Is the BBC an instrument of Social Control?

#1
Call me 'Mr Cynical' but after thirteen years of New Labour's militant feminists demonisation of men. Of Harriet Harmen and others in government doing their very best to convey to the public, the idea that men are little more than wife-battering paedophile rapist not to be trusted with children, suitable only as 'sperm-donors' for women who are the only species capable of raising raising them in the absence of redundant men, we now have, within weeks of a new coalition government arriving in office a new three-part BBC Television series which uses the medium of 'historical research' to inform a now thoroughly confused public that men, are after all actually rather good fathers.

I have no doubt that most men are, indeed, good fathers, but I find the timing of this programme and its message just a little too coincidental and entertain just a niggling suspicion that the BBC is nothing more than a medium of social control for whatever government is in office.
 
#2
The Government always had the ability to use the license fee as a stick to beat the BBC with. Either through threats of cutting it or indeed abolishing it totally. Regardless of this the BBC has traditionally staunchly defended its editorial independence. It did a great job of this in the Second World War for example.

However, following the Dr. David Kelly incident and the removal of a very popular BBC Director-General, it seems Labour succeeded to control the Beeb where Churchill and Thatcher failed*. Twenty years ago the threat of getting rid of the license fee was a ridiculous idea, now it is inevitability, especially considering the agenda of certain independent media moguls. The BBC is now hamstrung and going through a slow and painful death.

I can't see that a media heavily influenced by the likes of Murdoch is going to be a good thing for the British public, either socially or economically.


*Thatcher did her win in the end with the introduction of the absurd "Producer Choice". That is directly responsible for why the Beeb is a shell of its former self.
 
#3
The BBC licence fee, as is the Road Fund Licence fee, simply a tax which goes straight to the Treasury who, in turn, allocate funds to the BBC. BBBC accounts are non-discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act and no questions may be asked in Parliament relating to the way in which the organisation is funded. The government has complete control over who may be appointed as chairman and who sits on the board of governors. Editorial control by the government is complete.

Interestingly, the programme was broadcast the evening before budget day in which there is to be a major reduction in public spending through all departments. One may draw such inferences as appear proper as to the intention of broadcasting a series the central theme of which accords most closely with Conservative family values.
 
#4
My better half is constantly telling me not to rant so much whenever I'm watching BBC programmes.

Their TV news is appallingly poor, considering what a busy little planet we live on. Typically headlines may include 1 item of international news, 1 national and then it's back to what "celebrities" have done today. Compare with Channel 4, 5 News, CNN, Russia Today or even Al Jazeera and BBC doesn't rate at all.

It feeds the public a constant round of inane quiz shows/ costume dramas/ detectives/ talent contests, runs at least 2 TV channels that few ever watch, and sends hordes of staff off on jollies at the slightest pretext.

When a newsreader announces that the government has said it will do "x", nothing whatsoever is added to the tale by having another reporter and crew stood in Downing St, so why do it?

There is simply too much dross on BBC, not to mention all those "another chance to enjoy" aka repeats.

A sensible government would cull it down to Radio's 2 and 4 (the old light and home programmes?), and 1 TV channel.

AAAND, Breathe.....
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
I feel toubled now, hearing that view from you Iolis,as one of the more erudite and balnced members of this site, if it is something that you have noticed then it is something to bear in mind, certainly over the opinions of the more rabidinous* posters on this site. However, I think Psy.org has it spot on with what he says, moreover I would add it is a reflection of culture and savoir (in the Foucauldian sense - http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/archive/msg10033.shtml) in which we find ourselves today when the critical ability of our producers/reporters/authors/students/teachers have been emasculated by the constant use of education as a tool of political and social manipulation. Critical thought has been overidden by the appealling emotional fallacies of:

argumentum ad metum; ... ad invidium; ... ad odium; ... ad metum; and most pernicious of all sentimens superior.

As evidenced plainly, no doubt, by what you have just watched, but also by such examples as the teaching of the events of WWI throught the eyes of the poets and not historians (as an example of connaissance).



*not a proper word I know, but plain old rabid doesn't work quite as well in this context, the suffix rounds it out more with regards to what I am saying.

Sh*t have I just outed myself as a complete and utter Kant(ian).
 
#6
Having seen two programmes this week with the word 'Question' in their title (Question Time and The Big Question), I have no doubt that as an instrument of social engineering the BBC has recently come to excel itself - Harman is a Happy Harpie.

In QT, the bare-faced attempt by that little shit Hain to rework history to fit his dogma and that of Provisional Sinn Fein seemed to go unchallenged, except by Jeffrey Donaldson (my MP, incidentally, who is a particularly good example of what an MP should be). The others on the panel were apparently selected for their anti-Union views. This sort of thing has the effect of distorting the views of the younger watcher of the programme, who should be told the truth and nothing but the truth about Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile, the other piece of dross, 'The Big Question', was purportedly a forum for the people of the country to discuss the great social and political questions of the day; it turned out to be a forum for an audience - apparently composed very largely of Nigerians - to display all their socialist credentials, again unchallenged. I wonder where that audience was found.

