The So-Called BBC

The American Thinker ^ | March 24, 2004 | Michael Morris

[quidnunc]

Imagine a huge state broadcasting network in the US completely financed by a tax levied on every single household with a television set.

Perhaps this fee might cost about $200 every year and there would be no way to opt out — short of getting rid of the offending TV set. It would make no difference whether you watched their channels or not — you would still have to pay the state broadcaster’s fee.

Of course, the broadcaster would be kind enough to inform all citizens that illegally operating a television set without a license would land them a prison sentence. As a warning, they’d erect massive billboard posters with a message threatening: “Get one or get done!”

To enforce this license fee, the state broadcaster might even send men in small unmarked vans — loaded with high-tech signal detection equipment — to residential neighborhoods in order to catch out those citizens with a TV — but no license. Upon arriving at your doorstep, they’d have the legal right to enter and search your home.

There’d better not be any contraband TV found on your property or you could be going away for an involuntary holiday. And finally, there’d be no point in complaining because the state broadcaster would be self regulating, and could not be held to account by any external authority or watchdog.

Of course, we know this is all pure fantasy and it certainly could never happen in a country such as the US — where gun ownership is legal.

However, what has been described to you is the exact — with no exaggeration whatsoever — madness and method that makes the so-called BBC, one of the world’s largest media networks with a tax take of approximately $5 billion per year. So next time you’re watching BBC America — give thanks to the generosity of the British.

The so-called BBC’s taxed finance is what makes it unlike any other major broadcaster in the world, such as CNN or FOX. The tax allows it to operate outside the same market forces that apply to all its main global competitors. In that context, the so-called BBC is in a privileged and unrivalled position.

In practical terms, this means that their news agenda is arbitrarily driven by editors and journalists who don’t have to worry about consumers switching off. The so-called BBC can ignore the concept of “free choice”, as it’s exempt from having to deal with the reality of a free market.

-snip-

[quidnunc]

Quote:

There are also serious question that need to be asked of the British government. For instance, is it right that the British public — who are evenly split on the issue of the Iraq war — should be financing a state broadcaster that is clearly out of control and intent on turning its audience into anti Americans?

Is the so-called BBC the source of much of the anti American sentiment throughout Europe and the rest of the world?

If this is the case, then the US government will soon need to look at the so-called BBC in a new and more dangerous light.

[toolach]

The BBC is a slendid public service broadcaster -the bbc is not responsible for "much of the anti American sentiment throughout Europe and the rest of the world".



Looking at comment in Europe:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=dde30da5c79e98001bf29a6c2be6be32&threadid=149404

Where is this sentiment

[quidnunc]

There is irrefutable evidence of the fact that in significant portions of it's programming the BBC is stridently anti-American.

[talleyman]

The BBC is a slendid public service broadcaster

Thank you, Nina Totenberg. Welcome aboard, troll.

[talleyman]

There is irrefutable evidence of the fact that in significant portions of it's programming the BBC is stridently anti-American.

Pretty anti-British as well.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Hey Bob Edwards, NPR let you go, but that doesn't mean that sucking up to the BBC will help.

[EggsAckley]

Silly troll. You think that you'll change any opinions HERE? The BBC is totally Anti-American.

[Constitution Day]

Bob Edwards has a lot of work to do to achieve that snotty, plummy accent required for the Beeb.

[GoLightly]

The board in charge of the BBC is appointed by the Queen. From what I read, their job is not about overseeing content or dabbling in the editorial policy, though there was a bit of a push by the current government for it to support the policy of the government, IOW the party in power.

Awhile ago I heard a complaint by a reporter from Sky about the UK having nothing equal to the American 1st ammendment. From my POV, I think Britsh print is pretty good at getting out news from all sides.

I've yet to discover why the reporter from Sky had the reaction he did, when it came to freedom of the airwaves in the UK. If anyone knows what he was talking about or could send me to any resources, I'd appreciate it.

[Ed Thomas]

I'd agree with Toolach on this one- the BBC is a superb public service broadcaster. For most people on this board, the main exposure they have to the BBC is their news output, but it produces a huge amount of other programming as well- stuff which the author of this article himself admits is excellent.

