BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots

Maybe back in the 1970's when there were 3 channels - BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. ITV was commercial and the others were commercial free BBC offerings.

Now we have four BBC channels that are commercial free in the traditional sense (other than the licence fee), so the programmes are completely uninterupted but the BBC sells their own products, magazines and services in the gaps between programmes. This is why some programmes such as Top Gear which is an hour long here is cut to make it one hour in the US.

In addition to the four BBC channels you have between another 25 to 300 channels (depending on which way you receive them) which are all commerical channels with commercials through the programmes. Some of these channels are free to air and some are subscription (such as specialist or sports channels).

So yes the BBC is largely commercial free and other stations are not, yet even if you NEVER EVER watch a BBC channel you are still obligued to pay the licence fee. Again my view is this styfles the commercial channels - how can they compete with an obligatory channel that has no commercials.

The BBC also runs itself as a business so they will actively compete against the competition for ratings - which makes it very hard for the commercial companies. The BBC have their cake and can eat it.

 

HA! Fox was the counterweight my friend...please don't try to re-write history.

When are you going to make the popcorn and use the bathroom without commercials? let's think about that one.

 

You mean in these days of DVR, TV series on DVD, and watching shows online there's somebody who still has to sit through commercials? How's life in 2004 treating you?

 

What is a DVR?

 

This is.

 

For those of us that value freedom, including freedom of the press, the mandatory pay for government controlled media to indoctrinate the masses is a bad thing. Luckily those in Britain have access to the internet and other sources today. In the US PBS is far less expensive and invasive. Whether you agree with the slant of the british controlled press or not, it is hard not to look down on the cheerleaders. The power has been abused in the past and their is no reason that it will not be abused in the future. I personally don't think the bbcs climate change stuff is that much propaganda. I do think they are pro racism, imperials, and terrrorst. Either way the governement should regulate the media to make sure it does not show false stories. In a free society it should not control the media and highly tax its citizens. Then again I'm happy that my grandparents emigrated to the united states, and its up to England to ask for its freedom from invasive government media.

This is exactly true. I think the media in the 24 hour news casts is awful, but you can not argue that it is democrat or republican controlled. MSNBC is the cheerleader of the corrupt left, FOX is the cheerleader of the corrupt right, and CNN is the cheerleader of greedy corporations. Most under 40 don't get news from any of these biased outlets.

ha, my mom won't used the dvr on the cable box for this reason. She likes doing things during the commercials. My brother won't start a football game on time so that there is slack to fast forward over them.

 

Kinda reminds me of the movie V For Vendetta.

"V: Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration - whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday - I thought we could mark this November the fifth, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice...intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now High Chancellor Adam Sutler. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the Old Bailey to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words - they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek...then I ask you to stand beside me, one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament. And together, we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever, be forgot!"

 

Can't believe this is a Prius owner. Hello paranoia.

 

I would not underestimate the influence of conspiracy and hidden agenda. Power and wealth can create odd alliances and make people do some unethical things. Those people that wield such power are not like you and I.

 

How anyone can not be a climate change zealot today is beyond me. We have upset a delicate balance by increasing the CO2 levels by 30 % since the Industrial revolution. Our grandkids will pay for it, the poorer seacoast countries will pay for it, the rate of extinction is already paying for it. You have to be an ostrich not to see what is going on climatologically with melting pole caps, disappearing glaciers, temperature rises planetwide, rising sea levels, wilder weather, more frequent flooding, changes in rain distribution, more Cat 5 hurricanes, etc. it's not rocket science - increase the greenhouse gasses and the planet can not cool down at night , altering the heat balances. Pretty obvious to anyone willing to read the data.

 

By Isis, I love fans of V for Vendetta. Putting on their Guy Fawkes mask, yelling "Yeah! Smash the fascists!"

Sure, Guy Fawkes wanted to blow up Parliament -but only so it could be replaced by something a lot more totalitarian!

(OK, so the graphic novel was great, but I love the number of folks who missed the point)

 

You seem confused. Which do you want: freedom, or government?

Assuming you'd like an unbiased, accurate source of information, whom do you expect to pay for it?

No corporation will fund anything against its best interests, but they love funding private media that will advance their views. Is that "indoctrinating the masses", or is that 'freedom'?

