It’s the sheer arrogance of the BBC as much as its institutionalised bias that gets me. Take its’ reaction to the increasing rejection of the entirely politicised Eurovision Song contest by the British public. Now then, we all know that the Eurovision is a burlesque – always has been. But since the entry of the eastern European countries, “old Europe” has been essentially sidelined as the political bloc votes prevail and the UK has now no chance of winning, so why should we pay to go through this annual charade? Well the BBC has made is clear that it WILL continue to spend OUR money on this EU-driven enterprise and to hell with what the public thinks. The BBC is pandering to the EU and that is why it insists on funnelling money on this folly.
THE SHOW MUST GO ON.
Bookmark the permalink.
Peter:
Does that include the staff, or do they go under ongoing costs?
£173k is the figure being quoted in today’s coverage. I do not, alas, have access to the BBC’s own budget to confirm the figure.
It would be normal practice to include the pro-rata costs of salaries on any programme budget.
I find it somewhat amusing that the assumed way to determine whether it is an acceptable cost is to cite the fact that someone else charges even more exorbitantly.
Where is the earnest, hand-wringing, socially conscient(well, allegedly) BBC when it comes to considering what is a fair and equitable wage for Beeby clones funded by the low-waged poor, the pensioners, the rich and the middle-income earners alike?
Oh, sorry, it must have signed off from social conscience for the night.
I think the minimum wage would be just about right for the fairly illiterate apprentices who write on the news website.
National average wage would be about the right level for the rest. Pay should be reduced week by week for poor performance by editors, sub-editors and reporters who do not know, for instance, the plural of “roof” (yes, Beebies, it’s a simple English word, “roofs”) or the difference between peddling and pedalling (a link posted here recently had pedalling, when they meant peddling, as in preachers peddling hate) or phenomenon and phenomena, or how to spell “minuscule” – see the North America “Editor” for that last one. He is a hopeless case, though, even apart from that.
Then, after a few weeks on reduced rations, they should be sent on a training course in basic English – even training in how to use a spellchecker would be helpful.
Well, they are always sending them on courses to teach them things like basic decency and honesty and how to be good little clones. Oh, wait, the BBC actually does courses in teaching English language, doesn’t it? The mystery is why they don’t make use of it for their own staff. Now, I wonder what is the going rate for a Beeby sub-editor and for an editor.
many europeans take it seriously.
Now thinking about it ‘Eurovision’, its all in the name, is it not?
Unless vision has a musical reference i am ignorant of.
Millie Tant:
Chuffer: Oops! Sorry. I need an eye test, obviously.
Millie Tant | 27.05.08 – 4:58 pm | #
It’s an age thing…!!! A bit like shouting at the TV.
‘Eurovision’
Shoulda gone to SpecSavers.
As I was flicking through the channels earlier I caught the very last bit of a report on Newsround about the Eurovision.
The last line the woman reporter said was that we (the UK) just have to become more friendly towards other European countries if we are to stand a chance of winning.
Typical BBC mindset; It’s all our own fault for being a bunch of ignorant Europhiles.
It’s an age thing…!!! A bit like shouting at the TV.
Chuffer | 27.05.08 – 6:09 pm
Yes, they say that memory is the second thing to go…
It is a shame that this blog discredits itself with shrill denunciations of the Eurovision song contest. Please, lets stick to serious instances of bias.
Oh, another person (James) who can’t stand people expressing their opinions. Straight from BBC central casting.
“£173k is the figure being quoted in today’s coverage. I do not, alas, have access to the BBC’s own budget to confirm the figure.”
So you don’t have a clue then?
Quote: Oh, another person (James) who can’t stand people expressing their opinions. Straight from BBC central casting.
No, I’m anti-license fee and anti-BBC bias. I just think that if this blog is to achieve anything (doubtful) then the posters ought to concentrate on real issues, rather than going OTT about stuff like this. Feel free to carry on though.
Peter:
So you don’t have a clue then?
Like the rest of you, I base my opinions on this on what appears to be reliable coverage in today’s news. Apologies for sharing your sources….
Millie Tant:
I find it somewhat amusing that the assumed way to determine whether it is an acceptable cost is to cite the fact that someone else charges even more exorbitantly.
Stuff costs what stuff costs. If the BBC seem to be getting more hours of popular entertainment for their £173k than other channels would manage for three quarters of a million, why is that bad news?
Hillhunt,
“Like the rest of you, I base my opinions on this on what appears to be reliable coverage in today’s news. Apologies for sharing your sources….”
