Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're blind, you get a reduction, but still
> have to pay. How kind!
You said old people don't get a pass, which is false. Now you assert that it is unfair for blind people to get a 50% discount, which at first glance seems a reasonable objection because they can't see. But if those blind people really found TV useless they surely wouldn't purchase. . . televisions. But they do. In fact, the majority of the blind find it valuable to LISTEN to the broadcasts and are willing to pay for them.
------------
> Chim chiminy chooroo."
Is that meant to convey a familiarity with the UK?
--------------
> I probably shouldn't call it an MLM. . .
Uh, yeah.
--------------
> . . . but it is a SCAM. They tell you if you pay you will get
> quality television (you don't, apart from wildlife
> docs). They also tell you will pay for new
> programing (most of what they broadcast are
> reruns). They also pretend they are neutral (they
> are only quasi-autonomous of the government).
Evidence? Preferably not anecdotal but statistical and conducted by people who know what they are doing.
--------------
> Supported by generations? It's not. The BBC's
> viewing figures are collapsing. First, they got
> commercial television which took millons of their
> viewers away. Then subscription services, then
> streaming services.
There is evidence available if you would like to peruse it.* Average daily consumption of BBC content per person in the UK in 2017 was 2 hours and 44 minutes. 92% of Britons consume BBC content every week, and 86% of those in the 15-34 range. In 2018 68% of British were "very satisfied" with BBC TV and another 21% were "satisfied." (An interjection: do you think any US channel satisfies 89% of the American people? Because I don't.) Where do British people get their news? 62% of them get it primarily from BBC One. So no, your characterization of the BBC's demise is greatly exaggerated.
--------------
> Even
> politicians want to get rid of it.
There are British politicians who want to get rid of the UK itself. There are American politicians who want to get rid of California. Such politicians are curiosities, like people alive in 2019 who fear communism.
-------------
> By the way I esteem most commercial television as
> dross, but the difference is you must pay for the
> state television. You have no choice about it.
So what? If a democracy elects to pay a pittance for a television station, it's no skin off your hide.
-------------
> It doesn't help that they had a massive pedophile
> scandal some years ago, bigger than any US
> broadcaster, and many people question how
> accurate their news is.
Irrelevant.
------------
> They also produce
> documentaries on British history which are full of
> lies and distortions, as well as dramas which have
> political messages implanted in them, like that
> medieval England had the same demographic make up
> as today. Even this clip is full of subliminal
> political messages about how business is bad, men
> are bad and the USA is to blame.
You found a TV show you didn't like? I'm sorry. Perhaps if they hired you as programmer. . .
--------------
> They can afford
> to go after the LDS because it's so weak in the
> UK.
I believe their coverage of the LDS church has been accurate and helpful.
------------
> [The monarchy] does have
> power, it just keeps it quiet. They can remove
> elected governments if they wish, but that is the
> nuclear option so they don't use it.
Utterly false. The crown cannot remove an elected government.
----------
> They also pay
> little or no tax.
Neither does the Library of Congress, the Defense Department, the IRS, or the Secret Service. The monarchy is a governmental institution paid for by public funds. Of course it doesn't pay taxes on government functions.
-------------
LW: "Does it use false promises of vast riches to
motivate people to raise money for it? "
> Yes! If you look at what they show, a considerable
> portion of their content consists of American-made
> programs (some of which are really old - we're
> talking sixties, seventies and eighties here -
> stuff like Columbo or Quincy), their own content
> (which is often just as old) etc, whils promising
> new material. A lot of the new material isn't even
> British - not just American but Australian too.
Non-sequitur. I asked if the BBC promised "vast riches." You answered with an emphatic "yes!" and then addressed a different topic.
----------------
> The very idea of a state-owned broadcaster which
> it is compulsory for the public to pay for is
> socialist.
That is your opinion, informed by your reverence for Ezra Taft Benson and your shared concern about bodily fluids. Virtually every country has state-financed (that's what the BBC is, not "state-owned") broadcasting services. If those expenditures are subject to democratic oversight, they are democratic choices. Whether W. Cleon Skousen or Joseph McCarthy would approve is neither here nor there.
---------------
Jordan originally writes: "For years, other broadcasters were prevented from entering their domain and competing." I replied that those days ended in the 1970s. Jordan now asserts that I am
> Wrong. There was one commercial channel then,
> which could only broadcast by paying money to the
> government in a bidding war.
I checked into it and I was indeed wrong. The BBC monopoly did not end in the 1970s: it ended in 1955 with the establishment of ITV. But let's not let that understatement of my point overshadow your attempted legerdemain: confronted with the fact that competition did exist in the 1970s, you are now citing that fact in support of your contention that there was no competition in the 1970s.
-------------
> In the 1980s, when I
> visited there were three or four channels (mostly
> showing reruns and American content, alongside
> very cheap looking British content), two of those
> channels were BBC.
So the UK was five or ten years behind the US?
---------------
> Now there is *REAL* competition and the BBC
> is struggling.
Sure. ABC, NBC, CBS are all struggling too. Is that because they are state-funded? No. It's because people, particularly young people, are turning to internet media, John Stewart, and other sources. The BBC is not unique.
Well, as a traditional broadcasting system it is unique. 70% of Britons think it is a great resource and use it as their primary source of information daily. It's audience share is vastly higher than that of any other UK network.** Its global reach, measured weekly, has been steadily growing and now tops 376 million viewers.*** CNN claims 378 million viewers around the world, so the two are virtually neck-and-neck.****
So why do you insist that the BBC is failing?
*
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/124420/BBC-annex-2-performance.pdf**
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269983/leading-tv-broadcasters-in-the-uk-by-audience-share/***
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/bbc-global-audience****
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/cnn-fact-sheet/Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2019 02:13PM by Lot's Wife.