Government will fund media that are in the best interests of all, and enforce laws that protect people from being swindled and told lies. Everybody pays a little, and everyone benefits. Is that "indoctrinating the masses", or is that 'freedom'?

Freedom is a slippery concept, and it may not be what you think. It's definitely misused and abused, and the rallying cries are usually power struggles over controlling individual freedoms, not giving us more.

 

AustinGreen writes:

Sounds like another vote to bring back the fairness doctrine!

What's next conservatives calling for a single payer health care system?

 

BBC's not all bad. They do produce Top Gear, with Clarkson discussing twittering on about global warming and eco-mentalists...blowing up Gee Whizes. I liked his take on the BBC when they did the Peel P50 review.

This particular American petrolhead (though I've never owned an Alpha) is very appreciative of those of you in the UK paying to produce Top Gear. Sometimes I'll even watch an old Are You Being Served.

On my morning commute, I usually have the XM tuned to BBC World. Fox News gives me a headache, and NPR is much much worse than BBC.

 

yes!

 

You complain about Britain having an outdated system, but I see no difference here in the United States. If you are poor, the only way you can afford a cell phone is to get a 2 year contract and hope you make the monthly payments (which the cell phone company has the right to change rates and services at anytime). I pay about $75 a month for my cell phone. Also, with TV programming, TV services are far from free here. My cable company's cheapest "starter" plan gives you all the basic cable channels...you then upgrade plans to get premium channels. I have to pay a lump sum for programming which I only watch a percentage of! If this was a free country, I'd have the right to be able to pick just the channels I wanted to get a cheaper plan! As is, my cable/internet bill is about $140 a month. If one is truely poor, then all these services are a luxury.

 

But you also get free to air channels? If you are poor you can buy a cheap tv and make do with the free to air stuff. In the UK you MUST pay £140 a year, each and every year to watch the free to air stuff before paying any extra for a subscription package. With a cable package you could cancel it if you lose your job or take a pay cut and still watch some free to view channels. With the BBC you can't - you MUST pay if you have a tv, any tv, in your property.

With a mobile/cell phone you can buy a 'pay as you go' phone for £10 and pay for call time as and when you need it, so poorer people can own a phone and not be subject to rediculous contracts.

Perhaps this whole issue is lost in the translation in that nobody in the US can imagine having to pay $200 a year just for having a tv BEFORE you pay any extra for subscription channels. If you have one in your RV and your holiday home you'll be paying $600 a year just for having them - regardless of whether you use them!

 

we do get a half dozen over the air channels (depending on where you live) but i have to wonder how much longer that will be true.

 

Nice speech. I forgot about it, and looked up V for vendetta. Seems the graphic novel folks were talking about UK, and the film got mashed up to talk about America.

Fear and loathing, but .... The first amendment was a reaction against british laws. We all had to read Orwell in middle school, and he did work in the UK's ministry of information. Is it paranoia if it happened and you don't want it to happen again. With Egypt shutting down the internet, I'm not sure you can call any fear of government control of information paranoid. It just isn't abused as much in England. Ok call me names, or was the paranoid about GC. I've been called worse.

exactly

 

I'm not confussed, but maybe my writing is unclear. Freedom of course that should have been clear. A limited government is a necessary evil to ensure this. The government needs to make help maintain that libelous and obviously false information like the faked photos that often appear are checked. It is a choice whether the media fires the reports as they have been doing lately for making up stories, but corrections need to be put out. Rigging a gas tank and pretending the car just blew up is the kind of fraudulent reporting I'm talking about (I think that was NBC).

I'm not quite sure why you think the government, and especially the british government can do better. You balance the interests. You don't let BP be the sole commercial interest when reporting on oil spills. Its not that hard.

My grandparents escapped the soviet union. I don't think you can honestly look at that media and say, yes government knows best. The bbc has a great deal of corrupting power. I remember watching a simpsons in my hotel room and noticing it different. Then I looked it up and the bbc decided the cartoon needed censoring. Fine, but don't charge everyone and pretend its unbiased.

I don't think the US should dictate to the UK, but... I am in complete agreement with grumpy cabie that government control of the media and taxation for this control is not a good thing.