Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 15 November 2011, 22:26:34
-
The BBC has owned up to a “nominal fee” programming scandal in which viewers of 15 editorial programmes were hoodwinked by “serious” conflicts of interest of programme makers and a failure to declare that documentaries had outside sponsors.
One of the programmes in breach of guidelines was “Taking the Credit” made by for BBC World on the subject of Africa and climate change by the award-winning British production company Rockhopper television. The Trust found that the programme had effectively been sponsored by the Envirotrade organisation, despite the fact that current affairs programmes are prohibited from using sponsorship.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-cheap-programming-scandal-exposed-6262533.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-cheap-programming-scandal-exposed-6262533.html)
:o :o :o
And we thought the BBC was national institution of which we may be justly proud. (Actually, I stopped thinking that way some years back!) ;)
-
Shut it down. Its beyond repair. :y
-
I still listen to Radio Three but I'm afraid that I don't take news/ current affairs from them any more.
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
;D Go ahead there Max, get tore into that Nickbat one, ;D :y
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
;D Go ahead there Max, get tore into that Nickbat one, ;D :y
Yes, please get off the fence and tell us how you really feel ;D
-
The BBC. I see no evidence that it is anything other than balanced and objective. :)
-
The evidence is in the link.Just read it. ::)
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
Solution is simple Max.Abolish the licence fee and make them survive in the real commercial world.The people at the Beeb are the ones who are having their cake and eating it.Its one big gravy train with far too many passengers.If its such a great world class organisation,it shouldnt need the licence fee to survive. It should be able to take on all comers and make an absolute fortune in the commercial world. ;)
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
;D Go ahead there Max, get tore into that Nickbat one, ;D :y
And while you're at it Max- get tore into that Albs boy as well. ;D ;D ;D
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
Solution is simple Max.Abolish the licence fee and make them survive in the real commercial world.The people at the Beeb are the ones who are having their cake and eating it.Its one big gravy train with far too many passengers.If its such a great world class organisation,it shouldnt need the licence fee to survive. It should be able to take on all comers and make an absolute fortune in the commercial world. ;)
That way you're sure to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Do you really want morning to night soap opera's, crap like Eastenders and even worse, "Corrie"... :-\?. The BBC is a public service and should be kept as such. This once great organisation has already "dumbed-down" far too much in my view.
-
with the greatest of respect Albs, you don't have a rather clue what you're talking about.
nor it would appear do the rest of you.
(i might add, my father was BBC, one of my brothers was BBC, a great number of life long friends and work colleagues were BBC..... and yes, I worked for the BBC... i might have a little insight.... )
instructed by successive governments and license fee bitchers.... the accountants on high, systematically dismantled the BBC's technical service abilities, using the short term bottom line on both payroll and asset register to justify it.... without being gifted with foresight... (HD, surround, treaty based obligations to supply relevant training and infrastructure support to other countries, and so on... all add significant investment and running costs , and the money has to come from somewhere.... )
NOW...
the BBC cannot fulfill it's contractual obligations (many of which are dumped on them BY the government.... ) without hiring back said technical services, at vastly increased cost... outsourcing what used to be in house and relatively cheap.....
they are required to service ever more output streams.... and at higher data rates, surround sound, HD , etc.... and yet are not given the room to fund that properly...
and are still required to maintain the government's equipment and properties as well as their own, and provide much of the infrastructure also use by other broadcasters.... (anything further on that is covered by OSA ..... so no.... no more details , just remember, in the event of a global catastrophe.... the reason you can hear any news and information from the government, is the BBC.... and part of your license fee... )
technically they do an impossible job, with inadequate staff and equipment....
thanks to the short sighted sell offs, and redundancies, they no longer HAVE the facilities to make all the programming in house, so no longer have full control over the details of how a programme is made and funded....
this was an outsourced programme....
go bitch at the production company responsible....
who will probably tell you that such activities are the only way to be able to make such material available to the BBC, at a price the BBC can afford....
the BBC has gone from being THE world leading broadcaster, to being the pauper in the rat pack, frankly some third world national broadcasters are better supported ....
so break off with your preachy ill informed griping about a subject you know next to break all about....
example.....
someone recently did 3 mixes for a BBC radio live session show .... 3 songs..... back in the Beeb, on a salary, would have cost them about £650 in wages (mix engineer and the assorted support crew) and 3 days use of one room in one of their facilities....
what did it cost them now....
