corruptions. This is so obvious that it seems to me they must be acting under orders from our government to go easy on them. Compare, for example, with LBC's outstanding coverage from Simon Marks.
Lying about a liar still makes you a liar.
But you do not as an impartial broadcaster approach such a deeply sensitive topic by adding to the fog of confusion around it by splicing sentences together and not making people aware of that fact. Particularly because in the context of the wider speech, the "peacefully and patriotically" line, which followed straight on from the line in question, is what has been used to argue against incitement.
It's shoddy journalism, and they've been rightly called out for it.
The problem with Gatwa was signing him on when he couldn’t fully commit to it and now he appears to be being thrown under the bus. Same happened to Eccleston.
I understand they produced a programme on Gaza by the son of a Hamas fighter without declaring his identity, so again why undermine their credibility
This is self inflicted 'hari kari' and the demands to abolish the licence fee have just been handed a huge boost
The claim now is that he didn't, but the edit make look like he did.
He did.
The edit doesn't change that.
Let's hope he makes a full recovery.
The BBC may survive even a Reform government. Abolition of the BBC in a manifesto would be like a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarch: it may switch a couple of million votes, so it is a risk.
Which of top 50 are BBC commissioned?
Looks like a few David Attenborough, Sherlock, Fleabag and Bodyguard. So a bit over 10%.
Is that good or bad would you say?
The rubicon has been broken ages ago. The BBC News website show ads (just not UK), the news channel shows ads (just not UK), their podcasts distributed on other platforms play ads, they own a whole network of channels they show ads on.
Its a bit like saying I personally have adblock on YouTube so all that ad money Google takes for global ads on that video doesn't have any influence on how they run their network.
It was before COVID too.
I have no doubt as he has done in the US, Trump will demand compensation which the BBC will probably pay.
So in terms of funding, if allowed they could easily switch on the ads for UK for things like the news channel. And bring UKTV under the BBC banner and then have a range of "ad supported" channels and say BBC 1 being the non-ad channel.
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
Trump is completely beyond any such effort.
The irony is that must uf the BBC's output sanewashes him to an embarrassing extent.
Isn't whataboutery mandatory on PB anyway?
P S. My post isn't (unusually in this instance) whataboutery. It is undeniable fact from six years ago to the day.
Like everything else in this blo[scuffles as he is taken somewhere quiet and peaceful for a bit, without that much resistance, really]
The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations - strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised. The culture at the BBC has not yet changed.
BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom - because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1987601695057367165?s=20
The BBC does not have ads on its main channels/iPlayer, as I said and as you well know. I didn't say ITV have a say: I said they wouldn't be happy about the competition. It is frustratingly difficult having any sort of conversation with you if you keep replying to things I've never said.
Yes, they could do all sorts of things. My point is that there isn't an unlimited amount of money available from ads.
The former Apprentice host says ‘you’re fired’ - and out go the DG and News CEO - over a dumb, moronic Panorama edit. Why on earth didn’t the BBC simply apologise when this first came to light. Whole thing seems bizarre
https://x.com/jonsopel/status/1987594183503225080?s=20
Tim Davie was one of the best D-Gs the BBC has had, and Deborah Turness was a brilliant head of news. Only the BBC’s enemies could possibly be glad they’ve resigned. We’ve now got a real fight on our hands to defend public service broadcasting, because that’s under threat too.
I apologise if you took that the wrong way, that wasn't meant to imply that is what I think you have said. I think we are at crossed wires. It was my general take on how the BBC have deflected against the idea of ads in the past, which doesn't hold true now. They are very much engaged in the ad supported eco-system.
Notwithstanding the egregious nature of the Trump edit, there's a whiff of Al Capone and tax evasion to all this. Systematic partiality on sex and gender, for over a decade, is the real story.
The deal would include a promised vote on extending Obamacare tax credits in December, the sources said. It could also include some kind of language to help federal workers who have been laid off under the shutdown.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1987601173742862833
A promise, from this administration ?
FFS.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct. It would give a solid start to a renewed but ecumenical caliphate under KCIII.
Compared to say the twenty something on the ones and twos at Glastonbury who is things live streaming ranting about Zoinist music bosses using all the antisemitic tropes doesn't need turning off, which wasn't him.
...
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither.
https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
BBC SOUNDS.
This is why it isn't really the Trump thing, although that will be all the focus.
I cannot understand how anybody can start to excuse such a crass bit of journalism
Completely self inflicted and sad
This is what 'Orange Man' always brings to mind for me. And RIP Robbie Coltrane.
Motorists to be taxed for driving in France under Reeves’s pay-per-mile plan https://share.google/TZ2Ujo1qrGsIKA0w8