The BBC

[????]

er " The one thing that's clear is that there wasn't some sort of hypothetical over managed bureaucracy.@

...er...oh no? * Looks at chart scratches head. Or are you being ironic?

the various enquiries have been launched Huge by the moonhowlers in the BBC not on my request.

The only enquiry I've ever advocated is the one into the paedo ring in north wales if you look back. But you never read peoples posts properly ever EVER just jump in with your own assumptions on what they are saaying or standing for in your enthusiasm to get your stuff out.

When I started work an old and clever mentor said to me "Two of these (pointing at his ears, one of these(pointing at his mouth)" shhheeeeeeeesh, you could have done with that mentor......

[StraferJack]

?I was waiting for that bit of obvious bile Ted......That's news International Ted not Sky, which is only 50% owned by Murdoch. That's not what this debate is about.?

Not sure what the point is there quids. Does any comparison with rival news/media orgs have to be about Sky? Or Murdoch? Are there rules to who we can and can?t compare with?

If the beeb is being flayed over this it?s entirely reasonable to compare with other orgs and how they conduct themselves. If someone wants to point out that shareholder accoutability is effectively meaningless, why dismiss them so readily (and quickly)

To also berate the BBC for employing someone who didn?t look normal and who rumour abounded about is also a bit dodgy. You know as well as anyone all of the other establishment figures he was friends with (Christmas at Thatcher yadda yadda) but noone else seems to be getting the same ?well they must have KNOWN? treatment

And what does ?move on from hatred and onto fact? even mean? Is this a Brasseye special again?

Hatred is a strong word and I don?t see much of it in Ted?s post ? irritation that other organisations don?t have to flaggelate themselves in the way the beeb does, yes, but ?hatred??

Have you read some of your posts objectively? Not saying hatred is the correct word, but your tone and adherance to facts don?t always match your professed standard

[red devil]

Will this thread be repeated in 6 months time?..

[StraferJack]

6 months? It's 2012 RD, catch up on EDF_Player, now available for all smartphones, games consoles and some BD players

[Ted Max]

Hi, Quids.

This may surprise you but obviously we have to declare this stuff now, I'm not in favour of turning a blind eye to child abuse and rape, or of broadcasting reports that wouldn't have got past a tutor of first year media studies.

I'm also not in favour of nakedly opportunistic bandwagoneering from wherever it comes. My post was aimed at that, not at your arguments* - so I probably put it in the wrong place and deserved your cocked-and-primed counter punch, but I couldn't see a thread titled "Thread to call out nakedly opportunistic bandwagoneering from amnesiac enemies of publicly funded broadcaster", so I put it in here.

Anyway, I'm not sure what facts you are after so I copied some of yours down instead.

The BBC "stifles competition from elsewhere" and has a "top down monopoly on creativity": Yet a set quota, 25%, of all hours transmitted by BBC, must be provided by independent production houses.

The BBC has a "massive monopoly on broadcast news". Nope.

The 'progressive liberal left' ("tweet that lefties" etc.) won't criticise public institutions. It was Dan Sabbagh at The Guardian who destroyed, forensically, Newsnight's Meesham report.

I agree with a lot of what else you say, by the way. Probably most of it.

*EDIT: That's not 100% true is it? Some of it was aimed at your arguments, but generally I was just grandstanding a bit and not seeing it as a 1-2-1 argument with you.

*EDIT 2: Actually, probably not "most" of it. Probably only "some" of it, but I was making a gesture, like.

[Atticus]

Not wishing to put words in ?'s mouth here but I think his argument is more to do with how hell bent folk are to protect 'Auntie' regardless of circumstances.

I agree totally with him that it is a cranked institution way past its sell by date and that it needs to modernise, having its tummy tickled constantly is not good for it, or its consumers.

[StraferJack]

That's my understanding of his argument too Atticus

But, objectively, the way it has been under attack in the last week is unparalleled compared to any other news org - so, many of those "hellbent" on defending it are not saying it's beyond criticism, but very wary about what the underlying motives for the strength of attack is

Which seems fair and reasonable

Your own language is interesting- "auntie". "cranked institution", "past sell by date" etc etc

all for 40 odd pence a day?

Again, that doesn't absolve it of blame - but why so angry about this particular organisation?

[Atticus]

SJ, I'm not, just trying to she'd some perspective. Yes, it is an aged institution desperately in need of a refix, for too long it has relied on being the Beeb, do you see this as an absolute?

[*Bob*]

Are there any other examples of giant media organisations around the world that this newly-modernised BBC could aspire to be more like?

CBS? News International? Disney?

[Ted Max]

"I think his argument is more to do with how hell bent folk are to protect 'Auntie' regardless of circumstances."

Well, yeah. Teeny weeny bit of a straw man, though. Can't actually see too many of those hell bent folk on here: apart from perhaps H, who is often only a keyboard away from shouting at passing traffic in any case.

[StraferJack]

"SJ, I'm not, just trying to she'd some perspective"

So in a week where the Beeb has been under the cosh almost every hour, you are suggesting that somehow it's being treated too lightly?

I see...

Your criticisms actually come across liek a tired checklist of cliches.. .but don't let that stop you

It need to change and evolve? Anyone want to go back 10 or 15 years and have a look at the Beeb then and compare it to now? I'd say it's evolving at a smarter pace than almost anywhere else

Objectively speaking. Not JUST to defend it you understand

[Atticus]

Yes, agreed and I'm flagging this up as great opportunity to evolve. Do you think otherwise?