£3500 +VAT
another example....
a colleague recently spent several weeks in Kuala Lumpur, providing training for surround mixing and HD vision processing...
he USED to be in house, a senior trainer at the now Defunct wood norton BBC training facility.... on around a 35K salary
at which point, he would have either, A) been able to provide such training in house at a BBC facility in the UK, at minimal cost to the BBC, or B) been accommodated in the cheapest nastiest hotel in Kuala Lumpur, and still been on basic salary.
NOW? 5* hotel, posh suite.... and about £1000 a day./ about 10 times what it WOULD have cost "back in the day"
this situation is repeated throughout the system, and this position was FORCED on the BBC by external pressure....
i could rant for bloody weeks about the total twunts that put the beeb in that position....
they've not just thrown the baby out with the bath water, they threw the sodding bath out as well.
\\
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired - another keyboard warrior.I dont tell people to break off,unless I have the bottle to knock on their door and say it. ;) ::)
The people you mention - WERE BBC. Presumably that was before it was hijacked by the sandal wearers and lentil munchers.Even the Director general admitted it is biased towards the left a year or so ago.
The fact that it now (according to you) spends much more money than it used to to provide the same (at best) service surely reinforces the gravy train argument.
It Used to be the benchmark for the rest of the world.It is legally obliged to provide a neutral,objective service. It barely even bothers pretending to do that any more.It has lost the right to be funded by the taxpayer when it lost its objectivity and neutrality.We no longer need the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, shut it down. :)
Btw, I dont recieve my news on world catostrophies (or anything else) from the beeb.I get it from Sky, which provides a far superior news service.
Again - if the Beeb provides such a great service, it should have no problem wiping the floor with the opposition in the commercial world,so wheres the problem in having it operating as a commercial organisation ? ;)
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
Solution is simple Max.Abolish the licence fee and make them survive in the real commercial world.The people at the Beeb are the ones who are having their cake and eating it.Its one big gravy train with far too many passengers.If its such a great world class organisation,it shouldnt need the licence fee to survive. It should be able to take on all comers and make an absolute fortune in the commercial world. ;)
That way you're sure to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Do you really want morning to night soap opera's, crap like Eastenders and even worse, "Corrie"... :-\?. The BBC is a public service and should be kept as such. This once great organisation has already "dumbed-down" far too much in my view.
"Has beens come dancing". I rest my case. ::) ;D
I repeat - if its a great organisation, then people will surely willingly pay to view it rather than being forced to pay whether they view it or not ? So, wheres the problem ? They can carry on making the great programmes thaey are currently broadcasting and make a fortune,thus bringing in the funding they have apparently lost, according to Max. ;)
-
oh break off with the beeb bashing already.....
you bitch about paying license fee, and they keep having to make cut backs to fund more services with same money, then you complain when they try and save money .
have you cake, or eat you cake, or shut the break up
I don't recall bitching about the licence fee. The fact remains that, whatever income the BBC receives, they are by charter obliged to present unbiased programming. Conflicts of interest necessarily jeopardise such neutrality. The BBC has put its hands up and Mark Thomson has read the riot act.
Where's your problem with my post? ??? ??? ???
-
abolish the tv licence and make them raise money like everyone else. that way i would pay break all cause i never watch bbc or listen to there radio stations.
-
Peter Sissons also used to work for the Beeb,back in the day. ;)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html
Plenty more views on the subject here.....
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tag/bbc-bias/
Including Mark Thompson. ::)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23873043-bbc-chief-mark-thompson-admits-left-wing-bias.do
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired - another keyboard warrior.I dont tell people to break off,unless I have the bottle to knock on their door and say it. ;) ::)
The people you mention - WERE BBC. Presumably that was before it was hijacked by the sandal wearers and lentil munchers.Even the Director general admitted it is biased towards the left a year or so ago.
The fact that it now (according to you) spends much more money than it used to to provide the same (at best) service surely reinforces the gravy train argument.