Toddle off and check out the going rate for Producer,Assistant Producer,Sound engineers,recording engineers,lighting engineers,Camera crew,editors,caption people,electricians,designers and stage crew,gaffers,dogsbodies,accommodation,food and expenses for the number of days it took to prepare,rehearse and record the ESC.Remembering that a three minute slot in a half hour magazine programme can take all day to prepare.
Somebody is pulling your pisser old chap.
and don’t even look at the cost of the Musical Director and musicians.
“concentrate on real issues, rather than going OTT about stuff like this”
Different people regard different things as real issues.
Peter:
Remembering that a three minute slot in a half hour magazine programme can take all day to prepare.
No kidding.
Somebody is pulling your pisser old chap.
Chance would be a fine thing. However, the £173k figure was quoted widely in today’s media, including the Yorkshire Post:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Support-for-Wogan39s-view-that.4119411.jp
Channel 4’s guide prices can be found at
http://www.channel4.com/corporate/4producers/
“Chance would be a fine thing. However, the £173k figure was quoted widely in today’s media, including the Yorkshire Post:”
‘kin ‘ell ‘illhunt,the Yorkshire Post !
“Please note we no longer accept scripts from the public. – this isn’t because we don’t want to work with new writers ……. but because while, a fantastic script is the first stage in making a great show, you’ll also need skillful casting, production, direction and post-production – so in order to have a chance of producing a good show you’ll need a first class production company behind you.”
That’s “Hillhunt the Musical” down the pan then.
Don’t ring us we’ll ring you.If you get anything in the meantime take it,and don’t give up your day job.
Stop this 10 million eurovision viewers deception.
It was just 7.1 million this year, way down.
I am preared to nail my colours to the mast – next year it will be well less than 5 million, it is in fact in terminal decline.
BJ:
I am preared to nail my colours to the mast – next year it will be well less than 5 million, it is in fact in terminal decline.
That’s £50 on your tip safely in the hands of BetFred. Shall we go halves on the winnings?
.
Hillhunt – Welcome back! Nice to see another voice of reason on this delusional website.
Hillhunt: If the BBC wants to churn out this sort of shit, it’s fine by me. But I don’t want to be funding it.
Hillhunt,
Your chance is here 27.05.08 – 11:16 pm
Martin:
If the BBC wants to churn out this sort of shit, it’s fine by me. But I don’t want to be funding it.
Excellent point, and elegantly put, as ever. And yet…and yet…something is not quite right. What could that be?
Oh, yes – you don’t want to pay for any of the BBC, do you? Which makes the quality or otherwise of its programmes a bit of a pointless debate in your case, surely?
.
Usual nonsense from hillhunt, masquerading as ‘analysis’.
If the BBC had a predominantly quality output, as in e.g. ‘no piles upon piles of tenth-rate populist garbage’ and ‘no unremitting racist propaganda’ etc, I suspect that he would be less inclined to complain about having to pay for garbage. That is a separate point from being coerced into paying for it at all. It’s possible to have alternative and cumulative arguments.
Happy to pay for the BBC bits I want to see or listen to. Not happy to be forced to pay for a load of old rubbish, or biased news coverage. As the old Arab proverb goes, “Take what you want and pay for it”.
Bright people, those Arabs.
Snr/Snra Ian/Sue Figures:
If the BBC had a predominantly quality output, as in e.g. ‘no piles upon piles of tenth-rate populist garbage’ and ‘no unremitting racist propaganda’ etc, I suspect that he would be less inclined to complain about having to pay for garbage. That is a separate point from being coerced into paying for it at all.
Masterful. But….
If you deprive the Corporation of its income, how much quality do you think it might then deliver?
.
“If you deprive the Corporation of its income, how much quality do you think it might then deliver?”
Hillhunt, the BBC should compete for my money on the same terms as ITV, Sky and all the rest.
It’s time for you to enter the 21st century and leave behind your 1950s statist instincts.
Right, from now on I’ll ignore the troll Hillhunt, who keeps stalking me with his idiotic names for me.
I urge you all to do the same.
David, I urge you to kick this asshole out for good.
litterbus:
Hillhunt, the BBC should compete for my money on the same terms as ITV, Sky and all the rest.
It’s time for you to enter the 21st century and leave behind your 1950s statist instincts.
Spot on, I’m sure.
