Government could ban BBC from showing top shows at peak times

Caged · 1 May 2016 at 20:48

https://twitter.com/x/status/622313626641276932

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 20:48

stewski said:
lol.
It isn't about a name, it's about a service that operates differently from rival services, from it's mission/charter through to it's funding.

Britain doesn't need a sky/ITV Mark 2.

so why make a comment about the name then?

why does Eastenders need a particular source of funding? Or programs like strictly or the voice?

Caged · 1 May 2016 at 20:51

Are you just gearing up for another one of your derails by purposely missing the point behind what people are writing?

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 20:51

Caged said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/622313626641276932

if you're going to sell something then first trashing its commercial value doesn't seem like a good basis for a conspiracy

Caged · 1 May 2016 at 20:53

Replace 'privatise' with 'get off the government books with minimal opposition' then. I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you'd need to do to come to the conclusion that the current government are friends of the BBC.

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 20:55

Caged said:
Replace 'privatise' with 'get off the government books with minimal opposition' then. I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you'd need to do to come to the conclusion that the current government are friends of the BBC.

I never claimed they were friends of the BBC - I just pointed out that you'd posted a naff argument.

Malevolence · 1 May 2016 at 20:57

Dis86 said:
No. I agree. I've seen tv channels all over the world and the bbc is simply the best available.

Really? Take a look at some of the American shows like Banshee, Bosch, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Agents of Shield, The Magicians, Gotham, Blindspot, Better Call Saul and The Americans to name just a few and then compare them to the complete and utter tat that the BBC pumps out.

Tunney · 1 May 2016 at 20:58

dowie said:
why does Eastenders need a particular source of funding? Or programs like strictly or the voice?

The Strictly Come Dancing format has been exported around the world. It subsidises documentaries about canal boats on BBC 4.

Caged · 1 May 2016 at 20:58

dowie said:
I never claimed they were friends of the BBC - I just pointed out that you'd posted a naff argument.

It depends if you think the political motivation for privatisation would be to generate short-term income or a more ideological desire to not have to fund a public service broadcaster. Or additionally in the case of the BBC, because you really dislike them.

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 21:01

dowie said:
so why make a comment about the name then?

why does Eastenders need a particular source of funding? Or programs like strictly or the voice?

The name British Broadcasting Corporation implies its funding method IMHO
Like the NHS or state education.

Call it the NBC for all I care (though that might be taken) but I can't see octonauts, numberjacks or in the night garden coming from the private sector.

Caged · 1 May 2016 at 21:04

Malevolence said:
Really? Take a look at some of the American shows like Banshee, Bosch, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Agents of Shield, The Magicians, Gotham, Blindspot, Better Call Saul and The Americans to name just a few and then compare them to the complete and utter tat that the BBC pumps out.

Now try it with channels instead of cherry picked shows from different networks.

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 21:04

stewski said:
The name British Broadcasting Corporation implies its funding method IMHO

well it doesn't, you're mistaken - for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 21:04

Malevolence said:
Really? Take a look at some of the American shows like Banshee, Bosch, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Agents of Shield, The Magicians, Gotham, Blindspot, Better Call Saul and The Americans to name just a few and then compare them to the complete and utter tat that the BBC pumps out.

The thick of it
Dr who
Line of Duty
The Fall
Sherlock
Peaky Blinders
Happy Valley
The Tudors
Rome (with HBO)

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 21:05

Caged said:
It depends if you think the political motivation for privatisation would be to generate short-term income or a more ideological desire to not have to fund a public service broadcaster. Or additionally in the case of the BBC, because you really dislike them.

they don't fund it - it is funded via license fees

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 21:05

dowie said:
well it doesn't, you're mistaken - for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company

Oh dear derail.
American Broadcasting Company, from a nation generally ideologically opposed to state operated systems.

why not just tell me I'm butthurt

Caged · 1 May 2016 at 21:07

It's no less political than taxation regardless of who the license fee is collected by.

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 21:07

stewski said:
The thick of it
Dr who
Line of Duty
The Fall
Sherlock
Peaky Blinders
Happy Valley
The Tudors
Rome (with HBO)

pfft - if you want to compare with say HBO then how about:

The Wire
The Sopranos
Game of Thrones
Boardwalk Empire
True Detective
Deadwood
Curb Your Enthusiasm

Don't get me wrong, the BBC makes some good shows, but they've not created anything to compete with the first three on that list

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 21:08

stewski said:
Oh dear derail.
American Broadcasting Company, from a nation generally ideologically opposed to state operated systems.

why not just tell me I'm butthurt

you're not, you just made a meaningless statement about a name

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 21:09

Caged said:
It's no less political than taxation regardless of who the license fee is collected by.

of course it is political, that wasn't being argued - it was the conspiracy you proposed that was dubious

Malevolence · 1 May 2016 at 21:10

stewski said:
The thick of it
Dr who
Line of Duty
The Fall
Sherlock
Peaky Blinders
Happy Valley
The Tudors
Rome (with HBO)

It pains me to say it, as I've watched Dr. Who since Pertwee, but the only decent one there is Sherlock, and that only seems to come around at random intervals.