The BBC screens the vast majority of TV in the UK that's worth watching IMO- the only other station that ever has anything comperable is Channel 4 and that's very patchy. BBC radio's even better- the commercial stuff's unmitigated rubbish and I'd say stations like BBC Radio 4 really are the best in the world, broadcasting fascinating stuff that commercial radio would never dream of touching. Whatever you think of the corporation's news output, it should be borne in mind that that's only the tip of the iceberg and in the cultural and entertainment field it is truly excellent.

[Nasty McPhilthy]

"So next time you’re watching BBC America — give thanks to the generosity of the British."

Trust me on this. I won't be caught watching the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation.

[talleyman]

Whatever you think of the corporation's news output, it should be borne in mind that that's only the tip of the iceberg ...

In other words, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"

[BushisTheMan]

I don't think that Tony Blair things the BBC is unbiased. After all, the BBC blasted his anti-war stance for months and months.

In the end, it was the BBC who got screwed over and Blair opinion was validated.

The BBC sucks and every day I write to their Have Your Say column and post as many anti-BBC comments as I can find.

They are silent on the UN scandal.

[quidnunc]

GoLightly wrote: Awhile ago I heard a complaint by a reporter from Sky about the UK having nothing equal to the American 1st ammendment. From my POV, I think Britsh print is pretty good at getting out news from all sides. I've yet to discover why the reporter from Sky had the reaction he did, when it came to freedom of the airwaves in the UK. If anyone knows what he was talking about or could send me to any resources, I'd appreciate it.

I can't give you specifics, but there in in the UK a board which oversees media content.

If a group or individual feels they have been harmed by media coverage they can complain to this board, which has the power to impose sanctions.

Furthermore, truth is no defense.

Add to this the fact that libel laws in the UK are overwhelmingly tilted towards plaintiffs and you have a situation where journalists and authors have to be very circumspect in what they write and say.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I'll take your word for it on the non-news programming. But the BBC news I've seen is hardly pro-USA.

[Ed Thomas]

"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"

Exactly. I'm more then happy to pay my license fee if I get programmes of the calibure of comedies like 'The Office' or "Have I Got News For You" or superb dramas like "The Lost Prince". Without the BBC, a huge amount of excellent (but essentially uncommercial) programming would never be made, a huge loss in my eyes. All of that, and no commercials- another big advantage. Just because one area of their output doesn't come up to scratch in your eyes does not mean that the whole thing should be shunned. How many Monty Python fans are there here on the board? That's an excellent example of a risky programme that only a non-commercial organisation like the BBC could have made IMO.

[GoLightly]

That sounds frightening to me. I have no doubt there's not much content broadcast coming anywhere near to being against the political leanings of that board. Is the board appointed by the government or is another thing the Monarchy has power over?

[FierceDraka]

"toolach

Since Mar 24, 2004"

TROLL!!!

[tjwmason]

Bob Edwards has a lot of work to do to achieve that snotty, plummy accent required for the Beeb.

I don't know which planet you're living on.

The B.B.C. has been busy sacking anybody who can speak English in anything like an understandable manner for years. We are now plagued with the harshest accents from the very edges of the U.K. impenitrable to none bar the speaker and his close family.

Being able to speak received English (which is what I guess you mean by 'snotty plummy accent' even though the point about R.E. is that it is not an accent, but rather the lack of one) is a positive disadvantage; even on my beloved Third Programme (now called Radio3), the last vestige of the cultural highbrow.

[tjwmason]

That sounds frightening to me. I have no doubt there's not much content broadcast coming anywhere near to being against the political leanings of that board. Is the board appointed by the government or is another thing the Monarchy has power over?

In response to your question, I fear that it is the Government, Her Majesty only gets to pass out a couple of honours at her own choice these days (e.g., the O.M., even most honours are governmental).

The Board of Governors represents people from across the political spectrum. Gavyn Davies (who resigned as Chairman of the Governors over the Hutton Report) was formerly a close ally of the Chancellor (a left-winger), and the present acting Chairman (former Deputy Chairman) used to be a Conservative Whip in the House of Commons.

The problem is not with the constitution of the Board, but lower down in the structure, that is where the institutional leftism is to be found.