But then we enter a strange world… because no-one in commercial broadcasting would want a giant like the BBC as a newly-independent competitor. All existing private companies are against such a privatisation – the advertising/sponsorship/subscription revenue it would require to remain itself would wreck the current ecology. Monopoly rules would prevent Murdoch or ITV getting their hands on it as it stands. One answer might be to sell off the successful bits to various rivals, and keep a rump of public service, like PBS in the USA.
But none of this would then remotely resemble the BBC. Which was, I think, my point.
.
NO,
Look upon Hillhunt as the circus freak, worth looking if but for curiousity but you don’t want to get close.
Hillhunt: What crap you spout. Just how would the BBC be a threat an an independent competitor?
For a start it would have to shed thousands of Guardian reading jobs (especially from the radio side). It wouldn’t have certain sporting events ring fenced (like the Olympics and Wimbledon)
Not only that but the BBC would have to convince advertisers to appear on the channel and on top of that get revenue in from some form of subscription based service.
Go for it Hillhunt. I’d really like to see the BBC in the real world. But guess what? The BBC wouldn’t get a penny from me and I suspect an awful lot of others would feel the same way.
Martin:
Not only that but the BBC would have to convince advertisers to appear on the channel and on top of that get revenue in from some form of subscription based service.
They wouldn’t have any problem getting ad revenue for most of their services. Radios 1,2,4 & 5 all reach valuable demographics and in much larger numbers than commercial radio. BBC1 is the second most popular TV channel and most of what it does would bring a huge advertising support. BBC2 performs at least as well as C4 and way better than Five. C4 and Five would stand to lose a lot of revenue that way. And ITV, struggling already to compete in the digital market, would see a serious loss of funds to a newly-privatised BBC.
The less commercially-attractive bits would be Radio Three, local radio and services such as BBC Parliament. The flight of ad money from children’s ITV would probably happen at CBBC and CBeebies, certainly the two most praised services by family audiences.
BBC3 and BBC4 might struggle a bit, but they would probably take a lot of revenue from direct rivals like ITV2, E4 and More4.
It’s questionable whether the total sums available to TV and radio would increase, especially as the internet is eating into ad and sponsorship revenue already. Subscription only generates serious money for major sporting events and rarified information services used by major business – FT.com, WSJ and the like.
All of which is why there’s no great queue of privately-run broadcasters to demand that the BBC is privatised, too.
.
Hillhunt: What crap you spout. Just how would the BBC be a threat an an independent competitor?
Martin | 28.05.08 – 4:29 pm | #
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23/luke_gibbs_bbc/page2.html
“The figures generated through a sell-off would be truly staggering. Hard estimates based on revenue are difficult to make today, and even a precise valuation of the BBC’s assets isn’t easy.
But one thing is sure: a privatised BBC would overnight become one of the biggest and most powerful global media and entertainment companies in the world”
“It would also sharpen the existing market, particularly given that for competition and plurality reasons, existing media UK owners such as the Murdoch family would almost be certainly prohibited from buying a stake in the BBC without first divesting other interests – perhaps a key reason that despite being the BBC’s most vociferous critic Sky rarely mentions its privatisation.”
Greece and Cyprus, the UK and Ireland, and the Scandinavian states, all indulge in bloc voting. Eurovision has always had an element of this. This year has been very political but next year may be different.
What is wrong with a big , fun, kitsch show which celebrates harmony. I’m glad these countries are singing, not fighting. Some here seem to think that anything which seeks to provoke European unity is somehow part of some EU agenda.
Eurovision, to me, is much more entertaining than footie or the Oscars. Actually, its the football which IMHO should not have a penny of licence payers money spent on it.
Doesn’t have to be just ad revenue to fund the BBC. Were anyone keen to buy the Beeb product they could subscribe. Cheques, postal orders happily accepted. No problem. If a deranged leftism’s to your taste I’m sure the Beeb would be happy to sell you some.
As long as the Beeb’s poll tax was ended for the rest of us!
Hillhunt | 28.05.08 – 4:49 pm |
The idea that if the BBC was privatized it would retain its current form is sheer fantasy. An organization with such a bloated bureaucracy, counter-productively competing departments, and Byzantine accounting structure would not remain intact. And who says it would even be independent and not sold for parts like an old car?
Your contention that none of the other broadcasters would want the BBC to be privatized because it would be a gigantic competitor which would swallow their revenue doesn’t pass the reality test. Yes, everyone’s piece of the pie would be theoretically smaller if there was a new broadcaster in town with several channels. But what kind of channels would they be?