[StraferJack]

Evolving is always good - why would you think I think otherwise

Where we differe is the starting point - if we agree that the beeb has evolved plenty in last decade, it's probably evolving still. Just being in the middle of things right now, you can't see it. But take a snapshot now, and even without clusterf***cks like last week, you could compare it in 2-3 years time and see massive changes

i just don't see the same tired, out of date institution you do

If the starting point is "is it perfect, can we make it better" - then I would of course agree. But that applies to every organisation and individual

If the starting point is your list of complaints, then I think you misunderstand the problem and are likely to break it rather than improve it

[Atticus]

No, my staring point was that it, gets a lot more sympathy by virtue of it being our beloved beeb, that is a sole reason for change.

[StraferJack]

"gets a lot more sympathy by virtue of it being our beloved beeb, that is a sole reason for change."

you think it has had a lot of sympathy this week? Compared to what?

And that is a SOLE reason for change? Not sure I'd ever be able to agree with something that simplistic in a million years

[Atticus]

You don't believe that the nation holds a romantic, ardent crush on the beeb? Then even despite of your time travel abilities, you are deluded.

[StraferJack]

It's almost incredible I agree - people can be so STOOOPID can't they? If only they would open their eyes and realised there is a promised land beyond the BBC...

As people have said.. where in the world is this holy grail?

[david_carnell]

I think the BBC is cherished in this country. But rightly so. Compared to public or private broadcasters almost anywhere in the world and its output is miles ahead.

But to reiterate SJ, this hasn't stopped it evolving over the last couple of decades (see it's web presence and the success of iplayer) and it will continue to do so. To demand that it immediately does so in an unspecified manner to pacify the current cries from the usual suspects would be cutting off ones nose to spite the face.

[Otta]

BBC Sport Website = Great

BBC News website = Pretty darn good

BBC Radio 4 = Sanctuary from the kids watching Cbeebies in the living room!

Cbeebies (TV Channel and website) = Agggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BBC TV Programming = Very mixed bag, but some quality stuff in there.

BBC Comedy is in a good state, things like Thick of it, and Getting On are cool.

I'd like to see them do more stuff in partnership with the likes of HBO (Rome). See if they could get some of the writers for the top quality U.S. Dramas like The Wire / Sopranos / Breaking Bad to come and create a really really good British series. Instead we get Luther, fun but a total load of bollocks.

Life on Mars / Ashes to Ashes were very good IMO.

I hope that after the Jonathan Ross saga a couple of years back, they won't be so quick to offer stupidly large salaries to their top "stars".

[Otta]

Basically, I think we are lucky to have the BBC, and whilst it's not perfect, it's pretty bloody good. I don't think it's out dated or out of touch.

Yes the Saville revelations have clearly shown that there was some serious hush hushing back in the 70s and 80s, and anyone found to have known about abuse should be held accountable for it. However, I really hate it when an organisation is held accountable for what that organisation did decades ago. Find the individuals that worked for the organisation back then.

It reminds me of the PM apologising for things that happened in the past, such as Bloody Sunday, or Hillsborough. The families involved appreciate it, so that's good, but I do sort of think why is this bloke apologising for stuff that happened when he was a teen, and what does his apology actually mean? (and that is not a dig at David Cameron, fair play to him for standing up and making those apologies)

With regards the whole Newsnight thing, an investigation is needed, and should be transparent, and the individuals responsible for certain mistakes should be held accountable. I don't think that means they should be sacked outright though.

[*Bob*]

The solution the (screech) CRIISSSIIIIISS in hand is quite simple.

a) Try not to let any more badly researched news stories slip through the net

b) Don't let suspected child abusers present Top Of The Pops.

I think that covers it.

The Savile thing is madness though. We've gone from 'there were rumours or something' to, seemingly, the entire BBC Trust having lined-up in Savile's dressing room to shouting encouragement.

I am also massively irked by every Tom, Dick and Janet creeping out of the woodwork NOW to say "oh yes, it was known, we all knew, they all knew, everybody knew".

[El Pibe]

BBC4 too!

I will miss it very very much when I move to Ireland where RTE is a shadow of the quality.

Granted I can get beebs 1 & 2 on sky but none of the others, no iPlayer, no Katy *sighs*, no radio on DAB (or whatever Ireland calls it) or even interent I don't think.

Nothing is untouchable, but simple corrective action needn't mean hobbling it. Take it for granted at your own peril, you start to lose what it does it'll never come back, that's the pattern of government for 30 years now.

Quid's ludicrous hyperbole should just be filed away at his other windmill tilts, Bob's summary is spot on.

Oh and Sky has an amazing war chest with income in the billions, it's not some helpless minority broadcaster struggling in the face of an unstoppable public behemoth, that's an untruth that News International has been pushing and the Murdoch's have been bashing in the face of pliant politicians for an age.

[red devil]

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_love_bbc_mug-p168719321624424239bh8tk_400.jpg

[woodrot]

Jimmy saVILE was into Ephebophilia rather than a peedo - big difference when taken in context - this was during the '70s, when prime time light entertainment usually involved actresses dressed as schoolgirls being chased by rancid old men & grabbing a schoolgirls arse on the bus was considerd acceptable - It probabaly wasnt even a case of the BBC hushing things up, rather accepting that saVILE was a bit more enthusiastic than most old letchers with his pursuit of teenagers - I would not have thought that any reports of sexual predation on the truly vunerable or the sick would dismissed or accepted as easily. John peel married a 15 year old, Ed Stewpot Stewart started going out with a 14 year old when he was about 30 ( amd subsequently married her ) - context is everything here

[StraferJack]

"no radio on DAB (or whatever Ireland calls it) or even interent I don't think. "

I use Tunein Radio - (phone and laptop) to get my BBC radio fix (incl 4 and 6music) when abroad. Radio is fine, but not TV stations