And the BBC wonder why there's a movement to end their fossilised monopolies.
 
#7
Iolis said:
The BBC licence fee, as is the Road Fund Licence fee, simply a tax which goes straight to the Treasury who, in turn, allocate funds to the BBC. BBBC accounts are non-discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act and no questions may be asked in Parliament relating to the way in which the organisation is funded. The government has complete control over who may be appointed as chairman and who sits on the board of governors. Editorial control by the government is complete.

Interestingly, the programme was broadcast the evening before budget day in which there is to be a major reduction in public spending through all departments. One may draw such inferences as appear proper as to the intention of broadcasting a series the central theme of which accords most closely with Conservative family values.
Iolis, There is certain a dichotomy between the way the BBC is funded and governed contrasted with it's role as an independent, unbiased broadcaster.

However, traditionally the BBC has been considered a sacred cow by the Government; that its independence should not be opposed. Any politician foolish enough to try to assert their authority over the organisation got their arrse truly bitten. The BBC had a global reach, the best reputation and essentially was untouchable. That is no longer the case.

I've expounded my views regarding the license fee many times on ARRSE so I'm not going to bore any one with it again but to say that:

1. Broadcasting is a very expensive business and the license fee, in my opinion, is great value for money.

2. It's not just about the BBC, but keeping the cost of all broadcasting low (e.g. Sky offer a HD-TV/Broadband/Telephone bundle for £35 a month, a similar bundle in the US is costing me around $150. The TV is unwatchable because of the shear level of advertising).

3. I'm positive the license fee will be gone in 5 to 10 years. TV and radio in Britain will neither be cheaper or better as a result.
 
#8
"the idea that men are little more than wife-battering paedophile rapist not to be trusted with children, suitable only as 'sperm-donors' for women who are the only species capable of raising raising them in the absence of redundant men, we"

Ah the Good Old Days.

john
Actually I understand more Females are Pedo then Men.
 
#9
oscar1whisky said:
My better half is constantly telling me not to rant so much whenever I'm watching BBC programmes.

Their TV news is appallingly poor, considering what a busy little planet we live on. Typically headlines may include 1 item of international news, 1 national and then it's back to what "celebrities" have done today. Compare with Channel 4, 5 News, CNN, Russia Today or even Al Jazeera and BBC doesn't rate at all.

It feeds the public a constant round of inane quiz shows/ costume dramas/ detectives/ talent contests, runs at least 2 TV channels that few ever watch, and sends hordes of staff off on jollies at the slightest pretext.

When a newsreader announces that the government has said it will do "x", nothing whatsoever is added to the tale by having another reporter and crew stood in Downing St, so why do it?

There is simply too much dross on BBC, not to mention all those "another chance to enjoy" aka repeats.

A sensible government would cull it down to Radio's 2 and 4 (the old light and home programmes?), and 1 TV channel.

AAAND, Breathe.....
You even think about touching Radio 3 and you'll have a full Vanguard load headed your way :evil: Move Melvyn Bragg and the 1/2 hr comedy slot to Radio 3, and get rid of Radio 4 if you want to be sensible about it.
 
#10
A brief answer is: yes.

Together with other national institutions, the BBC has over the last thirteen years become an instrument, a department of the discredited Labour administration.

This must be corrected. Additionally, the political bias inherent in the BBC must be eliminated.
 
#11
rampant said:
I feel toubled now, hearing that view from you Iolis,as one of the more erudite and balnced members of this site, if it is something that you have noticed then it is something to bear in mind, certainly over the opinions of the more rabidinous* posters on this site. However, I think Psy.org has it spot on with what he says, moreover I would add it is a reflection of culture and savoir (in the Foucauldian sense - http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/archive/msg10033.shtml) in which we find ourselves today when the critical ability of our producers/reporters/authors/students/teachers have been emasculated by the constant use of education as a tool of political and social manipulation. Critical thought has been overidden by the appealling emotional fallacies of:

argumentum ad metum; ... ad invidium; ... ad odium; ... ad metum; and most pernicious of all sentimens superior.

As evidenced plainly, no doubt, by what you have just watched, but also by such examples as the teaching of the events of WWI throught the eyes of the poets and not historians (as an example of connaissance).



*not a proper word I know, but plain old rabid doesn't work quite as well in this context, the suffix rounds it out more with regards to what I am saying.

Sh*t have I just outed myself as a complete and utter Kant(ian).
Please use a slightly larger font for your Sotto Voce comments as my eyes aren't getting any better. Thanks in advance.

PS. You may have spelled a word wrongly. Were you referring to your state of being, or to a paradigmatic philosopher.