It Used to be the benchmark for the rest of the world.It is legally obliged to provide a neutral,objective service. It barely even bothers pretending to do that any more.It has lost the right to be funded by the taxpayer when it lost its objectivity and neutrality.We no longer need the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, shut it down. :)
Btw, I dont recieve my news on world catostrophies (or anything else) from the beeb.I get it from Sky, which provides a far superior news service.
Again - if the Beeb provides such a great service, it should have no problem wiping the floor with the opposition in the commercial world,so wheres the problem in having it operating as a commercial organisation ? ;)
PM me your address, I'll gladly knock on your door.
clearly you also can't read./
it does NOT provide the same service, the service provision has gone through the roof, providing far more channels, on radio and television and webcast, and these things cost money.....
MUCH of which comes from the BBC's own revenue streams , generated by sale of it's programming to other nations, and merchandising, NOT the license fee. ..
I for one am glad of a few channels being entirely free of that bloody Wowcher advert.
oh.... and sky's satellite broadcasts.... you can almost certainly wave them goodbye instantly in the event of said global catastrophe....
-
I do listen to the BBC, particularly Radio 4 news programmes, but I am sick of their left wing bias. It is not possible for the newsreaders on the Today programme to get through without a plug for the Grauniad, and regardless of what Max may think, this bias is endemic, and is getting worse. >:( >:( >:(
-
Max - grow up ffs ! ::)
-
what, so i can converse on an even footing with a bunch of clueless whiny moaners that want a free lunch, and like to bitch said free lunch not being run by the BNP or the Daily mail.
the BBC has always been a fairly liberal thinking breeding ground.... especially at creative levels, it's the arty types.... although largely managed by hidebound conservative thinkers..... and the bits you lot like to moan about most , represent about 1-2% of the organisation...
and i resent the injustice you do to the rest of it.....
there have been very few national institutions that i would ever consider to have been entirely a "good thing" British Steel, British rail, blah blah,... all essentially stupidly bad ideas, poorly managed, and incompetent to the task....
but the BBC, for all it's flaws, internal divisions, and hidebound management , has been technically solely the best damn thing to ever happen to the entire global broadcast and recording industry . bar none.
(guess where your beloved Sky got most of it's technical staff ????? )
-
Not asking for a free lunch.Simply that I be given the choice pay / or not and to view/or not the BBC. Cant see the problem with that tbh. I know Im repeating myself but - if its at least as good as its competitors,it will be able to compete - everybodies happy. ;)
In my world - an organisation which forces people by law to pay for its product regardless of whether or not they use the product - that organisation is getting a free lunch.
P.S I detest the BNP. ;)
-
MaxV6 unfortunately this is what happens when an organisation is in public ownership and under constant political pressure, with senior management not being there on technical ability but by being politically acceptable or under political patronage. Bean counters who know the cost everything and the value of nothing. If the BBC was on a commercial footing then the management would have to make the BBC efficiently produce desirable programs that people watch and products that people want to buy, or they would not survive, not the current situation where they are required to conform to the current political party in power's agenda.
I agree with Albs and Nickbat that the BBC editorial teams and writers have an institutional left-wing bias and PC correct agenda, (but so do most of the commercial channels as well, to a lessor or greater extent) which is why I watch very few BBC programs and definitely NONE of their drama programs and fewer and fewer of their factual programs due to dumming down. I find most of BBC's best programs these days tend to be on BBC Two and Four, with the recent series on "The history of Electricity" and "What waves are made of" being good examples. Personally, I dislike the annual TV tax as I'm a great believer that competition through a range of suppliers gives customers the best products and services at the best prices.
If any politician had any great expertise, talent or were great managers they would be making large amounts of money in industry, but as the current rag-tag of mainly talentless individuals in parliament can't, they take a low paid (relative to top talent and management) job as an MP. Those that can do, those that can't talk about it, I think sums up politicians.
-
I watch mainly BBC their quality is still best.
I do not watch a lot of TV however
-
I am quite happy to pay TV License, as long as they keep making programs like Frozen Planet
-
I am quite happy to pay TV License, as long as they keep making programs like Frozen Planet
On at nine..... :D :D :D :D
-
I think it's about time admin locked this it's starting to get a bit personal.