If one is going to be honest about the calls for privatization from actual media people, such as Kelvin MacKenzie, then one would have to say that the real issue is that light entertainment should not be subsidized. Most people would have no problem continuing support for arts and educational programs, like Radio 3 and kiddie shows, or costume dramas and nature documentaries. The rest of it, including news, sport, and sitcoms, is what the other broadcasters would like to see.
But right now, nobody knows how the BBC would be broken up if it was privatized. If one of the private broadcasters saw any formulation that would work to their own advantage, the outcry would be much, much greater.
David Preiser: Spot on. BBC News 24 would have to seriously cut back. They piss millions down the pan compared to Sky News. Is BBC News 24 many times better in terms of rolling news output? I don’t think so.
Much of what the BBC puts out is utter crap and no one would bother to pay for it and that’s the point.
If people won’t watch the BBC won’t get money from subscription or advertising and the BBC knows it.
It’s an organisation full of bloated left wing arts graduates, most of them would be incapable of getting a proper job.
“They piss millions down the pan compared to Sky News.”
What are the respective budgets for the BBC News channel and Sky News?
Got some (old) figures:
BBC News 24
Launched: November 1997
Audience share: 0.3%
Annual costs: £48.1m
World viewing: UK channel
Sky News
Launched: February 1989
Audience share: 0.4%
Annual costs: £35m (estimate)
World viewing: 80m in 40 countries
Above from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/dec/06/bbc.digitaltvradio
Martin:
It’s an organisation full of bloated left wing arts graduates, most of them would be incapable of getting a proper job.
Quite. Or rather, quite not.
Take a look at the people currently running Britain’s commercial channels:
ITV chief exec: Michael Grade
ITV 1: Peter Fincham
Channel 4 chief exec: Andy Duncan
Channel 4: Julian Bellamy
E4: Angela Jain
More 4: Peter Dale
Five: Ben Gale
Career-defining moves in all their cases? Working at the BBC.
Same is true at mid and lower levels in the commercial channels. The guys who run Dispatches and C4 religious programmes – so often praised here for their critical view of Islam – spent the vast bulk of their careers at the BBC.
It’s daft to believe that the BBC is staffed by or run by a different species. At every level, people switch from the Beeb to commercial media and back. It’s equally daft to believe that it’s their commie mindset which sets them apart. Any more than your usual presumption that they’re all gay…
.
bloated left wing arts graduates, most of them would be incapable of getting a proper job … Michael Grade
Case proven.
The guys who run Dispatches and C4 religious programmes – so often praised here for their critical view of Islam – spent the vast bulk of their careers at the BBC.
Why weren’t they allowed to be critical of Islam while at the BBC?
Oh, don’t confuse the man with facts, let alone analysis.
BioD:
Why weren’t they allowed to be critical of Islam while at the BBC?
Who says they weren’t? Panorama has a decent reputation for taking on similar subjects. John Ware’s taking apart the MCB, for instance…
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/267/8/
And this year’s piece about sexual grooming…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-545289/Muslim-leader-accuses-police-cautious-stopping-Asian-gangs-pimping-white-girls.html
.
‘Why weren’t they allowed to be critical of Islam while at the BBC?’
Who says they weren’t?
Quite a number of them (ex-Beeboids), as you well know.
Yes, there have been some good Panoramas, there are one or two BBC journalists worthy of the name, but what percentage is that of the entire BBC news/current affairs output?
BioD:
Quite a number of them (ex-Beeboids), as you well know.
I remember some throwaway remarks from Ben Elton. John Ware has said he wants to see the BBC more willing to take on Islamic issues, certainly, though of course that’s what he went and did…
There’s been some harumphing from professional controversialist Rod Liddle, who lost his job at the BBC by demonstrating precisely the bias this blog opposes. (Just for good measure, he started slagging off Evengelical Christians on Channel 4.)
Can’t recall any other significant BBC journalist saying they’d been censored or warned off. Doubtless you have a long list.
.
Can’t recall any other significant BBC journalist saying they’d been censored or warned off.
Somebody recently posted a link to an ex-Beeboid telling how an investigation into Muslims, possibly “honour killings”, was no-noed. Perhaps somebody could re-post that link?
“That’s £50 on your tip safely in the hands of BetFred. Shall we go halves on the winnings?
Hillhunt | 27.05.08 – 10:24 pm”
Typicqal BBC attitude, can I have some money but for no service or risk.
Essentially you advocate stealing then Hilltheft.