PPS. Crayoning aside, I think the OP has a point. This to the extent that where, 25 years ago, I would assiduously listen to BBC world service wherever I was, for news and views etc. I now find that Al Jazeera gives a better coverage of news across the board with less distortion.
 
#12
Excognito said:
oscar1whisky said:
My better half is constantly telling me not to rant so much whenever I'm watching BBC programmes.

Their TV news is appallingly poor, considering what a busy little planet we live on. Typically headlines may include 1 item of international news, 1 national and then it's back to what "celebrities" have done today. Compare with Channel 4, 5 News, CNN, Russia Today or even Al Jazeera and BBC doesn't rate at all.

It feeds the public a constant round of inane quiz shows/ costume dramas/ detectives/ talent contests, runs at least 2 TV channels that few ever watch, and sends hordes of staff off on jollies at the slightest pretext.

When a newsreader announces that the government has said it will do "x", nothing whatsoever is added to the tale by having another reporter and crew stood in Downing St, so why do it?

There is simply too much dross on BBC, not to mention all those "another chance to enjoy" aka repeats.

A sensible government would cull it down to Radio's 2 and 4 (the old light and home programmes?), and 1 TV channel.

AAAND, Breathe.....
You even think about touching Radio 3 and you'll have a full Vanguard load headed your way :evil: Move Melvyn Bragg and the 1/2 hr comedy slot to Radio 3, and get rid of Radio 4 if you want to be sensible about it.
Get rid of radio 4? 8O But thats ...... Officers radio.....
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#14
eodmatt said:
Please use a slightly larger font for your Sotto Voce comments as my eyes aren't getting any better. Thanks in advance.

PS. You may have spelled a word wrongly. Were you referring to your state of being, or to a paradigmatic philosopher.

PPS. Crayoning aside, I think the OP has a point. This to the extent that where, 25 years ago, I would assiduously listen to BBC world service wherever I was, for news and views etc. I now find that Al Jazeera gives a better coverage of news across the board with less distortion.
My apologies eod, I was of course referring to the paradigmatic philosopher, of whom I am a great fan. Having quoted me you now, no doubt, know what I was saying, but for others I shall repeat below:

rampant said:
*not a proper word I know, but plain old rabid doesn't work quite as well in this context, the suffix rounds it out more with regards to what I am saying.

Sh*t have I just outed myself as a complete and utter Kant(ian)?
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
#15
I was trying to think of positive things to come out of the Beeb (even the 5-day weather forecast is completely innaccurate - but we're supposed to believe their friends-of-the-earth programmes that tell us what the weather will be like in 100 years...) but the only things I could think of was the Doctor Who stuff (with Torchwood etc), Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes. Even Men Behaving Badly with Harry Enfield was crap until it went over to ITV.

But now I think back to those programmes and they always had some political message behind it, albeit quite discreet at the time of watching.
 
#17
Perhaps the other side of the coin is worth considering. The BBC made a programme that they could only air once the micro-controlling Labour Government had left power. These programmes are not churned out in a couple of days so the likelihood is that it has been a while in the making.
One consistent theme running through every Government is that the BBC is a thorn in that Government's side, no matter who has formed that Government. That is because the BBC is independent of Government censorship and the Government has no direct editorial control.
A large part of the UK's world reputation as a democratic and free country is based on the BBC and the World Service. Something that precious is worth preserving.
BBC news coverage is in-depth, considered and generally unbiased. The BBC sets the standards that all others follow. Without the BBC making historically accurate period dramas, hard-hitting documentaries and generally well made, well acted programmes then we'd be condemned to TV full of Big Brother and other such populist tripe. Sky News follows the politics of its owner, it's a mouthpiece for Murdock and he's not at all afraid to use it.
The BBC sets the standards that others follow, it may not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than any of its rivals. It maintains an independence from the Government and is not afraid to challenge the Government and expose it where necessary. To say that we get a year's worth of excellence for what it costs for two month's worth of Sky says it all to me.

Nation shall speak peace unto nation.
 
#18
If anyone really want's to see what real bias in a T.V. channel, should watch Fox News then have the cheek to moan abour BBC bias.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#19
llech said:
If anyone really want's to see what real bias in a T.V. channel, should watch Fox News then have the cheek to moan abour BBC bias.
Indeed - but there is one enormous, and fundamental difference. Fox is owned and controlled by Mr Murdoch, and anyone choosing to watch it knows this - and has a choice to watch something else. It is also not paid for by a regressive tax, hitting those on lowest incomes hardest (a close pal who is a Magistrate despairs at the number of single parents hauled up by the BBC's enforcers - CAPITA - on the grounds of not paying their TV tax.)

The BBC is the State broadcaster, and has a duty - in fact, an obligation - to be fair and even-handed, when it patently is not.

Remove the Licence Fee now, and allow those who want to pay it, pay it. We'd soon see then how popular the BBC really is.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top