Well, bless my soul, but BBC stalwart David Attenborough – having moved to Sky – has attacked the BBC for becoming too big, claiming its ‘sails need to be trimmed’.
He said the corporation needed to be ‘refocused’ and had ‘strayed from the straight and narrow’. Sir David, who recently presented his first show for Sky, said it was vital that the licence fee-funded BBC represented ‘the highest aspirations of our society’.
Well, I don’t think much of this. Of course the bloated BBC is too big, and of course it has strayed away from the original intent. But sails do not need to be trimmed, as he puts it. The vessel needs sunk. Further, the “license-fee” is an anachronistic obscenity which must end now.
Did he say this when he was at the BBC ?
Indeed, the scope and volume of old boy (and girl, if usually on ageism issues that had not troubled them when blonder and leggier) network dissent once contractually-free is extensive, if the reluctance is understandable but hardly of the highest integrity.
One does have to wonder how so many market rate talents, who need to be secured at Aunty through gritted teeth with vast golden handcuffs, simply don’t move on.
Mind you, some do seem to be leaving before their time…
http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/7368
Albeit, and uniquely, ‘we’ seem the ones to cover the management competence in this regard, too.
I believe that Mr Attenborough is also a great believer in man-made global warming. And therefore he has gone down substantially in my estimation of him.
Talking about BBC-NUJ and its interest in BSkyB, ‘Newsnight’s Crick indicates BBC-NUJ’s political opposition to BSkyB (but not the BBC-NUJ empire) and to Minister Hunt’s role; BUT Crick admits to owning stock in BSkyB and in News Corporation!
Hypocrisy, or capitalist behaviour on Crick’s part, or what?
Hunt’s teasing catches out Whitehall officials
extract:
Crick:-
“I ought perhaps to declare a minuscule interest in all this: I own 100 shares in BSkyB, and also £2,000-3,000 worth in News Corporation – relics from the days when I was writing a never-published book on Murdoch.”
A never published book on Murdoch? What, failed to dig the dirt, or he invented some and it was just too libelous to publish? Do tell Mr Crick.
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of writing a biography of Mr Crick? I wonder what it would tell us? Not that I think for one moment it would reveal a subversive political agenda behind his journalism. Perish the thought.
I’ve got terribly confused !
On the one hand, an old fart, (Simpson), says it’s jolly rotten that the precious BBC should not be subjected to “waterboarding” by the evil right-wing government.
Stagnating the BBC’s revenue will lead no doubt to unrest on the streets.
On the other hand, a millionaire old fart, (Attenborough), seems to think that all may not be well in Paradise after all.
So all we need now is a third old fart to adjudicate as to whether the BBC should be put to sleep or not.
This third person should not have previously enjoyed a BBC pay cheque (might be biased). Therefore I nominate anyone present at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party to make a ruling.
So long as they are an old fart that is !
Three and a half billion a year and nothing to watch over the Christmas holidays.
And what’s this Stargazing all about at primetime on BBC2?
They relegate Sir Patrick Moore to 1 a.m. in the morning in favour of the AGW friendly Brian Cox and his band of “celebrity” beeboids.
Phase out the licence fee at let them compete on a level playing field.
“Three and a half billion a year and nothing to watch over the Christmas holidays.”
Christmas Day viewing figures:
BBC – EastEnders – 11.7 million peak (11.4 million average)
BBC – Doctor Who – 10.7 million (10.3)
BBC – Come Fly With Me – 10.3 million (10.3)
BBC – The Royle Family – 10.2 million (9.9)
BBC – Strictly Come Dancing – 9.6 million (9.4)
ITV – Coronation Street – 9.1 million (9)
BBC – The One Ronnie – 8.5 million (7.9)
ITV – Emmerdale – 7.8 million (7.2)
BBC – Shrek The Third – 7.5 million (7.2)
BBC – BBC News – 7.2 million (7.2)
“Phase out the licence fee at let them compete on a level playing field.”
You want the BBC to be more like Channel 4, Five and ITV? Do you seriously think that will result in better programmes? Or do you consider SkyTV to be the pinnacle of quality broadcasting?
Seriously?
Dez,
No-one can accuse the BBC of dumbing down !
Surely the BBC should not be driven by viewing figures as it does not have to compete with the commercial channels for advertising revenue. The BBC gets its massive resources by way of a compulsory tax which everyone, including people like me who loathe the BBC and everything it stands for, have to pay on pain of imprisonment.
This is totally unacceptable in any “democracy”.
The tax must be scrapped immediately. If the BBC is so popular with so many people , they will be happy to pay to watch dumbed down crap like Eastenders.
Dez if you put a picture of a fat man picking his nose on at 7pm on BBC 1 it would get 10 million viewers.
Regarding Sky, I consider channels like Discovery, History, National Geographic etc far superior to the crap pumped out for the most part by the BBC.
Eastenders could easily find a home on ITV or Channel 4.
Regarding Stargazing Live it was a half decent attempt by the BBC to inform and educate, but why did they feel the need to add in the buffoon Ross?
Also, there was too much dumbing down yet again, one reason why the Sky at Night has been so successful is it makes no apology to the viewer, for the science it covers.
‘Sky Atlantic’ channel, from 1 Feb.
http://tv.sky.com/skyatlantic
Well, that list merely confirms what was said – nothing to watch over the Christmas holiday. Unadulterated, childish drivel, most of it. Everything else being repeated, endlessly. God knows how many times I’ve had to sit through “Indian Hill Railways”, or the twee Michael Portillo sliming his away around Britain in the wake of George Bradshaw (although I see that there is now a “new” series of this contrived pastry…) and others like it which have been endlessly repeated throughout the year, cropping up on BBC2, BBC4, then BBC 2 again. Occasionally there is something refreshingly new to watch, but it’s soon done to death by repeats on the other channels. Why do they NEED so many channels? They seem to be vehicles for hiding repeats.
And Channel 4 and ITV ar just as bad. Television these days seems generally to be aimed at a much lower intellect than it used to be. All part of the plan, no doubt, to subdue the populace, who are now, largely, chavs and numpties, in preparation for common purpose and global governance
And isn’t Channel 4 also publicly owned?
Natsman,”Portillo, sliming his way round Britain” . Love it !
If you like that rubbish Dez – you pay for it. I do not see why I should subsidise the brainless programmes the BBC air nightly just to satisfy your left wing educated viewing.
JHT,
“Educated ” lefties like the idea of Eastenders, but would never watch it themselves ! Keeps the proles in their place and makes them more likely to vote Labour.
‘Three and a half billion a year and nothing to watch over the Christmas holidays.’
Possibly you could have qualified: ‘….nothing anyone with an IQ higher than a sea cucumber could be interested in, or market rate executives whose pay depends on ratings delivery to the lowest common denominator…’.
A bit like wot the BBC is meant to deliver. If they can’t to my tastes, fine, but then I would like the option of not funding them, however uniquely. Seriously.
Yesterday I heard Ken Bruce ‘joke’ that his family had a mono TV that could only get ITV for 3 years, yet they were expected to still pay the licence fee… but didn’t.
You could hear the producer screaming through the double glass.
But his idea seemed a fair precedent to me, especially as endorsed by a staffer.
As always DV, I have to disagree with you on this. The BBC is a Great British Institution that must be defended at all costs. Ridding it of the Gramscian subversives who have burrowed down deep inside it and brought it into such disrepute is critical to defend the BBC and its role in British democracy.
Dez (Scott) says it all about what a national treasure the BBC is, but of course, Dez is someone who wants to perpetuate the bias. I have no doubt that if the BBC became what it once was 40 years ago, an impeccabley impartial facilitator of democratic debate, he would prefer to see the BBC sink than see it provide that level playing field once more.
Lastly, the likes of David Attenborough and David Dimbleby are symbols of what a great British institution the BBC is. I lament that we just dont breed them like that anymore.
I used to think that way. Now I am sure it is so deeply infiltrated that nothing but a complete dismantling will do.
That is a shame but the fault lies with the staff of the bBC and politicians who have not held it to account.
At the very least I can see no reason why David Cameron cannot publically recognise that there is an issue over BBC political impartiality and set up a commission of enquiry to examine evidence on all sides. That way, B-BBC would have incentive to get properly organised to make its own submissions to such a public inquiry, and B-BBC has been painstakingly chronicling BBC bias for the last 10 years now.
HP that wouldn’t change anything, the vast majority of ‘journalists’ are exactly the same, left wing, white middle class, camp and very liberal.
Replacing the current lot of bum holes at the BBC is like telling someone they won’t be hanged but shot instead. Oh good news.
Scrap the TV tax and let the audience decide, we see in America the lefty news organisations failing badly as they should,they are useless and deserve to go bust, as does the BBC.
A BBC-NUJ censored word was used on ‘Newsnight’, and Beeboid chums at ‘Pink News’ are apoplectic:
“Video: BBC Newsnight guest calls Australian cricket team ‘poofters’”
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/07/bbc-newsnight-guest-calls-australian-cricket-team-poofters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Pinknews+%28Pink+News%29
‘Urban Dictionary’ on word “poofter”:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poofter
Can’t we say poofter any more?
Bollocks. POOFTER!! And whilst we’re at it, woofter, bender,uphill gardener, arse reamer, bottom dweller, queer, iron hoof, and, and….
Well, I’m sure others can think of a few.
You can’t do, say, or think ANYTHING any more without some poor limp-wristed liberal wuss making a song and dance.
No wonder the shithole of a country, the Former UK, is being taken over by lefties and Islamists. I wonder if the two love each other, or whether THE’LL fall out over soemething or other?
Natsman,
Shirt-lifter !!! ( not you, I mean, of course )
I love the way the ludicrous Carmen Callil confuses Shane Warne with Shane Watson !
Not sure I would fancy calling an Aussie cricketer a poofter to his face !
Hippie,
I am afraid I agree with David Jones on this one.
The BBC is beyond reform, the only solution is to get rid of it altogether or, at least, scrap the TV tax and see if the Beeboids can get out of their nappies, put on a pair of short trousers and stand on their own two feet.
However, I suspect Beeboids are like all parasites. They can’t survive without their host.
What is wrong with scrapping the TV tax? If you think the BBC is such great value for money then you can pay for it, what is the problem with this?
Those who seem to think a bunch of lefty bum hole sniffers represent great value for money seem to also be afraid of letting the BBC stand on its own two feet.
There is no longer any justification for the TV tax, some dopey bitch wason Radio 5 this morning moaning about the Cricket not being on the BBC. She’s too tight to pay for Sky but thinks HER TV viewing should be subsidised by the vast majority who don’t care about Cricket.
Martin,
I posted above before I read your post !
At least the BBC fleet is sending a few of its smaller vessels to be scuttled in the Manchester Ship Canal. What a pity that most of the crews seem to be jumping ship before they set sail fom the banks of the Thames.
I watch very little live TV – but once a week I check back through all BBC channels on iPlayer looking for anything worthwhile.
It is an unusual week when I find more than 6 or 7 programmes across the ENTIRE WEEK that I think are worth watching.
Same happened for the 2 weeks over Christmas and New Year – which are supposed to be the hightlights of the year.
And the selection of films on BBC was truly dire.
So where is all that £4 billion going ?
By contrast – I listen to a lot of Radio 7 – and every day there are probably 6 or 7 items FROM THE PAST that are worth listening to.